PM Finally Admits Iraq Was A War For Oil

Howard To Iraq : We're Not Leaving Until You Say We Can

Howard Shoots For National Security Poll Rise In Desperate Attempt To Stave Off Leadership Challenge


Update : According to this story from the Melbourne Age, on today's speech by PM Howard on national security and the Iraq War, detailed below, Howard will say that Australia has a "major stake of oil dependency", and this is one of the key reasons why we had to become involved in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. So it was a war for oil after all.

Perhaps by no coincidence, The Australian newspaper also features a major story today on how we are now entering an age when Australian will suffer from major oil deficits, where in the past we had enjoyed locally sourced oil supply surpluses.

Update II : Both John Howard and defence minister Brendan Nelson discussed the need for Australia to continue the occupation of Iraq to secure future oil supplies, and all hell broke loose.


Original Story Follows :

John Howard will move today to dispel any doubt about his intention to keep more than 550 Australian combat troops in Iraq until the Iraqi government says they can go home.

Which raises doubts about this story from last week, which claimed Howard had a secret plan to pull out most of Australia's fighting forces from Iraq in early 2008. The doubt raised, then, is that the leak used in the story was a plant, a set-up to gauge the public reaction to a withdrawal of Australian troops. The reaction from most Australians was "yeah, so what?" Howard can now dismiss any notion raised by Labor on the way to the federal election that he is planning to pull troops out once the election is over.

Off the back of the currently very weak links between the spectacularly hopeless car bombing attempts in London and Glasgow and an Australian-based doctor, Howard is expected to ramp up both the threat of homegrown terror, and the threat of terror attacks from non-Australians who are visiting, or working, here.

Howard's core message will be simple : Australia is not pulling its fighting forces out of Iraq, and Australia is not withdrawing from Afghanistan. Not until the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan say our troops are no longer needed :

In a major security speech, Mr Howard will stress the stark consequences of a failure by the US and its allies to secure Iraq.

He will argue that the military coalition cannot allow weariness, frustration or political convenience to dictate strategy in Iraq.

Mr Howard today will launch a new defence policy statement, which underscores the strategic importance of the Middle East to global security and Australia's broader national interests.

The document warns of a far more complex and challenging global environment facing Australia's military.

It says Australia's new security challenges dictate a military force able not only to play a lead role in the region, but also to operate in an expanded range of operations further afield with close allies.

The 65-page defence update declares that violent extremism will remain a threat around the world for a generation "and probably longer".

It says the stakes are high in Iraq and Afghanistan, not only for the peace and stability of those countries, but also because the outcome will influence how the US will deal with future global security challenges.

A critical danger remains the prospect of terror groups such as al-Qa'ida getting hold of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons.

Increasingly, military technology once available only to nation states is being used by terror groups and other non-state actors. Organisations such as al-Qa'ida are unlikely to be deterred from using WMDs by the threat of military retaliation.

The update says extremist terrorism continues to draw funding, support and people from Middle Eastern states.

"For as long as that is true, Australia and like-minded countries need to fight terrorism at its source rather than wait for it to come to our shores.

"To help defeat terrorism Australia must have patience, a sustained military commitment, a willingness to adapt to conditions on the ground and work closely with our friends and allies."

It forecasts the defence force will increasingly be called on to fight irregular opponents and be capable of mounting counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism operations.

In short, Australia will keep fighting the 'War on Terror' for as long as the 'War on Terror' helps to keep spawning new terrorists.

Which also means Australia will keep spending more than $23 billion a year on defence, the second highest per person defence spend in the world (after the United States) for years to come. Not much is expected to change on that front even if Kevin Rudd, and Labor, win the federal election later this year.

Don't expect Howard to do much talking up of the Australian-United States alliance between now and the federal election. He will acknowledge it, but he is unlikely to be seen publicly praising President Bush. At least if his advisers have any say in it.

Pledging a strong and ongoing commitment to fighting the 'War on Terror' is now a coded way for Howard to say that he will continue to support Bush-led American military misadventures around the world for the foreseeable future.

It will be surprising if Howard has anything to say about Australia's involvement in the US 'missile shield' between now and the election, or Australia's involvement in helping the United States to 'encircle' China, in anticipation of a coming trade war between China and the US.

Howard's speech today on Australia's future security "challenges" and his government's role in helping to fight the 'War on Terror' will be seen as probably Howard's last major chance to buzz up his own dismal standings in the polls before Parliament resumes, and to tamp down the grumblings within the Liberal Party on whether or not Howard will destroy their chances of holding onto power in the coming elections.

There was speculation a few months back that Howard had to score a decent rise in national polls, like Newspoll which will begin collecting data on Friday, after Howard's key speech today, or he could be rolled by his own party and removed from the leadership. If Howard was replaced, the coalition government could delay the federal election until early 2008 to give themselves a fighting change. But they still need someone to replace Howard. Someone from the front ranks of the government who doesn't make most Australians wince every time they open their mouths.

Howard may see a slight rise in the polls from today's speech, partly due to unease caused by the, however weak, Australian links to the London car bombing attempts, but he will really have to rally the nation to knock Rudd and the Labor Party off their election winning perch, which they have enjoyed for all of 2007. This seems incredibly unlikely.

The chief problem for Howard today is that while he can pledge to try and keep Australians safe from terror, Australians are more concerned about who is going to keep them safe from Howard and his dishonest, double-dealing, secret agenda heavy, gang.


March, 2007 : Howard Sees Only "Faint Glimmer Of Hope" In Iraq

February, 2007 : Howard Keeps "Own Interest" Option For Early Troop Withdrawal From Iraq

Australian Defence Minister Says There Is No Hope Of Victory In Iraq War

Only The United States Spends More Per Person On 'Defence' Than Australia

Australia's Massive Plan To Become A World Military Power

Per head of population, Australia's defence spending now ranks second only to the United States.

While the US regularly criticises China and Russia for vast spending on re-arming, Australia is now outspending both of those countries. By 2014, more than $140 billion of Australian taxpayers money will have been funneled into the world's defence contractors, here and in Europe, Israel, the UK and the United States.

There are just under 21 million people in Australia, but the Howard government has set aside an extraordinary $22 billion, or more, to spend on defence through 2008. The defence budget for 2009 could climb to $26 billion, and to almost $30 billion in 2010.

Most Australians don't know about any of this. Arguments in the defence industries, and its myriad of think tanks consulting agencies, about whether or not we should be spending $15 billion on these jets, or $12 billion on these destroyers, rarely make for headline news.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that when it comes to quelling insurgencies, tanks, helicopters and submarines are all but useless. The improvised explosives Iraqi insurgents are burying by the sides of roads, and along the edge of tracks, to take out tanks and heavily armoured vehicles have proven to be so effective that American troops have been told it's now safer for them to"get out and walk".

But while the world enters a new age of war amongst the people, rather than government against dictatorship, or nation against nation, Australia is laying out tens of billions of dollars to deck itself out with enough new military gear to move it swiftly into the ranks of the world's biggest military powers.

And who exactly are the enemies of the next decade against whom we need to be so heavily armed?

Are we really expecting to go to war with China? Or Indonesia? Or Taiwan?

Foreign minister Alexander Downer likes to claim that Australia needs to become a part of the US missile defence system because of the "threat" of North Korea, but few serious analysts see North Korea as being anything more than an annoyance in the next decade.

Are we instead now, quietly, part of a larger plan to help the United States encircle China? Will it fall to Australia to move in and help cut off China's sea lanes in the, regionally, local Malacca Straits? It is through the Malacca Straits that China ships most of its new energy supplies. Should the bubbling trade war between China and the United States become far more serious, will Australia be called on to move in and blockade China?

This scenario, by Greg Sheridan,for how Australia may come to put to use its extraordinary new collection of submarines, jets, tanks and war ships, sounds as though it was dreamed up with China, or China's allies in the region, squarely in mind :

Two huge amphibious ships, each weighing 27,000 tonnes, each carrying a full battalion of Australian soldiers and then some, with more than 1000 soldiers on each ship.

Each is also carrying a dozen Abrams tanks, as well as lighter vehicles and amphibious vessels for landing. Each has a fully equipped hospital in case there are casualties. Each also has eight helicopters, six for unloading troops and two for defending and supporting the ships.

The troop ships are escorted and guarded by three air warfare destroyers. Each of these is equipped with the US Aegis combat system, the most advanced naval combat system in the world. Each has a phased array radar that enables it to engage and destroy hostile aircraft at a range of more than 150km. Each of these destroyers, at a modest size of 6250tonnes, has 48 separate missile cells. Each is also equipped with advanced sonars for anti-submarine warfare.

They also have harpoon missiles for anti-ship warfare and they have five-inch guns that can fire extended range munitions in support of our troops once they land.

This convoy is given air cover by 100 joint strike fighters, or F-35s. They are masters of stealth and advanced detection. The aircraft are supported by Wedgetails, mistakenly called spy planes but in reality giant electronic networking command and control planes that make sure that an enemy aircraft is destroyed long before it becomes aware of its Australian opponents.

The Wedgetails, the F-35s, the destroyers, the amphibious ships and the commanders of the land force are all networked into the giant US-based satellite and electronic intelligence system, which detects any movement or communication of any potentially hostile force the second it happens.

Finally, Australia's quiet, immensely capable Collins class submarines have gone in close to the destination point and landed Special Air Service troopers, the best small-unit infantry forces in the world, to prepare the way for the larger Australian party to follow.

Pause.

Hopefully, Australia will never have to conduct such an operation.

Yeah, hopefully. But just in case...

Before China gets the chance to militarily, strategically, empower other nations in our region, like Indonesia, Australia will move first to get the military, technological edge.

The message is clear : You won't be able to beat us, so don't even think about trying anything. Or we will hammer you, hard. Just look at all our new toys.

The fact is that when Australia becomes a vital part of the US missile defence shield, and such plans are already underway (without the public being a part of the debate, or even being consulted), Australia will need all the submarines and war ships and jet fighters and arms detailed above, and more.

And there will be more. More tens of billions poured into becoming a military proxy of the United States, a 51st (heavily weaponised) state of the future North American Union. America wants to own the Pacific in the next two decades, and it needs Australia to complete this goal.

The mega-spending on 'defence' will continue. Because once this kind of military mega-spending begins, it doesn't end, until the next world war is over.

How Australia Will Help The United States 'Surround' China

Australia Will Spend Billions To Help US Create Its 'Missile Shield', But No American Missiles Will Defend Australia

Australia Prepares To Invest Big Money In US Missile Defence Shield

But No Missiles Will Defend Australian Cities

Thought it would be a few weeks, maybe, even a couple of months, before foreign minister Alexander Downer made it clear that Australia was going to commit many millions of dollars to the moneyhole that will be our nation's role in the 'local' development of the United States' worldwide Missile Defence Shield.

Of course, Downer hasn't officially made that announcement. Not officially. Australians will need time to get used to the idea of paying hundreds of millions of dollars into "research"and development projects that will all lead to helping the United States position and resource their missile defence shield in our region.

First of all Downer and defence minister Brendan Nelson had to get Australians used to the words "missile defence shield" and "Australia" being mentioned in the same news sound bite. They both did that in the past two weeks. Then Downer flew to Washington and California to meet with US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice and a bevy of American defence industry heavyweights. In those meetings he, unofficially, discussed Australia's long term role and commitment to the expansion of America's missile defence shield.

In the coming weeks, Downer and Nelson will talk up the "long-term" threat posed to Australia by North Korean and Chinese missile development programs, with vague future threats along the lines of "You never know what might happen in 20 or 30 years. It might be a very different world. China and North Korea already have missiles that can reach Australian cities."

But while they talk up such potential future threats, Downer and Nelson will be committing Australian taxpayer dollars to future research and development programs all related to the expansion of the American missile shield across the Pacific and into South East Asia.

Downer made one of the most important decisions about the strategic future of Australia while he was with Dr Rice, but why would you expect to hear anything about it? It will only directly impact on our relationship with China and Indonesia through the next half century and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. What's so important about that?

Downer, of course, claims that no decision has been made yet about Australia committing to the US missile defence shield, but he is such a rampant, repulsive liar and spreader of misinformation, you might as well assume that he signed on the dotted line while he was with Dr Rice last week.

We'll be helping to fund the expansion of America's missile defence shield, yes, but don't expect it to actually protect us in the event of a future missile exchange between hostile nations - read China and the United States.

From news.com.au :

Australia would support its allies in building a missile defence shield, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said today.

But he said it was unlikely "in the foreseeable future" that Australian cities would be protected by the system.

Japan's Nikkei business daily newspaper reported this week that Australia, Japan and the US had agreed at a meeting in Tokyo last month on a joint research framework for a system.

Mr Downer, speaking today in California alongside US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said Australia supported the concept of the missile defence system.

Asked if it was realistic Australia would have missiles guarding its cities in the near future, Mr Downer replied he did not "think that's likely any time in the foreseeable future".

"We do support the concept of missile defence and we do work with our friends and allies on that issue," said Mr Downer..."We have never made a secret of that."

"There are not the strategic circumstances where we feel we would need (missile defence capability) ourselves at this stage. Others, including the US, their need for it is entirely understandable, and we are happy to work with them. "

How Australia Is Now Part Of The US-Led Encirclement Of China - North Korean Missile Threat Seen As An Excuse To Ramp Up Deployment Of US Missile Shield

United States Still Having Trouble Getting Its Basic Missile Defence Capability To Work

Russia Intends To Take "Counter Measures" Against Expansion Of US Missile Shield

Putin Calls Expansion Of American Missile Shield "A Harmful Thing", Asks Where Is The Threat?

Australia Set To Join US 'Missile Defence Shield'

By Darryl Mason

Australia is now entering into the first official stages of joining the US 'missile defence shield'. The word being used is "research", but that's not how China and Russia are going to interpret the move by Australia to "develop its own missile defence system".

It's hardly a secret that the US wants its more strategically positioned allied nations to develop, in tandem, missile defence systems which can be eventually linked up to a global missile shield system, with the United States as the main beneficiary.

The expansion of the US missile defence shield into Eastern Europe has now set Russia's teeth on edge, and they've publicly pledged to counter any moves by the United States to establish missile bases, however small, close to its borders.

It will be interesting to see how China reacts to Australia becoming formerly involved in the US missile defence shield, which is widely reported to serve as both a defensive and offensive system, with the publicity centring around the 'defensive' aspects of what will eventually become the a 'missile shield' encompassing the globe.

You can dismiss most of what the federal government spokesmen have to say on just how far along Australia is with such 'missile shield' development plans, their vague explanations are unlikely to be accurate or truthful :

The Howard Government is considering the extent to which Australia will become involved in the planned missile defence system.

But a trilateral missile research agreement involving Australia, the US and Japan would further antagonise China, which already has concerns about the defence ties between Washington, Tokyo and Canberra.

There is a strong possibility the Royal Australian Navy's new air warfare destroyers, due to enter service in 2013, will eventually be equipped with SM-3 missiles, which are designed to intercept incoming missiles outside the earth's atmosphere.

Ballistic missile defence is one of the key issues being debated under the newly formed trilateral security dialogue taking place between the US, Japan and Australia.

"Japan and the United States will work together with Australia to strengthen security in the Asia-Pacific region," a senior official at Japan's Defence Ministry told the Nikkei newspaper.

Australia and the US are already co-operating far more closely on missile defence research under a 25-year agreement signed in 2004.

(Australian defence minister) Dr Nelson said recently that the memorandum of understanding would allow Australia to explore practical ways of assisting the US to build a global missile defence system.

This would allow Australia to leverage US technology and ensure mutual development of specific technologies and approaches that would underpin the missile defences of both nations.

Canberra and Tokyo are now in the process of updating an agreement on defence co-operation following the signing of a new bilateral defence agreement by John Howard and his Japanese counterpart, Shinzo Abe, inMarch.

For more on why Australia sees an important and extremely expensive need to join with the US and Japan on the development of a global 'missile defence shield', there is this thoroughly illuminating analysis from Global Research (excerpts) :

NATO is determined to expand its membership circle and to expand its mandate. Ultimately NATO is slated to become a global military force. Moreover, part of the objectives of NATO as a global military alliance is to ensure the “energy security” of its member states. What this signifies is the militarization of the world’s arteries, strategic pipeline routes, maritime traffic corridors used by oil tankers, and international waters.

The February 7, 2007 Congressional testimony of the U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates...confirms that the United States, aside from Iran, still considers China and Russia as potential adversaries. Secretary Gates told the U.S. Senate that both Russia and China posed threats to the United States: “In addition to fighting the ‘Global War on Terror,’ we also face (…) the uncertain paths of China and Russia, which are both pursuing sophisticated military modernization programs.”

The reaction of the Russians has steadily become more and more apprehensive as they realize that they are being encircled. It has been for quite some time that Russia, China, and their allies have slowly been surrounded. China faces a militarized eastern border in Asia, while Iran has virtually been surrounded, and Russia’s western borders have been infiltrated by NATO.

NATO expansion continues despite the end of the Cold War and promises from the military alliance that it would not expand. Military bases and missile facilities are encircling China, Iran, and the Russian Federation.

The military projects being propelled by the United States, several NATO allies in Europe (namely Britain, Poland, and the Czech Republic), and the Japanese for the establishment of two parallel missile shield projects, threatens both Russia and China. One missile shield will be located in Europe and the other missile shield in the Far East. These missile shields are being elevated under the pretext of hypothetical Iranian and North Korean threats to the United States, Europe, South Korea, and Japan.

So what does all this have to do with Australia?

There has been a gradual naval build-up around China. This includes an increase in the submarine squadrons of the Asia-Pacific region. An Australian report published by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) has warned that an Asiatic arms race is underway. The report writes; “In an arc extending from Pakistan and India through Southeast Asia and up to Japan there is a striking modernization and [military] expansion underway.”

The U.S. Pacific Fleet is also placing greater strategic importance on the island of Guam in the Pacific Ocean as the U.S. deepens its collaboration with Australia, Singapore, the Philippines, and Japan to militarily encircle China further.The subject of North Korean ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons is presently being used as an ideal basis for further encircling China in the Far East.

Will Australian then be the third partner in this network of 'missile shield defence' bases discussed above? It certainly appears so.

Of course, it's just "research" at this stage.

There has been no official reaction from China to the news of what Australia is planning, but it will come, and it is expected to be as strong as Russia's reaction to US missile shield creep along its borders with Eastern Europe.

Australia's defence budget in 2008 is, officially, in the vicinity of $22 billion. An extraordinary amount of money for defence for a country of only 21 million people that faces no direct threat in its region.

Australia has close, peaceful and trade-rich ties with China and Indonesia. There is no reason why even long-term defence forecasters should be presuming that Australia will be facing such a threat as to be needing a multi-billion dollar missile defence system, or even to become part of the American 'missile defence shield'.

If Australia joins the US and Japan in the expansion of this 'missile defence shield', you can expect the 2009 defence budget to soar beyond $26 billion, or more.

Missile defence doesn't come cheap. Just ask the Americans. Some unofficial estimates claim that since the early 1980s, when the project was known as 'Star Wars', the United States has spent close to $1 trillion in research and development.

But be under no illusions. If Australia is going to find protection under this 'shield', it will have to pay to join the club, and it will have to pay big.

But to what benefit? Australia will become a target of Russia and China primarily because it develops such missile 'defence' capabilities, and ties them into an American system, not because we lack them.


February, 2007 : New US Spying Base Means Australia Is Pre-Committed To All Future American Wars In Our Region