SHOOTING DOWN LATHAM'S FLIGHTS OF FOLLY

The following essay was written on December, 2003, in the midst of the electoral campaign when Mark Latham was close to dislodging John Howard from the Canberra Lodge. The essay was first published in my book titled, Unveiling the War against Terror: Fight Right War or Lose the Right to Exist, on May 9, 2004, in Melbourne.

By Con George-Kotzabasis


Mark Latham is reputed to be a man of ideas. But his ideas on the war against global terror and on Iraq, as described in his article titled, 'Reversing Australia's March of Folly,' Published in the summer issue of Defender, the journal of the Australian Defense Association, are not flying with the solid balanced wings of an eagle, but with the undulating flaps of a kite threatening to take a dangerous dive.

He fires his grapeshot against America's foreign policy, not as a result of a thoughtful strategy that would replace the presumed flawed strategy of the Americans, but as a result of the reception President Bush was given in Britain, that is, by the fervent mass demonstrations against him. Hence, the cool man of ideas deduces the flawed strategy of Bush, from this emotional heap of burning hate against America, fuelled by a politically variegated throng of old and born again socialists, communists, and anarchists, followed by the ever present caravanserai of fellow-travelers.

Could it be conceivable that Latham, the driest of economists in Labor's ranks, and an unflappable supporter of the free market and free trade, would get his afflatus, divine inspiration, for his stand against the Bush administration, from this politically and historically witless throng of anti-war protestors? Or is this a gig of a consummate dissembler, with the aim to ingratiate himself with this populist bouleversement against the U.S., and with the purpose of augmenting the value of his political stocks?

It is shown pellucidly by his own actions, although this time by the volte face of his former position, since his elevation as leader, that the latter is the leitmotif of all his outrageous and politically senseless statements, such as Bush being 'the most incompetent and dangerous President in living memory' ( If he is consistent with his own logic, then Tony Blair would also be included in this category. ), or that he would not share Australian intelligence with the U.S. Administration, - with whom would he share it, with al Qaeda? More "seriously", with the "Rainbow warriors" of the French But this poseur as keeper of the high principles of the Labor Party and of Curtin, from whom Latham proudly claims to have derived his ideological heritage, is already exposing the great fraud he is, as well as the treachery of his nature. And it will be revealed by his own actions in the near future, if not already, that the leader of the Opposition is not a man of unshakeable principles, but a political chameleon. In his insatiable greed and grab for power, he will abandon and cut adrift all his principal stands, as he is doing already, in the area of foreign policy and in his relations with the U.S. and the war in Iraq, hence proving himself to be a Shylock opportunist. He will do anything to get his pound of flesh in the leadership stakes, this time backstabbing his own principles, unlike when as mayor of Liverpool he was stabbing his colleagues' backs - but he will no longer need to do the latter, since he already rode on the obtuse-donkey backs of those who voted him in as leader.

The above is confirmed by at least two people who knew him well. The first one is a former colleague who was close to him during Latham's tenure as mayor of Liverpool. He said of him, after he called him a bastard that it's all very well for Latham to talk about climbing ladders, but he doesn't say anything about the number of backs he stabbed during his climbing. The second one is his former wife, who stated that Latham would use anyone, including his children, if this would 'enhance his public image'. And Latham himself revealed this sinister trait of using anything that would advantage his position, in his first and dramatic press conference. And in the latter I would aver, symbolically uncovered an even more sordid trait, that of the "political pimp". Flanked on his right by Kevin Rudd, another vehement and populist critic of American foreign policy, although presently with less hardened edges than his criticism had been in the past, and on his "left", by the backdrop of the stars and stripes - which only a few months before when he wrote the above- named article criticizing America, had considered "politically" to be the clothes and colors of a 'skanky ho' , to use his term for a filthy whore from another context ( This is no hyperbole. If he can describe a female journalist who criticized him as a skanky ho, why can't he describe likewise, the U.S. government which is killing women and children, as an administration of ill-repute? ). Nonetheless, he promoted his new self as a supporter of the U.S. alliance "huddled" in these clothes and colors. And with the sangfroid of a political shyster, he gave his reasons for his apostasy from his former principal stand against U.S. foreign policy, whose goal, to quote him, ‘of regime change was killing women and children in Iraq'. The magnitude of this treachery can only be explained not in his stars but in himself...

But let us revert to his article in Defender ‘...March of Folly’, which he also repudiated since his elevation as leader, claiming that when he wrote it he was not fully informed. Such admission however, has profound implications to the leadership of the nation, if he happened to be elected as the next prime minister. That on such a vital issue as national security, he launched his attack against the U.S. and criticized the Howard government, from a state of ignorance. And this ignorance is deeper and more extensive. While he was still fulminating against Bush's war on Iraq, the prestigious American magazine Weekly Standard had published a leaked memorandum written by the third in command of the Pentagon, Undersecretary Douglas Feith, which was presented to Congress, identifying 51 cases of contact between Iraqi intelligence and key and top figures of al Qaeda. Iraq not only had trained terrorists of bin Laden, but also in some cases financed his operations. The editors of the magazine designated the evidence of the memorandum as 'case closed', in regard to the links of Saddam’s regime and al Qaeda.

In view that this information was available, how is it possible that the latter was not in the pending tray of Latham's desk? And if it was, why did it not influence by a modicum his thoughts on the subject of the war? How such an insouciant, heedless and flippant attitude on his part, on such a most important issue, can vouch his credentials to be the next prime minister of this country? Latham has an imprudent tendency to brush off and dismiss events of the past, as water under the bridge, and is wont to talk about the future. He is apparently unaware, that what has happened in the past, especially for politicians, can irreversibly compromise one's future. And this unawareness reveals the caliber of his thinking.

As far as the gist of his argument about global terror, he is depressingly uninspiring and backward in his strategic thinking of how to fight terrorism and whom to have as major and steadfast allies against this great threat to the nation and to the world. He opines that Australia should fight terrorists and not states. The war on Iraq, seems to him to be a serious diversion from fighting terrorists, and weakens a country's ability of fighting them effectively. He believes and argues, that Australia should redirect its strategy and concentrate its forces in the region, 'cleaning out terrorist networks in South-East Asia' and protecting the home front from attacks. But Muslim fanatic terrorism has global dimensions, and you cannot confine it and compartmentalize it in regional ones. By definition it's a global war and one must fight it on a global terrain.

The terrorist’s attacks in Bali, Nairobi, Riyadh, and Istanbul, may have been perpetrated by local terrorists, but they were sired, fomented, and financed from outside these countries, from the global networks of al Qaeda or its affiliate bodies. That is why it's a stupendous strategic folly to believe, as Latham does, that Australia should deploy its forces only in the region. If the protection of Australia is to be genuine and effective and not a dud, then Australia must deploy its forces not only in the region, but deploy them as well, in combination with the forces of its allies, against the mobile centers of terrorism, wherever they are, as well as against the states that support them. It's a war on two fronts, as I've been arguing for two years now. The U.S. attack on Iraq was a quintessential part of this strategy. Moreover, one has to realize, that the only country in the world that can fight and defeat global terror, is America. Countries, such as Australia, therefore, those that are targeted by this lethal foe and are serious in protecting themselves from this mortal enemy, have no other option but to ally themselves to the U.S. with the unbreakable chains of destiny.

It's the ultimate mindlessness, to denigrate and downgrade this alliance, in these most critical times, as Latham did by his intemperate and politically stolid and banal statements against the Bush administration. But such thoughtless statements reveal that Latham's tongue is on a faster track than his mental processes. It's the typical characteristic of intellectual pretenders, and of people who crave to be impressionistic. Statesmen measure their words and they're never loose cannons. It's obvious however, that with the ascension of Latham as leader of the Opposition, verbal glibness and mental flippancy will be the occupants of the leadership of the ALP. Furthermore, it's most unwise to denounce the stand of the U.S. and its war against Iraq, because mistakes and errors have been made by the planners of its strategy. In all wars errors have been made and one must not cover them up, but on the contrary, one must criticize them constructively. No less a figure than Churchill, who was the major strategic planner of the failed Gallipoli campaign, made an error, not to mention others in the First World War. But can one reasonably rebuke the alliance and its war against Germany because of these mistakes?

Tony Blair as a statesman, identified with wisdom and historical insight that the greatest threat of the twenty-first century is this 'emerging nexus of terrorists and rogue states’. That is why with acumen and courage he took a head-dive against the current of public opinion against the war. His Labor leadership caricatures here in Australia, of Crean, Rudd, and Latham, had neither the wisdom nor the courage to do the same and cowardly refused to swim against the tide of populist opinion. But they are fated to be the subject of political cartoonists and not the subject of historians on statesmanship.

History will aver and judge, Bush's, Blair's, and Howard's stand as an historic stand against this necrophilous rush of fanatic barbarians at the gate of universal freedom. Latham, as a fugitive from this historic stand, is totally unfit to lead the nation at these critical times. The Australian public must not allow themselves to be conned and be used by this treacherous political chameleon.



I rest on my oars: Your turn now

Who Has the Right to Declare War?

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...

Scorpion of Racism Running with Raised Fangs to Sting Obama

A short reply by Con George-Kotzabasis to:

Paul Krugman: It’s a Different Country
Race has become less important in American politics, argues Krugman.

Economist’s View, June 09,2008 http://economistsview.typepad.com/

In the normal circumstances of the last few years in America “racial division” may have “lost much of its sting”, to quote Krugman, by burrowing itself in a hibernating state. But with the nomination of Obama as the Democratic candidate America is no longer in its benign state of normalcy--with the war in Iraq, with economic recession and rising unemployment--and racism will be rising from the slumbers of its hibernating habitat. As Nietzsche has said in another context, the true character of a person is revealed in critical circumstances. Likewise, the true character of a society is also exposed in critical circumstances. This is no longer the case that blacks are moving into a white neighborhood but of a black man moving into the White House. It’s this critical issue that will make the scorpion of racism to raise its fangs and sting Obama.

My prediction is that the white backlash and its auxiliaries, the Latinos and the Asian-Americans, will squash Obama’s ambition to ensconce himself into the Oval Office. America at this stage is not ready to have a black president, especially of one who carries the arrogant public onstentatiousness and spiritual baggage of Jeremiah Wright.

Your opinion

Mustafa Has No Qualms of Being both Muslim and Western but Don't Serve him Pork

Racism for the Mainstream

By Mustafa Quadri

On Line Opinion, May 9, 2008

A short reply by Con George-Kotzabasis

Mustafa destroys his own argument that there is a “pseudo-intellectual industry” that vilifies Islam of being violent, led by the American Daniel Pipes, by his own major premise. If Islam is peaceful, as he insinuates, then the greatest vilifiers of Islam, second to none, are Muslims themselves. The jihadist-terrorists and their mentors, like al Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, who influence millions of Muslims, being universal murderers incontestably hold the scepter of vilification of Islam in their own hands.

But here is the zinger. Mustafa asserts that "despite there being no consensus on what it means to be Western or Muslim...many Muslims, including myself, have no qualms about being Muslim and Western". Indeed, Mustafa may not have any "intellectual qualms" about committing this intellectual "felony" for which a poster put the handcuffs on him. But if he was served pork what would he be, more Muslim or less Western or vice versa? And whatever the choice, whether to eat it or not, he would knock off his own proposition. Mustafa, like so many other educated Muslims, Waleed Ali is another one, make an intellectual mockery of their own education and of themselves.

Poor Mustafa! With the flood of reasoning issuing from most of the posts above he is drowning in the sweet waters of reason. But I guess it’s better to take leave of this world with a sweet taste than with the "bitter taste" of being both a Muslim and a westerner which is the “bitterest” oxymoron.

I rest on my oars: Your turn now