He may be a humble prime minister in his fourth term.........

PM playing the right cards with gambler's steady hand

Greg Sheridan, Foreign editor
February 23, 2005
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12343133%5E2702,00.html
JOHN Howard has shown once again that beneath the exterior of unflappable ordinariness, there beats the heart of a gambler.

He may be a humble prime minister in his fourth term, but he is not taking a step backwards on Iraq or national security more generally.
Howard's decision to send an additional 450 to 470 Australian troops to Iraq sits squarely in the traditions of Australian strategic policy.
It is right in principle and it is effective globally, regionally and for Australia.
It is right in principle because only the terrorists -- groups who wish our utter destruction -- could benefit from the coalition of the willing abandoning Iraq before it can provide for its own security, and while vital and necessary reconstruction work is still undone.
It is difficult to imagine Australian soldiers more usefully employed than in protecting Japanese engineers engaged in building roads and schools and providing clean water and health facilities for Iraqis.
The other role for the Diggers will be to train Iraq's own forces, and the Australian military trainers in Iraq now will soon be withdrawn.
So globally, the commitment is right because it helps the good guys in Iraq, and, by both augmenting our own presence and helping the Japanese stay involved, it cements the multi-national coalition at a time when some others are withdrawing.
It is right for Australia regionally because of the intimate military co-operation it provides for with Japan, our most important friend in Asia.
The extraordinary Australia-Japan relationship has come full circle when Aussie soldiers are watching over Japanese build roads and bridges. Once, long ago, it was the Japanese watching over Australians performing that task, in an environment of cruelty and persecution.
But now old enemies are the best of friends.
Howard was right to emphasise the request from Japan, and the phone call he received from Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi.
Kim Beazley's argument, that involvement in Iraq weakens us in the region, looks pitiful in the light of the Japanese connection.
Indeed, Mr Beazley's whole position is only a little more coherent than was Mark Latham's. The Opposition Leader says that instead of military forces we should provide civil aid to Iraq.
But in today's environment, would that not require troops to protect the aid workers? Is civil aid not what the Japanese are doing? Why should we not offer security protection to the Japanese?
It doesn't make sense.
And the new commitment is right for Australia in its own terms as well.
As a nation we have understood that the war on terror is the defining strategic challenge of our time. We made this clear at the last election. This commitment means we are making a meaningful contribution, more in line with our rhetoric and our beliefs.
The Australian soldiers will not be in the worst parts of Iraq, but they face mortal and unpredictable dangers.
It is miraculous that there has been only one Australian military fatality in Iraq, and none among the Australian defence forces. Howard's bold new deployment embraces new levels of risk at all levels.
Tying the presence of the Australians to the Japanese, who will certainly not stay if the whole operation falls apart, also provides a potentially convenient exit strategy.
But there is no disguising that the lives of Australian soldiers are on the line. All Australians will wish them success in their mission.