Tony Abbott strikes the right balance

WHAT an ally does counts for infinitely more than what it says when it comes to security matters with the US.

That’s why Tony Abbott is forming an unlikely but effective partnership with Barack Obama. Abbott, like John Howard before him, is prepared to do a good deal.

Reports from Washington suggest the Obama administration is talking with a select group of countries — Australia, Britain and five Middle Eastern allies: Turkey, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — about an expanded air campaign against Islamic State targets in Syria and Iraq.

There would still be a heavy emphasis on humanitarian objectives, such as stopping the slaughter of religious minorities, including the Shi’ite Turkmen trapped in the northern Iraqi town of Amerli. The Americans have also been conducting extensive air surveillance flights in Syria to identify potential Islamic State targets there.

The US reports say Obama administration officials are confident Australia and Britain would be willing to join an air campaign. As The Australian has reported extensively, Abbott’s consistent message to Obama has been to urge America to act decisively in the Middle East and to take the lead internationally, and to assure him that Australia will be there with the Americans.

Abbott has told parliament this week that talks with allies were ongoing and that Australia would not deploy forces without a full consideration by cabinet, and without consulting the opposition leadership.

While having its quibbles, some more justified than others, the opposition under Bill Shorten has given overwhelming bipartisan support on national security. This is a tribute to Shorten’s leadership. It is the responsible position and the position the public wants Labor to take. The issues for Australia in the Middle East are enormous, both in themselves and for their knock-on effect on US strategic credibility, on which the entire global order, such as it is, rests.

The Abbott government is a proactive player in this. It is right that it should be so.

There is no question of American, much less Australian, ground troops going back to Iraq in large numbers. But it is disastrous to imagine Islamic State setting up a permanent nation state and continuing to slaughter religious minorities while recruiting and training thousands of terrorists in possession of Western passports.

Airstrikes are a limited intervention to save lives and to stabilise legitimate, if often very unlovely, national governments.

For the US to mobilise a predominantly Middle East coalition of nations in support of these actions is something quite new and it is by no means clear how this will play out.

That Washington nonetheless draws comfort from the presence of its two closest allies, Australia and Britain, is hardly surprising.

This is a battle for a stable international order. Action of this kind is full of risk and no outcome is guaranteed. But the same is equally true of inaction.

Judging the balance of such risks is what we pay a prime minister to do.