Loading ...
State Of It – Memory-Fade Or Truthful Inconsistencies? The PM Must Explain The Purpose Of NZSAS Deployments To Afghanistan
Column – By Selwyn Manning.
There is significant controversy over whether the small SAS unit of four to six soldiers recently deployed to Afghanistan by the New Zealand Government – supposedly to plan and provide logistics for an operation to identify and locate insurgents responsible for the killings of NZ soldiers in Bamiyan Province – are actually a part of a combat role, or as the Americans call them a ‘kill squad’.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister John Key refuted a report by New Zealand investigative journalist, Jon Stephenson, who stated to Radio New Zealand: “I’ve been told that the mission of these troops is not to gather intelligence but to help carry out the strikes or the raids on those insurgents that killed the PRT soldiers in August.”
On 3 April 2012, Corporal Doug Hughes died in a “non-combat” incident in Bamyan Province. On 5 August 2012, Lance Corporals Rory Malone and Pralli Durrer, both 26 were killed in Bamyan Province in a firefight with insurgents. Lance Corporal Jacinda Baker, Private Richard Harris and Corporal Luke Tametea were killed on 19 August 2012 when their vehicle was hit by an IED. (Wikipedia.)
The New Zealand Defence Force yesterday followed the Prime Minister in rejecting the claim. The NZDF officially stated: “As announced in September by this year the Prime Minister a small number of NZ SAS personnel have been sent to Kabul to help gather intelligence on the insurgents in the Bamiyan region but are not in a combat role.”
Earlier yesterday, the Prime Minister John Key said on 3News’ Frontline programme with Rachel Smalley (See video here): “It [the current SAS deployment] is in the margins of a small group and they are there to provide logistics and planning…”
John Key also said: “But they are not the SAS in the way that when I as Prime Minister said they were going to Afghanistan – that was a very different deal. And that was large numbers and in a pretty active front line role.”
The Prime Minister’s Inconsistency:
Now that statement on Frontline yesterday (October 31, 2012) raises a major issue. Last year, John Key insisted the SAS were not deployed to a combat or in a frontline capacity. This week, he insists they were.
Back in late September, 2011, the Prime Minister John Key fronted a press conference (see NZ Herald video) to discuss the killing of SAS soldier Lance Corporal Leon Smith, who was killed in action on September 28 2011, and the death of Corporal Doug Grant, who was killed one month earlier on August 18 2011.
Back then 3News reporter Rebecca Wright asked John Key: “Do you see it as a combat role with the SAS in Kabul?”
The Prime Minister answered: “No. Look it is a mentoring role, and I have taken the liberty to checking that at length with the head of the SAS. I mean the reason they were extended in Afghanistan was at the request of the SAS – that’s because they mentor the CRU – the crisis response unit – and they wanted to up-skill the CRU more.”
Rebecca Wright further asked: “Why is it an issue to say the SAS are in the front line or in a combat role?”
John Key replied: “It wouldn’t be, but they are not. I mean the simple facts of life are New Zealanders are incredibly proud of them, but we sent them in this particular occasion to Afghanistan to be in a mentoring role. From time to time it requires them to back up the CRU. And it doesn’t matter how many times a journalist asks me to say something different, I can’t because it wouldn’t be true. I rang the head of the SAS last night and said to him ‘in any single time during the time I have been Prime Minister when you have been running the SAS have they done anything other than mentoring?’ and the answer was no. So I am not going to say things that aren’t true.”
Rebecca Wright pursued the question. The Prime Minister replied: “… They are not dying on the frontline, they are dying when they are establishing a cordon. You can’t mentor a kilometre back. That is the point, when you go out and support people you help them plan the operation, you help them build up their capability, you take them out into the field, and you support them. And that’s absolutely what happens. You can’t do that two miles away from the operation you have got to be relatively near that, and for the most part that’s the way it plays out.
“Sometimes when an operation goes bad, and the CRU peoples’ lives are at risk, our guys step in, or if our guys are at risk, they step in. No one has ever questioned that or doubted that. But they don’t lead the operation. The operation would have had 50 CRU people and 15 of our guys. When they asked me personally to stay, the reason they asked me to stay was the capability of the CRU had not been brought up to the level that they wanted. That’s what they do in Afghanistan, so yip, that’s how it works.
“… It is a great tragedy. We have lost two of our SAS people and everyone feels that pain, no one more than me. But I am not going to say they are doing something that they are not. They are in a role where they are mentoring the CRU,” The Prime Minister said.
He added: “That’s their job. If their job changes I will tell you. If they are in a combat role and that was their primary role and they are out there leading missions on their own doing that or nothing else I’d tell you. But in every mission, that I have seen a report on that they have gone and done they have been mentoring, and I confirmed that with the head of the SAS myself personally last night. So, what it is is what it is.”
Contrast this to what the Prime Minister said on Firstline yesterday on October 31, 2012: “… Again they are on the ground operational people assessing exactly what they need. And from time to time it can vary by very small numbers. But they are not the SAS in the way that when I as Prime Minister said they were going to Afghanistan – that was a very different deal. And that was large numbers and in a pretty active front line role.”
The Prime Minister must clarify this inconsistency. Is this another example of brain-fade? Or is there a rational explanation for this information anomaly?
Summary – including audio from Selwyn Manning & Simon Maude’s The Wire discussion on 95bFM:
One respects that operationally it is the responsibility of the New Zealand Defence Force to run the deployment of its defence personnel in a combat or conflict theatre. One also respects that the nature of war is about killing and combat. Also, it must be acknowledged that there is a respectful divide between that operational role and the authority of the New Zealand Government, the executive wing, the Minister of Defence, the Prime Minister, the Cabinet. It is the Cabinet and the Prime Minister’s responsibility to authorise a deployment on strict conditions of scale and purpose. That authorisation cements terms of engagement as defined on the Cabinet Paper/warrant – provides a parametre of sorts within which the NZDF can operate.
This issue, as it emerged on Frontline yesterday, all boils down to a redefining of purpose and authorisation. The public is left to consider did the New Zealand Government deploy the NZSAS in 2011 to act in a mentoring role (as the Prime Minister insisted in September 2011), or into a large frontline theatre (as the Prime Minister insisted was the case yesterday – contradicting a fact he denied in September 2011).
The Prime Minister must explain.
What are you thinking the Prime Minister can not give out ever detail of what the SAS are doing no matter where they are. The whole point is that they are left to do what it is they need to do. It is none of our business what they are doing. That’s the point they are the SAS. I have just realised that this site is for tree hugging civil libertarians who think that maintaining a website is a full time. Everyone loves the freedom but none of you guys on here want to deal with the truth which is you have your freedom on the graves of soldiers. You all have lots to say but I bet none of you have put your hand up to defend it. Why to man up.
Now I was going to write a reply to this article but the previous poster Sarah summed it up perfectly. Why do some people think they have the right to know everything? Some people need to get a real job.
It isn’t a case of thinking the Prime Minister needs to know everything, it is a case of it being his job to be accurate on matters of public and national interest. The fact that he is stating the exact opposite of what he was insisting was the case only 13 months ago, leaves one to consider which statement was correct – the one in September 2011 or in October 2012.
If you mean we, meaning I and the New Zealand public, think we have the right to know everything – that is not the case. But as a journalist working on issues of public and national interest, yes we do have the right to ask and to receive factual responses from our elected representatives when they are able or obliged to respond. After all, we do live in a democracy Jacko, and are not employed within a subservient military occupation where orders must be followed without question.
Frankly your argument to the contrary is pathetic.
Ok I have re read the article and taken note of your comments so I will do my best to stay on point with this one. Ready here we go……….. You feel The Prime Minister is being some what vauge with information he is sharing with the New Zealand public with regards to the SAS. I am going to say that anytime the SAS are involved that it is aproprite to be some what vauge. I understand completely what you have written and how it may seem like the leader of our country is hiding something from us. And maybe he is and maybe he is being clever with his words. Does it matter in this situation? Why do we need him to lay it all out for us? I believe there are times for The Prime Minister to be very clear about things and every now and again not so clear. I just don’t see how John Key being completely up front about every single move the SAS are doing is a matter of public and national interest. I guess I am putting this issues in a box of “let the guys do what they do and cheers for doing it”. May I ask what good would come from The Prime Minister telling all with this one? May I also ask do you think New Zealand should have a Defence Force and if so what would it be like ie: size, type of training, what would it be used for, would you have a SAS unit? In regards to “subservient military occupation” well I would get all worked up about but can’t really cause that’s kind of the point with military things you kind of what people to follow orders. Ok I think I have stayed on point here I hope so.
It stirkes me as strange, as some peoples are fighting desperately to limit the control of their defence forces, and gain some transparency on their actions (and abuses), here in ltitle old NZ apparently letting the defences do whatever they like, is all in service of “freedom”! Do we not live in a democracy? Are they not ultimatly, like every public service, accountable to the people? How can we have accountability, when the prime minister either has no idea what they are actually doing in Afganistan, or is plain-out lying to the public. This appears to me to be just another instance of what Nicky Hager uncovered – the systematic deception of the public of what our defence forces are up to.
Thanks Sarah, I do accept what you are saying and agree there are issues that the Prime Minister should not need to detail in a public arena – especially where it is in the interests of the soldiers not to reveal specifics. My point rests on the fact that in September 2011 the Prime Minister decided to tell us all that the SAS were deployed to Kabul to operate as mentors to the CRU. He stated in the strongest terms that they were not on the frontline or in a combat role. Yesterday however on Nationwide television the Prime Minister stated that the deployment in Kabul was a “pretty active front line role”. That contradiction is what I am raising. We elect these politicians in good faith to lead and make decisions on our behalf. In return we expect truth and consistency. The Prime Minister may be able to explain the apparent contradiction. I for one wish he would.
On the other issue, yes, most certainly, I believe New Zealand should have a defence force, and I like many in this country took pride in the peacekeeping roles our soldiers have participated in over the past 17 years. Afghanistan is a complex theatre, with complex motivations compelling ISAF contributing states to commit troops. For years our politicians led us to believe New Zealand’s contribution was to a rebuilding and restoration effort in Bamiyan Province. Our politicians did not feel compelled to trust us with the fact that our SAS soldiers were also deployed to partake in combat operations. Few expect to be told about specifics, that’s the responsibility of the NZDF, but there was no satisfactory reason in my view for the public of New Zealand to be denied knowledge of the fact NZSAS units were active in combat operations. That is the backstory to why many press our politicians now for them to be forthright with the facts, all the while accepting that to reveal detailed specifics would not be in anyone’s interest, least of all the soldiers on the ground.
I hope that makes sense.