Earlier this month Dan Tehan, chairman of the parliamentary committee on intelligence and security, called for the RAAF's mission in Iraq to be expanded to include Islamic State targets across the Syrian border. Though a lowly Liberal backbencher, Mr Tehan's call set hares running, and now Prime Minister Tony Abbott is said to be considering when, not if, the government authorises RAAF planes to begin incursions of Syrian airspace in search of IS targets.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
A request from the Obama White House is said to be the basis for Mr Abbott's imminent announcement, but little is known about when the request was made and in what fashion. A recent suggestion that Australia engineered the request has only added to the air of intrigue. Suffice to say that the episode has been highly choreographed. Mr Tehan began proceedings by arguing expansion was justified because IS's presence in Syria has created a humanitarian crisis and is continuing to draw in foreign fighters. Defence Minister Kevin Andrews and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop have all had major support roles, and now Mr Abbott (backed by former Labor foreign minister Bob Carr) is arguing that Australia has a moral obligation to intercede militarily – an obligation that overrides any possibility that the RAAF may be in breach of international law if they enter Syrian airspace.
The question of legality is an important one, whatever Mr Abbott's current views. The government's dispatch of aircraft to Iraq in 2014 was conditional on Baghdad "inviting" an Australian presence. Now the Prime Minister is arguing that since the border is no longer governed – and that the threat represented by IS inside Syria violates the principle of collective self-defence of Iraq and its people – incursions into Syria without a specific invitation from the Assad regime are justified.
It could be argued the Abbott government's legal legerdemain is entirely and morally justified, particularly as UN authorisation under Responsibility to Protect provisions was never a realistic prospect. Nor is the Assad regime likely to extend an invitation since the US and its allies want it removed, by hook or by crook. The depth of IS atrocities against the Syrians and the recent destruction of priceless cultural artifacts at Palmyra are further reasons to cast aside legal niceties.
Legalities aside, however, the Abbott plan has invited considerable skepticism from military analysts and academics. Counterinsurgency expert David Kilcullen summed up these doubts on Wednesday when he said that while there was a solid military argument for "doing the job in Syria as an adjunct to doing the job in Iraq", the presence of half a dozen RAAF strike aircraft was "not a game-changer".
Many Australians would probably agree with Mr Abbott that the brutality and ugly philosophy of IS justifies some intervention, however small or symbolic. But with no strategy in place for defeating IS on the ground, and a distinct possibility that IS's propaganda merchants will vilify Australia's involvement and use it to rally new recruits, others will be wondering if this is simply a case of Mr Abbott enhancing his electoral prospects by donning khaki – against sensible military advice.
