Subject:
Iraq
E&OE...
UHLMANN:
Prime Minister good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning.
UHLMANN:
You've said all week that a rapid withdrawal of US troops from Iraq would be a catastrophe for the west. Could you define what that means?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well if America pulls out in circumstances where it's clearly a defeat in Iraq, that will be a catastrophe for the West because it will mean that the most powerful nation in the world, and still the ultimate protector of the security of so many of us, has been humiliated. It will clearly, therefore, be a huge setback for the cause. It will embolden the terrorists. They will say they have won and few will doubt that and commentators will quickly conclude that. And the sense of euphoria the terrorists will experience will spread to our part of the world. So therefore any precipitate American withdrawal; and obviously given the conditions on the ground in Iraq, a total American withdrawal in just over a year could not possibly be in circumstances where the Iraqi security forces, although they are getting better, would be able to effectively defend the place; and that would be seen as an American defeat.
UHLMANN:
Well if you truly believe that the west is fighting for its life in Iraq, then why don't you significantly increase the Australian troop commitment?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think the Australian troop commitment is quite significant given the other commitments that we have. We have commitments in Afghanistan; we have obligations in East Timor; we could have further obligations in our part of the world. I think for a country the size of Australia we have been part of the coalition from the very beginning, and in those circumstances with a total personnel of 1400, which includes the naval personnel that are providing vital security in the Persian Gulf, I think it is an appropriate commitment and I've not been asked, and I don't expect to be asked by our allies to send more. I think it's an entirely appropriate commitment and for a country that was there at the beginning, for us to prematurely withdraw; we'd be in effect saying to the Americans and the British, well it's alright for us to go, we therefore think its okay for you to go.
UHLMANN:
But if this is a fight for the future of the West; if what we risk is an increase in terrorism and possible regional war in that part of the world, then why wouldn't you offer to send more troops, and 20,000 more are going in this surge, there are 50,000 men and women in the Australian Defence Force, wouldn't you redeploy?
PRIME MINISTER:
No but when you have 50,000 and you know as well as I do Chris that you need backup for people who are in the field, and all the military advice that we have at the moment; and we had a discussion as recently as yesterday about this, is that with all the other challenges we have, particularly in Afghanistan, the troop commitment we have at the present time is about the right level. I have, when asked this question before, declined to rule out sending more, but I want to say I don't expect that to happen and I don't expect to receive any requests. And this has always been an operation led by the Americans. The Americans have always taken the lead, both by dint of their foreign policy commitments in that region, which is necessary because the United States is a much more powerful country than Australia. We've got to keep a sense of proportion about this and it is, the size of our commitment is really a diversionary argument. But I am perfectly happy, as I have in the last minute, to address it.
UHLMANN:
If America is defeated and the consequence of this war is a more dangerous world, then hasn't every single premise for going to war been obliterated?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm sorry, say that again?
UHLMANN:
I say if America is defeated and the consequences of this war is a more dangerous world, then hasn't every single premise for going to war been obliterated?
PRIME MINISTER:
That is an argument for making sure America is not defeated.
UHLMANN:
And sending more troops.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well no, continuing to, or maintaining our current troop level and continuing to support the Americans not only militarily but also diplomatically. See the point that should be understood Chris, is that if Australia, having been there from the very beginning and recognised as a very close ally of the United States, if we were to pull out that would not only rob the Iraqis and the coalition of the valuable contribution our forces are making, but it would also send a powerful signal that the solidarity of the coalition was crumbling. I mean don't underestimate for a moment; and critics of my position do this on a daily basis, don't underestimate the value diplomatically, psychologically and politically to the United States of Australia's commitment. And if we were to pull it out prematurely and in circumstances where clearly our job had not been done, it would be seen in Washington as a rebuff and it would be seen around the world as a huge setback to the United States.
UHLMANN:
People may disagree with your position Prime Minister but one thing I think everyone is in furious agreement on, and I don't think there are any analysts that disagree on this, is that what you say is true. If America leaves in circumstances of defeat then the consequences for that region and the rest of the world are dire. If that is the case, then why wouldn't Australia's troops follow its rhetoric and the commitment be much greater from here?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I will come to that again in a moment, but I don't know that everybody does agree with me. On your program yesterday, all the Leader of the Opposition would admit to was that it would be bad if America were defeated in Iraq. I mean part of his difficulty in this issue is that he knows deep down that what I am saying is absolutely right. I think you speak, you, Chris Uhlmann, speak for the great majority of Australians when you describe the consequences of an American defeat. I think Mr Rudd is finding it very, very hard to accept that reality. But let me go back to the level of Australia's troop commitment. It is appropriate. We were involved in the original operations and our SAS were brought back and then later on we were asked to provide security for the Japanese contingent. When they withdrew we converted that commitment into an overwatch role in a part of Southern Iraq. We continue to provide training, we naturally protect our own diplomats, we have the naval personnel in the Persian Gulf, we have not received requests for further troop commitment. I think given the size of Australia, given the fact that we've been there from the beginning, given the other commitments that we have, it's an entirely adequate, appropriate commitment. And not only is it militarily important, but diplomatically and psychologically it's of huge importance.
UHLMANN:
Prime Minister, what is the blueprint for withdrawal. If the argument that's been made at the moment now that March 2008 is too soon, how long is too long? When do you start making your decision it is time to go?
PRIME MINISTER:
You can't and shouldn't put a time on it.
UHLMANN:
Is there an end in sight?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the end is when we are satisfied that the Iraqis can, with their own resources, reasonably provide for their security.
UHLMANN:
That could be decades.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I cannot tell you when that is, and anybody who understands a situation like this will know that you can't put a week or a date or a month on it. You simply cannot do that. And it is dangerous to be naming dates because they encourage those who want you to fail to prolong the strife and the carnage until that date arrives.
UHLMANN:
Don't you end up then in an argument which always runs you cannot leave because you went?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I think you can measure improvements. You can, you can measure increased capacity on the part of the Iraqi security forces and our military tell us that in the Southern part of Iraq, we have been quite successful in the training of the local Iraqi forces. They are better, they are being more successful, they are doing more effective work on their own and that process will go on. But to ask me, to ask anybody to say well by a particular date we can be certain that a particular level of training and competence has been reached and then we're going, that is unrealistic. And it is also quite potentially dangerous to the security of our own people, because it gives the terrorists a target date to which they must work in maintaining the carnage and disruption.
UHLMANN:
So this is a commitment with no horizon?
PRIME MINISTER:
No the horizon is the reasonable capacity of the Iraqi security forces to provide for the protection of their country and their future. Now that is not something without end. It is a recognisable goal and it's a crucial goal because the alternative as you acknowledge, most people believe, would be quite dire.
UHLMANN:
Do you believe though it's not evident at the moment, the situation which you describe, and it's not foreseeable in the near future?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it's certainly not evident at present. The situation in Baghdad and Al Anbar Province remains extremely difficult. I am not disguising that fact. I am not pretending to your listeners or to the Australian people that the situation is other than extremely difficult. The reality sadly is that if we go precipitately as the Baker-Hamilton Report said, it would be much worse and the consequences would spread beyond Iraq. That is why I have argued as I have that a precipitate coalition withdrawal would be very extreme, and to use your word, dire for the Western cause.
UHLMANN:
Mr Howard, thank you.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[ends]