Paul Kelly: Rudd gains traction on national security

IN a serious blunder John Howard has revealed how much his national security credentials have been undermined by the elevation of Kevin Rudd, the Iraq fiasco and the anti-war mood in the US.
Howard's attack on Democratic candidate Barack Obama was an error of judgment, more serious than his audio mishap about climate change the previous week. It reveals the pressure on Howard from Rudd's success and the political difficulty for the Government arising from the Iraq War.

The irony is sharp. By trying to play to his strengths on the US alliance and national security, Howard has exposed his diminishing political traction on this front. He has revealed that the tide of events in Iraq and the US is running against him. The public knows this anyway.

The real problem is far deeper: it penetrates to Howard's leadership credentials against Rudd. Howard gave Rudd the perfect opportunity for his first censure motion. "Would an experienced Prime Minister have said something like this?" Rudd asked. He kept repeating Howard's words from the Sunday show, that Obama's position would encourage those "who wanted completely to destabilise and destroy Iraq and create chaos and victory for the terrorists" and that al-Qa'ida would "pray as many times as possible for a victory not only for Obama but also for the Democrats."

It is an extraordinary attack on a potential US president. Such comments tie Howard more closely to President George W. Bush when the American people are deserting him. They tie Howard more closely to Bush's present Iraq strategy that is certain to be opposed by whoever becomes the Democratic Party's nominee.

Nothing better reveals the differences between Rudd and Mark Latham. Latham mocked Howard for being an "arselicker" to President Bush and putting US ties before Australia's interest. Rudd uses the opposite argument.

Rudd depicted Howard as a leader of flawed judgment who had risked alliance relations, alienated the Democratic Party, unnecessarily intervened in US politics, employed reckless language and whose personal relationship with Bush was a danger to the bipartisan operation of the alliance.

Adopting his best patronising tone, Rudd depicted himself as a more balanced upholder of the alliance than Howard. He argued that Howard had compromised the national interest. His subtext was manifest: that Howard's claim on experience was flawed, his judgment defective.

This is about leadership qualifications and mettle. It is about the absolute essence of Howard's prime ministership. Rudd presents himself as a better manager of the US alliance than Howard. Nothing could be more removed for the Liberals than the happy days of Latham.

The claims by some commentators that Howard was only giving an honest answer to the question are absurd. His provocative and intemperate language was deliberate yet a mistake: it guaranteed an international story and repudiation from US politicians. Why did Howard make these comments?

The answer is obvious. He is campaigning as a war leader. A war leader relies upon conviction, faith and passion. While basic differences over Iraq remain between Howard and Labor then Howard will depict Labor's troop withdrawal policy as a disaster for the West and a mistake for Australia. For Howard, this is a tactic and an article of faith.

On Monday in parliament Howard told Rudd: "An American defeat in Iraq would be a catastrophe for the West. I hold the strongest possible view that it is contrary to the security interests of this country for America to be defeated in Iraq."

Yesterday in parliament Howard confronted Rudd demanding that he say what would be the consequences of a US troop withdrawal, the policy he advocates for Australia. Howard said: "Over the last day and a half I have been attacked and lacerated by the Opposition for expressing my view, but the Leader of the Opposition does not have the guts to express his."

Interviewed by The Australian late yesterday, Howard turned up the heat on Rudd. He demanded that Rudd answer the question. He said Rudd, as a self-declared foreign policy expert, must tell the nation about the consequences of any US troop withdrawal. Howard is furious about Rudd playing both sides of the fence on issue after issue. "He (Rudd) wants the political advantage of bringing the boys home but when it comes to the alliance he fudges the consequences," Howard said. "He is supposed to be the expert. He has to explain the consequences of his policy."

Howard is right to argue the dangers involved in any precipitate US troop withdrawal. His problem, however, is the rapid change in the American political climate, the failure of the existing Iraqi strategy and the shift within the Democratic Party towards various formulas for disengagement. Howard cannot defend a position that most Americans might not defend, even if it's valid.

Howard's real target is Rudd, not Obama. He was misguided in getting involved in US politics. He was humiliated by Obama, who dismissed Howard's 1400 troops and said that if Australia was serious it would commit more forces, otherwise Howard was involved in "empty rhetoric." What else did Howard expect?

Howard wants to nail Rudd on Iraq just as he nailed Latham three years earlier. His trouble is that Rudd is not Latham and the ground is shifting in the US. Many Democrats and a number of Republicans would not be uncomfortable with Rudd's stance. In this context Howard's claim that Rudd would undermine the alliance lacks traction.

Rudd is attempting to reposition Labor on Iraq and the US alliance. So he fudges the withdrawal policy and injects maximum flexibility into Labor's position. Rudd wants both to quit the war yet champion the alliance. He thinks and positions like an alternative prime minister, not as an Opposition leader who opposes everything. So Rudd insists that in office he would consult with the US and not leave America "in the lurch".

Asked about the details of Labor policy, shadow foreign minister Robert McClelland said yesterday an ALP government would stage its withdrawal after consulting with the Australian military and our US and British allies. Full stop. It would not necessarily withdraw with the next troop rotation after Labor's election. Witness maximum flexibility.

The lesson is that Rudd is more politically fireproofed on the alliance than Howard appreciates. Rudd has spent 15 years attending the Australian-American Leadership Dialogue and has a number of colleagues within both the Republican and Democratic parties who would go on the record testifying to their confidence in him. Rudd helped the Americans during the worst days of Latham's anti-US rants and they have not forgotten.

The ultimate lesson is that Howard's big lead on the national security issue is being gradually eroded by Rudd. It guarantees that Howard will make the economy the central election issue.