Australian analyst quits intelligence agency. Might join pro-Saddam peace move movement
Special Report
The excuse that senior analyst Andrew Wilkie gave for his resignation from the ONA (Office of National Assessments) has provided another reason why this organisation should be wound up. It has not only proved incompetent but a focal point of anti-Americanism that runs so deep that it heavily taints the organisation's so-called independent reports.
There is not only Wilkie but Hugh White, another senior analyst who was put in charge of the newly formed ASPI (Australian Strategic Policy Institute). A remarkable appointment given White's lousy track record. His Defence 2000 was an appalling piece of work that got it completely wrong about North Korea while barely mentioning terrorism. It was so bad, the Government trashed it before history, to put it politely, exposed its deep flaws.
Wilkie's assessment of Saddam as a threat is basically no different from White's. He argues that Saddam's military is too weak to pose a threat. (He evidently has not been talking to Kurds or Kuwaitis). The point, however, is not the size of his army but his weapons program. Wilkie admits that Saddam has a WMD program but then tries to play it down. Why?
Not only that but he contradicts himself by suggesting that if we provoke Saddam we might "force him to act recklessly, including possibly using weapons of mass destruction, possibly against his own people." What Wilkie is arguing is that if we move against Saddam it would be our fault if he uses WMDs against his own people.
This is a thoroughly immoral argument. It is an argument that blames the liberator for the actions of the butcher. This is the leftwing line that whatever monsters like Saddam and terrorists do it is not their fault because the West, meaning the US, forced them into doing it. In addition, if Saddam's WMDs are so advanced that they can now be used against the Iraqi population, what is to stop him from using them against anyone else?
He also says that he is "not convinced that Iraq is actively co-operating with al Qaeda". What he neglected to mention is that Saddam does fund, arm and provide training facilities for terrorists. Is Wilkie going to argue that these terrorists are not cooperating with al-Qaeda? Is he arguing that taking out Saddam's terrorist regime will not damage terrorism?
Incredible as it seems, this is exactly what he is arguing, for he goes on to say: "The bottom line is that this war against Iraq is totally unrelated to the war on terror." The real bottom line is that this is the left's basic argument against Bush. That this stupidity came from a former ONA official is depressingly predictable given that organisation's penchant for never getting anything right, particularly when it comes to America.
Wilkie played the humanitarian card by telling journalists, who lapped it up, how an invasion of Iraq could cause a flow of refugees and cause immense misery to the people. As an analyst it was Wilkie's business to know that Saddam has driven out about 5 million Iraqis while killing a million or more, that he has murdered 200,000 or so Kurds and has virtually exterminated the Marsh Arabs. Under Saddam it just gets worse and worse, not that Wilkie could bring himself to mention that little fact.
Having exonerated Saddam from any further atrocities he commits against his subjects Wilkie whined that the US is not passing enough information to Australian intelligence. But how would Wilkie know exactly how much intelligence had been passed on to ASIO and how much the Americans had personally given the Prime Minister?
Passing on intelligence brings us back to the ONA's record. It had not been set up very long when a small group emerged within its ranks that earned the title of the "Belgrade clique" because of the information the group was privately accused of passing on to the Yugoslavian secret police, in which they had the cooperation of a well known corrupt Australian judge who had links to the Belgrade regime. As a result several Australian citizens were arrested by Yugoslavian secret police, tortured and then shot. Yet these so-called ONA analysts were not even censored let alone fired.
I should be very surprised indeed if American intelligence was unaware of the ONA's history. This might very well account for the reluctance of the Americans to give the ONA any serious intelligence.
The one overriding reason given for protecting these treasonous acts is that the department had from the very beginning adopted an unbending leftwing mindset that always sees America as being the root cause of the world's problems. This invariably results in laughable reports that omit terrorism as a threat, regardless of American and British intelligence assessments to the contrary, and which try to reduce significance of dangerous thugs like Saddam and Kim Jong-il because of their hatred of America.
When Wilkie said he would "probably lend [his] support to the anti-war movement" he amply confirmed accusations of a leftwing mindset. The so-called anti-war movement is a Stalinist directed anti-American movement that does not give a damn about Saddam's victims. And that is why I think it is the best place for Wilkie.
|