NZDF General discussion thread

[Todjaeger]

Actually kiwis (who happenned to be there at the time) were killed in the London Tube bombing, Bali, 9/11 (I think) but not Madrid.

One time recent NZ resident and former US intelligence officer Paul G Buchanan (and someone who doesn't always toe the official US/NZ Govt line on foreign policy) regularly writes respectful or sometimes thought provoking articles about NZ related security and intelligence issues on the (mainly left wing) kiwipolitico.com blogsite but he also writes on the (again mainly left wing) scoop.co.nz news/commentary site.

Eg at scoop back in Jan, he wrote some persuasive arguements for NZ having a presence in Afghanistan, it's well worth a read in terms of this debate and how some people might feel (so would be interested to know if anyone agrees/disagrees with his assessment).
Scoop: Paul Buchanan: Why The NZDF Is In Afghanistan

(And if anyone is interested in his latest writing on the events of the past week or so):
Scoop: Paul Buchanan: Two Sides of the Afghan COIN

Thanks for the links. I felt is was a possibility for a Kiwi to have been killed in the Tube and/or Bali bombings, but was not sure since such info is not readily at hand where I am. As for those killed in 9/11, most of what is readily available to me are local people.

It is also good to see that there are those who are forward thinking in terms of what could and should be done. Personally, much of what I have read so far from the links seems somewhat light on details and the practical impact. Rather the positions seem based more upon ideals than what are IMO more pragmatic concerns in terms of security and potential future effects. OTOH I could just be reading too much (or too little) into the blogs.

-Cheers

 

[KiwiRob]

I don't buy it, a few kiwi's were killed in New York, London and Bali is hardly an attack upon New Zealand and our way of life, they were unlucky to be in the right place at the wrong time. Farting around in Astan also isn't going to do much for us either, the Brits failed, the Russians failed and I have know reason to believe the ISAF won't fail as well. The poppy fields aren't much of a concern either, the war on drugs has been a complete failure for decades, making drug use illegal has failed to stem drug use, more people use drugs today than ever before.

I supported the interventions in Timor and the Solomons, I would also have supported us going in and cleaning up in Fiji. Problems in our back yard require our intervention.

 

[RegR]

The fact that kiwis were killed anywhere due to terrorism is need for intervention whether or not they were directly targeted is irrelevant. Are we expected to stay bottled up within the safety of our own country and rely on our isolation because terrorists run the rest of the world? To provide them with a base of operations in Astan complete with a revenue gathering drug operation to fund their attacks in other countries would be just plain irresponsible because it will just get bigger and they will get more brazen with more kiwis finding themselves "in the wrong place". Who are they to dictate where we can go in the world.
To join the list of countries that have failed is just pointless, to at least try to stem the problem and win the hearts and minds of the majority of the populace will be far better than just abandoning Astan to the radical few. Also the foiled attack in Australia proves we are not unreachable, abit too close to home for my liking and with alot more ex pats to boot.
Although our contributions to international security are small by world standards I think kiwis bring something to the table that some of the bigger countries(no names) could learn alot from. We are not perfect by far but for us to pull out and give up prematurely would be a great loss for Afghanistans future outcome. Yes it is dangerous and casualties are a possibility but to do nothing will eventually be more dangerous.
If our mission in Afghan is considered done then surely we have more than done our job in Timor and Sollies, do we leave them to get on with it also?

 

[Todjaeger]

I don't buy it, a few kiwi's were killed in New York, London and Bali is hardly an attack upon New Zealand and our way of life, they were unlucky to be in the right place at the wrong time. Farting around in Astan also isn't going to do much for us either, the Brits failed, the Russians failed and I have know reason to believe the ISAF won't fail as well. The poppy fields aren't much of a concern either, the war on drugs has been a complete failure for decades, making drug use illegal has failed to stem drug use, more people use drugs today than ever before.

I supported the interventions in Timor and the Solomons, I would also have supported us going in and cleaning up in Fiji. Problems in our back yard require our intervention.

You seem to either no understand, or perhaps disagree with the conclusions, that others have regarding the impact the terror attacks I mentioned have had. Using just the two hijackings and deliberate plane crashes into the World Trade Center in New York as an example, several thousand people were killed. Had the timing of the attacks been different, as many as 50,000 could have perished instead of "only" ~2,800 +/-. People from 60+ nations worked in the World Trade Center complex prior to the collapse. Given the sheer scope of damage inflicted on infrastructure involved in international trade, both the US and global economies were effected.

Afghanistan, being at the time a failed or failing (depending on definition) state, was in a position where a group (Al Qaeda) was in a position to gather, train, organize and plan an operation which was successfully carried out in a foreign country and had an effect felt across the world. IMO it would unacceptable to allow such a situation to continue, as additional and perhaps even more devastating attacks could be launched, if the resources used to enable such attacks where not denied via one method or another. Somalia also serves as another example of the global impact a failed state can have. NZ trade has been effected due to the spike in piracy off the Horn of Africa and the related impact felt on international shipping costs. The same holds true reading pirary in and around the Straits of Malacca. An event does not have to occur in just New Zealand for Kiwis to be harmed. I would categorize the operations in Afghanistan as working to re-establish Afghanistan as a viable/non-failed state

Consider this nightmare scenario for instance...

If the Taliban had not effectively lost control of Afghanistan, and Al Qaeda had remained strong and integrated with the Taliban, then operatives might have been able to launch a similar attack again later on elsewhere, perhaps in another country. What would the reaction be if a jetliner was hijcked in the US, andf instead deliberately piloted into Buckingham Palace in Londown, while HM was in residence? The argument given seems to be that since few or no Kiwis were directly killed in such attacks, then NZ has no business being involved. Such arguments seem to echo statements of NZ being in a "safe" area, and I have a similar distain for the accuracy of such statements to cover stretghths and.or weeknesses of various tasked forces.

-Cheers

 

[recce.k1]

It is also good to see that there are those who are forward thinking in terms of what could and should be done. Personally, much of what I have read so far from the links seems somewhat light on details and the practical impact. Rather the positions seem based more upon ideals than what are IMO more pragmatic concerns in terms of security and potential future effects. OTOH I could just be reading too much (or too little) into the blogs.

-Cheers

Sure, I'd say that in these instances the "anaylst quoted" is explaining "to the masses" (rather than to the "defence" orientated community) the wider geopolitical contexts to why NZ is involved in these affairs. Because he has credibility here (i.e. with elements on the left and the right) IMO he adds some easy-to-understand counterbalance to the simple (but effective) emotive rhetoric the far left activists/politicians employ to the general (but largely uniformed) populance against these deployments (eg rather than be an international UN sanctioned operation it becomes an "American occupation" etc).

The other "problem" in NZ at the moment is the now Opposition, whom when were in power sent the NZDF & SAS to AStan in the first place, are now opposing combat elements being sent by the new Govt (and thus is a further tool to manipulate public opinion against said new Govt). Presumably then the new Govt, whilst will do what it believes to be in NZ's interests, will send those elements that are more likely to be sustainable and succeed (eg SAS). (Contrast the differences, again, of NZ Labour v Australia's Labor Parties).

Having said that I'm sure those at the sharp end of the Army's Regular Forces are itching to become involved jointly with their Aussie counterparts, but with the (small) NZDF stretched as it is, a Company deployment with logistical support would likely be out of the question at this point in time (but which could possibly change in the future as the NZDF reduce numbers in Timor and Bamyian). Yesterday it was reported the Oz Govt wanted 50 NZ troops (but there's been no detail on what exactly that entailed, for anyone here to make any informed comment on the merits or otherwise etc).

I take it that KiwiRob is simply one that believes NZ should work harder at securing its local regional sphere, rather than get involved in the widerworld affairs (or be a token, under-resourced element etc). Perhaps Rob could elaborate whether he's thinking of past conflicts and the toll on NZ lives which is shaping his current world view, or is simply considering the wider "religous" connotations of the West in Muslim countries or something else etc. (I do find Rob's ship building perspectives interesting hence would loathe to see this thread turn into a flame war etc).

The reality of the situation though is I agree with international efforts to best stabilise the area (eg and ensure that Pakistans's nukes are not endangered etc - and after all the irony of the NZ left's & their anti-nuclear stance should surely mean that NZ should very well be concerned and become involved with efforts to stabilise the delicate Pakistan/India/China/Iran/Russia geopolitical tensions - funnily enough all nuclear or aspiring nuclear power's - where AStan has the misfortune of being a kind of buffer zone (and thus subject to degrees of interference from its neighbours)) but I'm also mindful that historically some areas/tribes pre-date current borders and conflict is simply a fact of life since day 1. It's a tough situation for the West to become involved in - there are no easy solutions, but the alternative to do nothing would be worse. So it's a long term project in which over time various players will try and shape events, which means the West needs to stay engaged in one form or another over time.

Anyway the Army need to regroup for a while, the Govt should consider sending back the Frigates and Orions to work in with the ADF in a joint-capacity (and keep a smaller SAS presence as preferred by them when their deployment finishes next year and perhaps back them up with a platoon of RF's to gain further valuable experience working with Coalition forces). After-all these guys (and gals) will be our future leaders within the NZDF and the relationships built with their international colleagues will put the NZDF in good stead etc.

 

[Todjaeger]

I take it that KiwiRob is simply one that believes NZ should work harder at securing its local regional sphere, rather than get involved in the widerworld affairs (or be a token, under-resourced element etc). Perhaps Rob could elaborate whether he's thinking of past conflicts and the toll on NZ lives which is shaping his current world view, or is simply considering the wider "religous" connotations of the West in Muslim countries or something else etc. (I do find Rob's ship building perspectives interesting hence would loathe to see this thread turn into a flame war etc).

The reality of the situation though is I agree with international efforts to best stabilise the area (eg and ensure that Pakistans's nukes are not endangered etc - and after all the irony of the NZ left's & their anti-nuclear stance should surely mean that NZ should very well be concerned and become involved with efforts to stabilise the delicate Pakistan/India/China/Iran/Russia geopolitical tensions - funnily enough all nuclear or aspiring nuclear power's - where AStan has the misfortune of being a kind of buffer zone (and thus subject to degrees of interference from its neighbours)) but I'm also mindful that historically some areas/tribes pre-date current borders and conflict is simply a fact of life since day 1. It's a tough situation for the West to become involved in - there are no easy solutions, but the alternative to do nothing would be worse. So it's a long term project in which over time various players will try and shape events, which means the West needs to stay engaged in one form or another over time.

Sorry if I came across overly harsh. I have been a bit tired/burnt out lately so I was not up to my usual level of clarity. That, and I freely admit that the attacks upon and subsequent destruction of the World Trade Center in New York is a bit of a sensitive point with me.

What I am trying to understand is what would be considered something worthwhile for the NZDF to become involved in? The attacks I mentioned are all demonstrations (IMV at least) of the potential threat to the collective security of the world posed by large, well organized and funded non-state actors. The impression I formed from the response was that since the incidents happened "over there," meaning not within NZ proper, they are of little concern to NZ. Which in turn seems to be a form of continuation of the (again, IMO) erroneous POV that NZ is in a "benign" region which led to such a decline in the NZDF, since it manages to completely ignore the impact events occurring outside of NZ can have upon NZ and the Kiwis.

Is my reading of this incorrect? Or is the concern that the NZDF being a small, comparatively weak force, should be used for defence of NZ and operations closer to home as it were, where NZ could more easily play a leading or at least major role?

-Cheers

 

[recce.k1]

Rest assured Todjaeger in that the NZ Govt (and hence the NZDF) will be involved in actions outside of NZ - history demonstrates that - and certainly (of those so far talking part in this discussion so far) i.e. RegR, yourself & myself agree with the continuation of the status-quo.
KiwiRob however takes a different viewpoint (and to be fair there will be others in NZ also) and he has said this before, but he hasn't elaborted on his reasoning (Rob - if you care to mate)!

 

[Lucasnz]

Rest assured Todjaeger in that the NZ Govt (and hence the NZDF) will be involved in actions outside of NZ - history demonstrates that - and certainly (of those so far talking part in this discussion so far) i.e. RegR, yourself & myself agree with the continuation of the status-quo.
KiwiRob however takes a different viewpoint (and to be fair there will be others in NZ also) and he has said this before, but he hasn't elaborted on his reasoning (Rob - if you care to mate)!

NZ will always contribute to International operations, the deployment of the ANZAC's to Gulf, SAS and reconstruction team are all examples of that. Something I personally support. But to be realistic I can't see NZ deploying a Battalion group outside the South Pacific / South East Asia region without an increase in the size of the defence back to early 1980's levels. For NZ size, rather than a lack of willingness, is the limiting issue especially when you consider the ongoing deployments to the Solomons and East Timor, and the Pacific's problem child Fiji. NZ needs to prioritise and the Pacific is our home, something we can't ignore.

 

[Cadredave]

NZ will always contribute to International operations, the deployment of the ANZAC's to Gulf, SAS and reconstruction team are all examples of that. Something I personally support. But to be realistic I can't see NZ deploying a Battalion group outside the South Pacific / South East Asia region without an increase in the size of the defence back to early 1980's levels. For NZ size, rather than a lack of willingness, is the limiting issue especially when you consider the ongoing deployments to the Solomons and East Timor, and the Pacific's problem child Fiji. NZ needs to prioritise and the Pacific is our home, something we can't ignore.

You are 100% correct Lucasnz it is our size that is dictating what we can & cannot support the unit i am in trained & deployed 700 pers in the last financial year for all our major missions, that 700 going, 700 coming home & 700 preparing & building up for deployment, a Coy group deployment now would destroy the Army imo, I dont agree with Rob but thats his opinion Astan is our fight same as Solomons & Timor.

 

[KiwiRob]

KiwiRob however takes a different viewpoint (and to be fair there will be others in NZ also) and he has said this before, but he hasn't elaborted on his reasoning (Rob - if you care to mate)!

I believe NZ should look after it's own back yard first, be involved in issues that directly affect us, I'm all for regional security and us being a policeman in the South Pacific. People tend to forget that we are a small country, in the past we have sacrified a lot, I am proud of NZ efforts in Boar War, WW1, WW2, Korea........not Vietnam again like Astan it's another US folley that sucked other countries into. Besides the US has more than enough people of it's own without needing a couple of hundred of our guys to help. I also think that by being with the US in this problem probably makes US a potential target, if we are not involved we are not a target.

Issues like piracy which does have an impact on our trade (btw my company sell anti piracy searchlights if anyone wants one I'm your guy) I'm all for sending a frigate or OPV, this is something which is important for us and I can see a direct benefit.

 

[Twickiwi]

No big wars, just lots of commitments

In the same way that the economic weather before the Great Recession was benign for almost 20 years, I think NZ has experienced the best of times geopolitically since the end of the Vietnam War. We weren't really a participant in the Cold War (which in retrospect focused on Europe and little proxies in Africa and South America). In such a climate, with no real skin the game in South America and Africa, it was rational to slowly let NZ's defence force wind down.

I think geopolitically NZ is now being subjected to the beginnings of a global warming. I think post 9/11 the US will remain activist and interventionist in world problem areas leading to wars of occupation and insurgency. It is ingrained deep in the American voter that failed states breed terrorists, so the voter fears that restrained Clinton in Somalia aren't there anymore. The yanks will want a contribution from their friends. So I think Astan-like commitments are unavoidable.

China will little by little start asserting its sphere of interests (which I think it probably has a right to do). The regional reactions will likely be a source of instability. NZ will definitely want to cool things down and regional defence pacts mean we will have to send something into the area.

I think there is also an ongoing and increasingly common clash between nation states and sub-national groups, particularly in weakened or malfunctioning states. This can be benign (Scottish nationalism) or not so benign (East Timor).

When people talk about increasing NZ's defence forces they think of mobilisation for a WWII clash (more the ill-informed admittedly). Peaceniks reflexively resist this as they tend to believe wars start with capability to make war and misunderstanding.

I think over the next generation NZ will have to find resources for more capability and even if it does, those defence assets will be squeezed. NZ will be required to send token forces to multiple moderately sized engagements world wide and local defence commitments where NZ's contribution will be important, simultaneously. Like the Chinese curse, it suggests a defence career in NZ will be interesting.

 

[Todjaeger]

I believe NZ should look after it's own back yard first, be involved in issues that directly affect us, I'm all for regional security and us being a policeman in the South Pacific. People tend to forget that we are a small country, in the past we have sacrified a lot, I am proud of NZ efforts in Boar War, WW1, WW2, Korea........not Vietnam again like Astan it's another US folley that sucked other countries into. Besides the US has more than enough people of it's own without needing a couple of hundred of our guys to help. I also think that by being with the US in this problem probably makes US a potential target, if we are not involved we are not a target.

Issues like piracy which does have an impact on our trade (btw my company sell anti piracy searchlights if anyone wants one I'm your guy) I'm all for sending a frigate or OPV, this is something which is important for us and I can see a direct benefit.

Are you sure you have not mixed Afghanistan up with Iraq?

I ask because it seems like that the argument being made is that it was/is a US folly, and that the US should never have gone into Afghanistan, but since the US has gone in, there is no reason for any Kiwi involvement, because the situation in Afghanistan cannot have an impact on NZ. Is that, in essence, correct?

I ask because I truly do not understand, based off my knowledge of world events, the basis for such a viewpoint.

-Cheers

 

[recce.k1]

I believe NZ should look after it's own back yard first, be involved in issues that directly affect us, I'm all for regional security and us being a policeman in the South Pacific. People tend to forget that we are a small country, in the past we have sacrified a lot, I am proud of NZ efforts in Boar War, WW1, WW2, Korea........not Vietnam again like Astan it's another US folley that sucked other countries into. Besides the US has more than enough people of it's own without needing a couple of hundred of our guys to help. I also think that by being with the US in this problem probably makes US a potential target, if we are not involved we are not a target.

Issues like piracy which does have an impact on our trade (btw my company sell anti piracy searchlights if anyone wants one I'm your guy) I'm all for sending a frigate or OPV, this is something which is important for us and I can see a direct benefit.

Even Paul Buchanan's commentary (in the earlier link) still doesn't convince you that NZ has a role (or roles) in Afghanistan? Even though it is UN mandated?

I take it you know that postwar (WW2) countries like NZ (greatly & loudly) supported the establishment of the UN to ensure that nations would collectively work to reduce conflict, meaning that even little ol' NZ would still need to participate where and when practically possible to contribute to those efforts? Thus whether the problem was close by in our backyard or further away, it did not matter, as it was/is important to work collectively and collaboratively to ensure the rule of law etc?

If this concept sounds reasonable then what makes Afghanistan today an exception to the rule?

Because it was originally an American led intervention (like Vietnam?) rather than a European led issue a la Boer/WW1/WW2 etc? Or is it the way/methods the American led intervention went about the task that is found wanting?

You're very much entitled to your views of course (but just wishing to understand them)!

I do agree the US has enough personnel of its own, in that a small NZ contribution could possibly be seen as unnecessary in the overall scheme, however my feeling is that generally the US appreciates other countries, even little ol' NZ, rolling up the sleeves and pitching in when required. It has always seemed to me, post WW2 that the big contributions from larger nations are very much appreciated as well as small contributions from smaller nations by the US. (Even former General McCrystal was interviewed by NZ TV a couple of months ago and like a diplomat was rather "respectful" and appreciative of NZ's small contribution to AStan ... and didn't all mind being interviewed etc).

 

[KiwiRob]

No not confusing Iraq and Astan, both are US adventurers of their own making. As far as I am concerned Astan is a US issue which the US have made a mess of, it's up to the US to keep going until they fix it, something the US aren't very good at. We don't need to be involved. Astan may have a UN mandate, even if it didn't the US would still be in there, they only listen to the UN when is suits them. Rather like the war on drugs the war on terror is destined to go on for a long time and end in failure, or just never end.

 

[recce.k1]

No not confusing Iraq and Astan, both are US adventurers of their own making.

Ok, not wishing to get into (circular arguments on) the pros and cons of this personally, so on a divergence theme you mentioned searchlights that would be useful for anti-piracy. What's the difference between them and standard searchlights eg do they have some eg infra-red or optical features that enhance them? A very wide beam etc? Would they be useful for NZ shipping, perhaps not so much anti-piracy but search and rescue etc?

 

[Cadredave]

No not confusing Iraq and Astan, both are US adventurers of their own making. As far as I am concerned Astan is a US issue which the US have made a mess of, it's up to the US to keep going until they fix it, something the US aren't very good at. We don't need to be involved. Astan may have a UN mandate, even if it didn't the US would still be in there, they only listen to the UN when is suits them. Rather like the war on drugs the war on terror is destined to go on for a long time and end in failure, or just never end.

No still dont understand what your going on about, you are starting to sound more & more like Keith Locke & his wishful band of merry men (No offesive intended), we are a global citizen putting one head in the sand gets you where?, (pre WW2 America) we are in Astan because thats what a responsible global citizen does. America could of finished this conflict 9 years ago if Iraqi had not of side tracked them & the conventional war breed of generals hadnt been in charge they have made big mistakes thats why Pretraous is in charge now.

COIN is the hardest & longest threat to deal with something that NZ & Aus are rather good at where do you think we as an Army are still applying these skill sets (Timor & the Solomans) day in day out we are mixing with the locals building trust talking these skills sets they translate directly to Astan & bamiyan province.

Rob dont base your opinions of a Sunday star times report from one of the biggest pricks of a reporter to have visited Bamiyan the difference we are making in Bamiyan is this we have been doing COIN Ops since day 1 something that the US & even the UK are havin to learn, lessons learned from one theater do work in another what I learnt from all those Vietnam Vets are the same principles that we are using in Astan.

Insurgency conflicts are winnable the UK proved that in Malaya what the US needs is a whole of Government approach to this conflict a good book to read is "Learning to eat soup with a knlfe" by John Nagl in it you will come to understand the American way of doing War & why it has failed in Astan so far, once you understand there mentality then you understand why Gen Pretraous is in charge, now we have a part to play & we are doing it well & to the best of our abilities Bamiyan might not be perfect but its working & recovering in saying that we still have a long road to travel down yet.

 

[alaxe12]

I agree with Cadredave we are look at being part of global we have our noses in many global
treaties and committees some time we got to walk the talk also we can train and train but the
only exprience is being there

 

[KiwiRob]

Ok, not wishing to get into (circular arguments on) the pros and cons of this personally, so on a divergence theme you mentioned searchlights that would be useful for anti-piracy. What's the difference between them and standard searchlights eg do they have some eg infra-red or optical features that enhance them? A very wide beam etc? Would they be useful for NZ shipping, perhaps not so much anti-piracy but search and rescue etc?

Our current system uses a 3000w Xenon searchlight with an automatic search profile, hit someone even 2000m out with 3000w of Xenon power and they won't be able to see for a couple of days, hit them close up and they might not see again ever. We were focus testing a 1000w xenon on a cinder block wall from about 5 metres, within 30 seconds the wall started smoking. We are looking into improving the system with cameras on the lights so only 1 person needs to monitor a screen on the bridge, we may even use IR cameras then when we get something flip on the lights and give em the business.

A couple of other companies are working on searchlight solutions, we have had strong interest from shipowners for our system, the beauty of it is that you can also use them as normal searchlights, most of the other light based anti piracy systems on the market are small handheld devices with 75w Xenon lamps, you have to let the pirates get pretty close before these systems are effective. So unless pirates start using welding goggles our system is pretty effective.

 

[Lucasnz]

An interesting article about the outcome of the Defence review.

The article suggests that the army (increase to 5,400) and airforce will be the big winners out of the review. In addition the ANZAC's won't get an upgrade in the near future as the Navy focuses on the tanker replacement. No MB339 it would seem to.

I'm treating this article with a touch of specitism at present, given that some of the comments by the Minister of Defence suggested that the Maritime domain would receive a greater emphasis.

 

[steve33]

Interesting to read the article where it states that the governemnt were looking at specific peace keeping role for the troops and the army didn,t like it because it goes against there basic ethos of being prepared to fight.

Our political leaders like this approach because it is safe for them they can tell the people of New Zealand we are a peace loving nation helping civilans around the world with our army and without body bags coming home there poll numbers won,t get damaged.

The problem with that approach is that if the army finds it,s self having to be deployed to do more than just peace keeping they won,t be prepared for it and ironically you will find yourself sending even more coffins home.