32 AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE JOURNAL NO. <strong>107</strong> JULY/AUGUST <strong>1994</strong>However, it is the contention of this article that thedecision to enter a war is not of the same league andshould firstly be presented to the people (via parliament)for whom that decision is being contemplated.As with Vietnam this was not done: "Whilst PresidentBush was assiduous in preparing world. UnitedStates, congressional and public opinion for a UnitedNations resolution which set the scene for war againstIraq after January 15th (the <strong>Australian</strong> executive) didno more than respond grudgingly to parliamentaryquestioning". 1 ' This meant that whilst a majority ofthe <strong>Australian</strong> population did support its government'swar effort, they mav have done so blindly andwithout hindsight. 1In sum. the domestic context in which the Gulfdecision was made is one which identifies closelywith that made on the decision to send troops toVietnam.ConclusionFrom the above discourse, the reader should nowbe aware of a number of fundamental differences andparallels in the circumstances which shaped the decisionfor military intervention in the Vietnam and Gulfconflicts. It is accepted that there are a whole host ofas yet unmentioned differences including: the natureof the commitment (ships as opposed to combattroops), the differences in the type of military hardwareused, the number of casualties — the list goeson. Such factors are not the concern of this articlewhich has sought to focus more on a comparison ofthe processes which led to the respective decisions asdetermined by the international and domestic contextsin which each was made. It should be clear that thereasons for each decision were very different. Yet animportant parallel can be made in that both cases thetraditional "institutions" of the domestic contextoffered no substantive opposition to the decision ofthe executive in what it saw as vital in the light of theprevailing international climate.In closing, the analysis presented in this articlehas pointed (albeit somewhat subtly) to the type offoreign policy decisions best suited to Australia'sinterests. In the Vietnam War. Australia played anactive, initiating, some might say even aggressive rolein the decision to send troops and secure UnitedStates involvement. Yet its war aims were clearly notfulfiled: "it was clear that the Vietnam conflict hadnot locked the United States into South East Asia.On the contrary, it had proved to be the cause of itsphysical withdrawal from the region: the Americans'experience in Vietnam has almost certainly madethem less — not more — ready to come to thedefence of nations like Australia"." In contrast, the<strong>Australian</strong> role in the Gulf was much more of acomplaint partnership with a much broader UnitedNations-backed international force. In this instance itwas to benefit to an infinitely greater extent than it didfrom the decision to send troops to Vietnam. Australiawas seen to be unambiguously championingthe cause of collective security, "global citizenship",freedom from aggression and maintenance of a NewWorld Order under the United Nations. This simpleobservation brings to light a rather interesting paradox:it appears that when Australia is a "primemover" in war decisions it seems to ultimately sufferfrom their outcomes, as it did in Vietnam. Whereaswhen our nation adopts the position of an "obedientpartner" as it did in the Gulf and continues to do so inCambodia and Somalia, it is rewarded to no end.Thus in this case logic would lead one to concludeAustralia's interests are best furthered through apolicy of obedience (not aggressiveness as in Vietnam)to "great and powerful friends": although it isalways dangerous to expect logic in internationalstrategic relations, it would seem that Australia canonly benefit from a system of collective security undera United Nations umbrella of New World Order.NOTES1. Sexton. M.. War for the Asking, Penguin Books, Melbourne1981,p.9.2. Frost. F.. Australia's War in Vietnam. Allen and Unwin,Sydney 1987. p. 16.3. Bell. C, Dependent Ally: A Sillily in <strong>Australian</strong> ForeignPolicy. Oxford University Press Australia. Melbourne 1988.p.79.4. Sexton. M.. op. cit. p.94.5. ibid., p.88.6. Barclay. G.. "The Light that tailed: Australia and the VietnamWar" in Current Affairs Bulletin. November 1990. p.28.7. Howard. B.. "Labor, the UN and the limits of Australia'sobligations in the Gull" in Current Affairs Bulletin. November1990. p.28.8. Evans. G.. "Crisis in the Middle East" in The Monthly Record.November 1990, p.596.9. Hawke. B.. "The Gulf Crisis: Government policies in responseto developments", Statement 10 the House in TheMonthly Record. December 1990. p.852.It). O'Brien. D.. "The First Week" in The Bulletin. January 29th-Febmary.Sth 1991. p. 14.11. Oakes. L.. "Keating: our first Gulf Casualty" in The Bulletin.February 5th 1991. p.28.12. Barnet. D.. "Is it time for Australia to shut-up" in The Bulletin.December 1990. p.31.13. For statistics on public support for the Gulf War see Goot.M., "The Peace Movement engulfed" in Current AffairsBulletin, April 1991, p.25.14. Sexton. M.. op. cit. p.5.
The Great CrusadeSOLDIERS. SAILORS AND AIRMEN OFTHE ALLIED EXPEDITIONARY FORCE!You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade,toward which we have striven these many months.The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes andprayers of liberty-loving people everywhere marchwith you. In company with our brave Allies andbrothers-in-arms on other Fronts, you will bringabout the destruction of the German war machine,the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressedpeoples of Europe, and security for ourselves in afree world.Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy iswell trained, well equipped and battle-hardened. Hewill fight savagely.But this is the year 1944! Much has happenedsince the Nazi triumphs of 1940-41. The UnitedNations have inflicted upon the Germans great defeats,in open battle, man-to-man. Our air offensivehas seriously reduced their strength in the air andtheir capacity to wage war on the ground. Our HomeFronts have given us an overwhelming superiorityin weapons and munitions of war. and placed atour disposal great reserves of trained fighting men.The tide has turned! The free men of the world aremarching together to Victory!I have full confidence in your courage, devotionto duty and skill in battle. We will accept nothingless than full Victory!Good Luck! And let us all beseech the blessingof Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking.— Dwiaht D. EisenhowerThe Longest DayOn 6 June 1944 the greatestlanding-force ever assembled beganthe Allied liberation of France —and of Europe. For those whosurvived 'D-Day', and thebloody battles that followed it,the bitter-sweet memories of thosemomentous hours will never beforgotten; for many others, it was themoment of supreme sacrifice.
Change language