The issue of sending the SAS featured in question time again yesterday.
A Central Government argument that is endlessly repeated goes: the Labour Government sent troops, they’re being hypocrites in opposing our sending them. They’re missing the point. The important question to ask is “why were they withdrawn?”
Labour pulled the SAS out after three tours in November 2005. The Afghanistan war had changed. It was no longer a fight against Al Qaeda but had mutated into a general civil war – where the Taliban are the dominant faction involved, but not the only one. The government had also changed, from being one of hope to being hopelessly corrupt.
Three pillars are needed to achieve success in conflict and post-conflict settings - each of which is well understood.
- Development – jobs, economy, better services etc;
- Governance - sound local structures that are representative and sustainable;
- Security
These can ensure stability while the other parts take root. Like a three-legged stool, without one of those pillars, the endeavour falls over.
It’s what I spent a good part of my previous life trying to bring about, most recently in Iraq.
Bringing those three pillars together is what New Zealand, through its forces and development professionals, has built up on the ground in Bamiyan. It’s a success story. So why phase it out when it’s held up as a model? We’ve built strong local ties, we are well welcomed by the local community and the situation is mostly secure.
Instead of building on that and replicating it, we are sending our troops into another part of the country to serve under a different command without the other parts of the nation-building equation. The reason? I can only guess to build relationships with the US and NATO. Seventy-odd soldiers among 85,000.
That’s not good policy, nor a good enough reason to put our troops at risk, as courageous and professional as they are. It needs a rethink. We have a proud history of acting independently. We need to keep hold of it and do the right thing, not send our SAS.
Interesting ideas, Mr Shearer, although the basis of it appears to be that sending troops in was okay under Labour, but circumstances have changed making it not okay under National.
Do you think there might be a case for sending in a private army to Afghanistan to fight against the Taliban?
Read the details Tim , it says it was OK under labour TILL 2005 and then not OK under labour till 2009.
If we are to fall under your hypnotic reasoning style you should at least get up to an NCEA level in reading skills
@Tim Ellis
Mr Ellis, I’m not sure your conclusion follows. Remember Labour decided NOT to redeploy in 2005 due to the changed circumstances so aren’t Mr Shearer’s comments consistent with Labour’s approach in Government?
gww, there is no need to get personal about things, although I realise it is one of the advantages you have as an anonymous commenter to make personal attacks against others and run for cover.
Perhaps Mr Shearer might be able to point to an instance between 2005 and 2008 when Ms Clark or Mr Goff spoke against sending more troops to Afghanistan, or criticised other countries for doing so.
I think there is definitely a role for the likes of Blackwater here.
Mr Shearer has advocated for such things before, I wonder perhaps if he still believes that.
Whaleoil, if there was a place for Blackwater, it might be to eradicate the partisan posts that end up here under your name.
I think this post crafts a very clear message about rationale. I would have been very careful to seek advice from ministry officials, and viewed without partisan blinkers the previous Government’s actions before making such a decision.
My question is: should the conduct of regimes that are in power within those countries we are prepared to defend, however reprehensible, be a factor in determining the continued commitment of peacekeepers.
If it was about corruption, then that is a far more serious issue then the social mores that a nation still backs, as one seems to hit more closely to the issue of legitimacy.
If the people are served by corrupt individuals then there is no real Government. If the people have legitimately backed their government to protect what I would consider as an outsider to be morally wrong cultural practices, then we are in some murky territory here.
Have we seen effective private armies solve the problems of the world.
Maybe someone such as yourself Whaleoil would go well with ArmorGroup North America protecting the embassy in Kabul.
Supping the whaleoil …
So Labour sent the SAS to Afghaistan when Bush asked but would not when Obama askes.
At leat National will build a constructive working relationship on foreign policy with the Obama administration. Pity Labout has to resort to anti-Americism once again.
And by the way, you agrue that Labour withdrew the SAS because things changed – but haven’t you noticed that things changed once more since the US elections last year or don’t you bother keeping up with such things.
‘It was no longer a fight against Al Qaeda but had mutated into a general civil war”
ah,
at was never just a fight against Al Qaeda – it was always a fight with the Taliban as well. They harboued bin Ladin.
And it was always a civil war. it was the Northern Allaince the carried aout most of teh ground fighting.
Your lack of basic knowldege is very disturbing.
But feel free to give a detalied outline of where you disagree with Obama on how to fight the Taliban.
WOW… worst post ever Neil…. how about you learn to read… then write (correct spelling optional at your school?) Have a constructive thought then post.
In what part of the starter post did you see anything about anti-americanism? or anything about our involvement due to our relations with America?
Try to stick with the facts rather than resort to imaginary constructs in political process.
Neil Take a week off for obscene language Trevor
“In what part of the starter post did you see anything about anti-americanism? or anything about our involvement due to our relations with America?”
I’ll quote for you from that starter:
“The reason? I can only guess to build relationships with the US and NATO.”
so actually it was pretty clear the emphasis Shearer made with our relationship with the US.
But clearly Labour have no intention of getting along with either NATO or the US and it’s just a personal decision as to whether it’s a good idea that that’s where NZ’s foreign policy should be heading.
subsitute “flip Obama the bird” if that better suites your refined sensibilities Trev.
but since Trevor does have such a problem with the F word maybe I could reword things.
When Clark was PM Labour thought well enough of Bush’s plans for dealing with al Qaeda and the Taliban to send the SAS over there. Not once – three times.
Now maybe Bush was a strategic genius and Obama is just some incompentent American war monger. That would explain Labour’s present position that Obama knows and cares less about what’s happenng in Afghanistan than Bush and isn’t as bright to come up with a plan that Labour would take part in.
But others might disagree and might characterise Labour’s attitude towards Obama in colourful language that the sesnsitive souls in Labour feel they have to take offence to.
[...] and left on Afghanistan’s plains . . . Filed under: Politics — danylmc @ 6:47 am David Shearer at Red Alert has a post up about the deployment of the SAS to Afghanistan and Labour’s opposition to same: [...]
What part of the calendar dont you understand Neil. The SAS was not deployed after 2005 while Bush was still president. The situation has deteriorated hugely since then, largely since as predicted Bush forgot about the place to concentrate on Iraq.
And remember Bush got a no when we were pressured to commit combat troops to Iraq. Something General Key was going for , since his rational is that we do what they ask, since we get get trade benefits for kiwi soldiers blood
I’m glad that Goff is continuing to use his commonsense when it comes of Afghanistan. Cheers to Shearer for sharing this.
Hello Neil
You claim Mr Shearer is anti-American (and therefore the Labour parth) on your interpretation of this line.
“The reason? I can only guess to build relationships with the US and NATO.”
It seems you are interpreting that quote selectively. Mr Shearer states that the method that was successful in Bamiyan for the previous New Zealand deployment is not going to be undertaken this time. Instead, the SAS is going to be deployed elsewhere, under a different command.
So building relationships with the US and NATO is the only thing the SAS are going to be doing. At no point does Mr Shearer say that isn’t worth doing. He does point out in two sentences earlier that this current deployment doesn’t include the three goals the “nation-building equation”.
Nothing anti-American, or anti-Obama was mentioned, Mr Shearer is just questioning deploying troops in Afghanistan if their mission doesn’t include nation-building. It is not unreasonable to ask this.
The issue here is not one of pro-US or not. Nor is it linked to a Bush or Obama Administration. It’s whether New Zealand has taken the right and most appropriate action to support the rebuilding of Afghanistan. The effort in Bamiyan meets all the tests of good response and investment. The SAS deployment simply does not stack up as a good response. Certainly not one that befits a country with an independent foreign policy.
Mr Shearer, if Afghanistan has failed then couldn’t you equally say that since it has failed, the original invasion of Afghanistan was ill-judged in hindsight?
Labour seemed very happy to get involved with Afghanistan at the beginning. How did that decision stack up with New Zealand’s commitment to an independent foreign policy? How does Labour’s continued support for ongoing involvement in Bamiyan stack up with an independent foreign policy?
Tim its obvious we ‘had’ an independent foreign policy when we make decisions on their own merits, rather than on say ‘ you are either for us or opposed to us’ approach.
Anybody but a fool can see the ground has shifted enormously in Afghanistan in the last few years. Was that predictable, in the long term yes, in the short term no. But we were only there short term as it was expected that the Afghans would do much more for themselves.
Remember too NZ has seen a few disasters when we were tied to others foreign policies, Gallipoli, Crete Vietnam
I guess we can argue till the cows come home about whether Labour would have responded to Obama as National did. But we can surely agree that one would expect National to respond favourably whereas with Labour there is always that doubt factor – thank goodness.
I’m not a politician so I can be a little stronger than David Shearer, who would have been my MP except for being dragged over the bridge by a funny little thing called love.
In my view, in Afghanistan there are simply no “good,” as we would understand the concept, actor to put our faith and resources behind. The country is just a cesspool of warlords, bandits and opportunists, and this reality is entirely understandable given its history as a colonial plaything, albeit with a pretty effective sting in its tail.
Given that the country will never again play host to Al Qaeda types, it’s time to bite the bullet and do what imperialists nearly always end up doing – pack up and leave: just like the Brits did in Afghanistan, India, Palestine etc; just like the Russians did in Afghanistan; just like the French did in Algeria; and just like the US did in Vietnam and will do in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Say, why does Afghanistan figure so often in that list?
Why don’t we (the West) just leave them alone?
Ghostwalker has a good point, it was always difficult to know in the early stages of a conflict where Afghanistan was going to go, but it was pretty reasonable at that time to expect it to do better than it has.
The earlier elections and Loya Jurga (tribal council) were as good as we could expect, but the Afghanistan hasn’t built on that, with the exception of some pockets. This election is looking increasingly dodgy as the results come in.
But for NZ, the key issue was that in 2005 – 4 years ago – we believed our added value lay in nation building – something that we’re actually very good at. In fact I think we’re about the best in the world, for a variety of reasons. That’s where we should focus.
Our army doesn’t belong in afghanistan.Practicing democracry means letting them choose what they want.If they happen to want a corrupt scheme then that is their choice and we should leave them to it.They are people who live a different way of life from us and we should respect them and get on with living our way of life instead of exporting democracy around the world at the point of a gun.
[...] conflicts and humanitarian emergencies, and sometimes that means sending troops. We should always make that decision carefully [...]