Australia's Labor opposition are taking the lessons of the Spanish election to heart, by promising to pull Aussie troops out of Iraq should they win the next election. I don't think Iraq is or will remain enough of an issue to swing voters who's minds are already made up. For those undecided voters there are more immediate issues such as rising interest rates and employment. That doesn't excuse opposition leader Latham's latest comments on Iraq.

His arguments run as follows:
1. Troops in Iraq make Australia more vulnerable to terrorism.
2. The war in Iraq was a "folly, a mistake and a side alley".
3. The war in Iraq has "made the situation worse; it hasn't made the world a safer place."

His first point is completely wrong. Australia is no safer should it withdraw its troops. Is Spain any safer now? No. France never sent troops and yet is worried about the threat of terrorism too with its large Muslim population. The Islam extremists fighting this war see all Western civilisations as the enemy. The Bali bombing pre-dated the Iraq invasion as did 9/11. It is more accurate to link Afghanistan with the war on terror. But it seems not many object to the continued American presence there. Terrorism is a separate issue to Iraq. Having troops there does not make a country any less or more safe. Japan is never mentioned by Osama despite their military presence in Iraq. Al-Queda's beef is with the West, not those in Iraq.

The second point is even more absurd. The war in Iraq removed a brutal dictator. At the time the burden was on Saddam to prove he didn't have WMD. Numerous UN resolutions over the years demanded full and complete disclosure, something even the weapons inspectors admit was not forthcoming. Would more inspections have helped? Given Saddam's past form it looked unlikely. The people of Iraq don't seem to have demonstrations demanding a return of Saddam's rule. Unless he explains more I cannot see how anyone can describe Iraq as a folly, mistake or side alley. The war on terror is a different style of war to that in Iraq.

The area where Labor can make good headway is criticising the reconstruction. Even though Australia is only peripherally involved, the case remains the coalition forces were ill-prepared for running Iraq once they won the war. That said there is progress in Iraq's reconstruction but the execution could be better.

The final point, that the world is not a safer place, boggles the mind. Since the war in Iraq Libya has admitted and openly disarmed, Iran has opened up to the IAEA, Syria is under sustained pressure and even North Korea is slightly more open to negotiations. It is impossible to tie all of these developments solely to the war in Iraq but it is certainly a factor in all of them. So quite how it has made the situation worse is hard to see. Would terrorism not be occurring in Western countries (Israel aside, where unfortunately it is a given) if the war in Iraq happened? Of course it would. Despite initial arguments the war on Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror. There were (and remain) solid justifications for the war on Iraq that have nothing to do with terrorism. In the words of Deng Xia-pong, "it doesn't matter if the cat is black or white, so long as it catches the mouse."

There are good reasons to think Labor will give the Government a run for its money in the next election. That is to be welcomed because Howard & co. haven't faced real opposition for years. Either way Australia is a winner. But pandering to thoughts like this discredit Latham and Labor.