Now who am I gonna believe Air Marshal Funnell, General Gration (served under him, a fine man), Admiral Hudson .........or Hawkforce and his political agenda driven mates. I think Gen Gration view says it all.
War doubters hit back at PM
By Michael Gordon
National Editor
March 4, 2004
Former defence force chiefs have branded as offensive and wrong John Howard's assertion that opponents of the Iraq war supported a policy that would have kept Saddam Hussein in power.
The Prime Minister this week stepped up the defence of his decision to join the Iraq war, telling Parliament on Tuesday that prominent Labor politicians had "the heavy burden of justifying to the Australian people why they supported a policy that would have kept Saddam Hussein in power".
He insisted this was the "practical consequence" of Labor's policy - "and that will be to your everlasting political shame".
Foreign Minister Alexander Downer led the attack, saying: "The fact that we got rid of that regime and you wanted that regime to remain in office is an argument that between now and polling day we would be happy to have."
High-profile opponents of the war who shared Labor's view that tougher inspections and United Nations sanctions should have preceded a commitment of troops to war, have now taken exception to the Howard-Downer claims. They include those who held key positions in the Defence Force at the time of the first Gulf War in 1991.
Air Marshal Ray Funnell, chief of air staff from 1987 until 1992, told The Age: "As someone who opposed the war... I find it deeply offensive that I'm categorised as someone who wished Saddam to remain in power. What it suggests is there was no alternative other than going to war. There were alternatives and they weren't tried and some of those alternatives may well have led to regime change. How would we ever know?
"Some of those alternatives may well have discovered things without loss of life that have now been discovered with huge loss of life and a terrible remaining situation in Iraq."
General Peter Gration, chief of the Australian Defence Force from 1987 to 1993, said it was absurd and silly to argue that those who opposed the war wanted Saddam to remain in power. "I opposed the war because the Government's case for going to war, which was based principally on the weapons of mass destruction, was unconvincing and weak.
"Our Government didn't argue its case for war on the basis of regime change but, if they had, it would have been vigorously opposed ... it's simply not acceptable international behaviour to take the extreme step of going to war without UN backing because you don't like a particular regime, however bad it may be. I think the Government realised this and that's why they didn't use it as a principal argument."
General Gration said it was still unclear whether the threat of terrorism had been reduced. He believes WMD were just a pretext for war - and that the real reason was to consolidate US control of, or access to, oil.
Admiral Mike Hudson, chief of naval staff from 1985 to 1991, said it had been shown there was insufficient evidence to justify war. Mr Hudson also took issue with Mr Downer's assertion that Australia's alliance with the US would have been substantially weakened if the Government had refused to go to war.
"I cannot believe that relationships between the two countries were so sensitive that we had to acquiesce in a pre-emptive attack on Iraq when there was so little obvious reason to do so."
War doubters hit back at PM
By Michael Gordon
National Editor
March 4, 2004
Former defence force chiefs have branded as offensive and wrong John Howard's assertion that opponents of the Iraq war supported a policy that would have kept Saddam Hussein in power.
The Prime Minister this week stepped up the defence of his decision to join the Iraq war, telling Parliament on Tuesday that prominent Labor politicians had "the heavy burden of justifying to the Australian people why they supported a policy that would have kept Saddam Hussein in power".
He insisted this was the "practical consequence" of Labor's policy - "and that will be to your everlasting political shame".
Foreign Minister Alexander Downer led the attack, saying: "The fact that we got rid of that regime and you wanted that regime to remain in office is an argument that between now and polling day we would be happy to have."
High-profile opponents of the war who shared Labor's view that tougher inspections and United Nations sanctions should have preceded a commitment of troops to war, have now taken exception to the Howard-Downer claims. They include those who held key positions in the Defence Force at the time of the first Gulf War in 1991.
Air Marshal Ray Funnell, chief of air staff from 1987 until 1992, told The Age: "As someone who opposed the war... I find it deeply offensive that I'm categorised as someone who wished Saddam to remain in power. What it suggests is there was no alternative other than going to war. There were alternatives and they weren't tried and some of those alternatives may well have led to regime change. How would we ever know?
"Some of those alternatives may well have discovered things without loss of life that have now been discovered with huge loss of life and a terrible remaining situation in Iraq."
General Peter Gration, chief of the Australian Defence Force from 1987 to 1993, said it was absurd and silly to argue that those who opposed the war wanted Saddam to remain in power. "I opposed the war because the Government's case for going to war, which was based principally on the weapons of mass destruction, was unconvincing and weak.
"Our Government didn't argue its case for war on the basis of regime change but, if they had, it would have been vigorously opposed ... it's simply not acceptable international behaviour to take the extreme step of going to war without UN backing because you don't like a particular regime, however bad it may be. I think the Government realised this and that's why they didn't use it as a principal argument."
General Gration said it was still unclear whether the threat of terrorism had been reduced. He believes WMD were just a pretext for war - and that the real reason was to consolidate US control of, or access to, oil.
Admiral Mike Hudson, chief of naval staff from 1985 to 1991, said it had been shown there was insufficient evidence to justify war. Mr Hudson also took issue with Mr Downer's assertion that Australia's alliance with the US would have been substantially weakened if the Government had refused to go to war.
"I cannot believe that relationships between the two countries were so sensitive that we had to acquiesce in a pre-emptive attack on Iraq when there was so little obvious reason to do so."
