Having learnt little from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Australia is ready to do Washington's bidding – again.
It seems it doesn't matter which party is in power in Canberra or in Washington, when that call comes from the White House, Australian prime ministers are too eager to wade in.
The word "coalition" is being avoided this time around – Tony Abbott's statement said that Australia would "join international partners" to airlift arms and ammunition to Kurdish forces in the north of Iraq.
This kind of deal invariably is dressed up to look clean enough at first blush. But Abbott's Sunday statement on the arms deliveries revealed the contours of messy dealings – as much in what it did not say as what it said.
The drops will be made to the breakaway Kurds in the north, not to the armed forces of the Baghdad government. And it seems that the extent of the sovereign Iraqi government's control of the drops might only be as part of a regional committee – the Australian contribution would be "co-ordinated with the government of Iraq and regional countries", Abbott's statement said.
Why wasn't the Iraqi ambassador at Abbott's side, literally in a formal press conference or figuratively in a joint statement?
It's one thing to be dropping food and water as humanitarian packages. But in announcing that Australia is delivering arms in a region where the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), one of 19 organisations that Canberra lists globally as terrorists, is active, Abbott might have explained what precautions will be taken, if any, to ensure we do not end up arming the PKK.
Washington officials know how to seduce Australian politicians – remember former US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage on Australia as a "global power with a global role and ... global responsibilities".
Reality is more mundane.
Inside the beltway, Australia becomes a "list" country, included among those that Washington quotes in a list of those around the world who are joining it in this or that venture. Remember how the George W Bush "coalition of the willing" in the 2003 invasion of Iraq included the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau and the Solomon Islands?
The Middle East has a constant ability to throw up quagmires – and Iraq especially so.
When Australian forces were there in the aftermath of the 2003 toppling of Saddam Hussein, some complained of their embarrassment at seeing little or no action after the initial US-led invasion. Far from being in combat, the only Australian death in Iraq was the result of a soldier mishandling his pistol - from wounds "irresponsibly self-inflicted" while "disregard[ing] the possible consequences of danger", according to a coronial inquiry.
Most of the Australians were far from the Baghdad cauldron and other hotspots around the country. They were so deeply hidden in the south-west corner of the country that if they took a single step backwards, they would have been in Saudi Arabia.
I'll not be surprised if, at some stage in the future, when documents become unclassified, we find that a deal was done under which Australia signed on for the Bush coalition on the basis that its troops were to remain out of harm's way.
This time around, Australia is interposing itself in a country wracked by civil war – and it seems to be taking sides. Canberra has signed on in circumstances in which it has no control over its own destiny.
You've seen mission creep before? We're already seeing it in this effort – last week, we were the nice guys dropping food and water; this week, we're not so nice because we're dropping weapons.
What next, Tony?
