Kabul ruins
Feature
Empire games
by Gordon Campbell
New Zealand forces face a high risk of casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. Are the goals of those missions clear enough to justify our involvement?
“It would be a really dangerous precedent if anyone stops a vehicle, holds up their hands and says, ‘Give me $10 and I’ll let you go through.’ Because I mean, that would just sort of lead to basically – for want of a better phrase – highway robbery. Often, though, when people are asking for money, that’s a symptom, not the problem. So … we’re looking at ways of going around the initial demand for money, to find out what is motivating the person to do that.” – NZ Army’s Captain Grant Fletcher (National Radio, August 22) describes the “crash course in negotiation” given to New Zealand troops only days before departure for Afghanistan.
Yes, do take the time to talk to your local Afghan warlord. Probe for the reasons – peer-group pressure? – that lie behind his tendency to rape, pillage and extort. Tell him … mate, your demand for money in return for safe transit through your realm strikes me as being a largely symbolic expression of your underlying problems. Now, if you’ll just put down that AK-47, and focus your eyes on the pendulum that Private Potts is swinging in front of your nose …
Unfortunately, our military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan also has its less amusing aspects. As the New Zealand Defence Force’s own documents reveal, New Zealand is expecting to sustain casualties in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The Military Threat Assessment of April 15, 2003, rates the threat to New Zealand forces in Iraq as “high” and – in line with that definition – states flatly that “NZDF casualties are likely”.
The potential dangers are said to include: “… violent conflict between factions/stakeholders (possibly against deployed NZDF personnel/units) is under way, and may be widespread. Factional leaders may have little control of their personnel. There may be the real possibility of escalation or regionalisation of the conflict.”
And later: “The operational situation is inherently unstable and may deteriorate with little warning. Widespread lawlessness may be a significant problem … the use of terrorism may be widespread, and include the employment of bombs, assassination or other violent measures specifically targeting foreigners.”
The same document states that the “environmental” threat posed to our forces in Iraq – from the “water, food and sanitation” and the insects, plant and animal life – is also “high” and “NZDF casualties are very likely”.
Moving on to Afghanistan, the same “high” operational threat levels are assessed by NZDF to exist. Publicly, the Clark government has indicated that the Bamiyan region in which the NZDF troops will be located is relatively safe, by Afghan standards. This may be so partly because Afghan Army second battalion commander Colonel Aminullah Patyalay has warned the Bamiyans about what will happen if they don’t co-operate fully: “We will give them a tooth-breaking response.”
Regardless, the New Zealand Military Threat Assessment of November 2002 rates everywhere outside Kabul as being a “high” risk operational zone – and thus, Bamiyan is officially regarded as a deployment where “NZDF casualties are likely”.
It may get worse. Since these NZDF assessments were made, the security situation has deteriorated significantly in both countries. On an almost daily basis, US troops are being killed in Iraq, primarily (but not exclusively) in the central Sunni region of Iraq. Sabotage of oil, electricity and water supplies is rife. The bombing of the UN offices in Baghdad killed the UN’s special envoy to Iraq, and the bombing in Najaf killed the senior Shi’ite cleric most friendly towards the occupation forces. In southern Iraq – where our forces will serve under British operational control – the occupation has been the subject of several large demonstrations. Since May 1, 11 British soldiers have been killed in attacks that are increasingly sophisticated.
Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, Taliban forces have mounted major attacks in recent weeks, rendering the provinces of Zabol, Helmand and Oruzgan highly dangerous for foreign and local ground troops. Aid workers have been withdrawn from many provincial areas. In both countries, foreigners and locals engaged in humanitarian work – including the reconstruction tasks that our deployment of 61 armed engineers have been set in Iraq – are being singled out as “soft targets”.
The deteriorating security conditions must raise doubt as to whether the aims of the original deployment are still feasible. If Kiwi troops start getting attacked and killed … would the Clark government treat this as compelling evidence of undue risk and pull our troops out? Not necessarily, or even probably. Once deployed, our forces will inevitably become captives of the political downside of a withdrawal. Casualties, one suspects, could well firm up the political requirement of being seen to stand tall against the dark forces of terrorism and anarchy.
Although – clearly – no one would wish the New Zealand forces to sustain casualties, it has to be said that bleeding alongside the US would have its geo-political upsides. The televised sight of flag-draped casualties would symbolically link the Clark government to past sacrificial wars. Once and for all, it would also dispel the usual criticisms that the current government is soft on defence, that peace-keeping is for wimps and that New Zealand is a free-loader when it comes to the sacrifices necessary to defend global and regional security. Dead or alive, then, our troops will be doing a great job.
Page 1 
