It’s now clear that the “government in exile” — Tony Abbott, disgruntled ex-ministers like Kevin Andrews and Eric Abetz, and backbenchers like Andrew Nikolic — have decided that the terrorist attacks in Paris are an opportunity to begin undermining Malcolm Turnbull.
In the view of Abbott last week and, today, Kevin Andrews, the West needs to send troops to Syria to defeat Islamic State. The implication is that anything short of this is being “soft on terrorism”. Andrews assiduously avoided mentioning the Prime Minister in his op-ed today, but instead attacked Barack Obama — and Turnbull has said his thinking on Syria is in line with the US President’s.
Sending troops to Syria will make a hideous situation worse — it will reinforce IS’ narrative about the West’s hatred of Islam, spur recruitment to their ranks and do nothing to address what Turnbull correctly called the oppression and disenfranchisement of Sunni Muslims, which has been so crucial to the rise of IS. Abbott and the restorationists understand this. They know how the disastrous 2003 invasion of Iraq not merely caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands but led directly to the emergence of Islamic State. But still they push the military option.
Why? Because for the hard right, national security is always a political weapon. It was Abbott who accused Labor of “rolling out the red carpet for terrorists” earlier this year, who attacked Islamic communities for a fictional failure to condemn terrorism, who gave the green light to blatant Islamophobia among his own backbenchers. It was Abbott who made national security the centrepiece of his efforts to recover politically by “fighting Labor” rather than leading the country.
Now, his target and that of his allies is not Labor, but Turnbull, as part of what is increasingly clearly a plan to mimic Kevin Rudd’s destabilisation of Julia Gillard. As part of this plan, national security is yet again a plaything for political purposes.
Kevin Andrews.. a man prepared to dye for his country..if we need to gather a group to send there seems to be a few trigger happy snipers congregating in the ranks of the LNP..the human merkin could be C/O…
Tony Abbott and his desparadoes forget one thing; in seeking to emulate Kevin Rudd’s return, Rudd was very popular and few outside the political sphere understood why he was removed from the PM’s office.
Why do they push the military option? ….Because they can’t admit they were wrong in the past/first place when they followed Bush’s lead into the expensive morass, we’re still paying for?
That the reason it didn’t work must have been down to something else – it couldn’t have been their “Cunning plan” was faulty?
To admit that would be like admitting there was something to this Lefty idea of “klymat change”?
That think being Right means being correct?
That such admissions might mean they were not the “suppository of all wisdom teeth(?)” – not born to rule?
[… Why can’t we just send Rambo and his mates – they know what needs to be done? Win-win?]
Have Andrews, Abetz, Nicolik & like-minded deluded colleagues read the polls in recent times? Apparently they are so hellbent on Abbott’s resurrection they are willing to lose the 2016 election with him at the helm.
Misplaced loyalty. Abbott supporters are possibly more bullheaded than I’ve previously given credit for.
This idea that right wingers expressing right wing views in the media is some sort of Rudd like plot to unseat Turnbull is utterly fanciful. The military option always has its fans and there are times when the military option is the right one. I understand the left’s Corbynesque rejection of any military option whatsoever but Turnbull and Obama’s objection is driven by an inability to develop a plan for afterwards which was, after all, the critical failure of Iraq in 2003.
Their policy view makes a lot of sense to me and I disagree with Andrews. But Abbott plotting a Rudd like destabilisation? Give us a break!