Russell Trood (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity this afternoon to contribute to this matter of public importance debate on Iraq, particularly because it seems to be wholly ill conceived. It seems to proceed on a profound misunderstanding of the nature of Australian policy in Iraq. That policy, of course, is founded on the proposition that we are engaged in reconstruction, rebuilding efforts and non-military activities in Iraq at this time. The matter asserts that we have a special responsibility for assisting in Iraq-building. One wonders who denies this. The government acknowledges that it has special responsibilities in Iraq. It acknowledges that it is a principal party to events there. It is precisely because of this acknowledgement and its determination to fulfil its responsibilities in assisting Iraq towards a politically stable and economically prosperous future that it undertakes this role.

Despite counsel coming from just about every side of Australian politics, including what we have heard in this chamber this afternoon, that we should ignore our responsibilities, neglect our friends and leave the Iraqis to themselves—in other words, desert them—in their time of greatest trial, the government’s commitment is to assist the Iraqis towards a more hopeful, stable, democratic and prosperous future. The debate on this subject in the other place yesterday and in the chamber this afternoon has tended to be preoccupied—at least among those on the other side, but not among my colleagues—with the history of Iraq. This is a pointless exercise. We have to deal with the realities on the ground that exist in March 2007. There is no point debating the past. It is irrelevant to the circumstances with which we are now confronted.

The reality is that we are facing an internecine struggle, a conflict, between the Sunnis and the Shiites, a remnant of the Baathist regime that is trying to reassert its position in Iraq and, most importantly, elements of al-Qaeda and its fellow terrorist travellers. These are the very same parties, the very same fellow travellers, who were implicated in the bombings in London, Bali, Madrid and New York and are supporting the insurgent cause in places all around the world. In recent years terrorist activities have taken place not just in the Western world but in parts of North Africa. That is the reality we are facing, and no-one doubts that this is a volatile mix. No-one suggests that it is anything other than a very difficult and challenging situation. No-one suggests—certainly not on this side of the house—that this is anything other than a very grave set of circumstances. And no-one doubts in that context that the Iraqis are suffering as a consequence of this very difficult situation.

But where in any strategic textbook do we find the proposition that you can improve a situation of the kind that exists in Iraq today by a premature withdrawal of forces? Where in any strategic culture is the idea, the thought or the suggestion that giving a notice of intention, as it were, to leave the battlefield—to withdraw at a certain time—is considered a sensible strategy? Where in any strategic textbook is that said to be a way of advancing a position? That seems to be precisely where the opposition is coming from on this matter.

Insofar as the opposition’s position is clear, the proposition it has put to us is that, once the federal election is held and should it win government, it will begin the process of withdrawal from Iraq. So the question arises: where in the annals of strategic thinking is there a proposition that you should yield a strategic advantage by telling the enemy ahead of time that you propose to depart? Where in Chinese strategic thinking, American strategic thinking, British strategic thinking, Persian strategic thinking or even European strategic thinking is that proposition stated? Of course it is not stated anywhere. Until this moment it had not existed in the context of Australian strategic thinking either. So a proposed Rudd government is putting to us a proposition to change strategic thinking that has existed for generations—thousands of years—that is, the importance of surprise and of maintaining the initiative. It will no longer support that proposition and, instead, we will yield the battlefield. It makes absolutely no sense.

We will withdraw from Iraq in due course. We will end our commitment in Dhi Qar province and Al Muthanna. As the government has made clear, it is not our intention to remain in Iraq indefinitely. The proposition has been put by those on the other side of the chamber today that the Iraqis want us to leave. The reality is far from it. Mr Maliki told the Prime Minister last week that he wishes that Australian forces will remain as long as they can to assist his country. We will withdraw our forces when conditions permit, and when we judge that we have assisted the Iraqis as much as we can to give them a secure future and the prospect of stability. (Time expired)