19 February 2015
Most New
Zealanders will have never heard of the Nairn brothers. But from 1923 until the
late 1950s, these two New Zealanders operated the famous Nairn Bus to Baghdad.
At the time, it was “the” way to make the 1,040 kilometres journey over often
dusty desert roads from Beirut to Baghdad. While the Nairns have long since
passed on, it still seems to be a case of all roads lead to Baghdad, as far is
New Zealand is concerned.
Within the week,
New Zealand will decide on a military deployment to Iraq to combat the rise of
ISIL. Of course, no formal decision has been made as yet, but all the signs are
pretty obvious, and when I overhear young soldiers at Auckland Airport talking
about how exciting their role in Iraq will be, I know our forces are as good as
on their way. And forget the niceties – regardless of whether they are just
training advisers, or whether they are under the protection of the Iraqi armed
forces, they are in fact military personnel and will thus be subject to all the
perils that implies. And remember too, that the innocuous term
“trainer/adviser” seldom stops there. Kennedy sent a few hundred advisers to
help South Vietnam in the early 1960s – by the time the Vietnam War ended in
(in American defeat) in 1975, over 210,000
young Americans and more than 220 young New Zealanders had been killed or
wounded.
I have been a
keen student of Middle Eastern politics since the early 1970s. The intervening
years have seen massive upheaval and changes in the region, the fall of old
regimes and dynasties and the rise of new ones. But no matter how the lines on
maps have been drawn, or which governments have been backed by the West, and
which have not, the one constant has been the failure of Western policy.
Mainly, this has been the fault of the United States, although the British and
the French must also take their share of culpability.
In their heyday,
the Nairns had to battle all manner of political and other obstacles, from the
inhospitably hot weather to the marauding intentions of hostile Bedouin
tribesmen (who were even then subject to RAF bombing and strafing in Iraq).
Nearly 90 years later, not a lot has changed, except that the brutality and
precision intensity of weaponry has increased dramatically. ISIL and its
ambition to establish a new Caliphate is hardly new either. The Rashidun
Caliphate was established almost 1,400 years ago. The Ottoman Caliphate lasted
from the sacking of Constantinople in 1453 until 1924. The Crusades of the 11th
and 12th centuries were Christian Europe’s first ultimately
unsuccessful response to the rise of Islam. ISIL, whatever one thinks of its
depraved brutality, is the modern expression of those traditions. History
suggests it is not going to be bombed or blasted away.
I oppose New
Zealand becoming militarily involved in the ISIL campaign for one simple reason
– it will not work. In doing so, I am not condoning ISIL’s atrocities or
barbarism in any way. But external intervention as now proposed will be
ultimately unsuccessful and much innocent blood on all sides will be spilled in
the process. Whether or not ISIL’s desire to establish the new Caliphate
succeeds depends far less on the exercise of external military might than it
does on the support of the people in the region to let it happen.
So any
intervention we feel obliged to make should be at the diplomatic and
humanitarian aid ends of the spectrum, working with and alongside local people
to strengthen civil society. And if the international system is to count for
anything (and given our role on the UN Security Council should we not be doing
our best to ensure it does?) any such action should be under a UN Mandate.
We can hardly
expect others to play by the international rules, if we are not prepared to do
so ourselves.
Bravo! Someone's awake about the folly of sending our troops to Iraq.
ReplyDelete- HOW COME THE PUBLIC ISN'T CONSULTED???
- It's our army (relatives that get called and taken hostage and killed), not just John Key's.
- Which budget are ransoms paid from - is the money taken from education or health care or housing? Or do we have a policy of not paying ransoms?
- Or does the US print some 'quantitative easing' money to pay the ransoms for us?
- If we pay ransoms, do we include a polite note asking ISIS not to use the money for fighting us with?
- See cartoons and comments at http://tinyurl.com/kabeeju