"Britain’s relationship with the United States will remain critical for our national security. The United States will remain the United Kingdom’s most important and prized strategic relationship... The relationship between our two nations is based on shared history, shared values and shared interests. We have stood shoulder to shoulder at many times in the past, in the face of tyranny and adversity – in defence of freedom. And today in Afghanistan we stand shoulder to shoulder again, alongside our many partners and alongside the Afghans themselves.
"In his famous speech at Fulton, Missouri in 1946, Winston Churchill warned that fraternal association would not be enough to overcome the Iron Curtain that he described dividing the free world from the subjugated... I too believe that now, in our age, in the shadow of 9/11, fraternal association is not enough. We must continue to strengthen our military relationship and remodel our Armed Forces to face new threats in this new era. For when the Stars and Stripes and the Union Jack fly side by side, we are greater than the sum of our parts."
For Christchurch?
28 minutes ago
10 comments:
Surely the lesson of ANZAC is not to go racing off to a foreign war just because a bigger nation asks you to.
This national is going down the tubes under National, they're just awful. Such contempt for their voters and the will of the majority on the major issues.
I thought the golden rule was to pick your friends and fights. The US and Afghanistan are losers in this scenario.
SHG - Do you think we should free ride at the bottom of the Pacific and not recognise our obligations?
It is all about our collective security.
Anon: 8:07. I agree that Afghanistan is not going to be a recognisable win. However we must do what we can rather than simply writing it off and doing nothing. The troop request was to assist with training. That is about empowerment.
The world is going to hell in a hand-cart and our P.M. thinks if he plays nice, we won't be involved.
Well the world may have news for him.
Mrs Danvers
I agree that this was a bad call for a number of reasons. The amount of troops requested (50) was not extenuating; the mission (training Afghan security forces) was not too hazardous; and the new task force will have plenty of force protection for its trainers, even if the theater is more dangerous than Bamiyan.
With the move to "civilianise" the Bamiyan PRT it appears as if Key wants to provide a temporary token of highly symbolic military support (the SAS) rather than bolster the nation-building efforts that are deemed to be essential to the ISAF mission. The request for 50 trainers was made as part of that effort, and given the Dutch withdrawal, rather critical.
This will have been noted in Canberra and DC. The trouble is, national leaders cannot have it both ways when it comes to security alliances (which NZ has joined in Afghanistan). They either agree to shoulder their fair share of the burden (which in NZ's case had it accepted the request would have meant a total commitment of less than 300 troops out of a ISAF compliment of 100,000), or risk being seen as waffling, half-hearted political cowards. Such a perception by allies inevitably brings with it negative diplomatic consequences down the road.
Say what one wants about the 5th Labour government, at least its stand in Afghanistan was clear: it was committed to the ISAF task within the limits of its resources and the agreed upon deployment timeframes and ROEs.
To be honest, my impression of the National strategy in Afghanistan is that it decided to to do a short "surge" (by re-deploying the SAS for 12-18 months), while embarking on a gradual cut and run (phrased as a troop drawdown) that will see al NZDF personnel out of theater by the end of 2011 (if not before, given that the US draw down is supposed to begin in July 2011). I could be wrong, but the signs are there.
If I am correct, and if National has decided that the Afghan conflict is unwinnable (which is a valid point of discussion), then it would have been better (and more honest) for NZ to have simply pulled a Dutch and say up front that it was leaving by a specific date rather than string its allies along with the promise that it would review its commitment on a yearly basis.
Agreed Pablo. It is disturbing pattern of free riding from National. The Shipley government sent only a medical team to the first gulf war. It seems that pandering to domestic perception is more important than doing what is right. Even Obama backs Afghanistan so it would be politically sustainable to reinstate ANZAC.
What really gets me is how the symbolism of reinstating ANZAC could have been played so well domestically. They appear not to have even considered that or how it could be used to change our international stance away from non aligned.
With the move to "civilianise" the Bamiyan PRT it appears as if Key wants to provide a temporary token of highly symbolic military support (the SAS) rather than bolster the nation-building efforts that are deemed to be essential to the ISAF mission.
Appears that way to me too, and it also seems to me characteristic of Key's approach generally - making an appearance of doing something while minimising commitment. The problem for him in this instance is that the leaders of other countries aren't as naive as NZ voters. As you point out, "This will have been noted in Canberra and DC."
Further to the discussion, consider this contrast in small state attitudes towards the ISAF mission:
Singapore has just agreed to send a UAV team (59 men) to Oruzgan province to engage in tactical recon on behalf of Ozzie and US combat operations. It already has a low level radar detection (anti-artillery) squad in Oruzgan (21 men), and combat engineers and combat medics in Oruzgan and Bayiman (the latter serve alongside the 140-person NZDF contribution to the Bayiman PRT). Oruzgan province is the place where the Ozzies wanted the NZDF to send the 50 additional trainers. By September the Singapore Armed Forces contribution will increase from 97 to 160 troops, all in non-combat or combat support roles (and just 30 less than the present NZDF contribution to ISAF). The SAF troops in Ozugam will be detached to serve under Ozzie and US command.
The justification for the increase in the SAF contribution to ISAF is what I find most interesting. Beyond the fact that Singapore sees a direct link between JI threats and their training in Afghanistan alongside Taliban and Al-Qaeda, the rationale is that in participating in ISAF and other multinational military endeavours, Singapore can "help influence its security environment" (paraphrasing the MoD). Otherwise (again, according to the MoD), Singapore would be just a mere bystander and subject of a security environment created by others. Thus, even if the contribution is relatively small when compared to that of others, Singapore wants to be seen as committed to the common fight, which in turn gives it a minority voice in how that fight as well as other security concerns should be addressed. The NZ attitude, on the other hand, is more akin to a "what, me worry?" approach..
Now, I am not fan of the PAP regime and am fully aware that a small authoritarian state does not have the domestic political constraints of a small democratic state, but the contrast in logics with regards to the ISAF mission vis a vis that of NZ is remarkable. The former is proactive and participatory; the latter is reactive and vacillatory.
As I said before: the refusal to contribute the 50 trainers is the clearest evidence that the National government believes that the ISAF mission is doomed to defeat and is preparing the ground for a withdrawal of the NZDF contribution in its entirety by the end of next year. When stacked up against the increase in the SAF commitment, NZ (or at least the Key government) comes off as two-faced and cowardly.
Quote:
For when the Stars and Stripes and the Union Jack fly side by side, we are greater than the sum of our parts."
Very true. I read a comment online from former PM Margaret Thatcher where she stated (or something similar):
The English speaking world (i.e., US, UK and allies), had saved Europe from tyranny, oppression and destruction.
It is a pity today that the enemy of the West are not countries like North Korea, Cuba, Iran, but Western citizens (lefties) who (under the guise of democracy) are hell-bent on trying to bring down the West to its knees. They don't like the West to be wealthy (why? just see all the anti-capitalism demonstrations around western countries over the last decade or so). They don't like the West to be strong militarily (why? Again, see the massive demonstrations in western capitals around the world if the West takes military actions against totalitarian states that are working to oppose western interests globally). The likes of Keith Locke, Michael Moore, John fucking Pilger, Noam asshole Chomsky, Robert Fisk, etc, and all their idiot followers (lefties). These fuckers are more threatening to the West's way of life than countries who want to hurt the West.
So, the threat is within rather than external. The sad thing is, that the soldiers who died in past world wars to defend the freedom that these idiots enjoy, are being used by those idiots to undermine what define western values.
Post a Comment