>>Mark Latham, Australia's brash populist leader who has accused the
>>government of kneeling at America's feet, is close to snatching an
>>unlikely election victory on a promise to bring home troops from
>>Iraq by Christmas.
>
>The US does have leftist and libertarian presidential candidates who
>pledge to withdraw US troops from Iraq -- Ralph Nader, David Cobb,
>Michael Badnarik, lesser known socialist candidates, etc. The
>difference is that, unlike Australians, the majority of US voters
>feel they are allowed to vote for only one or the other of the
>ruling-class-selected candidates pledging to continue the occupation
>of Iraq -- the feeling that a lot of US leftists have done their
>share to try to reinforce, rather than change.
Whoa there! The majority of Australians also vote for "one or the other of the ruling-class-selected candidates". Mark Latham is the leader of the Australian Labor Party, one of the two major parties representing the Australian ruling-class.
Sure, Latham has made a name for himself for calling George Bush the worst US president in living memory and the official ALP policy is withdrawal of Australian troops from Iraq. But you have to see it in context:
* the insults directed at the US President, along with such remarks as the "Conga line of suck-holes", directed at Howard and indirectly at the Howard policy of supplication to US interests, were made _before_ becoming leader. He has publicly pledged to refrain from such frankness since becoming party leader and has done a bit of sucking up to the US ambassador himself. (As I mentioned in my last post, nations other than the US have to live in the real world and avoid unnecessarily making enemies. Australians understand that and not only accept that our political leaders have to be sensible, but insist on it.)
This is similar to former Prime Minister Bob Hawke, a notorious drunk, publicly swearing off alcohol after becoming leader of the ALP in the early 80's. Such indulgences are unacceptable in prospective leaders, a bit like drinking and driving.
* As for withdrawing from Iraq, that is entirely a non-issue. There no _practical_ difference between Howard's "all the way with GWB" policy and Latham's get the fuck out policy. Simply because Howard has already got the fuck out, in all but name. You see, Howard may be a complete arsehole, but he's not stupid, he's managed to have it both ways with Iraq, by sucking up to the insane yanks on Iraq, being Bush's best and most loyal friend publicly, he gave himself the leeway withdraw most of the troops the second Bush declared "mission accomplished". The US protested about it at the time, but having declared "mission accomplished", they could hardly begrudge a loyal ally, with urgent military commitments in the Pacific Islands, ;-) for saying "you don't need us getting in your way mate, we'll be off then."
Only Americans would be arrogant enough to elect a moron to run the government, Australians don't have that luxury.
The only troops Australia has left are a few specialist training personnel and a large contingent (a few hundred troops) that is dedicated entirely to guarding the Australian Embassy in the capital. Latham has conceded he would probably keep the embassy guards (the embassy is outside the Green Zone, the alternative is to close the embassy) so the only minor point of difference is whether the trainers would be under US or UN command.
Oddly enough, Iraq is barely an election issue in Australia. At least not with swinging voters, who are more interested in local issues. Latham has run the potent line that putting our efforts into far-away Iraq, when terrorists are bombing Australians in neighbouring Indonesia demonstrates bad judgement, but Australians are fully aware that this country's effort in Iraq barely even qualifies as token, "lip-service" would be a more realistic description.
Howard is understood to have cunningly got credit from the yanks for being a "staunch ally", but knowing when to get out of the game with his winnings intact. No Australian troops have been killed in Iraq, it has been a casualty-free in and out exercise for this country. We've already put it out of our mind, at least the swing voters have. They are focused, in this election, on the promises of tax cuts, baby bonuses, education and child care subsidies and the like. These politicians are a cunning and fast talking bunch, voters know they have to be careful to read the fine print or we could get done over. No time to worry about Iraq right now, there's important business to be decided. ;-)
Here in Australia, the leftist parties are the Socialist Alliance, which will remain virtually invisible, and the Australian Greens under leader Bob Brown. The right wing commentators have whipped themselves up into a terrible frenzy about those lunatic left Greens, but they just can't get any traction by pointing out the Greens radical policies. The Greens will increase their share of the vote by 50 - 100% and pick up a few more Senate seats. This drives the right wingers nuts, because they understand that the Greens are selling a radical left agenda.
The Greens will do very well, in fact they already have, Latham has only today been forced to announce a new Labor policy of ending logging in high conservation value forests in Tasmania. He desperately needs Green preferences to have any hope of winning and only Bob Brown's approval can guarantee he gets enough of them.
But Howard hasn't announced his policy on logging in Tasmania yet. The cunning old fox has waited until Latham shows his hand. He might go one better than Latham and announce an *immediate* end to old growth logging, rather than wait for a scientific inquiry like Latham. If he thinks he needs to, he will do it.
So latham isn't part of the "left" in any meaningful way. The ALP hasn't been a party of the "left" for decades. As that Peter Camejo article said, free elections and a preferential voting system does help. People here can vote Green and have their vote counted, unlike the US. But most Australians wouldn't vote for someone like Bob Brown for Prime Minister, we have to live in the real world, which is ruled by the US military and there's no telling how the yanks would react to that sort of radical outcome.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas