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.
Interesting post, Mr Mallard.
Do you think Mr Goff would have argued that we not send troops to Afghanistan when he was Foreign Minister? I seem to remember that we did.
If there isn’t an exit plan now, was there ever one?
I realise that this blog is for MPs to express personal opinions, but I’m a bit surprised not to have commentary from Mr Carter on this issue, since he is the foreign affairs spokesman. Why don’t you ask him whether he thinks the Government should send troops to Afghanistan?
bugger off trev.. there is much work to be done in them thar hills. and our boys do it best with the best kit. Double their numbers and resource them up .
Oh, by the way, in the related videos in the youtube site, this was highly ranking http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT7ybNAwmB4&feature=related
I was reminded of the negativity of Labour’s campaign and one of the big reasons why Labour lost Mr Mallard.
It seems Labour still hasn’t learned a lesson from the defeat in November.
When did you decide this trevor? Sorry to be a cynic, but it seems odd to imply that all the time Labour sent the sas to Afghanistan there was an exit plan in place and it was a worthy conflict, yet when National does it it’s because the US is strongarming us into doing so?
For the record I don’t think we should have sent them in the first place and it would’ve been great if you and the rest of the Labour part had this epiphany quite a long time ago. Because one could be forgiven for thinking it looks a bit opportunistic now.
New Zealand has obligations to its allies, or perhaps we should just pretend to send in engineers…but an upfront government would never lie about its troop deployments in the middle east to keep its pacifist partners happy would it?
Pardon the threadjack and delete as you will,
Have done but thanks for the tip Trevor
Well thats an interesting response so far. One apologist for the National Party saying Labour MPs shouldn’t ask a question without permission (Tim see the section headed ABOUT top right of this page) and another saying that we should double the numbers. Not that we have any SAS there now.
Isn’t the point that when we first sent the SAS in there it was in what in cop terms could be described as “hot pursuit” following 9/11. Pretty hard to argue that now. It is years since we decided to send troops other than the reconstruction team in. The situation has changed. That is why an exit plan is now much more important.
That is why I raised the question.
Fair enough, Mr Mallard, but I really think you are dancing on the head of a pin. I don’t believe a Labour Cabinet would treat a request by NATO for a deployment of any kind to Afghanistan any differently than the way Mr Key’s government is treating the situation. I don’t believe the national interest considerations would be any different, either.
If there isn’t an exit strategy in Afghanistan now, then one could make the same point about East Timor.
A Labour Cabinet would never have pretended they were making a decision when a commitment had already been given as it appears to have been in this case.
A suggesting that Timor and Afghanistan are similar is just nonsense. Timor is part of our region – an area where we have some real responsibility.
Not quite, Mr Mallard. I didn’t say you shouldn’t ask a question without permission. I made it quite clear that I realised this blog is an opportunity for Labour MPs to express personal opinions, but the difference in this case is that you are a Labour front-bencher and the questions you raise potentially quite directly cut across Labour’s foreign policy. If a National senior Minister raised issues and questions publicly about National’s foreign policy without running it past the Foreign Minister I imagine they would be sacked.
The flag you’re flying here is very interesting. It’s a signal that you are the de facto foreign affairs spokesman for Labour, which struck me as amusing since with all due respect, you’re not the most diplomatic person in Labour’s caucus.
I suggest you read this morning’s Herald, Mr Mallard. There isn’t any indication that a decision has been made.
I’m sorry but regional considerations are not the most important issue, and they’re not the issue you’re raising here. You raised the issue of an exit strategy. New Zealand already has troops committed to Afghanistan for reconstruction, going back many years. The regional consideration was not the primary issue that the Labour Government considered when they committed forces there for that purpose, nor when they committed the SAS there. Likewise in Iraq or Bosnia.
So it is ok for me to ask questions about future policy direction in economic policy http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2009/07/26/too-much-market/ but not in foreign affairs or defence.
I know I’m not the most diplomatic person. I’m not auditioning for McCully’s job.
But that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t ask questions where Kiwi lives are at stake.
Isn’t that what both democracy and the blog world are about.
The exit stratgey has been well defined by Obama, maybe Labour should pay more attention.
Increased military action – including increased contributions from allies, apart from NZ’s Labour Party that is, combined with efforts to negoitiate with elements that want to negotiate. with the objective of leaving Afgahnistan with a stable government.
Labour is either reverting to its anti-American roots or this is more of the brillant oppose anything Key supports strategy.
It’s fortunate we have a government in tune with Obama on foreign policy.
Yes I think there is a difference, Mr Mallard. You flying a flag on economic questions doesn’t really have a major implication, other than potentially creating a public point of difference between senior Labour MPs on the economy. When you fly a flag on foreign policy issues, in the absence of any view from the foreign affairs spokesman on issues that are critical of our international relationships with other allies, that has major consequences.
I cannot imagine any Labour front-bencher making a foreign policy statement while Helen Clark was leader, other than Ms Clark herself or the foreign affairs spokesman. It’s a sign in my view of how little respect you have for Mr Goff’s leadership.
Tim thank you for your vote of confidence. You over rate the international importance of comments here.
As to your take on my view on Phil’s leadership – all I can say is even your Crosby Textor puppeteers wouldn’t try that one – it is such blatent unbelievable nonsense. Anyone who knows me or can even read knows that.
And Tim how about giving an opinion on the substance rather than just questioning my right to raise an issue.
Or is it too early in Aussie for C/T to send the lines over.
Goff this morning says that he is “unconvinced”. Given Obama has been making things very clear for quite a while now what the strategy is going to be either Goff hasn’t been keeping up or is intending to turning this into a partisan poltical issue.
Surely some one who was once so prominent in foreign affairs has enough information to make a decision one way or the other. But apparently Goff does not. Labour is either for or against SAS deployment, hiding behind “I can’t decide” is pretty lame.
Mr Mallard your reference to C/T is both shrill and pathetic and really pretty dishonest.
I don’t have a view on deployment to Afghanistan. I haven’t seen the reports. I would expect Mr Goff would probably be consulted and I would be surprised if the Government didn’t critically assess all the issues around deployment and risks to troops taking official expert advice which neither you or I have.
I also doubt very much that the decision the Government takes on this will be any different to a decision that Labour would have made when it was in government faced with the same advice.
On the general point, I think New Zealand does have obligations to the international community, whether it be international aid, disarmament, environmental issues, defence and security or trade.
I think you are hamming up this issue to score a cheap political point and you are doing so at the expense of your leader and foreign affairs spokesman. Like I say I cannot imagine that you would possibly challenge New Zealand’s foreign affairs position while Helen Clark was leader, without reference to her first. I greatly doubt whether Mr Goff as foreign affairs minister would have questioned a major issue of foreign policy without direct reference to Ms Clark either for that matter.
Hmmm…so it is wrong for John Key to think about sending the SAS to Afghanistan but it was OK for Helen to send them twice….
How does that work?
Oh that’s right National=Bad and Labour=Good
Your hypocrisy is stinking up the joint.
Oh and just a reminder, do you happen to remember where Corporal Willie Apiata VC won his VC s a SAS trooper…..oh that’s right it was Aghanistan and Labour sent them there.
And a nice photo of Mr Goff in Afghanistan with the troops too.
http://www.army.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/51f91bc3-db9f-4cf3-925c-be1d55b8a2f8/0/wn07004040.jpg
Trevor
what convinced you it was a good idea to send the SAS when you guys were the Government and why was it a good idea under your Government to have “reconstruction” troops fighting in combat.
Surely if the cause was worthy then it still is , or is it simply the left wing creed . Labour good National bad
should have read the responses before I commented .
Didnt mean to steal Whaleoils line Labour Good National bad.
There are some important points here – remember the previous government decided not to continue the rotation of the SAS through Afghanistan. That fact seems to have been ignored in all comments to date.
Blowhole – there comes a point where one decides that enough is enough or that the sacrifice should not be made. I don’t know if we are there yet but I think the question needs to be asked.
And C/T Tim – Labour regularly rejected MFAT advice on these issues. Remember when it comes to putting young men and women at risk it is a government decision – not one for officials.
“what convinced you it was a good idea to send the SAS when you guys were the Government”
must have been the charm of George Bush. Obama doesn’t appear to be having the same effect.
Labour don’t look that interested in finding out what’s going on but The Guardian have a good summary -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/27/britain-us-talks-taliban-afghanistan
“Senior ministers and commanders on the ground believe they have created the right conditions to open up a dialogue with “second-tier” local leaders now that the Taliban have been forced back in a swath of Helmand province.
“They are hoping that Britain’s continuing military presence in Helmand, strengthened significantly by the arrival of thousands of US troops, will encourage Taliban commanders to end the insurgency. There is even talk in London and Washington of a military “exit strategy”.”
Those young men and women are in the SAS, they want to be put at risk. They are good at it.
Plainly it’s a decision for the government.
I am amused that Labour had such high confidence on Bush’s exit strategy that they sent the SAS in not once, not twice but three times. And one of those was a 12 month deployment so effectively four times. The notion they were only sent when in hot pursuit doesn’t explain why they were there as late as 2005.
All I can conclude is that Labour had faith and trust in Bush’s exit strategy but none in Obama’s exit strategy.
Whereas I’m pretty sure it would be – National seem to want to do anything to please America and Labour seems to do what they think is best for NZ. It’s a significant difference in outlook brought about, apparently, by the former thinking that we’re still part of the American Empire and the latter realising that the American Empire is done for.
Maybe we should consider whether the exit strategy is one that changes over time and as more evidence becomes available. I’m old enough to remember Vietnam. In that case I didn’t ever support us being there but the evidence around the lack of an exit strategy became clearer and clearer over time.
Remember David that our SAS guys weren’t there in 2007, 2008 or this year as they would have been if our government had been convinced it was the right thing to do.
And for those who doubt Labour’s commitment roughly $180m in total. And remember that 15 Brits died in one day recently.
“And for those who doubt Labour’s commitment”
I never doubted Clark’s commitment. Labour’s new “go on, convince me” atttitude isn’t so impressive.
If Clark was convinced the SAS should still be there then I’m sure she had the ability to convince the Cabinet to that effect. She didn’t.
So what you’re saying is two-fold, Mr Mallard. Firstly that the Labour Government happily stood up so that New Zealand could be counted and delivered on its international obligations. The other side of your argument is that you are now questioning whether we should continue to fulfill our international obligations. Apparently it seems Labour was comfortable with the Nato-led exit strategy while Mr Bush was President, but not while Mr Obama is President.
Secondly you’re rightly pointing out that the situation in Afghanistan is dangerous. The example you’ve used is the deaths of 15 British soldiers. It shows that Britain is continuing to make sacrifices, but you don’t want New Zealand to play its part and share its part of the burden.
It would be nice to see some official Labour Party statement on Afghanistan, rather than the cheap trick musings of a frong bencher which seem to me designed to stir up opposition rather than engage in constructive diaologue.
Tim this is from someone who refuses to give a view because the Nat Party C/T lines are not yet available.
One thing that I learned in government is that it is important to look at the changing possibilities of prgress over time and in this case it is important to see that there is not a lot of evidence of progress in recent years against terrorists.
Earlier in the post I refered to the history of Afghanistan. I caught a plane in the late 1980s from Tashkent to Moscow with Soviet soldiers who were being pushed out. I want us to consider whether we want our troops to leave Afghanistan like that.
@Tim,
I think the reason you wont see an official labour position release on this is that they dont have one. The party is lost and has resulted in a constant stream of attacks without them (or their leader whatever his name is) actually coming up with viable solutions.
This thread is sadly just one of many on this blog that fall into the same category.
So Trevor – IS there an official Labour position? of so what is it?
Mr Mallard, I think you are seriously grasping at straws if you think that National would consult Crosby Textor before or after receiving foreign affairs advice on whether to continue the engagement with Afghanistan.
The Labour Party is at liberty to express a view. It isn’t a view you have to take responsibility for implementing. You are able to form a view based on all the screeds of information and material you received while in Government on Afghanistan and troop deployment. You are able to express that view based on the experience of having deployed troops to Afghanistan and dealing with the complex consequences of troop deployment, as you have done it so often in the past.
Personally I’m confident that the government will make a decision in the best interests of New Zealand in this area, just as I was confident that the Labour Government would put New Zealand interests first when considering foreign policy, defence, or trade issues.
Somehow I doubt, Mr Mallard, that your foray into foreign affairs, which I maintain is an indirect challenge to Mr Goff, is really about what is in New Zealand’s interests. It seems to be about making cheap shots against the government.
You are a very (deleted personal abuse Trevor ) person bikerkiwi. I am sick of your hate speech on this blog.
+++
Labour sent troops to afghanistan because they thought that the job would be done ‘by christmas’ so to speak. Unfortunately it looks like this conflict could be dragged out over the next 10 years or so, like what happened with the Soviet invasion (1979-1989) or the British occupation (1830’s – 1930’s). War is not the game that kids play with their GI Joe toys. It is real, with real guns and real lives being lost. And it is expensive. Do Tim and Bikerhater plus Cameron “Hater” Slater really want our boys to be dieing in some parched desert shite hole for the next 10-20 years?
Tim every now and again I might take a cheap shot. Asking a question before we take an action that could well result in a loss of Kiwi lives is not one of those times.
Like most New Zealanders I know soldiers and former soldiers well and have immense respect for their contribution and sacrifice. The SAS is a very special group and are exceptional soldiers.
The balance between lives lost and the likely gain from the SAS contribution is very very serious.
As for Key not consulting C/T sounds like you are promoting a new Tui billboard.
“If Clark was convinced the SAS should still be there then I’m sure she had the ability to convince the Cabinet to that effect. She didn’t.”
maybe if she was still around Labour might have a coherent policy. You either support SAS deployment or not. The facts about what is going, about Obama’s strategy etc are out there and have been for some considerable time.
this “convince me” line is so unconvincing. Read up about it and make a decision. You should have done so already – Obama indciated what was likely to happen quiet a while ago. It didn’t jump out of the blue.
And remind me please what is Key’s position. Has he said yes to the US and we are just playing out a farce?
Mr Mallard I don’t think really you have a monopoly on asking questions. I don’t believe that your motive is to ask questions. It seems to me an attempt to rally the opponents to test the feeling against the government’s potential deployment of troops.
To be fair, I think every government minister probably thinks long and hard about the safety of troops they commit to foreign theatres before and during deployment. Of course the welfare of troops is a high consideration, and I don’t doubt that Ms Clark cared very deeply about the safety of soldiers. Nor would it be fair to doubt that Mr Key doesn’t agonise about the safety of soldiers.
Yes, that is right, and there aren’t many New Zealanders who disagree with you. But let’s be fair about this. The SAS don’t go on cup-of-tea missions. Every time they are deployed they are put in immense danger. They sign up for that task. Mr Apiata did not win his VC without behaving heroically in the face of immense danger. That is the life of an SAS soldier.
Of course it’s very serious. It’s a decision that can only be made on the best advice. I don’t know what the advice is, but the suggestion from some that the PM is going to unnecessarily throw our best and bravest into a theatre of war recklessly is just nonsense.
Perhaps if you had sought Mr Goff’s approval before questioning this beforehand, you might have considered that, Mr Mallard.
As for you not knowing that by undermining Mr Goff’s leadership by “innocently” raising questions about foreign policy issues that aren’t within your spokesmanship, you would whip up anti-US sentiment in the process, I think that deserves a Tui billboard, Mr Mallard.
Isn’t this just about the best training the SAS could hope for ?
Isn’t this what they’re trained and paid to do?
@ millsy – settle down.
Do you count everything disagreeing with the Left “Hate speech”?
My points were fair and valid – I asked a question – a question that you will note there hasn’t been a reply to. Again – I believe this is because labour simply dont have an answer.
and – if you want ‘hate speech’ – I feel comments like babies to die posted by trevor fall well more into that category.
this is a legitimate question to ask, and a very serious one. My take is that whenever NZ considers a deployment we need to weigh up the benefits of that deployment to NZ, the country concerned and the wider global community, the risks to our service people, and what is the best value we can add given our resources and expertise.
On the basis of those judgements we have had a long standing commitment to reconstruction in Bamyan province, a solid aid contribution, some support for training of police and army, and rotations of the SAS. At each time we have to consider the current situation in light of the factors above.
The question then has to be is now a good time to be putting the SAS in. This question can generate a different answer now than it did at an earlier stage of the conflict. This is not a static situation.
As to the question of the balance of factors above, I would note that so far in July 30 US and 22 British soldiers have died in conflict. I would have thought that should give considerable pause for thought for anyone considering re-deploying the SAS.
[...] Mallard blogs: We are now at a point where there is no evidence of an exit plan for Afghanistan. The point where [...]
Having worked with past Minister’s of Defence in the last government I think the most important question posed so far in this thread is the one Grant’s just raised:
“Is now a good time to be putting the SAS in?”
I’ll put my hand up and admit I’ve not been paying close enough attention to the situation to reach anything like an informed judgement.
However, in starting to answer that question I’d certainly consider if (and there’s no way to know in the public arena) the proposed deployment is specific to a short term measure to raise capabilities around the election period, and then try to rationalise if I thought that was a sufficient reason to approve the deployment. As I say, I don’t know enough to answer that question.
On the side issue of our reconstruction commitment in Bamyan, I think the public generally under appreciate the impact on NZDF of the prolonged deployment. I’m not surprised Key has questioned how long we need to be there.
Mr Mallard, it may come as a bit of a surpise to some but I find myself agreeing with you. We should not be sending our troops to Afghanistan at all and in fact never should have in the first place. I was opposed to your government sending them and my position has not changed in the intervening years. I suspect your motives for doing a back flip are political but that is as much as we can expect I suppose.
I would rather see diplomatic efforts put into getting Tony Blair and his government in front of a war crimes tribunal, we can’t hope for the same to happen to Bush and Cheney because they did not sign the relevant treaty. Watching reports of British troop deaths almost daily I am very glad our men are not alongside them.
The last person to exit Afghanistan with anything even remotely related to credit was Harry Flashman.
Trevor, you are unfreakingbelievable.
However, no invader has come out of Afghanistan as a winner.
“this is a legitimate question to ask, and a very serious one. My take is that whenever NZ considers a deployment we need to weigh up the benefits of that deployment to NZ, the country concerned and the wider global community, the risks to our service people, and what is the best value we can add given our resources and expertise.”
all well and good but how much more time do you guys need to make a decision. This prospect of Obama asking NZ for more support has been on the table for some time. It’s really weak for Labour to be bleating on about how much they need convincing. Why not go and get the information for yourselves.
The information is put there, read The Guardian. Obama has made no secret of his strategy.
But really this is just Labour’s anti-American roots showing now that Clkark has gone. Clark had the ability to put aside the juvenile Uni politics and could even send troops when Bush asked for it.
Now without her Labour tells Obama to piss off.