Some Important Implications of Brexit, Failures in Interpreting Muslim Religion
David Cameron has been British PM since May 2010 and won a second term in May 2015 with an all Conservative government (his first government was a Coalition with the Liberal Democrats). That second term was won with a much larger majority (331-232) than predicted by polls, probably because the polls under-estimated the (then) unpopular proposals by Labour Leader Millibrand (now replaced by the extremist Corbyn!). An independent inquiry into the polling suggested that the polling methods resulted in conservative voters being under-represented. The 72.7% who voted on the EU referendum exceeded the proportion in the May 2015 election (66.4%) and the 1975 European referendum’s 64.62%. Reports indicate that those who voted to leave appear to have comprised a high proportion of lower-middle income groups.
“Troops on the Ground”
Today’s Australian reports below an address by Kevin Andrews to a leading US think-tank, the Heritage Foundation, in Washington DC. (I attended Heritage in the 1980s and contributed an article to its journal). Andrews claims there is scope for greater use of special forces in Iraq/Syria and that Turnbull’s support for the advise-and-assist mission to train the Iraqis is not the right strategy. He refers to the advice to Congress by the US Defense Secretary, Ashley Carter, that there would be an increase in the use of US special forces (it appears that subsequently an additional 200 were sent).
Turnbull – What are His Policies?; Stone on Budget; Bob Carter
When an Australian PM makes an obviously pre-prepared address during a visit overseas his main object is not so much to inform his overseas audience as to let his supporters and opponents at home know his thinking about those government policies that are in dispute domestically. The address Turnbull made in Washington to the think-tank Centre for Strategic and International Studies was relevant particularly to his government’s policies on Islamic terrorism and our military involvement in Iraq/Syria –and to his own capacity to deliver them.
Understanding Islam – and Ministerial Behaviour
Today’s Australian provided my best laughs for the New Year – but also again highlighted the failure of experts and Ministers to understand how to present the threat from Islam.
Understanding Islam
The Christmas-New Year period offers an opportunity for deeper than usual thinking about where the world is going. In this end-year the most important intellectual (and military) challenge undoubtedly relates to that posed by militaristic Islam and the view taken by some of its sects that an objective of life is to kill non-believers, including by implementing an accompanying self-imposed death.
Further Qs re Turnbull’s Activities/Commentaries
Over the period since my Commentary last Thursday, the responses by Turnbull to the criticisms of ASIO head Lewis and to some other challenges add further questions to his suitability to continue as head of the Coalition.
Concern re Basis of Australian Counter-Terrorist Policy
Christmas drinks with former colleagues in Canberra after sending last Sunday’s Commentary have been followed by some important developments and questions about government policies both here and overseas.
Where Does Australia Stand on Islamisation Threat(s)?
On page 3 of the Weekend Australian the political party of which I have become a member, Australian Liberty Alliance, ran an advertisement titled “We will stop Islamisation” (see ALA attached). I became a member some time ago because I regard the threat of Islamisation as the most seriousness danger facing Australia and the western world - and ALA as the only party prepared to publicly advocate its elimination as a serious priority. I am not referring here to those Muslims who seek and lead a peaceful life but to those who advocate violence and/or who are prepared to commit violent acts. The latter are jihadists who seek the destruction of both western and peaceful Muslim societies.
Some Things are Ruled Out, Some Not
We have now experienced two meetings/summits of world leaders following the Paris terrorist attacks last Friday, one by the G20 in Turkey and one in Manila by those involved in the negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement (still to be approved by the US Congress). Although there was a general recognition at both meetings that the Islamic State constituted a powerful force and agreement that “something needs to be done” to combat it, no specific combined response was agreed, except that whatever else might be done boots on the ground are ruled out.
Islamic Problem – Some Implications from French Attack
French Premier Hollande has responded to the killings and/or serious wounding of seemingly over 200 people in Paris (perhaps 450 killed or wounded in total) by declaring war on IS and closing French borders (presumably to migrants from other European countries). Just what this means in practice remains to be seen: with about 6mn Muslims in France the government seems unlikely to change its “philosophy” that terrorism does not have religious motives and that what “we” are dealing with are extremists operating contrary to the Islamic religion. IS is said to be doing that.