Reply by Con George-Kotzabasis to:
Now to Say Never Again
By George Williams
On Line Opinion June 18, 2008
Professor Williams with the typical lawyer’s chicanery and the arrogance of historical and political ignorance argues that Parliamentary approval should be the prerequisite for the declaration of war. To do so however is to deprive the sagacious right of statesmen to make the decision for war and give it instead to the “swirl”, to use Paul Keating’s word describing his colleagues in the Senate, of mediocre politicians.
War being an instrument of last resort is not made by a lightly populist decision, as Williams implies, but by a well –informed resolute and wise leadership that leads its people to war as an absolute necessity when a nation is threatened or attacked by a deadly irreconcilable enemy.
Williams’ proposal is neither intellectually and historically wise, nor does it have the depth, prudence, and firmness of statesmanship. It’s instead the proposal of an unreconstructed political wimp pontificating from his left-leaning academic chair and echoing the constant refrain of the illusionist pacifists of ”No to War”, as if the world was and is a loving circle of holding hands.
Your opinion…
Posted by p on July 10, 2008 at 3:33 am
Which mediocre politicians are not suitable to make the decision to go to war? Do you mean the ones elected to federal parliament in exactly the same way as the PM? How is the PM different from them? Does he/she somehow magically attain what you call sagacious, statesman-like powers upon taking office? They are all politicians, elected to the same parliament.
What Williams argues for is parliamentary oversight over what is at the moment an unchecked executive power. And he argues for it because, your statement notwithstanding, there is every indication Australia was taken to war in Iraq not as an “absolute necessity” but on the basis of intelligence which appears to have been deliberately misrepresented in order to manipulate public opinion. That is neither resolute nor wise leadership. It is deception.
Any leader, faced with a genuine need, will have no trouble convincing his parliament to authorise a just war. What’s the problem with that?
Posted by kotzabasis on July 11, 2008 at 4:02 am
As you well know politicians are not elected in Parliament on merit but on party lines and among those elected few are politically meritorious and sagacious and it’s from these that leaders are elected.
Further, Parliamentary oversight is not the same as Parliamentary LEADERSHIP from which critical decisions emanate. Williams argued for Parliamentary approval for declaring war, not for Parliamentary oversight.
Of course, if you assume as you do, that intelligence had been “deliberately misrepresented in order to manipulate public opinion”, then your argument that it was “deception” and not the result of “resolute …wise leadership”, would be unassailable. But was it manipulation and deception that is the apple of discord.
In your last sentence you concede that a leader decides to go to war and you assert that he would have no difficulty in convincing Parliament to authorise it. Just imagine, in our contemporaneous context, could an American President convince Congress as a “genuine need” to authorise an attack on Iran? Necessary and wise decisions are NOT quantitative but qualitative.
Posted by Momfokebob on August 3, 2008 at 8:27 am
It’s amazing