The question then becomes why has Abbott been agitating for such an outcome for months now along with making no secret of his view that the Obama administration has been weak in its dealings with the Syrian crisis?

Explaining the Abbott pathology, one of his senior colleagues said it is rooted in a biblical belief of good and evil, hence his frustrations with a nuanced Obama administration.

"Abbott would have us do things in the Middle East that would have had your hair stand up on end," said this individual without going into details.

One need look no further than the national media to observe the Prime Minister's views reflected in various hyperventilating opinion columns that have energetically prosecuted a case of Obama fecklessness.

An F/A-18F Super Hornet from No.1 Squadron and an F/A-18A Hornet from No.75 Squadron in the skies over Iraq. Supplied

Among suggestions is that Abbott sees it as his mission to push the Americans into more forceful engagement in Syria.

The US president can – and should – be criticised for declaring use of chemical weapons by an appalling Syrian regime as a "red line" and then not following through. No US leader should issue threats he or she is not prepared to honour.

However, a question might be asked: what would have eventuated if Bashar al-Assad and his murderous clique had been put to flight two years ago?


One possibility, even probability, is that the black flag of Islamic State would be flying over Damascus. In that case the question for the US and its allies would not be whether to bomb from 30,000 feet, but whether to invade Syria at risk of vast additional numbers of civilian casualties.

David Rowe

The point is that the US and its allies are faced with an incredibly complex set of calculations, made more so by indications this week that Russia is seeking a firmer toehold in Syria, including establishing an air base.

This latest move appears to have taken Washington by surprise, which does not say a great deal for American intelligence. One of the prices the US and its allies might have to pay to stabilise Syria is a deal with Russia that would keep Assad in place.

This would be case of indulging one of the "baddies", to use Abbott's own terminology.

In the meantime, attention – and debate – should be focused in Australia on a decision that may be a done deal in an environment in which Labor Opposition Leader Bill Shorten appears on occasion to be bidding for a seat in the war cabinet.

Commonwealth of Australia, F/A-18F Super Hornet aircrew walk to their aircraft in preparation for departure to the Middle East. Handout

While an argument can be sustained for Australian military aircraft to conduct sorties against IS targets in "defined segments" and guided by "defined co-ordinates", the more important question is where is this leading?


We might regard as fairly extraordinary in the circumstances Defence Minister Kevin Andrews' admission that there is no "clear strategy" for the desirable aim of ridding the world of IS.

In other words, we are embarking on a journey into the desert without a compass.

The vagueness of the mission makes it all the more necessary that Parliament be enabled to conduct a full debate on the subject so that all sides are ventilated. What is plan B?

The government should also be obliged to publish legal justification for its actions.

An op-ed by Attorney General George Brandis is insufficient.

In his remarks on Wednesday announcing the expansion of military activities, Abbott said the following: "This is not an attempt to build a liberal pluralist market democracy overnight in the Middle East."

We might remind ourselves this was the mission 14 years ago in the invasion of Iraq, which has contributed to a destabilisation of the entire Middle East.

Abbott was a member of a John Howard government that acquiesced in efforts to build that shining city on a hill.

Tony Walker is the AFR's international editor. He is a former Middle East correspondent for the Financial Times.