Spineless or Astute

Top Brass and its Government Masters

Probably the most fundamental duty of government is to judge its people justly. Of course this means that it must ensure appropriate punishment is levied upon murderers. This, in turn, means that it is a fundamental duty of government to defend its people against military attack, punishing those who seek to take control of the country by force. Punishment includes the use of deadly force. This is undoubted Christian teaching.

Therefore it is understandable that many, not just Christians, have ridiculed and lampooned the decision by our top military commanders to punish NZ soldiers who were photographed alongside ammunition in Afghanistan which had "greetings" painted on it for Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

But we need to put this in context. There are a number of possible explanations for the disciplinary action by the top brass. You can take your pick.

Firstly, it may be that the brass are way ahead of the average bear, or reader of blogs. They have grasped that Afghanistan is a counter-insurgency war: it is well established military doctrine that you have to fight such wars appropriately--and the tactics are very different from conventional wars. Essentially the core tactic is to appear non-bellicose to the population: mingle with them, help them, smile at them, take off your dark glasses, wave to them when you pass, and demonstrate that you are on their side, caring for them and protecting them. Then, be real belligerent against the actual insurgents when you have found them, identified them, and isolated them. The more you win the "hearts and minds" of the population, the more likely the enemy will be isolated and exposed.

On this account the top brass would be disciplining their errant soldiers not for painting slogans on to bombs, but for being seen and photographed. Such antics could easily be seen by the local population as a slur against them ("these infidels laugh and mock at us Afghans") and so undermine the war effort.

Now, if the brass are thinking this way they have a point. The top US commander, General McChrystal is trying to reshape the whole US war effort in Afghanistan along these lines. It could be that the NZ armed forces brass are just way ahead of the pack.

Another explanation is that the top military brass remain deeply influenced by the Clark military doctrine. It may come as a surprise to some that former Prime Minister, Helen Clark had a military doctrine. But she did. It was her view that the NZ military faced no strategic threat and that it should function primarily as a global peacekeeping force, basically under the aegis of the United Nations. The Clark Doctrine always saw the NZ military not as a national force, but as our contribution to an internationalist military force. Its role was not to protect people in New Zealand, but to bring peace to the world in our time.

Shots fired in anger were never part of this doctrine. As a peacekeeper you may have to fire the occasional shot, but always with tears in the eyes, and with great reluctance. According to the Clark Doctrine it would be utterly unacceptable for NZ military personnel deployed offshore to write mocking messages on bombs about to be dropped on people. That is not what the NZ military is all about.

A third explanation is that the military brass in NZ have never bought into the deployment in Afghanistan--it was always and ever a token gesture. It was simply diplomacy by other means. Essentially, it was to keep the US onside to try to get traction in free trade talks--and, if the worst came to the worst, secure US aid if the country were ever under actual military or terrorist threat. If deployment were a message for wider diplomatic reasons, then it would make sense to go through the motions, engage in token military activity, but stay away from actual combat as much as possible.

This is essentially the position of Germany in its Afghani deployment. Painting messages on bombs is just a bit too gung ho for this kind of strategy, and so the brass have sought to send a message to kiwi soldiers to tone things down and chill out. Discretion is very much the order of the day if the real point is a token gesture for diplomatic leverage.

A final explanation of the brass's decision would be that they understand that a new military doctrine now applies in New Zealand. We will call it the Key Doctrine. This doctrine holds that the war in Afghanistan is a war without borders and that to fight in Afghanistan is really to defend the homeland against terrorists. If we don't fight them in their mountains, we will end up fighting them on our beaches. Much better their mountains than at the Mount, as it were.

Now the cruel reality is that we have no intention to prepare for a terrorist attack on our soil--the government has no resolve to prepare and no money to fund such preparations. All government funds, and then a considerable some, are committed to such essentials as the DPB, the state education system, and thousands of advisory boards giving us essential expert advice on how to eat, sleep, and put our pants on in the morning. So, better to fight them (at least in a minimal token way) in Afghanistan than here, and hope that it will be enough to ensure that the "others" strategy stays valid. (The "others" strategy is the real defense strategy which has applied in New Zealand for over fifty years now: the expectation that other nations will put their sons in harms way to defend us if ever we are attacked. All offshore military activity is designed to ensure that other nations will feel obliged to defend us if attacked--and that it the real objective in Afghanistan.)

But pictures, offensive and provocative pictures in this viral electronic world can be broadcast everywhere. The kind of pictures of NZ soldiers sending mocking messages to Islamic jihad fighters runs the risk of inflaming hatred and calling attention to ourselves in jihadist circles globally. That simply marks us out for a well planned revenge terrorist attack which may take five to seven years to bring to fruition. Since we have no meaningful defence against such terrorist activity, it is stupid to provoke it.

OK. So which explanation of the decision by the NZ military brass to discipline the artistic soldiers is most likely? You be the judge.

For our money, only the first possible explanation would honourable and worthy. The others all involve a gross dereliction of duty on the part of our government. They all mean that whilst New Zealand may be a paradise, it belong to fools and is ruled by fools--different shades and strips of fools to be sure, but fools nonetheless.