The Shame Of It All

Free Loading Off the United States

There are few things more likely to provoke incandescent rage in the "heartland" of the United States than nations "free loading" on the United States, while criticizing the US left, right, and centre.  

One such provocation is defence.  Since the formation of NATO, the United States has effectively bankrolled the whole box and dice.  There were historical reasons for this--such as the desperate need of European nations to rebuild their infrastructure and economies shattered by World War II.  They simply did not have sufficient funds to bank roll an effective defence capability.  The emergence of the Cold War required that the Soviet Union be contained;  Europe simply could not do it, without the financial support of the United States. 

Those days, however, are long since gone.  It is way beyond reasonable expectation for Europe to continue to expect, let alone demand, that the US continue to bank roll NATO.

Europe's Liberal Imperialism All Bark, No Bite

Little Respect for "Paper Tigers"

We have long thought that the EU had become a barking dog running up and down the fence trying to scare off passers-by.  As the decades passed, EU nations (at least those in the Western side of the Union) found itself culturally more and more estranged from US popular culture.  Moreover, the US was far more conservative both internally and externally.  Its attitudes towards abortion, for example, were (and continued to be) an embarrassment to liberal Europe.  

Under Trump's leadership. the EU is finding itself between a rock and a hard place.  The EU has been freeloading on its defence spending ever since the end of WWII, grateful for the umbrella provided by the US, via NATO.  In Trump's mind this is a bad deal.  Some have begun to argue that we are on the cusp of a global power realignment.

As the United States tore up the Iran deal, Angela Merkel lamented that Germany (and by extension the European Union) cannot rely on the United States anymore “for protection,” and said Europe needs to “take its destiny into its own hands.” The French finance minister echoed her sentiments. This from a continent with an economy 15 times that of Russia.

Keep in mind, this perpetual hunt for a new leader of the “liberal world order,” which in reality is a sort of “hegemonic peace,” comes at a time when the German Air Force has just four combat ready Typhoon fighter jets. Germans revolutionized submarine and armour warfare, but now don’t have enough tanks and submarines that are force projection ready, and German youth prefer deep house music over defense. The two great powers in Europe, Britain and France, would need a couple of months to put division-sized troops in Latvia. [Sumantra Maitra, The Federalist]

The latest disagreement is over the "treaty" with Iran, which Trump has torn up, unilaterally.  Such things were not supposed to happen.  The powerlessness of the EU has been exposed.

The World's Most Armed Camp

The "New Model" Army

Christian nations and their governments should, when it comes to defence, be focused upon defending the lives of man, woman, and child.  There are few nations which comply with this doctrine of national defence.

Switzerland is one such nation.  Angelo Codevilla provides a description of the Swiss defence doctrine--and capability.  Many would be surprised.   The Swiss army . . .

is fit for only one mission: to defeat invaders.  For this, a country of 6.7 million can generate an army of twelve divisions (the US army has ten) and has twenty-six brigades, armed with some of the world's best equipment.  Of course Swiss forces completely lack, among other things, the mobility and capacity to sustain the long supply lines that the armies of great powers possess.  But the Swiss army's civil function and military mission requires steadiness rather than mobility, teeth rather than tail.  [Angelo Codevilla, The Character of Nations: How Politics Makes and Breaks Prosperity, Family, and Civility (New York: Basic Books, 1995), p. 207.]

It goes without saying that the Swiss army is not set up, nor resourced to "make the world safe for democracy".

Highly Unusual Bio

Educated In the College of Life

We profess to be sick and tired of career pollies.  Many years ago, we confess that we were on the verge of getting on that particular treadmill.  How deeply thankful we are to a kind and gracious God, whose Providence led us in a much more blessed direction.

These days we have plenty of career politicians who have known no "employment" beyond being a political functionary within a party, or an actual Member of Parliament.  Those who move straight from university into politics have failed to understand that it is vital, if one is to represent constituents, to know something of life beyond the Beltway, as they say.  For some strange, unfathomable reason, career pollies all have one great, unshakeable, ideological commitment: namely, that the State is the answer to all creation's imperfections.

Here is one politician, New Zealand's new Secretary of Defence with an cv that is both colourful and unusual.

Our Most Intriguing Defence Minister Ever?

Claire Trevett
NZ Herald

Monday was a very good day for Mark Mitchell -- he was promoted to Defence Minister and his runaway dog Stig was found after five days AWOL.  Mitchell made a video for his Facebook page to mark the occasion. He spoke of the privilege and honour of being in Cabinet but spent most of the time talking about the return of Stig, a black Labrador his family had since it was a puppy in 2011.  Such is Mitchell's reverence for Dogs, he uses a capped D whenever he uses the word.

 

Mitchell, 48, is a genial, unassuming bloke who looks like a big softie. Do not be fooled. A former police Dog handler, he spent 14 years in the Police Force, dealing with the Mongrel Mob in Gisborne and getting painfully acquainted with the blade of a samurai sword in Rotorua.

New Zealand's National Code

Least Armed and Most Servile

In his excellent volume, The Character of Nations, Angelo M. Codevilla has some insightful observations on how a nation's attitude to fighting and winning wars gives insight into its character.  [Angelo M. Codevilla, The Character of Nations: How Politics Makes and Breaks Prosperity, Family, and Civility (New York: Basic Books/Harper Collins Publishers, 1997).  A brief bio of the author from Wikipedia appears at the end of this piece.]

He writes:

The capacity to fight and win wars is the ultimate test of character and nothing so characterizes a people or determines its fate as the way in which it draws military power from itself.  In ancient republics, military service was synonymous with citizenship.  The ultimate political question always and everywhere is which people will risk their lives to uphold the regime.  [Op cit., p.15.]

Which people will indeed risk their lives to defend New Zealand, or any nation for that matter?  In our case, the answer is clear.

Common Bonds and the Anglosphere

Our Dirty Little Secret

A correspondent, Liam Hehir, writing in the Manawatu Standard, attempts a rationale as to why New Zealand should be actively involved in the Western military effort against ISIS.  It is because of a shared cultural traditions enjoyed by the UK, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.  He defines some key aspects of this shared culture.

As it is with families, so it is with nations and there is a natural affinity between those countries that share a Britannic inheritance. Winston Churchill spoke of the common bonds of the "English speaking peoples". New Zealand historian James Belich has written of it as the "Anglo-World". The term that seems to be vogue now is the "Anglosphere". . . .

This closeness is not based on race. An Italian American has little ancestry in common with a British Pakistani or an Australian Aborigine. There is no such thing as a "Canadian" or "New Zealand" ethnicity. Our familiarity is instead bound up in shared traditions like the common law, habeas corpus, trial by jury, free enterprise, private property, freedom of speech and, of course, the English language.

Hehir neglects to mention that the two dominant members of the Anglosphere, the UK and the US, also have a long tradition of colonialism and neo-colonialism respectively.   This tradition we in NZ, but also Canada and Australia do not share--at least not to the same degree.  It is those traditions which have led both the UK and the US off to war, repeatedly.

Club Memberships Must be Paid

Second Rate Kabuki Theatre

It seems inevitable that New Zealand will be off on another military adventure to the other side of the world because . . . because . . . because it's inevitable, that's why.

We were cynically amused the other day when some folk (a politician and a few odd bloggers) were offended when a member of Britain's ruling class urbanely suggested that New Zealand needs to send troops to combat ISIS because it belongs to a club.

Mr Dunne also launched a stinging attack on comments made in New Zealand last week by British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond when he said: "Frankly we've got used to New Zealand being there alongside us, alongside the US, the UK, Australia, as part of the family." . . . .  Mr Dunne, a minister and the leader of United Future, described Mr Hammond as a "patronising figure from abroad loftily telling us we are in the club, we are part of the family and it would be lovely to have you along for the next round of unmitigated slaughter".

But the British Foreign Secretary was telling the truth.

Global Freeloaders

The Follies of New Zealand's "Defence" Policies

New Zealand's history as a non-aligned nation lasted about a nano-second--and even then existed only in the imaginations of a few peace-niks.  New Zealand has never been non-aligned.  It has always relied upon other nations to defend itself.  Relying upon other nations requires alignment.

Our unwillingness to take responsibility for the defence of the country is one of the most shameful aspects of our national life.  Relying upon other nations to come to our defence if attacked is a dereliction of fundamental government responsibilities; it also is an indictment upon the citizenry.  We are global free-loaders.

New Zealanders and their politicians maintain an unjustified pride in the false narrative that we "punch above our weight" in global affairs.  We don't.  The most fundamental duty of a state government is that it defend its citizens against armed aggression from other states and random malefactors.  In this sacred duty, successive New Zealand governments have failed.  Instead we have chosen the cheap option--all the while congratulating ourselves on how clever and cunning we have been. 

For well over a century or more, New Zealand has relied upon "others" to defend our shores.  Ironically this has resulted in our soldiers and military going to war to assist other nations--with which we have become aligned by means of mutual defence treaties.

The Lusts of Vlad the Impaler

Good Luck with Finland

It has been reported that Vlad the Impaler has his eyes on restoring Russia's borders to the 1917 status quo.  In Vlad's mind, international law and treaties are null and void after that year. This, from the NZ Herald:

After annexing Crimea and with troops massed on the border of Ukraine, Vladimir Putin will not stop trying to expand Russia until he has "conquered" Belarus, the Baltic states and Finland, one of his closest former advisers has said.  According to Andrej Illarionov, the President's chief economic adviser from 2000 to 2005, Mr Putin seeks to create "historical justice" with a return to the days of the last Tsar, Nicholas II, and the Soviet Union under Stalin.

Speaking to the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet, Mr Illarionov warned that Russia will argue that the granting of independence to Finland in 1917 was an act of "treason against national interests".  "Putin's view is that he protects what belongs to him and his predecessors," Mr Illarionov said.  "Parts of Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic States and Finland are states where Putin claims to have ownership."

Let's think about Finland.

Gnashing Teeth

Impotence Over Ukraine Is Not A Bad Thing

The stew bubbling in a Ukrainian cauldron provides an occasion to reflect on how, in a more Christianised world, a nation state ought to act toward other states.  We do not claim that the issues are always easy.  They are certainly not as far as the Ukraine is concerned.  Here are some thoughts.

Firstly, nationalism (which elevates one's nation or people group into ultimate reverence) is a great evil and a false god.  All that stuff about love of country and hymns of praise to one's patria, is either dangerously borderline or overtly anti-Christian.  If Christians would baulk at singing hymns of praise to the nation's president or monarch or head of state then they ought also baulk at singing stirring hymns of pride and love to "Oh my country . . . "  Nations quickly become idols. 

It is a striking thing that Christians are called in Scripture to love God, to love the brethren and the Church, and to love all men--but never called to love one's country.

Marketing

Oh What a Lovely War

In 2012 the UK Ministry of Defence produced a paper giving advice on how to "market" war to the public.  The intention was to work out how to increase public support for the various wars the UK was engaged in at the time.  One suggestion made was to make less of repatriation and funeral ceremonies of those who had died.  Downplay the negative.  Accentuate the positive.  That sort of stuff.  Typical marketing fluff.

The document, written in November 2012 and obtained by the Guardian under the Freedom of Information Act, discusses how public reaction to casualties can be influenced and recommends that the armed forces should have "a clear and constant information campaign in order to influence the major areas of press and public opinion". (The Guardian)

The folk don't like hearing and seeing that soldiers and airmen have been killed.  It is a negative.  It ought to be downplayed.  Don't regard these people as heroes who have laid down their lives for the protection of their loved ones, their neighbours, and their nation.   That ends up accentuating the negative, which will reduce "market" appetite and demand for war.

But wait a minute.  This is war we are talking about.

Unnecessary Sacrifice

A Spot of Nation Building

The NZ Army is finally returning from Afghanistan.  Ten soldiers died over that time.  They deserve to be remembered, although it is a very long bow to relate their effort to our own national security.  Essentially, the NZ effort was part of the US/UN inspired global war for democracy, peace and justice. It has had nothing to do with defending New Zealand and its citizens from armed aggression.

Consequently, the politicians have lauded the socio-economic contribution of the NZ Army to Bamiyan province in Afghanistan where it served.  Hamid Karzai, the Afghan President lauded the NZ Army effort, we are told, in terms of its contribution to nation building and to genuine assistance of the Afghan people.  Our Minister of Defence took a similar tack:

Collateral Damage

The Real War Being Waged on American Soldiers

One of the saddest things we have read for some time came across our desk the other day.  It documented the suicide rate amongst serving and de-mobbed US soldiers.  Over the past year, more active duty soldiers killed themselves in the US military than were killed in actual combat. 

As The Guardian put it:

To put that another way, more of America's serving soldiers died at their own hands than in pursuit of the enemy.

But the picture is actually worse: the suicide plague amongst veterans, those recently retired from serving is much, much higher.

. . . an astonishing 6,500 former military personnel who killed themselves in 2012, roughly equivalent to one every 80 minutes.

What on earth is going on?  As always, the reasons are no doubt complex.  Two things occur to us.

Old Friends

Living With the Dragon

New Zealand's relationship to China provides an interesting case study with lots of fascinating permutations. 

Here are some of the issues and  paradoxes which drive the permutations:

• China is in our geographical region which means it is a logical trading partner for New Zealand (given our geographical isolation from the rest of the world.  Last time we checked there was not much trade going on with Antarctica.)
• China is the most populous nation upon the globe, with a rapidly emerging, higher spending middle class which is developing tastes for Western foods and high protein product.  It is also a dirty food producer.  New Zealand's industrial and productive strength is clean food production.  But it will be small and insignificant in the longer time frame, only ever capable of meeting an infinitesimal portion of China's growing food demand.  

Willing Little Helpers

Our Feckless Defence Policies

There is much to disturb in the Dotcom fiasco.  We are troubled by the appearance of an over-compliance with US demands.  When the New Zealand police force and spy agency appear to act like extensions of the FBI we are very uneasy. 

It appears that laws were broken by the authorities.  Fortunately we have courts.  We have Parliament.  We have independent officials charged with reviewing the activities of the Security Intelligence Service.  We expect that more and more will come out.  We also expect that what will emerge will be not a sinister intent to subvert law or justice, but ineptitude due to being in awe of the FBI and the demands of the US government. 

Is it too much to suggest that our government is a bit giddy over the thawing of relationships with the United States?  One would hope so.  But we expect to be disappointed.

A Medieval Weapon of Mass Destruction

The Peasant's Weapon of Choice

Rodney Stark, commenting upon the weaponry of the Crusaders:

But no armor, not even a plate-armor suit, was very effective against the invention that made the crusaders to lethal in battle--the crossbow. Although it was widely used by the crusaders, remarkably little has been written about the crossbow because it was thought to be quite shameful, even sinful, to use it. In 1139 the Second Lateran Council prohibited its use (except against infidels) "under penalty of anathema, as a weapon hateful to God and to Christians," and this ban was subsequently confirmed by Pope Innocent III. However, European armies ignored the Church and made widespread use of the crossbow until it was made obsolete by firearms. Thus, for example, the Knights Templar garrison at the castle of Saphet in northern Galilee in about 1260 consisted of fifty knights and three hundred crossbowmen.

The "moral" objections to the crossbow had to do with social class, as this revolutionary weapon allowed untrained peasants to be lethal enemies of the trained soldiery. It took many years of training to become a knight, and the same was true for archers. Indeed, it took years for archers to build the arm strength needed to draw a longbow, let alone to perfect their accuracy. But just about anyone could become proficient with a crossbow in less than a week. Worse yet, even a beginner could be considerably more accurate than a highly skilled longbow archer at ranges up to sixty-five to seventy yards. . . .

The projectiles fired by crossbows were called bolts because they were much shorter and heavier than the arrows fired by regular bows. While this reduced the range of crossbows, it greatly increased their impact at shorter ranges. The fact that so little training was required meant that huge numbers of crossbowmen could be assembled quickly; the Genoese several times fielded as many as twenty thousand for a single battle. Stark, God's Battalions, p.72f

We think Stark is probably right.  Even to this day the crossbow remains underrated.  In the Anglo-Saxon world this may be due in part to childhood stories of Robin Hood and the celebration of the English longbow. 

Once again these observations underscore the need for military doctrines and tactics constantly to evolve and adapt to technology.  When this does not happen, disaster is around the corner.  Witness how the machine gun made serried rows of infantry obsolete in World War I.  Another lesson is never to underestimate low tech advances put in the hands of infantry en masse.  Imagine the devastation represented by infantry brigades equipped with high powered, long range hunting rifles, each with telescopic laser sights.  Suddenly every man is a sniper, with a modicum of training. 

So, if New Zealand cannot afford modern weaponry, why not take this route, deployed via a universal military subscription of at least two years?  If a sniper behind every tree worried Hitler's generals when they were contemplating invading Switzerland, how much more would New Zealand's defensive capability be enhanced if every adult in the country could drop an enemy combatant at a thousand metres with consistent deadly accuracy, particularly when an enemy would face very long supply lines if an invasion of the country were attempted. 

This would represent a far stronger defensive capability than we have now.  Any invader would likely find the cost of proceeding not worth any gain.  The country would be much safer--much safer than our piddling around the globe participating in Obama's wars of choice in the vain hope that it obligates "others" to come to save us were New Zealand to be attacked. 

Facing Reality

All Buck and No Bang

We have posted several times on our national defence policies, which however you frame them, are a shameful  disgrace.  The only rational Christian position position on war is that it is a fundamental duty of civil government--the minister of God--to defend its citizens from war-making by other nations or non-state aggressors against us.  It is a duty long left derelict by successive New Zealand governments.  We would rather our government doled out money for health, education, and welfare than maintain a credible defence force.  Why, you may ask?  Simply put, there's more votes in it. 

The past two hundred years of our national existence has seen New Zealand fight in many wars, however--none of them defensive in nature:  the Boer War, World War I, World War II, Korea, Malaysia, Vietnam, Timor, Iraq (well sort of) and Afghanistan.   In the two world wars, New Zealand forces were at times decimated due to their lack of equipment and training.  We were the convenient cannon fodder for the generals of other nations.  In every one of these conflicts you strain credulity to argue that they were defensive wars.  Increasingly, our armed conflicts overseas have been sacrifices to the great god of universal human rights, not a defence of the citizens of this nation. 

As the costs of government entitlement programmes have risen, successive reviews of the armed forces have resulted in cost-cutting.  This, in turn, has led to the development of the reigning defence doctrine in this country: the "Others" defence doctrine.  We have no real defensive capability: the army could probably conduct a shooting war that would last about twenty minutes before we ran out of ammunition and our armed personnel carriers, the LAVs, broke down.  But that's not the point.  Our real defence strategy is to rely upon other nations to come to our aid.  The primary candidates would be the US and Australia.  (Some airheads would look to the "international community" to defend New Zealand if attacked--by which they mean the United Nations.  These folk no doubt sleep easily at night because ignorance is bliss.) 

To demonstrate how parlous things have become, we recite the following stock-take of aircraft operated by the NZ Air Force. 

The Air Force employs 3195 staff with key equipment, including:

• Five naval helicopters (Super Seasprite)
• Six maritime patrol aircraft (Orions)
• Five Hercules (transport)
• Two Boeing 757-200s (transport)
• 13 Iroquois helicopters (transport)
• Five Sioux helicopters (transport)
• Five Beech King aircraft (transport – training)
• 13 CT-4E aircraft (transport – training)

Hat Tip: Kiwiblog

Most of our airforce is devoted to transport (and training to enable transportation)!

It is time to get real. Since "Others" is our prevailing and controlling defence doctrine, it is high time the New Zealand government became transparent and honest on the matter. Apart from a bit of offshore fishing surveillance, which essentially is a commercial enterprise, we are in the invidious position of maintaining an airforce, and a navy, and a skeleton army for the sole purpose of enabling us to make token efforts to assist in the war-engagements of other nations all in the attempt to create a moral obligation for them to defend us should we ever be attacked. "We did the decent thing by you; now you help us out." This is about as naive and infantile as one could get--but we seem to specialize in such asininities.

Given the cravenness and irresponsibility of our "Others" defence doctrine, we believe the following would be a far more honest and cost effective solution: outsourcing. The New Zealand government should put the defence of this country up to competitive international tender every ten years. The contract would include KPI's, performance reviews, specified obligations--all the standard stuff. Obvious candidates to tender would be China, Australia and the US. Maybe Japan would be interested. Fiji, which maintains a larger army than NZ, might also be interested in being part of a tender consortium, along with Japan. Large mercenary organizations might also be able to put in a credible tender.  (Don't reject this out of hand: it has a long historical lineage.  Ask the Swiss--and the Vatican.) 

We could then remove entirely all military bases, top brass, equipment, and personnel costs. This money could be put to funding the new defence contract. We predict there would be a significant cost savings--and a much, much greater defence capability than at present. It would also be more certain and reliable. The Hercules would not break down on route to . . . well, transporting.

Sure, a few egos would be bruised. National pride might receive a bit of a dent. ANZAC parades would quickly seem antiquarian. The RSA would die away. But these would be nothing if we could secure a better defence capability. It would not take much to get a better defence policy than our current one which falls between two stools. International competitive tendering and outsources is simply the "Others" doctrine taken to its logical and more effective end.

And we have one other great advantage: our Prime Minister, John Key has proven international negotiating skills. Look at the deal he swung with Warner Brothers for The Hobbit. International defence tenders and their competitive negotiations would be right up his alley. Clark was so ideologically myopic that she would have awarded the tender to the Kofi Ananistan Greater South East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, or, even worse, to the Scandinavian Defence Alliance. But Key would be far more commercial--and, therefore, reliable.

Why, Key's skills in this area are so formidable we could end up with Chinese or Fijian manned .50 cal machine gun posts on every intersection. Now we are talking. That would be a real "Others" defence policy at work, not the current wasteful, expensive show pony, which is all show and no pony, or,  if you would permit a mixing of  metaphors, all buck and no bang.

Misdirection and Confusions

Nuclear Weapons and the Hands That Bear Them

Nuclear issues have to the fore in recent days, what with President Obama's grand summit which has drawn more nations to the US to confab since the international meetings which set up the United Nations.

Gwynne Dyer, writing in the NZ Herald, opines that the summit it just a symbol, but at least it is a conversation starter. Who could be opposed to talk, right? Confabulation is a medium in which Obama seems to set a great deal of store.

But let's step back and think about the broad parameters of the debate over nuclear weapons. Obama has publicly declared his long term goal is to rid the world of all of them. This tells us that he believes them to be intrinsically evil. He apparently puts nuclear weapons in the same category as, say, rape or incest. But, he must also believe that they are a necessary evil, which would explain why he is prepared to maintain his own nation's nuclear capability--at least for the present.

Are nuclear weapons intrinsically evil? If one would answer in the affirmative, presumably one would also include all weapons of war--say, semi-automatic rifles, tanks, bombs, and fighter aircraft in the same category. Whatever argument one may advance to remove all nuclear weapons from the world it would apply with equal force and veracity to all weapons and technologies of war.

If someone may object and argue that it is the immense destructive force of nuclear weapons which makes them inherently evil. The risk that they could destroy the entire world puts such weapons in a different category which amounts to intrinsic evil. But this is emotive clouding. If a primitive village can be wiped out by machine guns, it is not the smaller quantum of deaths which makes machine guns acceptable. A murder is a murder is a murder. The death of one man, Abel led to his blood crying out from the ground to God.

If nuclear weapons are intrinsically evil, so too is the machine gun--for both alike exist for one purpose, and one purpose only--to kill human beings. Both alike can kill in large numbers.

We would argue that nuclear weapons are not intrinsically evil at all--no more so than any other instrument or weapon of war. It is the use to which they may be put by men that makes them either evil or good. Evil resides in the human heart and is expressed in human actions. Evil does not reside in things.

Obama's rhetoric in calling for a nuclear-weapon-free world reflects the idealistic world-view of the West in general which looks for evil not in the human hearts, but in externalities. Change the circumstances and the environment and righteousness will dawn upon mankind--at least that's what makes sense of the actions and pontifications of most in the West. When boiled down Obama's stance on nuclear weapons, whilst typical, is akin to calling for a ban on gun ownership or knife bearing. If the inanimate object is removed, men will become righteous and act righteously. The Christian knows this to be a naive and misdirected argument.

Ironically, the Obama summit actually recognizes this--at least to some degree. The specific focus has been on taking action to prevent nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda--who will use them, we are told--and we do not doubt it. This, apparently is in contrast to nations such as Pakistan, Great Britain, the United States etc, who will not--at least as a first strike.

Here we come to the nub of the issue. Having nuclear weapons is not the issue. What will be done with them is the all important matter. Ought we to be deeply concerned that Israel has (allegedly) over 200 nuclear warheads? We have never lost the least amount of sleep over it. Ought we to be worried that North Korea has nuclear weapons? Indeed we should, since that nation considers itself at war with South Korea and calls for the subjugation of the South.

Should surrounding nations be concerned about Iran getting nuclear weapons. Absolutely. Their president--a president in good standing let us add--has routinely and regularly called for the extermination of another state--Israel. This, it seems to us, is a de facto declaration of war of Iran upon Israel. That state of war should be reckoned to exist until Ahmadinejad and his doctrines are officially and formally removed in Iran.

If that be accepted as a fundamental principle, then all "pre-emptive" strikes by Israel against Iran to destroy their nuclear weaponry and resource are not only justified, but a necessary act by the Israel government. It would be derelict in its duty to God and its people not to so act.

But, were Iran to eschew Ahmadinedjadism and armed jihad against Israel, whether they had nuclear weapons or not would be neither here nor there. If Iran committed itself to a policy of recognition of Israel as a legitimate state, and of a complete and permanent cessation of any military aggression--either by direct or indirect means--against any other state, they would be welcome to nuclear weaponry.

If we are not prepared to take this position, then a whole can of worms inevitably opens. One such worm is the implication that all nuclear weapons are intrinsically evil, which implicitly condemns all those nations which holds any military capability whatsoever--which is clearly contrary to Scripture. Another worm would be an insinuation that an Islamic state should be regarded as "bad" states--as the Great Satan--which sort of sounds a bit familiar.

In a fallen world, war is an inevitable reality, even as crime is. But an absolutely vital issue is whether any nation's war is offensive or defensive in its goals, purposes, and intents. Defensive acts of war are a necessary duty of the civil magistrate. Aggressive or offensive war is always evil. And aggressive war has surely started when one nation calls for the annihilation of another.

It's the War, Stupid

Folly, Upon Folly

One of the more escapist gifts I received at Christmas was a Jack Reacher novel, Nothing to Lose. For those of you who know who Jack Reacher is, you probably will understand why the next day was spent lazing in a warm Auckland summer's day, enjoying another world.

All of which is a bit prosaic but one (more serious) aspect stood out. Reacher, as fans will know, is ex-US military. Lee Child, the author, is a Brit but nonetheless has made his fortune writing about an ex-USMP. The historical background of his lead character has been the US military: mostly, the military has been cast in a positive light.

In Nothing to Lose--a more recent Reacher novel--a different note was struck. The hero is scathingly critical of US army bosses and the political policies which have led the US military into constant engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan. The plot has Reacher intersect with military deserters, fleeing to escape deployment, and Child/Reacher show themselves sympathetic to their cause and plight. The world is changing. I can feel it in the air. I can taste it in the water. So said Galadriel, or something similar.

Two days ago, Sarah Lazare, an American anti-war activist wrote a piece in Al-Jazeera. It reads pretty much as one would expect. But the headline is instructive: "The US Military is Exhausted", it reads. Lazare writes:

Many from within the ranks are openly declaring that they have had enough, allying with anti-war veterans and activists in calling for an end to the US-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with some active duty soldiers publicly refusing to deploy.

This growing movement of military refusers is a voice of sanity in a country slipping deeper into unending war.

The architects of this war would be well-advised to listen to the concerns of the soldiers and veterans tasked with carrying out their war policies on the ground.

Many of those being deployed have already faced multiple deployments to combat zones: the 101st Airborne Division, which will be deployed to Afghanistan in early 2010, faces its fifth combat tour since 2002.

"They are just going to start moving the soldiers who already served in Iraq to Afghanistan, just like they shifted me from one war to the next," said Eddie Falcon, a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW), who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Soldiers are going to start coming back with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), missing limbs, problems with alcohol, and depression."

Many of these troops are still suffering the mental and physical fallout from previous deployments.

She documents the growing unease and resistance within the US military itself to the long-drawn out wars which are exhausting its soldiers. When one considers that some US divisions are facing their fifth combat tour and recall that means it would have been in active duty for a period much longer than the entirety of World War II, it underscores the seriousness of the situation.

But it is more than that. Israel has been on a war footing for decades. But it is much easier to maintain when it is patently and tangibly obvious that one is defending one's home and family. Israel struggles with its bellicosity only when the connection between war and defence is not immediately obvious (as for example when it maintained an occupation force in Southern Lebanon). When one is confronted with death and destruction in Afghanistan the bow is exceedingly long drawn to make a connection back to defence of one's kith and kin in the United States.

American political leaders and rulers, both Democrats and Republicans, have been far too ready to put the troops in harm's way, justifying it by talking up a "clear and present danger". But after a while "nation building" in Afghanistan has a tenuous connection with an elite, wealthy, and well-educated London-based Nigerian trying to blow up a US airliner coming in to land at Detroit. Sure, that particular threat was and is real--and must be faced and dealt with--but exactly how is this connected with nation-building-in-Afghanistan, again?

Another good read enjoyed recently was Apache Dawn, by Damien Lewis which a friend passed on. It is a fascinating piece on an Apache helicopter squadron, part of the UK Army Air Corps, fighting in Helmand province, Afghanistan in 2007. "Gripping and revealing" said the blurb. And it was. Two things relevant to our subject stand out in this book. The first was the attitude of the village people liberated from the Taliban. The British had an operational convention of participating in local village councils or suras once they had driven out the Taliban. Regularly they were told by the locals that they disrespected the Afghan national army and the government functionaries. They had proven themselves in the past to be corrupt, dishonest, and venal. At least the Taliban were honest, they would say. That speaks volumes. Try winning hearts and minds in that context.

The second was the experience of the helicopter pilots when they returned from their hair raising tour of duty, back to the UK. Having just come out of a theatre of intense fighting, with death and destruction and heroism and sacrifice on every side, they returned to a world which just did not care. Not only had they long ago forgotten that their countrymen were fighting on the other side of the world, they did not care that they had forgotten. It was unimportant and irrelevant to their reality.

It would seem that this is inevitable when governments get involved in wars which are not truly wars for defence and national survival, but rather are wars in someone else's back yard for the purpose of trying to make that back yard a better place. And this, more than anything else, is why post-traumatic stress syndrome is now endemic both in the UK and the US forces (but note, not in the Israeli Defence Force).

The doctrine of using military force to try to make things right around the world is at best naive and ill-considered. At worst, it is evil and destructive. When men overreach themselves, and stop minding their own business, the consequences are always--always--bad. We see it in private society and affairs; in communities and neighbourhoods. We see it as clear as a bell.

Why is it that when it comes to nations somehow we fail to see it, until it is too late, and the consequences are heaped upon us as the birds come home to roost?

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.