Afghanistan: The key to stabilisation is getting out

Following Sunday’s attack on NZDF soldiers in Bamiyan, John Key said:
“The troops were carrying out work essential to the stabilisation of the war-torn country” and further that, “the attack would not force him to reconsider the deployment.”

Both of these statements are bizarre in their own way, and further evidence of the kind of political double-speak we should now be accustomed to hearing in relation to Afghanistan.

It was the Provincial Reconstruction Team that was engaged in what was described as a ‘gunfight with insurgents’ not as some might imagine, the SAS troops. The PRT has been stationed in one of the most remote, and therefore theoretically ‘safest’ parts of the country. Helen Clark made sure of that, as she knew all too well that soldiers coming home in body bags would be a very bad look for the Labour government. She, nevertheless, was absolutely committed to solidifying the US-NZ relationship and playing war with the big boys is a great way to score points in Washington.

What is most extraordinary about Key’s statement is that in the 6 years that the PRT has been in Bamiyan it has clearly become LESS stable, not more. When the NZDF first went there, it was not even on the Taliban radar screen. The idea that a PRT is somehow making things more secure for Afghanis is fanciful, as to some extent the PRT must be responsible for the increase in Taliban activity there.

And as far as Key reconsidering the deployment, we can only deduce that he means the deployment of the SAS. Of course he isn’t reconsidering it since the advice by the NZDF and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was that a deployment of SAS wasn’t a great idea in the first place, except of course, for enhancing relations with the Americans. He is softening the country up for the inevitable New Zealand deaths that will occur. The NZDF has long said it is totally stretched to maintain the deployment in Afghanistan, and while some within Defence will no doubt be thrilled with the opportunity for ‘elite, crack SAS’ (as our media likes to call them) to put their skills to use, more reasoned people in Defence know it is a lost cause.

Despite growing anti-Afghan war sentiment, military advice and blinding historical precedence, the US and British governments continue to be the world’s cheerleaders for the continued occupation of Afghanistan. Obama has tied himself to the war in a way that may cost him dearly next election, particularly as the death toll of soldiers rises. It seems that the Nats are all to happy to follow right along hoping that the long dangling carrot of a free-trade deal will finally be realised.

Extensive comparisons with Vietnam have been made in relation to the war in Iraq. It seems that many of these comparisions are applicable to Afghanistan. One thing that is frequently overlooked is the revolt within the armed forces to fighting these wars. With conscription (in the US) the troop situation in Vietnam clearly was quite different.  Troops took to ‘fragging’ their own commanding officers (throwing grenades at them in order to avoid combat). Veterans of the Iraq horror have come home and refused to go back.

The one thing that will make Obama, Gordon Brown and John Key ‘reconsider the deployment’ is vocal and active dissent within the military itself.  At present, there is considerable disagreement within the upper ranks of the US military to the aims and strategy of the war. When the soldiers on the front lines begin to take action against their use as fodder to prop up an illegitimate and corrupt regime, and anti-war activists in NZ ‘bring the war home’ to the politicians, then an end to the occupation will happen, and the NZDF will be ‘gone by lunchtime’.