Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Ridding Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction and its regime will almost certainly require military force

By Des Moore - posted Tuesday, 29 October 2002


Moreover, the UN charter did not give member states self-defence as a right, to be exercised in defined circumstances; rather did it recognize the preexisting right of self-defence, to be exercised at the decision of the defender.

Australia would be justified in joining a coalition of force against Iraq even without (further) Security Council sanction. But would we be acting in our own interests to do this? Yes, because those interests, including that of self-defence, go much wider than beating back an invading force on our beaches and in the air-sea gap immediately beyond. The world – and Australia with it – will be a safer and better place without Saddam and his WMD, and with the beneficial effects of that on international terrorism.

Even so, some argue, Australia’s contribution to a coalition effort against Iraq would be so miniscule as not to make any difference, so we should stay home – which happily would also remove the threat of a terrorist reprisal attack on us.

Advertisement

In addition to playing down unpardonably the skill and efficacy of our forces, demonstrated in the field most recently in Afghanistan, that camel straw argument is rationally unsustainable – the final straw carries no more weight than the first; and is also immoral – if we were to do nothing to aid a cause that advantaged us, we would simply be bludgers, free loaders.

And the argument that we should not join a coalition, lest we attract the threat of reprisal attack is pusillanimous – a quality for which, fortunately for us, our forefathers were not famous. Moreover, if we followed this argument the terrorists would have won by showing that they could intimidate us. In any case it would not reduce the likelihood of terrorist attack, since the terrorists want to bring us down for what we are and represent, at least as much for what we do.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

An edited version of this article was first published in The Age on 17 October 2002.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Des Moore is Director, Institute for Private Enterprise and a former Deputy Secretary, Treasury. He authored Schooling Victorians, 1992, Institute of Public Affairs as part of the Project Victoria series which contributed to the educational and other reforms instituted by the Kennett Government. The views are his own.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Des Moore
Related Links
Economic Strategy Institute
Photo of Des Moore
Article Tools
Comment Comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy