-
Kiwi troops in Afghanistan - Source: ONE News -
Related
Don Brash's attempted takeover of the Act party has quickly moved the minds of those of a political bent away from the war we're fighting in Afghanistan to the more internecine battle on the right of New Zealand's politics.
But the war goes on, as does debate as to why we have troops in that country and what the ultimate objective really is. News about our troops in Afghanistan only occasionally pops its head out of the trench, but this past week two stories of SAS attacks have earned headlines and debate.
First, Q+A's interview with Defence Minister Wayne Mapp revealed details of a counter attack on insurgents in Baghlan province after Lt Tim O'Donnell was killed last year, and Metro magazine's in-depth story on the SAS attack in 2002 that saw our soldier detain 55 Afghans and hand them over to US forces, who subsequently mistreated them.
When a government asks its citizens to risk their lives - or take lives - on a foreign soil, it's a time for serious questions from an independent media.
"Why?" should be just the first of many.
One point that's stood out for me this week is that while the media reports discussing the Metro story have talked about the handling of the detainees, none has picked up on the eye-witness reports in the story that our SAS led an attack that resulted in the death of civilians, including a 70-year-old man and a six year-old girl. Hardly Al Qaeda targets.
Yet when we asked Afghanistan-related questions on Q+A, and not for the first time, we prompted a significant amount of feedback. Some were sceptical of the government's reason to have special op forces killing people in Afghanistan, with some claiming the only reason we're there is for oil or drugs. As Mapp explained on the programme, the government's reasoning is that seven New Zealanders have died in terror attacks in the past decade, including in New York and Bali
But there was an intriguing line of criticism that suggested it was unpatriotic and distasteful of us to even ask questions about what the military was doing in Afghanistan, and the work of the SAS in particular.
Wayne wrote in to tell us to "stop moaning and support our soldiers", while Bill accused us of "drumming up public opinion against [the] NZ SAS". Nic reckoned, "To even question there motives and decisions in battle is disgraceful".
While I understand that many would find it natural for our troops to take an "eye for an eye" approach if one of their own were attacked, war is surely not a theatre for personal or even national revenge. It must have strategic or defensive ends, or else it is simply an exercise in tit-for-tat death. The government and NZDF have said as much.
What I struggle with is the suggestion that politicians or military leaders should be able to make decisions in our name as New Zealanders without answering questions as to why and whether the choice is wise or productive. To question motives is the core purpose of the fourth estate; if we don't do that, we're little more than propaganda merchants.
Indeed, asking such questions respects the soliders and insists their lives and service not be taken for granted. Surely on ANZAC weekend more than any other we should remember how important it is to question military campaigns, lest we waste life in futile, ill-considered battle.
When we counter attack as we did in Baghlan, isn't the most natural question to ask whether that makes our other troops there safer, or simply stirs a hornet's nest? Or to wonder how the SAS were able to identify the nine insurgents killed as those who laid the IED that killed Lt O'Donnell?
Two arguments made in emails to the programme I've found especially hard to digest. One is that "war is a part of life". No it's not, it's a political choice. Peace is always an option.
The second is that the SAS are trained, elite killers and if they don't get sent to wars to fight and kill, we might as well not have them. Either they kill, or they're wasting taxpayers dollars. It's a bizarre argument that logically leads to the ridiculous conclusion that if there wasn't a war involving New Zealand, we'd want to create one or disband the unit. I would have thought that the SAS was a unit that acted like an insurance policy - essential to have if needed, but in an ideal world something we'll never need to use.
I acknowledge readily the courage of those serving in our armed forces; what I refuse to do is accept that they should just "do and die" without anyone at home asking why.
Tim Watkin is the producer of Q + A, Sundays on TV ONE,
9am .
