The release of newly declassified 2004 cabinet documents about Australias involvement in the Iraq War sheds further light on one of the most controversial decisions in the nations history. The evidence confirms what many suspected: secrecy, manipulation, and unverified claims drove the Howard governments decision to commit troops to Iraq. Amid the rush to war, Tasmanias The Mercury briefly stood apart, publishing an anti-war editorial in September 2002 that warned of the dangers ahead.

It would be wrong for the US pre-emptively to attack Iraq, the editorial declared. A blazing ember in the powder keg would be a dream scenario for the future rise of Islamic fascist fundamentalism and Australia, and the worlds nightmare. At a time when public debate on the war was limited, The Mercury articulated concerns shared by many Australians about the risks of pre-emptive military action and the long-term consequences of destabilising the region.

Yet just a few months later, the paper shifted its position, falling into step with the prevailing pro-war narrative. Its January 2003 editorial supported the invasion, citing Saddam Husseins alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and the need to uphold international law. No one wants a war, it read, but the alternative to let a madman thumb his nose at the rule of international law is an obscenity. This pivot reflected the strong pressures facing media outlets at the time, as much of the Australian press rallied behind the governments position.

The newly revealed cabinet documents, however, make clear that the justification for war was never as robust as portrayed. Planning for Australias involvement began as early as August 2002, with troops deployed to the Middle East in January 2003 two months before John Howard publicly announced the decision. This secrecy denied Australians the opportunity to scrutinise and debate a major foreign policy decision.

The documents also reveal that the alleged presence of WMDs cited as the main justification for the invasion was already in doubt. Internal briefings to the National Security Committee admitted there was no confidence the weapons inspections would uncover evidence of such stockpiles. Instead, the real motivation for Australias involvement was the desire to strengthen the US alliance, a strategy that prioritised political relationships over public transparency and accountability.

The consequences of this decision were devastating. The war destabilised the region, led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and displaced millions. For Australia, the conflict cost lives, strained resources, and damaged trust in government.

While Tasmanias The Mercury ultimately reversed its position, its September 2002 editorial remains a moment of journalistic integrity. The paper recognised the dangers of rushing into a pre-emptive war and dared to question the wisdom of Australias involvement. This dissent, however brief, highlighted the importance of holding power to account, even when the prevailing sentiment demands otherwise.

The Iraq War continues to shape global politics and remains a cautionary tale about the perils of secrecy, unverified claims, and the consequences of undermining public trust. As Australians reflect on this legacy, Tasmania can take pride in its brief moment of standing apart, speaking out against the tide. It is a reminder that journalisms highest calling is to speak truth to power and history has proven The Mercury right to have done so.

NB - Newspapers don’t do hyperlinks to outside sources. But Pearls & Irritations does.

For more on this topic, P&I recommends:

Murdochs war

2004 cabinet documents reveal deliberations around Australias continued involvement in Iraq war

Australia kept quiet about early deployment of forces ahead of Iraq war, cabinet papers show