Brendan Nelson thought he was among friends when he candidly announced that the real reason for the war in Iraq was about oil. The defence minister's blooper provided a glimpse of establishment views on the US alliance, argues Tom Orsag.

As Defence Minister, surely Nelson would know what the war was about - oil and defending US prestige.

Nelson’s gaffe and Howard’s quick mopping up of the spill will only harden popular perceptions that the war is being fought for crude and base reasons.

However, there is a deeper issue at stake for the Australian ruling class.

The second part of Nelson's frank admission—that the war is being fought for the prestige of the US—is of major importance for the Left to understand.

For most people, this reason will not resonate as much as “oil”. But it is the other half of the puzzle as to why Howard clings to the war, despite popular revulsion against it.

The Australian ruling class relies on the US to be the guarantor of its defence. A defeat for the US, anywhere in the world, is a blow to the central pillar of the Australian ruling class’s “defence” strategy.

The US military is like a giant insurance policy. Australia’s trifling contribution to the Coalition of the Killing is the premium to be paid.

It is not just a policy of Howard, it is a tradition of the Australian ruling class. Australia has a history of involvement in series of “faraway” military conflicts, such as the Boer

War, Korea, Malaya and Vietnam, in which the military contribution has not been large enough to have a decisive influence on the overall outcome.

To be seen as a loyal ally of the dominant Western imperial power has always been an aim of Australia’s rulers.

That’s why Howard has argued that it “would be a catastrophe for the West if America were defeated in Iraq”.

So Howard is willing to stay the course in Iraq if it is the price of lending legitimacy to the world’s sole superpower.

The sheer size of the US as a superpower, means Australia has a “big brother”. But our rulers also believe it reduces the economic cost of Australia’s military defence.

As Gregory Hywood, publisher and former editor-in-chief of The Age, argued in 2003: “We trade our ability to unilaterally define our foreign policy in exchange for the US spending 4 per cent of its GDP on defence (it used to be 6 per cent at the height of the Cold War), while Australia barely spends 2 per cent.

And are Australians ready to spend another $20 billion a year on defence?”

But ruling class views on this issue have been evolving since 9/11.

Newt Gingrich, former Republican speaker of the US House of Representatives, visited Australia in January 2002 on behalf of George Bush to publicly argue for a war on Iraq.

Behind closed doors at a private function at the Melbourne mansion of Richard Pratt, one of Australia’s richest men, Gingrich argued to Treasurer Costello and the then Defence Minister, Peter Reith, that Australia’s defence spending was 1.7 per cent but should be running on par with US defence spending in terms proportional to GDP.

Gingrich talked of Australia’s “fluency of interoperability”. That is, by using US military equipment, the Australian Defence Forces can slot into the US war machine. This explains the purchase of the yet to be built Joint Strike Fighter.

In fact, the “prestige” argument is what also binds Labor to the US alliance, irrespective of the particular folly that Iraq has become.

During the last major US imperial adventure in which Australia took part (Vietnam), a Sydney Morning Herald editorial in January 1969 argued, “Any Australian Government in its senses will be ready to go a long way to keep American trust, to meet American needs and win American respect.”

Although Gough Whitlam pulled the last Australian troops out of Vietnam (the pullout actually began under Liberal PM John Gorton), he remained committed to this vision, arguing that Australia’s “mandate and duty to maintain the American alliance was…clear.

This we will do.”

In 1987, when Kim Beazley was Defence Minister in the Hawke government he argued that the US alliance was necessary or Australia would have “to replace from its own resources [i.e. another one per cent of GDP, or about $10 billion in today’s prices], the benefits inherent in the US alliance.”

Nelson’s admission about the war being about oil and prestige is a sign mirrors cracks in the Australian ruling class consensus on the Iraq war. It also reflects the deepening divisions in the American ruling class, which is already grappling with retreat.

Related Articles:

• Introducing the $6.6 billion 'Super dog'