The government has confirmed that it is considering whether to send the SAS back into Afghanistan. They have revealed an approach from the US government support. The US would only have made a formal approach if a Minister had indicated that it would be agreed to.
The SAS are amongst the best troops in the world. They have made a brilliant contribution in multiple theatres in recent decades. They are in real demand.
We are now at a point where there is no evidence of an exit plan for Afghanistan. The point where there could be a quick anti-terrorist solution is well past. History is littered with armies that have left there defeated with tails between their legs.
Nothing I’ve seen to date convinces me that we should send the SAS back.
Update: I’d forgotten this, thanks to The Standard for the reminder.
Grant Robertson – so you only believe in non-dangerous deployments of the SAS? I suspect they might be a little surprised by this. I think *any* government has to assume a SAS deployment will carry risks and as a nation we should be grateful that the three previous tours have not resulted in deaths. This is not to be cavilier about combat casualties, quite the opposite, but your attitude suggests that somehow it is better for UK, US (and by implication Canadian and Australian) lives to be put at risk than NZ lives.
Well Barnsley Bill, there is hope for you yet. Your comments have made my day…
With respect, the “exit strategy” carry on smells like a smokescreen so that Labour can try and differentiate this deployment to the three that occurred under Clark’s watch. You desperately want to be able to get some anti-war/anti-National traction but need to find a way.
By trying to describe the Labour deployments as “hot pursuit” (over four years) it suggests that the strategic goal of the Labour government (admittedly within the wider coalition) was to knock the snot out of the fundamentalists and then bugger off and screw the Afghans. No concern about trying to leave a country that isn’t run by lunatics (Taliban) and by proxy home base for bin Laden and his mates.
History tells us that anti-insurgency operations take a long time. Anyone who thinks you can go in, bomb the crap out of the bad guys, have an election and go home is delusional. By a long time I mean well over a decade – closer to 16 years. Hell, even in Timor (which is closer to nation building than insurgency) our committment is, realistically, open ended.
In short there wasn’t a short term exit strategy then and their isn’t one now.
To be fair, leaving Aghanistan to NATO whilst the US was caught up in Iraq has not helped the situation. NATO might have been fire and brimstone the days post 9/11 but the member nations (UK, Canada being prime exceptions) have been reluctant to get down to any dirty work. The fighting and securing has been largely left to US, UK, Canada and Australia. (As an aside there is some theorising that the lack of combat troops has meant an over-reliance on air power and the inevitable civilian deaths therein. To put the lack of troop numbers in perspective the same numbers in relative geographic terms as NATO deployed in Kosovo would be 800,000 in Aghanistan).
When I refer to fighting I do not just mean chasing down the Taliban and al Qaeda but securing areas from the Taliban. How keen do you think Mr and Mrs Average Afghan are to embrace peace and democracy if they know that a week after the western forces leave (with the aid workers) the Taliban are going to come in and burn their village and kill a few of them? Without security there can be no successful exit strategy.
The “Obama” strategy for want of a better term is two fold. Provide security in the areas that have been “de-Talibinised’ (a relative rather than absolute term as the attempted bombing of the NZ PRT proved recently) and pursue and engage the enemy with out respite. Only if this is successful can any meaningful progress be made for the future of Afghanistan.
Security is the number one issue. There is shed-loads of money promised and available for Afghanistan. No doubt more could always be put to good use but all the aid in the world is not going to do one bit of good if vast tracts of Afghanistan remain without some semblance of security.
I would suggest that the aims of the current deployment are the same as the previous ones:
1. Kill, capture or convert Taliban and terrorists
2. Provide security for Afghan people
I would suggest that these aims remain as pertinent today as they did in 2001.
There have been wasted opportunities but it would be delusional to think the war in Afghanistan can be won quickly. Progress can be made and the SAS (indeed our regular forces if they were properly funded) can make an important contribution.
There is nothing fun or glamorous about War – particularly insurgency type campaigns. But is pulling out and leaving a political vacuum in Afghanistan really an option?
Trevour – if I might be so bold the right thing to do in opposition would be to ask why Key is prevaricating about this decision (after all you are in opposition) but ensure that any deployment is bipartisan. In short, resist the opportunity for political point scoring. It is too important for that.
3. Establish a platform the US to extend its influence into Pakistan
4. Send in corporate US to exploit regional assets
C’mon Trev, its all a bit too cute this dithering now that you have the luxury of not having to appease the Septics. Where did you suddenly find your conscience?
No we shouldn’t go. And here’s why:
1. Afghanistan is a rough as hell, cold, hilly country. The Al Quaeda, Taliban etc. are 300 % committed to staying there. We are not talking about regular military soldiers here. They are committed to the cause. Just like the VC in Nam. So if we send ANY soldiers, there is a good chance that many of them will end up like hamburger meat.
2. The NZ Army is too small to send infantry. I am punting that the US State Department is wanting grunts as well as the SAS. In order for NZ to handle casualty rates (and we would get casualties) we would need to have conscription in order to have an expeditionary force of 10 000 plus troops.
The last time that the US wanted troops for war from us was in the 60’s, and even then we didn’t send them until a reluctant Prime Minister Holyoake agreed (who coincidentally wasn’t a WWII veteran).
For a contentious topic such as this, this thread seems to be settling down.
In regards a troop deployment, I haven’t hear a single good reason for deploying New Zealand forces. Personnel in New Zealand’s forces do a good job in which they serve the country. Therefore we must ask: if New Zealand is to redeploy forces in Afghanistan, what does New Zealand get out of it, and will it be worth the cost?
Look, don’t get me wrong, people in Afghanistan are suffering, but the same can be said about the inhabitants of any number of countries around the World. New Zealand must look out for her interest internationally, because no other nation will do it for us. New Zealand is already showing itself as a good international citizen through its support for East Timor. So if the Americans do want New Zealand to deploy forces into Afghanistan what further benefit will New Zealand receive?
The Americans have had 7-8 years to open up their markets to more of New Zealand primary exports, during which time New Zealand showed keen by deployed small forces to both Afghanistan and Iraq. The opening of markets didn’t really happen. Does anyone expect it to happen as a result of any fresh redeployment? If exports aren’t going to be improved through deployment to Afghanistan, is there anything else that may be received for this deployment?
Those accusing Trevor of a jack-up to differentiate between Labour’s delpoyment and the one currently under consideration are the ones engaging in the jack-up.
Our SAS went in to help overthrow the Taliban and provide stability while an Afghan government was established. Whether that was good or bad I will leave up to your much varied moralities. Personally, I did not think much of the “Northern Alliance” at the time but if I have to choose among thugs I will choose a secular thug every time.
That was a clear mission. Can you state the case now? A protracted engagement with the taliban and anyone else feeling uppity, let us not forget that much of the resistance is due to the occupying forces themselves. At this stage, further deployments may exacerbate the situation, but abandoning Afghanistan is not a useful option either.
“Can you state the case now?”
I would say that Obama is making a very coherent case now. If you read thru the Guardian article linked to above there’s a very good summary of the situation in Afghanistan and how Obama’s strategy is at present working.
All of that is being assiduously ignored by Labour who are demanding everyone else spend time convincing them.
But to go back to the title of this post – how coherent is it for Labour to be demanding that Key take a particular stand when Labour are claiming they themselves don’t know what to do.
We can be thankful that Obama is dealng with Key and is unlikely to be dealing with Labour for his two terms.
But isn’t it good to live in a country where we can have the debate. Most countries you just accept that bodies are coming back in bags.