Ooh, I think Mark Latham's gone and done a bad. This whole "lets get the troops out of Iraq" thing seems rather ill-thought out. How many? Was it 800? Or 400? And when? As soon as possible, or by Christmas, or what? Let's go ask Kevin Rudd. Oh, wait, we can't cause he's been gagged. OK. What the hell's going on? This is why it seems like a bad move for Latham, and the Labor party, and for that matter, Australia (we've has a lot riding on this election): Firstly, Howard is now gonna run around screaming that Latham has gone and done something "un-Australian" by betraying a "mate" in a time of dire need. This is perfect for Howard, as he loves being able to frame international politics in the terms of Australian tradition, and this is a grade-A opportunity to do so. Secondly, Latham shouldn't have pledged a withdrawal because it could actually, you know, like impact the Iraqi people. Whether or not he supported the troop deployment, they're there, and they helped to topple Saddam, and it is their (our) continued responsibility to help maintain order and peace until stability is ensured. Howard may mention this, but on the other hand, he may not see the relevance... Thirdly, this genuinely seems to be the kind of "policy on the run" that the government's been talking about - Latham didn't even run this one through shadow cabinet! Until the election, this is gonna be brought up as an example of sloppy Labor incompetence. The troops should come home, but not by any arbitrary deadline that's set for political rather than operational reasons. Kinda reminds me of the whole "let's get the hell out of here before the election" line coming from the White House. Hmmm. For a much more informed analysis, read Michelle Grattan's article in The Sunday Age.