PAUL McGEOGH INTERVIEW - Wednesday 25th October, 2006
GEORGE NEGUS: Paul, in David Brill's piece that we just saw,
the
Australian commander, the commander of the Australian troops in Iraq,
seemed absolutely convinced that if we were to leave, Australia was to
leave, the place would be worse off. You know the situation on the
ground. How do you react to that sort of suggestion?
PAUL McGEOGH, INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I think the truth
of the
Iraq situation today is that the Australian presence doesn't make any
difference, the British presence hardly makes a difference. What does
matter is the American presence. The Americans make up the bulk of the
foreign troops in Iraq. They are the ones who are the targets, they are
the ones who are the problem, if you like, to the extent that a foreign
presence makes a problem.
GEORGE NEGUS: So when Alexander Downer and John Howard say
that if we
were to leave, we were to cut and run, it would be a victory for the
terrorists in fact - the term they use for what the rest of us would
probably call insurgents.
PAUL McGEOGH: It may well be a victory for the terrorists, or
the
insurgents, to the extent that a foreign country is seen to be leaving,
but the reality of Australia's presence in Iraq is that Australia
didn't in fact make a decision to go to war, as the Government would
like us to believe on a daily basis. What they decided was to agree
with George Bush. Australians are in Baghdad to the extent that they're
needed to protect Australian diplomats, otherwise they're way down in
the south-west corner of the country, the back pocket if you like,
where if they're moved a few metres further south they would be in
Saudi Arabia.
GEORGE NEGUS: They say there are in a dangerous location,
though. Is it
dangerous where they are?
PAUL McGEOGH: Anywhere in Iraq is dangerous. To quote a friend
of mine
who works in Baghdad on a daily basis, he says anywhere in Iraqi is in
the bullseye. But having said that, where the Australians are is
probably the safest place you could be in Iraq.
GEORGE NEGUS: John Howard's original mantra was that we would
stay
there for as long as we needed to be there, till the job is done, that
is his phrase. Of late, though, he has been saying we will stay until
there is a reasonable chance that democracy will work and succeed in
Iraq.
PAUL McGEOGH: The rhetoric has been fantastic in the last
couple of
weeks because Washington is hedging and changing, in the last few days,
Britain has fallen into line. John Howard it doesn't want to
acknowledge that he is changing his position.
GEORGE NEGUS: But he has to.
PAUL McGEOGH: He has to and he is. Previously it had to be a
functioning democracy, now it has to be a country that might be
sufficiently stable and secure to have a democratic future. But the
reality of the rhetoric in this war is that John Howard has to be very
careful now because if he doesn't start positioning himself, he is
going to end up still being in Iraq when the Americans and the British
pull out.
GEORGE NEGUS: He could be left high and dry. We could be there
and the
others have already gone.
PAUL McGEOGH: He could be there, holding the fort.
GEORGE NEGUS: What would happen, though, if the coalition of
the
willing troops were to leave, would it be a totally disintegrated Iraq
that we're looking at, a civil war?
PAUL McGEOGH: We already have civil war. It is a question of
how bad
that civil war has to get before Iraqis become exhausted, before they
get tired of killing each other. You've got the Shia in the south, they
have got resources. You have got Kurds in the north, they have got
resources. In the west and in the centre you've got the Sunnis, and
they've got very little. You can start breaking the country up, as
Iraqis have already indicated that they want to do, but if one third
have got nothing, they've got no reason to stop fighting. The Sunnis
already drive the insurgency which has sparked the civil war, to the
extent to which is it a civil war now. That fighting, that tension,
that conflict will continue. And the great difficulty with Iraq and the
great uncertainty is that we're not sure that the presence or absence
of the Americans or foreign troops makes any difference.
GEORGE NEGUS: What are coalition of the willing troops
actually doing.
If they're not preventing a civil war, what are they doing?
PAUL McGEOGH: We're getting used to a lot of jargon language
in Iraq.
One of the key phrases that emerged very early in the piece was 'force
protection', that is protecting themselves. They have to be there,
according to American policy, but the first thing they have to do while
they're there is to protect themselves. Now, they are not doing a very
good job of that at the moment. This month is one of the worst on
record for American deaths. For the Iraqis, the last two months, each
of them has been the equivalent of a 9/11. Whatever figures you take
for the civilian death toll, we are losing about 3,000 Iraqi civilians
a month at the moment. The figures are so bad that the Iraqi Government
has decided they're not going to release any more civilian death tolls.
GEORGE NEGUS: Is there a workable exit policy? Is it possible
to get
out without chaos and civil war? Is it possible to get out without the
coalition of the willing countries losing face?
PAUL McGEOGH: Whether the Americans stay or whether they go,
this thing
is going to play out. It is going to play out because they have lost
control. Now, I have great difficulty seeing a situation whereby the
Americans will walk away from Iraq because of the loss of face. I think
after next month's mid-term elections in the US, whether or not the
Democrats get control of Congress and/or the Senate, any side of
American politics is going to have great difficulty walking away from
Iraq because of what it will say to the world, and particularly what it
will say to the jihadist movement around the world.
GEORGE NEGUS: What about the possibility of dialogue? There is
talk now
of dialogue, maybe dialogue with the insurgents, except the al-Qa'ida
elements.
PAUL McGEOGH: Well, I think the Americans are getting to the
point
where they will talk to anyone, frankly.
GEORGE NEGUS: Will anybody listen if they do?
PAUL McGEOGH: Some elements will but others won't. Whatever
deal they
do with the Sunnis who drive the insurgency, the Shi'ites are going to
be most reluctant to cop it. They won't. The Kurds will be the same.
The Americans are now attempting what they should have reviewed before
they invaded Iraq because these are the things they needed to address,
to say, "Will this be possible?" You should not go into something until
you know how you're going to get out of it. You don't call an inquiry
until you know what the outcome is going to be. These are Politics 101.
GEORGE NEGUS: This being the case, are we staring down the
barrel at a
protracted, possibly regional conflict, whether or not the Americans,
the Australians, the Brits and others stay or go?
PAUL McGEOGH: It is highly likely. Probably less so while the
Americans
and the Brits stay, but if they go, the risk that Iraq will break into
three is very high. That being the case, the Iranians will probably
come in - they're already in helping the Shi'ites in the south - they
will come in and do even more so. The Saudis and probably the
Jordanians will come in and help the Sunnis in the middle. The Turks
are already on record saying that if the Kurds are given anything
approximating autonomy in the north they will come in and knock them
out.
GEORGE NEGUS: That's pretty close to the doomsday scenario.
PAUL McGEOGH: There's not much upside in Iraq these days.
GEORGE NEGUS: Paul, I don't know whether it's good to talk to
you, it
is good to see you.
PAUL McGEOGH: Thanks.