John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I can confirm that there has been in the last year an upsurge in violence in Iraq—I think we are all aware of that. That upsurge was triggered by the bombing of a mosque which was particularly sacred to the Shiah section of the population. That unlocked a chain of reprisal attacks and, as a result, there has been an increase. I will not go into the precise figures, but I do not dispute that there has been an increase over the last year.

The Leader of the Opposition gives me the opportunity with his question on Iraq to simply report to the House the impressions I gained on a visit to both Tallil and Baghdad in the last few days. When in Baghdad I had the opportunity of a lengthy discussion with the new American commander, General David Petraeus, a different style of person from his predecessors—a very thoughtful man, a former economics professor as well as a very distinguished soldier. It was very clear from my discussion with him that in implementing the new plan to bring greater security to the Baghdad area the coalition forces in Baghdad—that really means the Americans and the Iraqis—were going to combine military strength with a more determined effort to relate to and win the confidence of the local population.

I do not want to read too much into just a few weeks—and what I am about to say is tinged with the utmost caution—but the early indications are promising. The early indications are that there has been some decline in sectarian violence. The early indications are that a determined effort is being made by the Iraqi brigades. He indicated to me that the brigades that have been brought in from other parts of the country were in some cases up to almost 100 per cent strength, which is unusual given the experience in recent times. General Petraeus, as did the Iraqi Prime Minister, indicated to me that there was no shortage of recruits for either the new Iraqi army or for the police. So the impression I took from General Petraeus was that, whilst he was not making any extravagant claims, some of the early indications—ever so cautious, let me stress—were on the optimistic and the hopeful side.

I came away from my meeting with the Iraqi Prime Minister impressed that I had spoken to a person who, although deeply devoted to the Shiah population of Iraq, saw his responsibilities as being truly those of a national leader. He was a more impressive man on meeting than I had perceived from reading newspapers, reading intelligence reports or watching him on television. He struck me as a man of authority, a man of some considerable courage, a person who was deeply grateful for the commitment of countries like Australia to Iraq’s future, a person who felt that there was a prospect that at long last, after a great deal of suffering and very considerable loss of life, the situation could be established where in time the Iraqis will be able to look after themselves.

So I say to the Leader of the Opposition that I came away from my meetings with both of those gentlemen more optimistic about the situation in Iraq. I commend that sense of marginally more optimism to the opposition and to the government’s critics on this issue. I will say two other things. Nobody can visit Australian forces in places like Iraq or Afghanistan without coming away with enormous regard for their professionalism, their sense of decency, their capacity to relate to the local population and the sheer enthusiasm they have for the job at hand. And I say that in a non-political sense, because they do what they are asked to do by the government in the name of the country, irrespective of which government is in office. No matter what your politics may be on this issue, when you go overseas and visit these men and women, you should be incredibly proud of the job that they are doing on behalf of the country. Colonel Rawlins, the commander of the Australian forces in Tallil, told me of the great strides they had made, the confidence of the locals that had been won, the feeling that they were doing an effective job in training the local Iraqis. Overall, I came away from that country feeling more optimistic than I had felt before I went there. So I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question.

I simply conclude my remarks by saying that there remains in my mind a wonderment at the disconnect in the minds of those who attack the government on this issue between the fate of terrorism in Afghanistan and the fate of terrorism in Iraq. It is a common cause on both sides of the House that we should defeat terrorism in Afghanistan but, apparently, whilst it is good to defeat terrorism in Afghanistan, it is not good to defeat it in Iraq. I find that a puzzling disconnect.

Finally, I saw some very interesting remarks made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. She said that the thing about Afghanistan is that only a military operation is needed there. Can I remind her that that would seem passing strange to people, including Australians, involved in reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan. The truth of the matter is that in both countries you need a combination of the two.

I do not for a moment argue that only a military solution is needed in Iraq. In fact the last thing I said to the Iraqi Prime Minister when I saw him in Baghdad was that he had a very solemn responsibility to make sure that he was a national leader and to make sure that he brought a sense of political reconciliation to Iraq. So, through you, Mr Speaker, I say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that she does not really understand what is happening in Afghanistan if she says that it is only a military operation. You need military success and political success in Afghanistan; you need military success and political success in Iraq. You need to defeat the terrorists in Iraq as well as defeating them in Afghanistan.

See this speech in context