In a classic example of how the Australian Israeli Lobby use lies and deceit for propaganda purposes Dylan Kissane, a PhD student at the University of South Australia and right-wing Zionist propagandist, has used his blog to deliberately deceive those that read his work.
His post was:
Thursday, Feb 15, 2007
ALP Leader Kevin Rudd looks at our forces in the Middle Eastern theatre and concludes - contrary to PM John Howard's contention - that their withdrawal wouldn't be such a big deal:
"...there are 140,000 American troops in Iraq, about to surge to 160,000, currently our force in the entire region is about 1,400 and this debate is about the future of the combat element of that of some 500. It’s important to put all that into context because Mr Howard says that if these Australian combat forces of about 500 are withdrawn after another couple of rotations that that of itself would trigger the withdrawal immediately of 140 to 160,000 American troops, well I think we need to put that into some context as well."
According to Rudd, it's a little silly to think that 500 combat troops can precipitate something as large as a 160,000-strong US troop withdrawal. But on the other hand, Kevin claims those same troops are strong enough to change the foreign policy outlooks of sovereign nation-states in the region:
"...Australia’s policy in Iraq these last five years, has had one huge strategic consequence, and that is the emboldening of Iran as well as threatening the broader internal security of the other surrounding States like Saudia [sic] Arabia."
In the first case Rudd is arguing that the number of troops are so small as to have little impact on the regional security. In the second case he is arguing that those same small number of troops can and do have an impact on regional security, including promoting changes in the grand strategy of nuclear weapons wannabe Iran and other surrounding countries.
Looks like Kevin's confused again.
The deceit is in Kissane’s re-contextualising of the words Rudd actually used which was achieved by only partially citing what Rudd said, which was:
“What’s concerned me deeply, and I’ve been writing about this for more than a year now, is one of the greatest strategic failures in Mr Howard’s decision to take us into this war, and as the chief cheerleader for this war outside of the United States, has been that is has emboldened Iran. Iran, which was once a significant power in this wider region of the Middle East, has become the dominant power because you have, through the Shia influence from Iran, extending of that influence into Iraq so that the Iranian influence is now much more widespread. This places Iran in a much stronger position. The failure of our policy, Australia’s policy in Iraq these last five years, has had one huge strategic consequence, and that is the emboldening of Iran as well as threatening the broader internal security of the other surrounding States like Saudia Arabia. Mr Howard says he’s going to be part of the long term solution. I say on national security and foreign policy, Mr Howard increasingly looks like a long term risk.”
While in the first instance that Kissane refers to, Rudd indeed was talking about the numbers of Australian troops and their relative impact, or lack thereof, on the criminal war effort in Iraq, but clearly in the second instance Rudd was not refering to the troop numbers at all as Kissane attempts to assert but was referring instead to Howards failed strategic policy.
One can only hope that Kissanes dishonesty is not reflected in his academic work.