A NEW WAR THE WEST HASN'T GOT ITS HEAD AROUND, YET
Four-time Walkley Award winning political commentator and Churchill Fellow, has returned to the fray over concern that the integrity of news dissemination is continually being threatened by a partisan media.
It is difficult to imagine how our $20 billion new generation F-35 joint strike fighter will combat the new generation of war games. China may have stolen the plans but they will be of little use because current rules of engagement involve cyber warfare, IEDs, suicide bombers, guerrilla door-to-door warfare, kidnappings, and terrorist attacks. None of which has a role for the F-35.
Vaporising every Islamic Jihadist training facility on the planet can be achieved with drones, but there is no will for that, considering the US already has 4,000 troops assisting with Ebola in the same region as Boko Haram fighters remain free to murder thousands in the pursuit of their competitive brand of Jihad.
It’s doubtful the West has anticipated the kind of war that has already started. Don't discount suicide bombers in the channel tunnel, major shopping centres and underground rail. Toy drones delivering explosives to airports or aircraft on final approach, reservoirs, major sporting venues, houses of parliament, schools, rail lines carrying peak traffic over bridges, buses and shipping, not to mention cyber attacks on electricity grids, transport and phone networks.
Does anyone really believe radical Islamists are not already planning these attacks?
We are fighting a pointless undeclared war raining bombs on utes in Iraq while assiduously denying it has anything to do with Islam. The Islamic Jihadists might want to disagree with that assumption.
Forget media rhetoric... we are losing this war!
Since 1901, the Australian Constitution has not required a sitting government to gain parliamentary approval for the decision to deploy forces overseas or, in the rare cases that it has occurred, to declare war via the Governor General.
Convention requires a declaration of war be brought before the Parliament at the earliest opportunity but what does “convention” mean? It meant little in 1975!
It’s constitutionally problematic whether an Australian Prime Minister could declare war on Islamic Jihad, which has no discernible nationhood, despite the fact that Islamic Jihad has declared war on the West and that Australia is currently bombing the crap out of Islamic Jihadist installations.
But it’s an undeclared war we can never win while Western leaders refuse to identify, let alone deal with, the threat.
A declaration of war would more than likely require a UN Security Council resolution, which won’t happen, and Australia would not act alone without NATO involvement which includes the soft Left Merkel, Obama and Hollande. It would also need the executive approval of Obama, and that certainly won’t happen if such a resolution included terms like “Islamic Jihad” or, as he puts it, “workplace violence”.
There have been attempts since 1985 by the Australian Democrats, and more recently by the Australian Greens, to remove the unilateral power of the government to commit Australia to war which would, as a matter of course, enable emergency powers.
So, let’s put a line through the possibility of a declaration of war. Emergency powers could be sought by Abbott but the ALP, Greens and much of the cross bench would never agree to any Prime Minister having such power, much less agreeing to Tony Abbott acquiring it.
But, here’s what CAN actually happen: Abbott can introduce into the House exceptional anti-terror legislation. “Exceptional” in that it equates to current public sentiment, which right now is extremely hostile to Islamic Jihad. Internal polling would show the extent of that hostility.
The Bills would of course be rejected in the Senate twice, thereby giving Abbott the trigger for a double dissolution. The inability to cater for the safety of the nation would be a compelling message to take to the hustings and very few would see the hapless union thug, Bill Shorten, as an alternative prime minister in a proper election, particularly in a time of crisis.
Providing the proposed anti-terror legislation was within the bounds of reasonableness, Abbott would almost certainly win, achieving a clean-out of the current obstructionist Senate yobbos. Effective measures to deal with the Islamic Jihadist threat would then be available to the Government.
But there is one impediment to that scenario; Abbott must first visit a speech therapist to learn how to mouth the word Islam.