Global Freeloaders

The Follies of New Zealand’s “Defence” Policies

New Zealand’s history as a non-aligned nation lasted about a nano-second–and even then existed only in the imaginations of a few peace-niks.  New Zealand has never been non-aligned.  It has always relied upon other nations to defend itself.  Relying upon other nations requires alignment.

Our unwillingness to take responsibility for the defence of the country is one of the most shameful aspects of our national life.  Relying upon other nations to come to our defence if attacked is a dereliction of fundamental government responsibilities; it also is an indictment upon the citizenry.  We are global free-loaders.

New Zealanders and their politicians maintain an unjustified pride in the false narrative that we “punch above our weight” in global affairs.  We don’t.  The most fundamental duty of a state government is that it defend its citizens against armed aggression from other states and random malefactors.  In this sacred duty, successive New Zealand governments have failed.  Instead we have chosen the cheap option–all the while congratulating ourselves on how clever and cunning we have been. 

For well over a century or more, New Zealand has relied upon “others” to defend our shores.  Ironically this has resulted in our soldiers and military going to war to assist other nations–with which we have become aligned by means of mutual defence treaties.
  Our mutual defence pacts with the United States and Australia (ANZUS) led us into combat in Vietnam.  Our defence arrangements with the United Kingdom led us into combat in Malaysia.  We have more recently deployed our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Most recently, the United States will likely request (and expect) that New Zealand will deploy military capability to join with it to defeat ISIS in Arabia and the Middle East.

In all these military interventions, New Zealand is not “punching above its weight”, but paying the cost of successively taking the cheap and soft option not to take responsibility for our own national defence.  The reality is that our country is not under any clear and present danger from ISIS or other Islamic terrorists at this time.  There is a general threat to be sure, but no-one is yet calling for the beheading of New Zealanders.  It may come, but not yet.  The danger is neither clear, nor present, for New Zealand at this time.

In that light, the cautionary notes sounded by Andrea Vance recently are salutary.  

Prime Minister John Key indicated he is taking advice on what role New Zealand will play in the multi-national anti-ISIS coalition. . . .  One option on the table is to send in SAS troops to fight militants. Key said this is his “least preferred option.” But he admitted that should New Zealand’s support move beyond humanitarian to a deployment, it will not go before Parliament for a vote.

The British Parliament was recalled for an emergency vote to sanction air strikes. The Conservative Government won by a majority of 481. A year earlier, MPs voted against joining a US-led intervention in Syria, leading US President to abandon the mission. The Turkish Parliament in Ankara voted in favour of cross-border military involvement on Thursday. It previously rejected action for fear of putting hostages at risk.  In contrast, the Australian Parliament was told on Wednesday that aircraft began flying over Iraq to support allied operations. A final decision to commit forces will not be made until a formal invitation comes from Iraq.

Here is where the reckless danger emerges of having a defence policy which depends upon allies for its execution.  Because those upon whom we rely to defend our shores (Australia and the United States) are involved, we–to maintain the integrity of that policy–will likely also become involved or otherwise risk leaving the country undefended and truly weak–as it actually is.  We would risk the security blanket provided by others being torn away.  The cheap defence option is actually most risky and costly in another sense.  It exposes us involuntarily to participating in the wars of other nations.  This risk is particularly acute when one of those upon whom we rely is the most bellicose nation upon the earth, which has deployed its military and been involved in armed conflict somewhere in the globe every year since the Korean War began.  Vance writes:

New Zealand faces a tough choice. Stand by impotently as many more hostages are murdered by a network of death? Or join another US-led crusade in a Muslim country?   With one foot in the West and one in the East, and vying for a seat on the UN Security Council, it must be remembered that not all nations choose the US as their global policeman.

In the last two decades, Iraq has not been far off the military radar. Military intervention to eliminate weapons of mass destruction was built on a fallacy, years of slaughter failed to remove the threat of terrorism or install democracy.  The conflict in Afghanistan also saw mission creep. Initial action was targeted at taking out Osama Bin Laden and dismantling Al Qaeda, but became a protracted quest to implement democracy and destroy the Taleban. Key admitted New Zealand paid a ”heavy price” – the death of 10 soldiers.

The latest strikes on Iraq have been condemned worldwide for lacking strategy and tactics. All the warning signs are that taking on ISIS will be a long, bloody war, with complex and unpredictable consequences.  At the very least all this is worthy of a parliamentary debate.

New Zealand is now caught in a trap of its own devising.  From the time of the 60’s onwards, successive New Zealand governments have failed to instil in our citizens the duty of defending the country.  The people have consequently been unwilling to pay the price–both personally and collectively–to provide for our defence.  We have taken the “cheap” option of relying upon others.

It has been a craven policy, too clever by half.  We are now being made to experience the hidden costs of “punching above our weight”.  

The Lusts of Vlad the Impaler

Good Luck with Finland

It has been reported that Vlad the Impaler has his eyes on restoring Russia’s borders to the 1917 status quo.  In Vlad’s mind, international law and treaties are null and void after that year. This, from the NZ Herald:

After annexing Crimea and with troops massed on the border of Ukraine, Vladimir Putin will not stop trying to expand Russia until he has “conquered” Belarus, the Baltic states and Finland, one of his closest former advisers has said.  According to Andrej Illarionov, the President’s chief economic adviser from 2000 to 2005, Mr Putin seeks to create “historical justice” with a return to the days of the last Tsar, Nicholas II, and the Soviet Union under Stalin.

Speaking to the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet, Mr Illarionov warned that Russia will argue that the granting of independence to Finland in 1917 was an act of “treason against national interests”.  “Putin’s view is that he protects what belongs to him and his predecessors,” Mr Illarionov said.  “Parts of Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic States and Finland are states where Putin claims to have ownership.”

Let’s think about Finland.
  It is a small country when considered from the metric of population, but has a long border with Russia (1300km).  It turns out that the Finns, like the Swiss, take national defence seriously.  According to Wikipedia:

Finland is the only non-NATO EU country bordering Russia. Finland’s official policy states that the 350,000 reservists with mostly ground weaponry are a sufficient deterrent. The army consists of a highly mobile field army backed up by local defence units. The army defends the national territory and its military strategy employs the use of the heavily forested terrain and numerous lakes to wear down an aggressor, instead of attempting to hold the attacking army on the frontier.  Finland’s defence budget equals about 2 billion euro or 1.4-1.6 percent of the GDP. The voluntary overseas service is highly popular and troops serve around the world in UN, NATO and EU missions. Homeland defence willingness stands at around 80%, one of the highest rates in Europe.

If Russia were to invade, it would be like putting a pudgy hand into a wasp’s nest.  Good luck with that.  Full marks to the Finnish people for being prepared to take homeland defence seriously, and being willing to pay the price.  A homeland defence willingness of 80% must be up there with Israel.

We wonder how New Zealand would fare in a survey of “homeland defence willingness”.  Pretty low, we would imagine.

Driven by Vlad’s antediluvian world view, the stupid illegalities of Russia, which rip up treaties and international agreements in a vain attempt to re-create the past, are serious if one happens to be a neighbouring country.  But it serves to underscore the need of all countries to take their own defence seriously.  Those that don’t, live in a dream-world.  Countries unwilling to pay the price of their own defence, risk ending up paying the price of invasion and control by tyrants.  Countries that attempt to slough off their own defence responsibilities–which are the price of independence–to other countries by means of treaties and agreements are already servile in one measure or other.  Good on the Finns for taking the opposite, and correct, view.  Good on them for believing that defence is the responsibility of every grown adult in the country.

Putin’s recklessness is doomed to failure.  The worst case scenario is that the Russian bear extends its paw to swipe through the Baltic states, the Ukraine, and so on, in a vainglorious attempt to restore the borders back to 1917.  Within a generation it will have collapsed in a ruin far worse than communism’s implosion.  What Vlad has not worked out yet is that the best thing for Russia’s long term interests is to be surrounded by free, independent states with whom they can trade on a willing, open and fair basis, without pressure or threat, implied or actual.  Vlad is an anachronism.  He will have deserved the mausoleum of mockery history will bestow upon him. 

The biggest risk is not Vlad, but that the West, in its own manifestation of Putinesque vainglory, will come to believe it needs to interfere militarily.  World wars have begun that way.  

Oh, and in case you had not heard, Vlad recently was interviewed on national TV in the United States.

Gnashing Teeth

Impotence Over Ukraine Is Not Bad

The stew bubbling in the Ukrainian cauldron provides an occasion to reflect on how, in a more Christianised world, a nation state ought to act toward other states.  We do not claim that the issues are always easy.  They are certainly not as far as the Ukraine is concerned.  Here are some thoughts.

Firstly, nationalism (which elevates one’s nation or people group into ultimate reverence) is a great evil and a false god.  All that stuff about love of country and hymns of praise to one’s patria, is either dangerously borderline or overtly anti-Christian.  If Christians would baulk at singing hymns of praise to the nation’s president or monarch or head of state then they ought also baulk at singing stirring hymns of pride and love to “Oh my country . . . ”  Nations quickly become idols. 

It is a striking thing that Christians are called in Scripture to love God, to love the brethren and the Church, and to love all men–but never called to love one’s country.
  When examples arose of God’s people veering towards nationalism–the kind of sentiment which not only elevated Israel or Judah to an object of inordinate loyalty, but which also looked down upon other nations with arrogance,  such as was regnant in Jonah’s heart–divine rebuke swiftly followed. 

The closest you can come to it is passages like the lament in over Zion in Psalm 137 by the exiles in Babylon.  But this was a lament over God’s judgement upon Judah, His lapsed worship, and for His Kingdom, not over Judea per se–as is evidenced by the majority of exiles remaining in Babylon, even when there was opportunity to return. 

Now, of course, national anthems are not intrinsically idolatrous.  It all depends what is declared in the anthem of praise.  We believe, for example, that the New Zealand national anthem has it about right:

God of nations, at Thy feet
In the bonds of love we meet
Hear our voices, we entreat
God defend New Zealand . . .

Not a scrap of “Hail to the Chief” there.  (Incidentally, the secularists hate our national anthem, but to date have not been able to toss it on the scrap bin of secularist history.) 

Secondly, nationalism has been a provocation to many wars.  It has been a particularly bloody idol, a veritable Molech, consuming its own children.  It is not clear just how much nationalism is inflaming both Russia and the Ukraine at this time, but we hazard a guess that it is having an active influence right down into the bowels of both countries.

Thirdly, internationalism has been a provocation to many more wars still. Secular humanism spawned the era of nineteenth and twentieth century nationalism and its outworking was bloody.  But its stepchildren were more bloody still. Rationalistic ideologies, grounded in abstractions such as National Socialism or Communism, waged borderless wars.  They were genuinely international in focus and reach.  Opponents to these ideological abstractions were ruthlessly crushed both inside and outside national borders. 

The counter to these tyrannies has been the rise of international law, where effectively nations cede sovereignty and accept the powers, rules, regulations, and taxes of the United Nations.  But the counter has proved ineffectual and vain.  It has no final sanction because it has not been granted the sword–for which we are very thankful.  Were it to have been so granted, our liberty would have shrivelled up more quickly than a wilting rose in the Gobi desert. 

One upshot before us now is the frustration of the West at its impotence in the face of Russian aggression and violations of international laws and treaties.  Going to war is not an option (thankfully).  Any such war would be as illegal and wrong as Russia’s belligerence in our view: two wrongs do not make a right.  But frustration levels will run very high in the West, particularly in the United States, because impotence does not become that nation. 

Herein is a paradox.  It ought not frustrate us at all.  The whole concept of human freedom and dignity trades off doctrines of limited government.  Thus far the right wing in the US will cheer.  But limited governments necessarily must be limited not only in what they are forbidden to do with respect to their own citizens, but to other nations as well.  When the conservatives in the US rail against the impotence of their country to do anything in the Crimea or the Ukraine they are guilty of both wanting the cake and of eating it too.  It does not withstand scrutiny. 

God has given the power of the sword to the civil government.  But that power has been granted to defend its innocent citizens against evil doers.  It has not been granted to defend citizens of other countries, no matter how beleaguered or severe their plight.  We believe a Christian state should be an armed fortress–but armed only for the defence of its own citizens against aggressors.  A necessary corollary is a nettle we must willingly grasp: a Christian state will not go to the defence of citizens of another state.  A Christian state ought not to enter mutual defence treaties, even with other Christian states. 

The bottom line is this: a state and a people which are unwilling to pay the price to maintain their own defence–like New Zealand, incidentally–deserves its fate.  A Christian state has no God-given authority to make war on another state for the defence of citizens not their own. 

Marketing

Oh What a Lovely War

In 2012 the UK Ministry of Defence produced a paper giving advice on how to “market” war to the public.  The intention was to work out how to increase public support for the various wars the UK was engaged in at the time.  One suggestion made was to make less of repatriation and funeral ceremonies of those who had died.  Downplay the negative.  Accentuate the positive.  That sort of stuff.  Typical marketing fluff.

The document, written in November 2012 and obtained by the Guardian under the Freedom of Information Act, discusses how public reaction to casualties can be influenced and recommends that the armed forces should have “a clear and constant information campaign in order to influence the major areas of press and public opinion”. (The Guardian)

The folk don’t like hearing and seeing that soldiers and airmen have been killed.  It is a negative.  It ought to be downplayed.  Don’t regard these people as heroes who have laid down their lives for the protection of their loved ones, their neighbours, and their nation.   That ends up accentuating the negative, which will reduce “market” appetite and demand for war.

But wait a minute.  This is war we are talking about.
  It is not the release of the latest smart phone.  The very fact that the UK government is having to consider marketing strategies to make war more publicly supported indicates that the war is most likely an illicit enterprise.  War can only be justified in the face of clear and present danger.  Clearly, if a war lacks the support of the population, the implication is that there is no danger to the population clearly to be seen.  Neither is it present. 

The Ministry of Defence paper recognises the problem.  There are wars which have high public support.  There are other wars which do not.  Maybe the UK government and politicians should consider where the difference lies.  It might mean that a much more restrained doctrine of war would emerge, instead of going halfway around the globe to participate in internationalist follies, whether as part of NATO commitments, or to play second, supporting fiddle to President Obama who infamously campaigned on the notion that Iraq was a “bad” war, but Afghanistan was a “good” war that the US should really, really fight because it involved good old fashioned “nation building”.  How sad–and wicked–that so many lives would be sacrificed for something so fatuously  idealistic and completely unrelated to anything vaguely resembling “clear and present danger”. 

It is arguable that a nation may face clear and present danger and going to war would be resisted by the population.  Maybe doctrines of pacifism have garnered widespread support.  Maybe the population has concluded that life under the invader would be preferable to their current lives.  But these would be extreme and unusual circumstances.  They certainly don’t apply in the UK at present–or to any Western nation as far as we can tell.  In fact, the MOD paper acknowledged just this point.

The eight-page paper argues that the military may have come to wrongly believe that the public, and as a result the government, has become more “risk averse” on the basis of recent campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. “However, this assertion is based on recent, post-2000 experience and we are in danger of learning false lessons concerning the public’s attitude to military operations,” the paper, which has no named author, adds.

“Historically, once the public are convinced that they have a stake in the conflict they are prepared to endorse military risks and will accept casualties as the necessary consequence of the use of military force.”  To back this up, it cites “robust” public support for earlier conflicts – the Falklands war and operations in Northern Ireland between 1969 and 2007. “In those cases where the public is unconvinced of the relevance of the campaign to their wellbeing they are not prepared to condone military risk and are acutely sensitive to the level of casualties incurred.  “Neither the action in Iraq nor the operations in Afghanistan have enjoyed public support and we are in danger of learning a false lesson from the experience of the last 10 years.”  (Emphasis, ours)

That this argues (from experience) is that the UK population operates with a war doctrine which justifies war on the basis of “clear and present danger” and is cynical about and even contemptuous toward wars which do not. 

The bottom line is this: in the UK the general population does not see a clear and present danger from the mujahideen in Afghanistan, half a world away.  To be sure, the UK has faced a clear and present danger from (UK citizen) terrorists.  No-one complains about the actions of the police, intelligence and security services to detect and apprehend and punish such miscreants.  But to suggest–as has been suggested–that there is a direct danger from the Taliban in Afghanistan to the UK is to draw forth a long, tenuous bow.  Hence, the UK warring in that place lacks public support.  This becomes a clear indicator that the war itself is illegitimate.  You cannot, after all, fool all of the people all of the time. 

But there is a danger.  The more illegitimate and illicit wars undertaken, the more cynical and war-weary a population becomes.  When an actual clear and present danger emerges, the risk is that the boy will have cried “Wolf!” once too often, sapping the resolve and will to fight when it is vital.  This leads to a paradox: the more warlike and belligerent a nation, the more it is likely to collapse.  The more illegitimate and unjustified wars a nation fights, the more vulnerable it becomes to general capitulation amongst the population, should a clear and present danger emerge.  Politicians and governments which uselessly expend the lives and materiel of its armed forces are weakening and putting at risk the sovereignty and defence of the nation. They are like a Fifth Column in our midst.

It is not accidental that the post-script to World War I in the UK was three decades of strong pacifist sentiment that left the UK exposed and vulnerable in the face of the rise of Hitler’s Third Reich.  And what generated pacifist sentiment?  It was the widespread public revulsion of the War which many came to see as having no meaning, no justification, and in no way representing a clear and present danger. 

Let the bellicose and the war-mongers amongst us take note.  Your illicit militancy is actually weakening the nation, sapping its will to defend itself.  Ah, but who cares?  We can always have recourse to the marketing department of the Ministry of Defence.

Unnecessary Sacrifice

A Spot of Nation Building

The NZ Army is finally returning from Afghanistan.  Ten soldiers died over that time.  They deserve to be remembered, although it is a very long bow to relate their effort to our own national security.  Essentially, the NZ effort was part of the US/UN inspired global war for democracy, peace and justice. It has had nothing to do with defending New Zealand and its citizens from armed aggression.

Consequently, the politicians have lauded the socio-economic contribution of the NZ Army to Bamiyan province in Afghanistan where it served.  Hamid Karzai, the Afghan President lauded the NZ Army effort, we are told, in terms of its contribution to nation building and to genuine assistance of the Afghan people.  Our Minister of Defence took a similar tack:

Dr Coleman said Bamiyan had come a long way since New Zealand had been in the province.  “When we look at the gains here in health, in education, in infrastructure, in agriculture, in the betterment of the living status of women and children, New Zealand is leaving behind a massive legacy here which people back home should be very proud of.  I think our 10 years here has made a very real difference in this part of the world and it’s something that we should look back on. It is a tragedy that we lost people, there’s no doubt about that, but it’s time to look back and commemorate.”

Commendable as this might be in its own way, it makes the death of  NZ soldiers all the more tragic and unnecessary.  What on earth were we thinking as a nation that we committed soldiers to “nation-build” on the high country of northern Asia?  What on earth has that to do with our national defence? 

Putting the question inevitably means that if it were to be answered a very, very long bow would have to be drawn out of the closet and flourished about.  Maybe a spot of nation-building in North Korea will be next.

Collateral Damage

The Real War Being Waged on American Soldiers

One of the saddest things we have read for some time came across our desk the other day.  It documented the suicide rate amongst serving and de-mobbed US soldiers.  Over the past year, more active duty soldiers killed themselves in the US military than were killed in actual combat. 

As The Guardian put it:

To put that another way, more of America’s serving soldiers died at their own hands than in pursuit of the enemy.

But the picture is actually worse: the suicide plague amongst veterans, those recently retired from serving is much, much higher.

. . . an astonishing 6,500 former military personnel who killed themselves in 2012, roughly equivalent to one every 80 minutes.

What on earth is going on?  As always, the reasons are no doubt complex.  Two things occur to us.

The first is a phenomenon described long ago by Erich Maria Remarque in his fine novel, All Quiet on the Western Front.  In one chapter, Remarque describes what happened when the German unit whose story he describes goes on leave they return to their small home town.  They immediately felt isolated from family, former friends, and acquaintances because they could not describe, nor convey the horrors they had been through.  They could no longer share themselves and their experiences in ordinary social conversation.  They did not belong at home any more.  

Fast forward to The Guardian’s article, which profiles the suicide of one young veteran.  His mother says:

The mental costs were high too. Each time he came back from Afghanistan. between tours or on R&R, he struck his mother as a little more on edge, a little more withdrawn. He would rarely go out of the house and seemed ill at ease among civilians. “I reckon he felt he no longer belonged here,” she said.

That’s precisely what Remarque was describing in All Quiet . . .  

A second issue is the horror of war itself.  Here is The Guardian’s account:

After one especially fraught night, Libby [the mother of the suicide] awoke to find that he had slashed his face with a knife.

Occasionally, he would allude to the distressing events that led to such extreme behaviour: there was the time that another soldier, aged 18, had been killed right beside him; and the times that he himself had killed.  William told his mother: “You would hate me if you knew what I’ve done out there.”  “I will never hate you. You are the same person you always were,” she said.  “No, Mom,” he countered. “The son you loved died over there.”

War is hell, as they say.  There are procedures and techniques to help soldiers cope with the horrors of the battlefield.  We understand the Israeli Defence Force has worked out effective ways to do this.

But we also think there is something more deeply at issue here.  Wars are easier to fight and endure when it is absolutely clear that they are being fought for just and righteous ends.  Self-defence, or the immediate defence of one’s country is one such just cause.  It justifies the horrors–rightly so.  When the would-be-murderer comes into the house to kill, one would despatch him as effectively and powerfully as possible–without a second thought.  The defence of one’s wife, one’s children, one’s aged parents is a compelling reason to kill another human being. 

The psychological impact is unlikely to be “the son you loved died that day when I despatched the murderous home invader”.  But when the cause becomes “nation building” halfway around the globe, or “bringing freedom and the American way” to Afghani tribesmen, or  fighting to establish democratic government amongst a foreign people the case is entirely different.  The drawn bow is too long.  No longer is defence of one’s family, neighbours, state, and nation the issue.   The imposition of a philosophy or ideology upon another people carries a great price: it slices through the consciences of soldiers, causing them feel the horror, and convicting them of the guilt, of their actions. 

In Les Miserables, when Inspector Javert comes to doubt the morality of his actions and the course of his life, he casts himself into the abyss–committing suicide. 

One response to the plight of the American veterans and serving soldiers from the conservative right has been to laud, celebrate, and honour the serving and those who have served.  But such things cannot quiet consciences, which speak like cutting seppeku knives in the lonely and dark hours of the night.  If a soldier cannot say, “I am proud of what I did” he will suffer.  But he can only be proud of what he did, of bringing death to others, if the drawn bow between his actions on the battlefield and the defence of his loved ones is very, very short. 

Abstract, humanitarian, global ideals do not blunt the knives of conscience.  They never will.   The United States must stop regarding itself as God’s Messiah, sent to save the world.  That glory and that responsibility belongs to Jesus Christ alone.

Old Friends

Living With the Dragon

New Zealand’s relationship to China provides an interesting case study with lots of fascinating permutations. 

Here are some of the issues and  paradoxes which drive the permutations:

• China is in our geographical region which means it is a logical trading partner for New Zealand (given our geographical isolation from the rest of the world.  Last time we checked there was not much trade going on with Antarctica.)
• China is the most populous nation upon the globe, with a rapidly emerging, higher spending middle class which is developing tastes for Western foods and high protein product.  It is also a dirty food producer.  New Zealand’s industrial and productive strength is clean food production.  But it will be small and insignificant in the longer time frame, only ever capable of meeting an infinitesimal portion of China’s growing food demand.  
• China is an authoritarian country, with an abysmal record of human rights.  It is run by oppressive, xenophobic, plutocratic, and corrupt governments–at all levels (national, regional, and local).  Commerce is conducted only by means of oleaginous fragrant grease.  Chinese leaders hate dissent.  The culture as a whole hates to lose face and be subject to public shame or ridicule.  All trade and business contacts with China risk contamination by Chinese oppressive and corrupt tactics. 
• Chinese culture remains strong and deeply rooted.  New Zealand’s cultural tradition is fragmented and thin: its people philosophically and culturally rootless.  For decades it has denied and derided its Western cultural heritage.  Its schools pride themselves on teaching nothing–so wedded have the prevailing philosophies of education become to neo-Marxism and post-modernism.  New Zealand exists in a cultural vacuum.  It stands for very little and falls for just about anything.  
• Chinese military power will only grow to where it will become the dominant military power on the globe.  There is simply no way New Zealand could ever defend itself successfully against Chinese attack.  Moreover, the Chinese government already has pressured New Zealand to triangulate with China in foreign affairs (over such issues as Tibet and the Dalai Lama) where China has attempted to pressure New Zealand to adopt the Chinese government position on issues.  

The only way forward for New Zealand is to make itself three things to China:

Politically neutral.  We need progressively to shed our alliances with other nations so that we can genuinely front China as a neutral, independent nation which refuses to be drawn into geo-political alliances.

High integrity trader.  Our trade with China must be scrupulously driven by the rules of commercial law with zero tolerance for breach of our own trade standards.  The New Zealand trade marks (e.g. quality certifications) need to be maintained rigorously with substantial penalties for any New Zealand business which violates or breaches standards. 

Long term focused, with clearly espoused, unbendable principles and integrity.  Culturally, the Chinese appreciate “old friends” and longer term relationships.  Unfortunately, these tend to operate within the Chinese culture as a means of control.  All too readily the “old friends” category operates more as a patronage system akin to the Mafiosi modus operandi.

Of these three necessary pre-requisites, the only one which has both skeleton and muscle at present is the second: we are a high integrity trader.  New Zealand quality assurance has meaning and substance and it is generally well-supported in New Zealand.

When it comes to political neutrality and the necessary moral integrity to avoid being captured and corrupted by the “old friends” category, however, we are hopelessly at sea.  New Zealand is too riven by party politics to have stable principles and consistent integrity to maintain a consistent longer term relationship.  Culturally New Zealand is too insecure, to thin, too rootless, we fear.  Our political neutrality is already compromised due to our military alliances with the United States and Nato.

Yet the window of opportunity remains open–at least for the present.  We have an excellent free trade agreement with China, which sets the frame for high-integrity trading.  We clearly produce what China increasingly demands and requires.  Chinese manufactures are increasingly penetrating our economy.  The Chinese are allowing our dairy industry to invest in China, even as they are investing in our dairy industry in New Zealand.  All of this bodes well–as far as it goes.

But what of the Chinese government’s latent hostility towards the Christian faith?  Tactically, the best thing is to persuade the Chinese authorities that Chinese Christians represent no threat to China, any more than they represent a threat to the United States, to Brazil, or to South Korea.  Such things can probably best be communicated within the bounds of a mutually respectful, high integrity relationship, rather than through one government hectoring another. 

Willing Little Helpers

Our Feckless Defence Policies

There is much to disturb in the Dotcom fiasco.  We are troubled by the appearance of an over-compliance with US demands.  When the New Zealand police force and spy agency appear to act like extensions of the FBI we are very uneasy. 

It appears that laws were broken by the authorities.  Fortunately we have courts.  We have Parliament.  We have independent officials charged with reviewing the activities of the Security Intelligence Service.  We expect that more and more will come out.  We also expect that what will emerge will be not a sinister intent to subvert law or justice, but ineptitude due to being in awe of the FBI and the demands of the US government. 

Is it too much to suggest that our government is a bit giddy over the thawing of relationships with the United States?  One would hope so.  But we expect to be disappointed.
  In this context we are very uneasy about the re-admittance of NZ into the military strategies and counsels of the United States.  We are once more a “valuable ally”–or so Leon Panetta, the US Defence Secretary has announced.  Restrictions have been removed.  Joint military activities will now take place on a regular basis.  We may even end up with US troops stationed on our soil. 

Let’s be clear.  In no way to we regard the US as an enemy or a threat to this country.  For that we are very thankful.  New Zealand is an open door for any hostile power to walk in and take us over.  The brute fact is that our country is defenceless.  Decades of government neglect of our military–a dereliction of duty perpetrated upon our people by both the Left and the Right–has left us truly without means of defence.  We expect we have enough ammunition and troops in our combined armed forces to be able to put up a spirited fire-fight for about thirty minutes should any invader come calling. 

Having failed in one of its most basic duties given to it by God–the defence of its citizens against armed aggression–the New Zealand defence doctrine has become “Others”.  We look to other nations to defend us.  Australia and the US are the current and favoured candidates.  But the US is the most bellicose nation on the planet.  It has been continually at war somewhere on the globe since the World War II.  We confidently predict this will continue indefinitely until the US sinks under a mountain of unsustainable debt or the citizens of that country come to their senses and repent.  Being joined up with the US risks NZ being sucked into US “adventures” around the world–as has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Proving a reliable ally will likely result in the death of New Zealand soldiers in causes and crusades that bear not a whit upon our national defence.

We despise the pacifism of the Greens and of core Labour.  We also despise the feckless irresponsibility of National which has preferred electoral bribery and government redistribution to fund health, education, and endless welfare, rather than paying for our own defence.  Above all, we despair of the New Zealand electorate which has been raised on the premise that every problem can be overcome, every responsibility can be met, and every duty can be performed by easy recourse to other people’s money. 

New Zealand’s national defence policy is nothing more than international socialism in action.  We have made ourselves into America’s willing little helpers.  We now have no choice–because we are not prepared to take responsibility for ourselves.  

Expect more Dotcom fiascos. 

>A Medieval Weapon of Mass Destruction

>The Peasant’s Weapon of Choice

Rodney Stark, commenting upon the weaponry of the Crusaders:

But no armor, not even a plate-armor suit, was very effective against the invention that made the crusaders to lethal in battle–the crossbow. Although it was widely used by the crusaders, remarkably little has been written about the crossbow because it was thought to be quite shameful, even sinful, to use it. http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=jtertullian&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=0061582603&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifrIn 1139 the Second Lateran Council prohibited its use (except against infidels) “under penalty of anathema, as a weapon hateful to God and to Christians,” and this ban was subsequently confirmed by Pope Innocent III. However, European armies ignored the Church and made widespread use of the crossbow until it was made obsolete by firearms. Thus, for example, the Knights Templar garrison at the castle of Saphet in northern Galilee in about 1260 consisted of fifty knights and three hundred crossbowmen.

The “moral” objections to the crossbow had to do with social class, as this revolutionary weapon allowed untrained peasants to be lethal enemies of the trained soldiery. It took many years of training to become a knight, and the same was true for archers. Indeed, it took years for archers to build the arm strength needed to draw a longbow, let alone to perfect their accuracy. But just about anyone could become proficient with a crossbow in less than a week. Worse yet, even a beginner could be considerably more accurate than a highly skilled longbow archer at ranges up to sixty-five to seventy yards. . . .

The projectiles fired by crossbows were called bolts because they were much shorter and heavier than the arrows fired by regular bows. While this reduced the range of crossbows, it greatly increased their impact at shorter ranges. The fact that so little training was required meant that huge numbers of crossbowmen could be assembled quickly; the Genoese several times fielded as many as twenty thousand for a single battle. Stark, God’s Battalions, p.72f

We think Stark is probably right.  Even to this day the crossbow remains underrated.  In the Anglo-Saxon world this may be due in part to childhood stories of Robin Hood and the celebration of the English longbow. 

Once again these observations underscore the need for military doctrines and tactics constantly to evolve and adapt to technology.  When this does not happen, disaster is around the corner.  Witness how the machine gun made serried rows of infantry obsolete in World War I.  Another lesson is never to underestimate low tech advances put in the hands of infantry en masse.  Imagine the devastation represented by infantry brigades equipped with high powered, long range hunting rifles, each with telescopic laser sights.  Suddenly every man is a sniper, with a modicum of training. 

So, if New Zealand cannot afford modern weaponry, why not take this route, deployed via a universal military subscription of at least two years?  If a sniper behind every tree worried Hitler’s generals when they were contemplating invading Switzerland, how much more would New Zealand’s defensive capability be enhanced if every adult in the country could drop an enemy combatant at a thousand metres with consistent deadly accuracy, particularly when an enemy would face very long supply lines if an invasion of the country were attempted. 

This would represent a far stronger defensive capability than we have now.  Any invader would likely find the cost of proceeding not worth any gain.  The country would be much safer–much safer than our piddling around the globe participating in Obama’s wars of choice in the vain hope that it obligates “others” to come to save us were New Zealand to be attacked. 

>Facing Reality

>All Buck and No Bang

We have posted several times on our national defence policies, which however you frame them, are a shameful  disgrace.  The only rational Christian position position on war is that it is a fundamental duty of civil government–the minister of God–to defend its citizens from war-making by other nations or non-state aggressors against us.  It is a duty long left derelict by successive New Zealand governments.  We would rather our government doled out money for health, education, and welfare than maintain a credible defence force.  Why, you may ask?  Simply put, there’s more votes in it. 

The past two hundred years of our national existence has seen New Zealand fight in many wars, however–none of them defensive in nature:  the Boer War, World War I, World War II, Korea, Malaysia, Vietnam, Timor, Iraq (well sort of) and Afghanistan.   In the two world wars, New Zealand forces were at times decimated due to their lack of equipment and training.  We were the convenient cannon fodder for the generals of other nations.  In every one of these conflicts you strain credulity to argue that they were defensive wars.  Increasingly, our armed conflicts overseas have been sacrifices to the great god of universal human rights, not a defence of the citizens of this nation. 

As the costs of government entitlement programmes have risen, successive reviews of the armed forces have resulted in cost-cutting.  This, in turn, has led to the development of the reigning defence doctrine in this country: the “Others” defence doctrine.  We have no real defensive capability: the army could probably conduct a shooting war that would last about twenty minutes before we ran out of ammunition and our armed personnel carriers, the LAVs, broke down.  But that’s not the point.  Our real defence strategy is to rely upon other nations to come to our aid.  The primary candidates would be the US and Australia.  (Some airheads would look to the “international community” to defend New Zealand if attacked–by which they mean the United Nations.  These folk no doubt sleep easily at night because ignorance is bliss.) 

To demonstrate how parlous things have become, we recite the following stock-take of aircraft operated by the NZ Air Force. 

The Air Force employs 3195 staff with key equipment, including:

• Five naval helicopters (Super Seasprite)
• Six maritime patrol aircraft (Orions)
• Five Hercules (transport)
• Two Boeing 757-200s (transport)
• 13 Iroquois helicopters (transport)
• Five Sioux helicopters (transport)
• Five Beech King aircraft (transport – training)
• 13 CT-4E aircraft (transport – training)

Hat Tip: Kiwiblog

Most of our airforce is devoted to transport (and training to enable transportation)!

It is time to get real. Since “Others” is our prevailing and controlling defence doctrine, it is high time the New Zealand government became transparent and honest on the matter. Apart from a bit of offshore fishing surveillance, which essentially is a commercial enterprise, we are in the invidious position of maintaining an airforce, and a navy, and a skeleton army for the sole purpose of enabling us to make token efforts to assist in the war-engagements of other nations all in the attempt to create a moral obligation for them to defend us should we ever be attacked. “We did the decent thing by you; now you help us out.” This is about as naive and infantile as one could get–but we seem to specialize in such asininities.

Given the cravenness and irresponsibility of our “Others” defence doctrine, we believe the following would be a far more honest and cost effective solution: outsourcing. The New Zealand government should put the defence of this country up to competitive international tender every ten years. The contract would include KPI’s, performance reviews, specified obligations–all the standard stuff. Obvious candidates to tender would be China, Australia and the US. Maybe Japan would be interested. Fiji, which maintains a larger army than NZ, might also be interested in being part of a tender consortium, along with Japan. Large mercenary organizations might also be able to put in a credible tender.  (Don’t reject this out of hand: it has a long historical lineage.  Ask the Swiss–and the Vatican.) 

We could then remove entirely all military bases, top brass, equipment, and personnel costs. This money could be put to funding the new defence contract. We predict there would be a significant cost savings–and a much, much greater defence capability than at present. It would also be more certain and reliable. The Hercules would not break down on route to . . . well, transporting.

Sure, a few egos would be bruised. National pride might receive a bit of a dent. ANZAC parades would quickly seem antiquarian. The RSA would die away. But these would be nothing if we could secure a better defence capability. It would not take much to get a better defence policy than our current one which falls between two stools. International competitive tendering and outsources is simply the “Others” doctrine taken to its logical and more effective end.

And we have one other great advantage: our Prime Minister, John Key has proven international negotiating skills. Look at the deal he swung with Warner Brothers for The Hobbit. International defence tenders and their competitive negotiations would be right up his alley. Clark was so ideologically myopic that she would have awarded the tender to the Kofi Ananistan Greater South East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, or, even worse, to the Scandinavian Defence Alliance. But Key would be far more commercial–and, therefore, reliable.

Why, Key’s skills in this area are so formidable we could end up with Chinese or Fijian manned .50 cal machine gun posts on every intersection. Now we are talking. That would be a real “Others” defence policy at work, not the current wasteful, expensive show pony, which is all show and no pony, or,  if you would permit a mixing of  metaphors, all buck and no bang.

>Misdirection and Confusions

>Nuclear Weapons and the Hands That Bear Them

Nuclear issues have to the fore in recent days, what with President Obama’s grand summit which has drawn more nations to the US to confab since the international meetings which set up the United Nations.

Gwynne Dyer, writing in the NZ Herald, opines that the summit it just a symbol, but at least it is a conversation starter. Who could be opposed to talk, right? Confabulation is a medium in which Obama seems to set a great deal of store.

But let’s step back and think about the broad parameters of the debate over nuclear weapons. Obama has publicly declared his long term goal is to rid the world of all of them. This tells us that he believes them to be intrinsically evil. He apparently puts nuclear weapons in the same category as, say, rape or incest. But, he must also believe that they are a necessary evil, which would explain why he is prepared to maintain his own nation’s nuclear capability–at least for the present.

Are nuclear weapons intrinsically evil? If one would answer in the affirmative, presumably one would also include all weapons of war–say, semi-automatic rifles, tanks, bombs, and fighter aircraft in the same category. Whatever argument one may advance to remove all nuclear weapons from the world it would apply with equal force and veracity to all weapons and technologies of war.

If someone may object and argue that it is the immense destructive force of nuclear weapons which makes them inherently evil. The risk that they could destroy the entire world puts such weapons in a different category which amounts to intrinsic evil. But this is emotive clouding. If a primitive village can be wiped out by machine guns, it is not the smaller quantum of deaths which makes machine guns acceptable. A murder is a murder is a murder. The death of one man, Abel led to his blood crying out from the ground to God.

If nuclear weapons are intrinsically evil, so too is the machine gun–for both alike exist for one purpose, and one purpose only–to kill human beings. Both alike can kill in large numbers.

We would argue that nuclear weapons are not intrinsically evil at all–no more so than any other instrument or weapon of war. It is the use to which they may be put by men that makes them either evil or good. Evil resides in the human heart and is expressed in human actions. Evil does not reside in things.

Obama’s rhetoric in calling for a nuclear-weapon-free world reflects the idealistic world-view of the West in general which looks for evil not in the human hearts, but in externalities. Change the circumstances and the environment and righteousness will dawn upon mankind–at least that’s what makes sense of the actions and pontifications of most in the West. When boiled down Obama’s stance on nuclear weapons, whilst typical, is akin to calling for a ban on gun ownership or knife bearing. If the inanimate object is removed, men will become righteous and act righteously. The Christian knows this to be a naive and misdirected argument.

Ironically, the Obama summit actually recognizes this–at least to some degree. The specific focus has been on taking action to prevent nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda–who will use them, we are told–and we do not doubt it. This, apparently is in contrast to nations such as Pakistan, Great Britain, the United States etc, who will not–at least as a first strike.

Here we come to the nub of the issue. Having nuclear weapons is not the issue. What will be done with them is the all important matter. Ought we to be deeply concerned that Israel has (allegedly) over 200 nuclear warheads? We have never lost the least amount of sleep over it. Ought we to be worried that North Korea has nuclear weapons? Indeed we should, since that nation considers itself at war with South Korea and calls for the subjugation of the South.

Should surrounding nations be concerned about Iran getting nuclear weapons. Absolutely. Their president–a president in good standing let us add–has routinely and regularly called for the extermination of another state–Israel. This, it seems to us, is a de facto declaration of war of Iran upon Israel. That state of war should be reckoned to exist until Ahmadinejad and his doctrines are officially and formally removed in Iran.

If that be accepted as a fundamental principle, then all “pre-emptive” strikes by Israel against Iran to destroy their nuclear weaponry and resource are not only justified, but a necessary act by the Israel government. It would be derelict in its duty to God and its people not to so act.

But, were Iran to eschew Ahmadinedjadism and armed jihad against Israel, whether they had nuclear weapons or not would be neither here nor there. If Iran committed itself to a policy of recognition of Israel as a legitimate state, and of a complete and permanent cessation of any military aggression–either by direct or indirect means–against any other state, they would be welcome to nuclear weaponry.

If we are not prepared to take this position, then a whole can of worms inevitably opens. One such worm is the implication that all nuclear weapons are intrinsically evil, which implicitly condemns all those nations which holds any military capability whatsoever–which is clearly contrary to Scripture. Another worm would be an insinuation that an Islamic state should be regarded as “bad” states–as the Great Satan–which sort of sounds a bit familiar.

In a fallen world, war is an inevitable reality, even as crime is. But an absolutely vital issue is whether any nation’s war is offensive or defensive in its goals, purposes, and intents. Defensive acts of war are a necessary duty of the civil magistrate. Aggressive or offensive war is always evil. And aggressive war has surely started when one nation calls for the annihilation of another.

>It’s the War, Stupid

>Folly, Upon Folly

One of the more escapist gifts I received at Christmas was a Jack Reacher novel, Nothing to Lose. For those of you who know who Jack Reacher is, you probably will understand why the next day was spent lazing in a warm Auckland summer’s day, enjoying another world.

All of which is a bit prosaic but one (more serious) aspect stood out. Reacher, as fans will know, is ex-US military. Lee Child, the author, is a Brit but nonetheless has made his fortune writing about an ex-USMP. The historical background of his lead character has been the US military: mostly, the military has been cast in a positive light.

In Nothing to Lose–a more recent Reacher novel–a different note was struck. The hero is scathingly critical of US army bosses and the political policies which have led the US military into constant engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan. The plot has Reacher intersect with military deserters, fleeing to escape deployment, and Child/Reacher show themselves sympathetic to their cause and plight. The world is changing. I can feel it in the air. I can taste it in the water. So said Galadriel, or something similar.

Two days ago, Sarah Lazare, an American anti-war activist wrote a piece in Al-Jazeera. It reads pretty much as one would expect. But the headline is instructive: “The US Military is Exhausted”, it reads. Lazare writes:

Many from within the ranks are openly declaring that they have had enough, allying with anti-war veterans and activists in calling for an end to the US-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with some active duty soldiers publicly refusing to deploy.

This growing movement of military refusers is a voice of sanity in a country slipping deeper into unending war.

The architects of this war would be well-advised to listen to the concerns of the soldiers and veterans tasked with carrying out their war policies on the ground.

Many of those being deployed have already faced multiple deployments to combat zones: the 101st Airborne Division, which will be deployed to Afghanistan in early 2010, faces its fifth combat tour since 2002.

“They are just going to start moving the soldiers who already served in Iraq to Afghanistan, just like they shifted me from one war to the next,” said Eddie Falcon, a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW), who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Soldiers are going to start coming back with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), missing limbs, problems with alcohol, and depression.”

Many of these troops are still suffering the mental and physical fallout from previous deployments.

She documents the growing unease and resistance within the US military itself to the long-drawn out wars which are exhausting its soldiers. When one considers that some US divisions are facing their fifth combat tour and recall that means it would have been in active duty for a period much longer than the entirety of World War II, it underscores the seriousness of the situation.

But it is more than that. Israel has been on a war footing for decades. But it is much easier to maintain when it is patently and tangibly obvious that one is defending one’s home and family. Israel struggles with its bellicosity only when the connection between war and defence is not immediately obvious (as for example when it maintained an occupation force in Southern Lebanon). When one is confronted with death and destruction in Afghanistan the bow is exceedingly long drawn to make a connection back to defence of one’s kith and kin in the United States.

American political leaders and rulers, both Democrats and Republicans, have been far too ready to put the troops in harm’s way, justifying it by talking up a “clear and present danger”. But after a while “nation building” in Afghanistan has a tenuous connection with an elite, wealthy, and well-educated London-based Nigerian trying to blow up a US airliner coming in to land at Detroit. Sure, that particular threat was and is real–and must be faced and dealt with–but exactly how is this connected with nation-building-in-Afghanistan, again?

Another good read enjoyed recently was Apache Dawn, by Damien Lewis which a friend passed on. It is a fascinating piece on an Apache helicopter squadron, part of the UK Army Air Corps, fighting in Helmand province, Afghanistan in 2007. “Gripping and revealing” said the blurb. And it was. Two things relevant to our subject stand out in this book. The first was the attitude of the village people liberated from the Taliban. The British had an operational convention of participating in local village councils or suras once they had driven out the Taliban. Regularly they were told by the locals that they disrespected the Afghan national army and the government functionaries. They had proven themselves in the past to be corrupt, dishonest, and venal. At least the Taliban were honest, they would say. That speaks volumes. Try winning hearts and minds in that context.

The second was the experience of the helicopter pilots when they returned from their hair raising tour of duty, back to the UK. Having just come out of a theatre of intense fighting, with death and destruction and heroism and sacrifice on every side, they returned to a world which just did not care. Not only had they long ago forgotten that their countrymen were fighting on the other side of the world, they did not care that they had forgotten. It was unimportant and irrelevant to their reality.

It would seem that this is inevitable when governments get involved in wars which are not truly wars for defence and national survival, but rather are wars in someone else’s back yard for the purpose of trying to make that back yard a better place. And this, more than anything else, is why post-traumatic stress syndrome is now endemic both in the UK and the US forces (but note, not in the Israeli Defence Force).

The doctrine of using military force to try to make things right around the world is at best naive and ill-considered. At worst, it is evil and destructive. When men overreach themselves, and stop minding their own business, the consequences are always–always–bad. We see it in private society and affairs; in communities and neighbourhoods. We see it as clear as a bell.

Why is it that when it comes to nations somehow we fail to see it, until it is too late, and the consequences are heaped upon us as the birds come home to roost?

>Spineless or Astute

>Top Brass and its Government Masters

Probably the most fundamental duty of government is to judge its people justly. Of course this means that it must ensure appropriate punishment is levied upon murderers. This, in turn, means that it is a fundamental duty of government to defend its people against military attack, punishing those who seek to take control of the country by force. Punishment includes the use of deadly force. This is undoubted Christian teaching.

Therefore it is understandable that many, not just Christians, have ridiculed and lampooned the decision by our top military commanders to punish NZ soldiers who were photographed alongside ammunition in Afghanistan which had “greetings” painted on it for Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

But we need to put this in context. There are a number of possible explanations for the disciplinary action by the top brass. You can take your pick.

Firstly, it may be that the brass are way ahead of the average bear, or reader of blogs. They have grasped that Afghanistan is a counter-insurgency war: it is well established military doctrine that you have to fight such wars appropriately–and the tactics are very different from conventional wars. Essentially the core tactic is to appear non-bellicose to the population: mingle with them, help them, smile at them, take off your dark glasses, wave to them when you pass, and demonstrate that you are on their side, caring for them and protecting them. Then, be real belligerent against the actual insurgents when you have found them, identified them, and isolated them. The more you win the “hearts and minds” of the population, the more likely the enemy will be isolated and exposed.

On this account the top brass would be disciplining their errant soldiers not for painting slogans on to bombs, but for being seen and photographed. Such antics could easily be seen by the local population as a slur against them (“these infidels laugh and mock at us Afghans”) and so undermine the war effort.

Now, if the brass are thinking this way they have a point. The top US commander, General McChrystal is trying to reshape the whole US war effort in Afghanistan along these lines. It could be that the NZ armed forces brass are just way ahead of the pack.

Another explanation is that the top military brass remain deeply influenced by the Clark military doctrine. It may come as a surprise to some that former Prime Minister, Helen Clark had a military doctrine. But she did. It was her view that the NZ military faced no strategic threat and that it should function primarily as a global peacekeeping force, basically under the aegis of the United Nations. The Clark Doctrine always saw the NZ military not as a national force, but as our contribution to an internationalist military force. Its role was not to protect people in New Zealand, but to bring peace to the world in our time.

Shots fired in anger were never part of this doctrine. As a peacekeeper you may have to fire the occasional shot, but always with tears in the eyes, and with great reluctance. According to the Clark Doctrine it would be utterly unacceptable for NZ military personnel deployed offshore to write mocking messages on bombs about to be dropped on people. That is not what the NZ military is all about.

A third explanation is that the military brass in NZ have never bought into the deployment in Afghanistan–it was always and ever a token gesture. It was simply diplomacy by other means. Essentially, it was to keep the US onside to try to get traction in free trade talks–and, if the worst came to the worst, secure US aid if the country were ever under actual military or terrorist threat. If deployment were a message for wider diplomatic reasons, then it would make sense to go through the motions, engage in token military activity, but stay away from actual combat as much as possible.

This is essentially the position of Germany in its Afghani deployment. Painting messages on bombs is just a bit too gung ho for this kind of strategy, and so the brass have sought to send a message to kiwi soldiers to tone things down and chill out. Discretion is very much the order of the day if the real point is a token gesture for diplomatic leverage.

A final explanation of the brass’s decision would be that they understand that a new military doctrine now applies in New Zealand. We will call it the Key Doctrine. This doctrine holds that the war in Afghanistan is a war without borders and that to fight in Afghanistan is really to defend the homeland against terrorists. If we don’t fight them in their mountains, we will end up fighting them on our beaches. Much better their mountains than at the Mount, as it were.

Now the cruel reality is that we have no intention to prepare for a terrorist attack on our soil–the government has no resolve to prepare and no money to fund such preparations. All government funds, and then a considerable some, are committed to such essentials as the DPB, the state education system, and thousands of advisory boards giving us essential expert advice on how to eat, sleep, and put our pants on in the morning. So, better to fight them (at least in a minimal token way) in Afghanistan than here, and hope that it will be enough to ensure that the “others” strategy stays valid. (The “others” strategy is the real defense strategy which has applied in New Zealand for over fifty years now: the expectation that other nations will put their sons in harms way to defend us if ever we are attacked. All offshore military activity is designed to ensure that other nations will feel obliged to defend us if attacked–and that it the real objective in Afghanistan.)

But pictures, offensive and provocative pictures in this viral electronic world can be broadcast everywhere. The kind of pictures of NZ soldiers sending mocking messages to Islamic jihad fighters runs the risk of inflaming hatred and calling attention to ourselves in jihadist circles globally. That simply marks us out for a well planned revenge terrorist attack which may take five to seven years to bring to fruition. Since we have no meaningful defence against such terrorist activity, it is stupid to provoke it.

OK. So which explanation of the decision by the NZ military brass to discipline the artistic soldiers is most likely? You be the judge.

For our money, only the first possible explanation would honourable and worthy. The others all involve a gross dereliction of duty on the part of our government. They all mean that whilst New Zealand may be a paradise, it belong to fools and is ruled by fools–different shades and strips of fools to be sure, but fools nonetheless.

>The SAS in Afghanistan

>The Apiata Syndrome

The Government has signalled that the SAS may well be returning to Afghanistan. There have been reports of President Obama and the US administration pressuring the Prime Minister to redeploy the SAS, since their last tour of duty was rated as a great success.

We find ourselves saddened with this news. However, before the gung ho and the jingoists weigh in, grant us the opportunity to explain our moroseness. Firstly, this imbroglio is a stark reminder that our nation has a completely bankrupt and irresponsible defence policy–equally espoused by all governments of whatever stripe since the seventies. That policy can be summarised in one word: “Others”. We have virtually no armed capability at all. In all practical terms, our country is undefended. Even the Chiefs of the Armed Forces have formally reported to Parliament acknowledging the navy cannot sail, the airforce cannot fly, and the army cannot fight.

New Zealand’s defence policy is to hope/rely/pray for other nations to come to our aid if we are attacked. This is a shocking dereliction of duty on the part of the state. It is a naive, asinine, stupid, self-indulgent, and a bankrupt position. To expose its crassness it is simply a total unwillingness by the government and the people to take responsibility to defend themselves. They want others to do it for them. We do not deserve to be a nation; we will certainly not long remain one.

So our “elite” SAS is going into Afghanistan. Let’s be clear here. The SAS is not an elite unit: it is virtually our only fighting unit. Numbers are confidential, but estimates are of around 500 members. The rest of the armed forces are neither trained nor equipped for combat.

When President Obama pressures John Key to send the SAS back to Afghanistan, he will probably conclude that we have no choice but to comply. If we do not, the Others “defence” doctrine will be in tatters–which would be an even worse situation to what exists now, inconceivable as it may seem. It is shameful that the governments of this country cannot and will not be honest with the people. The Prime Minister needs to stand up and be counted and tell the country honestly why the SAS has to go into Afghanistan–and it has nothing to do with protecting ourselves against terrorists (see below). It has everything to do with continuing the Others “defence” policy.

We find no pleasure in the kind of superficial, self-deceiving ratiocinations arguing for deployment in Afghanistan in the NZ Herald. It argues that most New Zealanders recognise that unless the Taleban are defeated, Afghanistan will once again become a bolt-hole for terrorists and terrorism. We wonder, dear Editors, why you have not all along argued for similar deployment of New Zealand troops in Somalia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and (in earlier years) why you have not urged for NZ deployment in Ireland, Basque controlled Spanish provinces, and Chechnya. All have served or are serving as bolt-holes for terrorism. We could probably afford to send ten poorly equipped SAS troops to each location before we ran out.

The Herald also gravely informs us that it is the right time to be “getting in”. President Obama has begun a new campaign. It is far broader than “search and destroy” missions against the Taleban. It is attempting to deny the Taleban political traction in southern Afghanistan through winning the “hearts and minds” of the people. The Herald writes:

The assumption is that if local people can be made more secure and the Taleban kept away from them, much greater progress can be made in reconstruction and economic development. That, in turn, will garner the support of Afghans, allow the country to be stabilised, and pave the way for the eventual withdrawal of the international coalition.

The strategy involves troops going out on patrol to reassure local people, and means far less use of alienating devices, such as unmanned drones. It is far riskier, as the British have found, and requires far more troops than mounting raids from strongly defended bases.

It is also likely to take 10 to 15 years to implement successfully, starting with at least two years of heavy combat. That is another reality Mr Key must accept as he assesses New Zealand’s commitment.

For some reason this kind of “war” seems more palatable, more humane, more enlightened, more winnable. It is not. It is naive and foolish. What would be the chances of success if a foreign nation (say, Iran) turned up in New Zealand with their army, air force, and navy; occupied our nation; and sought to win our hearts and minds, with the promise that, if we agreed, and changed our ways they would withdraw? In the meantime, they threw a few petro-dollars at us, shot a few miscreants and resisters, and sought to teach us the benefits of living under Allah; insisted that our women dress in the burkha and urged local leaders to apply sharia law–while all along we knew that they would have to leave some day.

What would be their chances of success? None. The Iranians and their ways would be alien, completely alien–and, therefore, offensive to us. Add to this the truth that the Pashtun tribe and the Taleban are virtually synonymous and highly respected in the south. Add in also that for the past five hundred years or more, no power has ever been successful in subjugating or controlling Afghanistan. The latest to try were the Soviets and they failed dismally. Obama will fail similarly–and it will have nothing to do with how nice the US soldiers are, how super-duper their equipment, or how well meaning everyone is. Instead, it has everything to do with the fact that they are foreigners and invaders and have no locally recognized right to be there in the first place.

But the Editors at the Herald have grand schemes in their sights, so full speed ahead. They conclude their editorial with utopian schemes and dreams:

Nonetheless, this is not a struggle that New Zealand can shirk. Sending the SAS has nothing to with currying favour with the White House. It is about the way Afghanistan provided a training ground for worldwide terrorism. Last week’s bombing in Jakarta reinforced the fact that every effort must be made to prevent that happening again.

The New Zealand presence in Afghanistan will make our country a legitimate and necessary target in the eyes of Islamic terrorism. They already know that we are a soft and easy target. It increases substantially the risks of attack–here, in New Zealand. It would be something we would not be able to cope with, nor defend against. We simply do not have the resources. The Others “defence” doctrine would mean that we would get a lot of international sympathy, but nothing more. The doctrine will prove a failure–which always was going to be the case.

Maybe there will be a silver lining to the cloud. Maybe a thorough-going terrorist attack will help persuade our irresponsible and reckless government that the Others doctrine must be jettisoned and that New Zealand must begin to take its own defence seriously. Maybe it will persuade the nation that we need to pay the price and that for years we have been living in a socialist fools’ paradise where endless billions of taxes have been squandered pampering a lazy, indulgent, demanding, coddled people, while the gates to the city have been left wide open and undefended, all because it was “too expensive” and we could not afford it. Well, more to the point, we could not afford guns because we have long preferred instead our indulgent lashings of state funded butter.

The Apiata syndrome–a whole nation basking in glory won by a few on foreign fields–is alive and well. But that is what socialism is all about: others paying a price so every else may be indulged. The Others “defence” doctrine is a pure application of socialist principles to national defence.

>Where has That New World Order Gone?

>The Time of the West Seems Over

Remember back to the days of the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union? Remember how politicians spoke grandiosely of a “Peace Dividend”? US President Bush(Sr) proclaimed the beginning of a New World Order. Things were going to change. Humanity was entering a new era.

Forgive us, but we are finding the proclamation of a New World Order passe these days, since hardly a month goes by without some political leader or other declaring yet another one. The latest is Gordon Brown, who in his career has probably pronounced about twenty of them, declaring at the conclusion of the recent G20 meeting that–yes, you guessed it–the world had just entered another New World Order.

Well, actually, the Preacher in Ecclesiastes had already pronounced that nothing was new under the sun. It is not surprising, then, that the New World Order turned out to be pretty much like an Older World Order. The second verse has proved remarkably like the first.

We came across the following prognostication by the late Samuel P Huntingdon the other day–written in 1995, but speculating on what we might be facing in the next few decades. Apparently he was not convinced about “New World Order” rhetoric.

Modernization has generally enhanced the material level of Civilization throughout the world. But has it also enhanced the moral and cultural dimensions of Civilization? In some respects this appears to be the case. Slavery, torture, vicious abuse of individuals, have become less and less acceptable in the contemporary world. Is this, however, simply the result of the impact of Western civilization on other cultures and hence will a moral reversion occur as Western power declines?

Much evidence exists in the 1990’s for the relevance of the “sheer chaos” paradigm of world affairs: a global breakdown of law and order, failed states and increasing anarchy in many parts of the world, a global crime wave, transnational mafias and drug cartels, increasing drug addiction in many societies, a general weakening of the family, a decline in trust and social solidarity in many countries, ethnic, religious, and civilizational violence and rule by the gun prevalent in much of the world.

In city after city–Moscow, Rio de Janeiro, Bangkok, Shanghai, London, Rome, Warsaw, Tokyo, Johannesburg, Delhi, Karachi, Cairo, Bogota, Washington–crime seems to be soaring and basic elements of Civilization fading away. People speak of a global crisis in governance. The rise of transnational corporations producing economic goods is increasingly matched by the rise of transnational criminal mafias, drug cartels, and terrorist gangs violently assaulting Civilization. Law and order is the first prerequisite of Civilization and in much of the world–Africa, Latin America, the former Soviet Union, South Asia, the Middle East–it appears to be evaporating . . . .

On a worldwide basis Civilization seems in many respects to be yielding to barbarism, generating the image of an unprecedented phenomenon, a global Dark Ages, possible descending upon humanity.
The Clash of Civilizations, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995), p. 321.

Nearly fifteen years on, Huntingdon’s prognostication appears to be coming true. For a while the world “united” around the Coalition of the Willing in an effort to combat terrorism. The coalition fell apart over the war in Iraq.

The global balance of power is now definitely shifting. The West is in decline. Debt has progressively enslaved it to the creditor nations. In turn, debt in the West has been an inevitable outcome of welfare entitlement rights, which have cut through the moral fibre of Western nations with deadly force. The culture of welfare entitlement rights, universal throughout the West, has sliced through savings habits relentlessly (why save when someone else will provide for you). When savings evaporate, dependence results. It has also fed a culture of instantaneous demand gratification and an expectation of the omni-competence of government to solve each and every problem.

The Western liberal-academic complex has championed this pseudo-culture and bludgeoned the West into subjugation with its pagan human rights philosophies being propagated at every opportunity.

But inner spiritual subjugation inevitably transmutes into external subjugation. So the West is increasingly dependant, first upon its own governments, and then upon creditor nations, which fund their governments. Influence and power wanes correspondingly. Western powers, including the US, are simply unable to afford their military any longer. It is impossible over time to satiate rising welfare entitlement demands and the costs of global military superiority at the same time. Powers like China are now at the cutting edge of military research and technology. Normal service is resuming.

Huntingdon’s description is likely to prove remarkably accurate. But will it result in a Dark Age? For some it will. It would be a Dark Age for a globalist or an internationalist or someone who genuinely believes in the rectitude and possibility of a “New World Order”. But the decline of the arrogant self-righteous West is not a bad thing in itself. After all, the humanist Western Enlightenment bequeathed to the world the Reign of Terror, two world wars, the Age of Colonialism, Western imperialism, the idolatry of nationalism, National Socialism, the African slave trade, Communist dictatorships, the United Nations, and statism. Only the deeply prejudiced would mourn the passing of its bloody global hegemony.

In the coming phase, nations and governments would do well to mind their own business, return to basic principles, be friends with all, enemies of none, and adopt a foreign policy of strict, armed neutrality. Meanwhile for the covenant people of the Living God, the future remains bright. As Western idols come to “lie broke in the Temple of Baal” we expect people will be freed from their thrall.

It is through the vale of suffering that a rebellious people will finally return to the God of their fathers.

>When the Shouting is Over

>Bush Revisionism Starts Here

We at Contra Celsum are reluctant to enter the prediction business. God alone knows the future, for He alone commands all things, even the turn of the dice. All things have their being, action, and movement in Him—and in Him alone.

However, we will indulge on this occasion in a little speculation—and it can be no more than that. We speculate that within ten years, the much hated and maligned George Bush will be being hailed as one of the best US presidents in modern history. The inveterate prejudice displayed against him in almost every country in the world is likely to be, if not forgotten, used as another evidence of a vast left-wing-conspiracy against the forces of moderation and reason.

Peoples’ memories are notoriously short when it comes to the recent past. Then, with the passing of time, a broader and usually more reasoned perspective emerges. It is interesting and instructive that most people have already forgotten 9/11 and the days that followed the destruction of the Twin Towers. They have screened out how they felt, reacted, thought, and stamped their feet in frustrated rage, crying for vengeance in those days. They have conveniently forgotten how, when Bush took military action against the Taleban in Pakistan, together with a plethora of related security measures, his approval rating was the highest for any US President in history.

But as they have felt more safe, US media and the left wing-academic complex have felt sufficiently secure to screen out the memory of how they thought, acted, and stamped their feet in those days. Possibly they are embarrassed to recall such sentiments now.

If Bush made a political mistake it was in being successful in protecting the US from terrorist attack for over seven years. He should have re-read Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. A smarter thing to do would have been to fund secretly certain terrorist organisations so that they made the odd attack upon US soil and citizens. Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib would never have become embarrassments. The people would have called for more of the same. And yes, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama would have been loudly beating the drum the Senate and berating the President for not taking more decisive military action.

But, cynicism aside, we believe Bush did make a major error in the US response to 9/11. He declared war, speaking repeatedly of the War on Terror. This was a politician’s response. To marshal public support, people must be given a powerful, visceral symbol. It was easy enough to do. Clearly radical Islam—which many would argue is true Islam—had, for its part, by its own mouth, declared war upon the West in general and upon the United States in particular. Clearly, its war was to be waged against non-combatant innocents. Thus, it was not difficult step to declare war upon the aggressor in response.

But in hindsight it turned out to be a major tactical and political blunder. Clearly this was not war in the conventional sense of the term. The terrorists had almost no territory that could be attacked and controlled. But a declaration of war had inevitable consequences. A state of war allows and tolerates suspension of “normal” legalities and rights. For one, the need to tell the truth goes out the window. Conscription becomes viable and acceptable. Armed invasion of enemy territory becomes appropriate. Treating captured enemy as prisoners of war, with a complete suspension of judicial process is acceptable and expected. These things are normal in a state of war.

And all of these things were done. And all the efforts of the US and the governments of other nations were successful in preventing any more attacks against the United States—despite the fervent declarations by the enemy that they would certainly occur. There have been enough terrorist plots foiled at the last minute to show that these uttered threats were not idle. But the fact remains that it was not war in the conventional sense of that term. Therefore, the measures that normally attend war—concentration camps, armed invasions of other countries, body bags— quickly became odious. They offended the sentiments of the sentimental. The more safe the US felt itself to be, the more odious and bizarre and extremist these measures appeared. Bush succeeded sufficiently to allow people the luxury of judging him to be foolish, unethical and incompetent.

If Bush had called instead for concerted US action against international criminal gangs, it would, in hindsight, have been a much more realistic and appropriate call. For one, it would not have led to an automatic suspension of the due process of law to those captured and imprisoned. It would have placed the terrorist threat in the same conceptual camp as the international drug trade and the nation states that support it. It would have led to a far more politically sustainable campaign against international terrorism in the long run. However, hindsight is always 20-20 vision.

With Charles Krauthammer, we believe that keeping the US safe from terrorist attack will, in historical perspective, come to be regarded as one of Bush’s greatest achievements. The revision of his record will commence the day the next attack comes—as it almost certainly will. But then again, we do not traffic in predictions—only speculations.

>Defensive Moves

>The Government Has Betrayed Its Own People

So it’s now official. We have been told officially that New Zealand defenceless. The 2007/2008 Defence Force Annual Report has just been released. It admits that the New Zealand navy is finding it difficult to sail; the air force is finding it difficult to fly; and the army is unable to fight. Problems with inadequate personnel, equipment and capability are cited.

We do not expect that this damning news will cause much consternation within Wellington. Our nation’s defence doctrine has for decades been “others”: that is, we look to and rely upon other nations to defend us (Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom). We don’t have formal alliances to that effect—we just hope that it will be so. It is hard to conceive greater folly or more naive stupidity.

If a civil government has core functions then protecting the life and property of its citizens has to be right at the very top of its God-given responsibilities. It is a fundamental duty of government to defend its citizens from armed aggression—and the only way that can be done is by maintaining an adequate defence. Successive governments in this country have defalcated and failed in this most important of obligations.

If the City of Unbelief starts to become concerned at this dereliction of duty, its remedy is likely to be the entering into formal alliances with Australia and the United States as soon as it can. However, this response is fundamentally wrong. Effectively it is a ceding of our independence and sovereignty to another. A treaty obligates us to do the bidding of another government—even to the point of shedding blood.

The City of God has a very different approach. Firstly, it acknowledges that the government has a God-given duty to maintain the defence of its people and protect them from any who would destroy life or property. Secondly, it insists that if we are to have our own civil government, it is a responsibility that we must bear ourselves. We do not look to Australia, for example, to apprehend and punish our murderers or those amongst us who steal. If we did, then we would cease to be an independent nation, and would become the next Australian state.

To be a self-governing nation means that we take responsibility to administer justice in truth and equity. Defence is no exception. To be self-governing means that our government has a duty to defend. Jerusalem, then, is a warrior city, but for defensive purposes only.

The defence doctrine of Jerusalem is not that of Athens. Our doctrine is not “others” in any sense. In Jerusalem, the defence policy of the civil government is armed neutrality. Let us explore this a bit further.

Firstly, the concept of neutrality. The declaration which Jerusalem would make to the whole world is that its government would align with no other government; it would enter into no treaty obligations; it would not partake in any other nation’s or government’s wars or conflicts.

Secondly, Jerusalem would be an armed camp. All citizens (male and female) would have to serve in the national militia; all would have to engage in a certain level of armed training every year; every home would have to keep at least one assault rifle for every militia member in the household; the professional standing army and air force would be large and extremely well-equipped; the naval force would be focused only on the defence of our coastline.

A nation which has followed this basic Christian defence model for centuries now is Switzerland. When Switzerland buys a squadron of interceptor fighters, it always buys three: one for action; two for parts and replacement. Its military equipment is state of the art. Everyone is trained to use an assault rifle—and there is one in every home. While not generally known, Switzerland is an armed camp. Its war readiness is maintained at the highest levels.

This, we believe, is a fundamentally Christian model of defence which the City of Belief would employ. This doctrine does not promise people that the City would never be attacked, nor that if attacked, victory would be assured. What is does signal to the whole world is that if attacked there would be very severe and bloody consequences for the aggressor.

The story is told that during World War II, Hitler contemplated attacking Switzerland. His generals talked him out of it. Two reasons were key. Firstly, Switzerland’s neutrality meant that it was no threat or risk. Secondly, the rugged mountainous terrain coupled with the fact that behind every tree was likely to be a trained well-armed sniper, virtually ensured that any military aggression against Switzerland was likely to be horrendously costly.

Precisely. That is what the doctrine of armed neutrality is supposed to achieve.

Armed neutrality is not a defence doctrine likely to be adopted in New Zealand any time soon. Both civil government and society in general is presently dominated by Unbelief. Our government has recklessly decided that the defence doctrine of “others” provides an adequate defence.

Athenian naivety took us there, and will keep us there, for the foreseeable future. And in any event, does not Athens believe that all men are fundamentally good? Wars belong to a primitive past out of which mankind is evolving. Has not Athens told us repeatedly that we live in a benign strategic environment?

Yes it has. And in so doing, Athens has betrayed its own people.