With "far from Baghdad", Australia infects 7 birds with one stone in Iraq
Reports & Analytics Iraq Iraq war Australia
Shafaq News / The Australian Strategic Policy Institute reviewed what is similar to the outcome of Australia's role and its nature over two decades in the Iraq war, which cost 4.1 billion dollars in Iraq,
while confirming that Australia sought, through the different stages of the Iraqi war, to adhere to its alliance with the United States and support Iraq. Efforts were tantamount to trying to kill seven birds with one stone.
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute is government owned and funded by the government, although it operates independently.
A report of the institute translated by Shafaq News quoted its director, Hugh White, as saying that "with the preparation of the first reports of the institute in 2002, the Australians had begun to discuss the issue of the proposed invasion of Iraq, which has undoubtedly become the most divisive issue in national strategic policy since Vietnam.
White added, "The researchers at the institute were, at the beginning of its launch, arguing against the idea of invading Iraq, even though the Australian government at the time was making every effort to mobilize support for the cause of war."
In its report, the institute pointed out that Australia is one of only four members of the military coalition that overthrew the Iraqi government during the months of March and April 2003.
It is considered a "partner responsible for what will happen to Iraq."
On May 1, 2003, US President George W. Bush declared "the end of major combat operations", while the Australian Institute released a study on May 9 on "Post-War Iraq from a Distinctive Australian Perspective".
"Australia, as a member of the transitional authority, has direct responsibility for the future of Iraq," Alicena Wainwright wrote, according to the report, adding that after its participation in military action, it had a moral obligation to contribute to the replacement of the ousted regime with a new and better alternative.
The report stated, "What the United States and Britain wanted in practice is for Australia to maintain an active role in the administration of Iraq and its political development,
and if things go badly, there is a risk that the role of participation in Iraq may continue indefinitely, and for this, Australia was They need to set clear limits to the extent of their commitment to the reconstruction process."
A few months later, the Institute quoted in its report, on the research of Aldo Borgo (Australian researcher) on the ongoing war in "post-war Iraq", saying that
"the insurgency was destined to follow the same course as the Gulf War of 2003, as it was full of With myths, distortions and half-truths," he said, adding that
the rebellion was more dangerous than the United States publicly admitted, but it was also much less dangerous than the pessimists thought.
In his research, Borgo also wrote, "The main problem that the United States is currently facing is that it does not know who or what it is facing.
US administration officials have described the Iraqi resistance in various stages as consisting of foreign terrorists, regime loyalists, criminals, or a group A mixture of the three.
This may be true at the current stage, but the greatest danger is that the resistance begins to develop into a nationalist resistance that is pro-Iraq and anti-US, and has nothing to do with Saddam, al-Qaeda or the Iraqi mafia.
The Australian Institute recalled its strategic assessment report, which it published in May 2004, under the title "Beyond Baghdad", when fighting was widespread in Iraq, where researcher Peter Jennings wrote that "the prospects for Iraq are on the edge of the abyss."
He explained that one of the possible outcomes was "the emergence of a stable, more open and prosperous regime in the Middle East, and that the other possibility was chaos and rejection of America's position in the world."
"Australia's participation in the coalition is an important indication of our support for the United States and the essential work of rebuilding Iraq," Jennings wrote at the time, noting that this also served Australia's interests, according to the Australian Institute.
Researcher Peter Khalil wrote that the Iraqi elections held on January 30, 2005 "will not defeat the insurgency in Iraq by themselves," noting that
"the insurgents will use terrorist tactics to incite sectarian strife by killing the largest possible number of Iraqi civilians, Hoping to impede the political process during 2005 by destabilizing the transitional government and coalition efforts to help Iraqis establish democratic governance structures."
Peter Khalil served as Director of National Security Policy for the Coalition Provisional Authority (August 2003-May 2004), and contributed to the rebuilding of the Iraqi Security Forces and its institutions.
"Australian army trainers were more successful with the Iraqis than the American civilian contractors," wrote Peter Khalil,
noting that they were showing a greater understanding of shared traditions and a greater awareness of Brykan tactics, and were able to communicate with the Iraqis by treating Iraqi culture with respect.
By 2006, researcher Rod Lyon wrote, according to the Australian Institute, "we tried to do many things in Iraq, and set ourselves an impossible task, with the goal of achieving a set of results that was the equivalent of trying to kill seven birds with one stone."
Leon said that coalition forces must determine what has been achieved: from the absence of weapons of mass destruction, the overthrow and trial of Saddam Hussein, to the lifting of sanctions and the minimization of the possibility of the Iraqi state sponsoring terrorism, noting that "the long-term goal of consolidating democracy will depend on Iraq." Himself".
The Australian report continued, "Australia has sought to achieve an exit strategy that reflects these gains, and has left behind a form of stability for Iraq and the Gulf states."
Lyon said, according to the report, that Australia had a major interest in maintaining the health of the coalition, and thus, in helping its ally find an agile exit route, as it was not in Australia's interest for the United States to fall into a post-Iraq syndrome, similar to the post-Vietnam syndrome.".
In 2007, Lynn Piggott published a report on what Iraq represents for the Middle East, and wrote that "the spread of jihadi-Salafi terrorism from Iraq to neighboring countries and beyond is the deadliest effect of the Iraq war to date," adding that along the lines of Afghanistan Before,
"Iraq provided an ideal training ground for jihadist terrorists" from across the region who brought with them skills in bomb-making and other combative aspects of the insurgents.
For Australia, Piggott said, "the most important exports from the Middle East are oil and the ideology of global terrorism, Salafist jihadism, and the terrorists themselves."
She added that "the Iraqi duty of Australia obliges it to continue to support the coalition partners in order to provide security for the Iraqis," explaining that
"the challenge of reaching the point of sustainable security and political reconciliation in Iraq is an enormous challenge, especially in light of the decades of tyranny and division that preceded the invasion in 2003".
The institute concluded its report by noting that the US policy errors are overlooked, and that Australia, as a partner in the coalition, is obligated to do everything possible to ensure that Iraqi society does not collapse and descend into a full-blown civil war.