On NZ committing ground troops in Iraq

Back in 2005, the war in Iraq became something of a wedge issue in that year’s election campaign, when Don Brash admitted that he initially favoured New Zealand’s involvement in the conflict. Brash, then the leader of the National Party, originally told Radio NZ in 2003 that he “would have done what President Bush did,” despite the New Zealand public’s opposition to the war. He reiterated this point the following year on Holmes, telling a caller that, had he been Prime Minister at the time, he would have joined George Bush’s ‘coalition of the willing’.

Brash’s support for the war quickly turned into an open sore for the National campaign. Helen Clark seized on it to frame the election and attack Brash, telling the press that it was “an election issue because it is very clear to everyone that had there been a National government in power, New Zealanders would have been sent into combat in Iraq.” The Labour Party produced booklets that painted Brash as a neoconservative ideologue, took out newspaper advertisements trumpeting his pro-war statements, and hung up posters asking people to “spot the difference” between Brash and Bush. The issue was so poisonous, Brash and Clark spent some of the 2005 leaders debate playing hot potato with the topic, with Brash turning the tables on Clark and accusing her of being the one who sent combat troops to Iraq.

Just as tough on Brash were the media who, as indicated above, repeatedly pressed Brash on the issue. TV3 got its very own Jeremy Paxman moment when a reporter, in the face of repeated non-answers from Brash, asked him again and again whether or not he would have sent New Zealand troops to Iraq. All of this is to say that, almost a decade ago, the idea of New Zealand’s potential involvement in that disastrous country was such a fraught issue, and generated so much controversy, anyone seen to support it was pressed hard by the media and political opponents alike.

Compare that to the relative quiet that has greeted John Key’s open consideration of whether or not to send New Zealanders to tag along with the US’ latest adventure in Iraq. Although making it clear it was his “least preferred option,” pointing out the danger and indeterminate time-frame of such a commitment, the Prime Minster refused to rule out sending SAS forces if he was asked – something that, once the new government is sworn in, looks likely. In fact, 12 were already in ‘pre-deployment mode’ in anticipation. After all: “[ISIS members] are not insignificant people. Their acts of brutality are grotesque and most New Zealanders would be deeply offended by what they see.” While Brash was attacked over his stance for potentially compromising the independence of New Zealand’s foreign policy in order to cosy up to America, no such criticism appears to be forthcoming today as we stand on the verge of joining this new war.

In fact, if that wasn’t an indication of the reversal of the public’s mood toward war, then a 1 October Herald editorial might be. Echoing the Prime Minster’s sentiments, the Herald affirmed that New Zealand “ought to be counted among the nations that are willing to act” in Iraq against ISIS. Despite noting how risky and undesirable this course of action would be, it concluded that “[t]his country ought to join [the coalition] and contribute what it can.”

What makes the sudden, seeming acceptability of hawkishness on Iraq especially astounding isn’t just that the circumstances of this current war so closely reflect that of the last one – though that is certainly the case. Just as in 2003, the US is going into Iraq with no clear end-point in sight, the boundless potential for mission creep, and doing so to combat an entity that offers a non-existent threat to America - a number of US officials have stated that ISIS has neither plans nor the ability to attack inside the United States.

No, what makes this so astounding is that New Zealand has very little to gain and everything to lose from joining the fight in Iraq. Our actions in Afghanistan notwithstanding, New Zealand has given Islamic extremists very little reason to target it for attacks. Unlike Australia, we stayed out of Iraq the first time, we have a measured position on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and we have an international reputation for fair-mindedness and are known for our commitment to human rights. It’s partly because of this that the last terrorist attack that took place here was all the way back in 1985, when the French blew up the Rainbow Warrior.

Our involvement in this war would likely change all that – something the Herald editorial acknowledges, but seems to believe is an acceptable trade-off for the humanitarian good we could do. The immediate effect of any New Zealand action in Iraq would be to help ISIS paint itself as heroic fighters agaisnt a modern-day crusade, one we would be accused of being a part of. Not only would this likely aid their recruitment, it would also ultimately push some confused, alienated, and disaffected young man (and they are almost always men) to attempt to carry out his own version of ISIS-like vengeance on our soil, as has already happened in Australia.

Once that happened, it wouldn’t be long before we saw the passage of the kinds of draconian, sweeping anti-terror policies that we have so far had the fortune to avoid. All it would take is one incident, or simply the threat of one – no leader wants to appear weak on terrorism.

Recall that Australia just passed what are quite possibly the most extreme anti-terror laws in the western world, all over a single plot by two men to behead random passers-by on the street – a horrific plot, but one that pales in comparison to the kinds of conspiracies that used to keep westerners up at night ten years ago, which typically involved the murder of hundreds, if not thousands, of people. Recall, also, that we currently have a broad, far-reaching surveillance system in place despite the fact that we have never been a target of Islamic terrorism.

If we are indeed going to put our security and freedom on the line for humanitarian purposes, then the appropriate questions are, why now? Why this war? Why Iraq? The actions of ISIS are without a doubt unspeakably, heinously barbaric. Yet we stayed out of Syria when tens of thousands were being slaughtered on the streets, and our Prime Minister had only the mildest of words reserved for Israel when it was virtually levelling Gaza. This is not to mention that Saddam Hussein and his cronies, the bad guys of the first Iraq war which we stayed out of, were widely known for their cruelty and sadism.

And it’s not as if there aren’t other places in the world right now that could use our help in preventing death and misery. Libya is currently a failed state where pro-democracy activists are being killed with impunity. Boko Haram is still kidnapping children in Nigeria. Just recently, UN peacekeepers were killed in Mali by an al-Qaeda-affiliated militia. There are a myriad terrible scenarios happening in the world at any one time – we have to be smart about which ones we apply our resources to.

In fact, one could easily make the case that the most pressing humanitarian issue at the moment – and one that actually does have direct, if so far minimal, implications for our security – is the spread of the Ebola virus, which has killed more than 3000 people as of the time of writing and has led to the virtual shut-down of an entire country. The chief of the UN Ebola mission has even warned that the small chance of the virus mutating and become airborne could create a “nightmare scenario” for the world. “In a career working in these situations, wars, natural disasters,” he told the Daily Telegraph, “I have never seen anything as serious or dangerous or high risk as this one.” This is one matter where our resources, coupled with concerted international action, could actually save a significant number of lives and improve global stability, with no real risk of blowback.

Yet there is no comparable worldwide debate about what the western world can do to help poor, ill-equipped African countries deal with this modern plague. Perhaps it is a problem of the way these things are reported. Most stories on ISIS provide graphic details of the kinds of atrocities committed by the extremists against civilians, eliciting a strong, emotional reaction of outrage. No such descriptions typically accompany stories about Ebola.

Yet the virus is also plenty horrific when thoroughly described. If you should be unlucky enough to be infected, you can look forward to suffering frequent vomiting and diarrhoea, as well as a nearly 40-degree fever, in the early stages. Ultimately, blood will start to stream from orifice in your body, including your eyes, ears and rectum, and you will die when one organ after another starts shutting down.

Despite all of this, it seems we’re doomed to relive the same debates and decisions around Iraq we went through a decade ago. This time, however, led by a massively popular Prime Minister, we seem to be barrelling enthusiastically into the disaster we once avoided. Usually, when you’re able to repeat something, it means the opportunity to fix a past mistake. It’s not often that you take that chance to make an equally big one.

© Scoop Media