The SAS in Afghanistan

The Apiata Syndrome

The Government has signalled that the SAS may well be returning to Afghanistan. There have been reports of President Obama and the US administration pressuring the Prime Minister to redeploy the SAS, since their last tour of duty was rated as a great success.

We find ourselves saddened with this news. However, before the gung ho and the jingoists weigh in, grant us the opportunity to explain our moroseness. Firstly, this imbroglio is a stark reminder that our nation has a completely bankrupt and irresponsible defence policy--equally espoused by all governments of whatever stripe since the seventies. That policy can be summarised in one word: "Others". We have virtually no armed capability at all. In all practical terms, our country is undefended. Even the Chiefs of the Armed Forces have formally reported to Parliament acknowledging the navy cannot sail, the airforce cannot fly, and the army cannot fight.

New Zealand's defence policy is to hope/rely/pray for other nations to come to our aid if we are attacked. This is a shocking dereliction of duty on the part of the state. It is a naive, asinine, stupid, self-indulgent, and a bankrupt position. To expose its crassness it is simply a total unwillingness by the government and the people to take responsibility to defend themselves. They want others to do it for them. We do not deserve to be a nation; we will certainly not long remain one.

So our "elite" SAS is going into Afghanistan. Let's be clear here. The SAS is not an elite unit: it is virtually our only fighting unit. Numbers are confidential, but estimates are of around 500 members. The rest of the armed forces are neither trained nor equipped for combat.

When President Obama pressures John Key to send the SAS back to Afghanistan, he will probably conclude that we have no choice but to comply. If we do not, the Others "defence" doctrine will be in tatters--which would be an even worse situation to what exists now, inconceivable as it may seem. It is shameful that the governments of this country cannot and will not be honest with the people. The Prime Minister needs to stand up and be counted and tell the country honestly why the SAS has to go into Afghanistan--and it has nothing to do with protecting ourselves against terrorists (see below). It has everything to do with continuing the Others "defence" policy.

We find no pleasure in the kind of superficial, self-deceiving ratiocinations arguing for deployment in Afghanistan in the NZ Herald. It argues that most New Zealanders recognise that unless the Taleban are defeated, Afghanistan will once again become a bolt-hole for terrorists and terrorism. We wonder, dear Editors, why you have not all along argued for similar deployment of New Zealand troops in Somalia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and (in earlier years) why you have not urged for NZ deployment in Ireland, Basque controlled Spanish provinces, and Chechnya. All have served or are serving as bolt-holes for terrorism. We could probably afford to send ten poorly equipped SAS troops to each location before we ran out.

The Herald also gravely informs us that it is the right time to be "getting in". President Obama has begun a new campaign. It is far broader than "search and destroy" missions against the Taleban. It is attempting to deny the Taleban political traction in southern Afghanistan through winning the "hearts and minds" of the people. The Herald writes:

The assumption is that if local people can be made more secure and the Taleban kept away from them, much greater progress can be made in reconstruction and economic development. That, in turn, will garner the support of Afghans, allow the country to be stabilised, and pave the way for the eventual withdrawal of the international coalition.

The strategy involves troops going out on patrol to reassure local people, and means far less use of alienating devices, such as unmanned drones. It is far riskier, as the British have found, and requires far more troops than mounting raids from strongly defended bases.

It is also likely to take 10 to 15 years to implement successfully, starting with at least two years of heavy combat. That is another reality Mr Key must accept as he assesses New Zealand's commitment.

For some reason this kind of "war" seems more palatable, more humane, more enlightened, more winnable. It is not. It is naive and foolish. What would be the chances of success if a foreign nation (say, Iran) turned up in New Zealand with their army, air force, and navy; occupied our nation; and sought to win our hearts and minds, with the promise that, if we agreed, and changed our ways they would withdraw? In the meantime, they threw a few petro-dollars at us, shot a few miscreants and resisters, and sought to teach us the benefits of living under Allah; insisted that our women dress in the burkha and urged local leaders to apply sharia law--while all along we knew that they would have to leave some day.

What would be their chances of success? None. The Iranians and their ways would be alien, completely alien--and, therefore, offensive to us. Add to this the truth that the Pashtun tribe and the Taleban are virtually synonymous and highly respected in the south. Add in also that for the past five hundred years or more, no power has ever been successful in subjugating or controlling Afghanistan. The latest to try were the Soviets and they failed dismally. Obama will fail similarly--and it will have nothing to do with how nice the US soldiers are, how super-duper their equipment, or how well meaning everyone is. Instead, it has everything to do with the fact that they are foreigners and invaders and have no locally recognized right to be there in the first place.

But the Editors at the Herald have grand schemes in their sights, so full speed ahead. They conclude their editorial with utopian schemes and dreams:

Nonetheless, this is not a struggle that New Zealand can shirk. Sending the SAS has nothing to with currying favour with the White House. It is about the way Afghanistan provided a training ground for worldwide terrorism. Last week's bombing in Jakarta reinforced the fact that every effort must be made to prevent that happening again.

The New Zealand presence in Afghanistan will make our country a legitimate and necessary target in the eyes of Islamic terrorism. They already know that we are a soft and easy target. It increases substantially the risks of attack--here, in New Zealand. It would be something we would not be able to cope with, nor defend against. We simply do not have the resources. The Others "defence" doctrine would mean that we would get a lot of international sympathy, but nothing more. The doctrine will prove a failure--which always was going to be the case.

Maybe there will be a silver lining to the cloud. Maybe a thorough-going terrorist attack will help persuade our irresponsible and reckless government that the Others doctrine must be jettisoned and that New Zealand must begin to take its own defence seriously. Maybe it will persuade the nation that we need to pay the price and that for years we have been living in a socialist fools' paradise where endless billions of taxes have been squandered pampering a lazy, indulgent, demanding, coddled people, while the gates to the city have been left wide open and undefended, all because it was "too expensive" and we could not afford it. Well, more to the point, we could not afford guns because we have long preferred instead our indulgent lashings of state funded butter.

The Apiata syndrome--a whole nation basking in glory won by a few on foreign fields--is alive and well. But that is what socialism is all about: others paying a price so every else may be indulged. The Others "defence" doctrine is a pure application of socialist principles to national defence.