Defenceless Policy

I was rather waiting for National's defence policy release, because they have consistently highlighted it as an area of major concern.

So I was stunned when they flicked it out by media release at 4pm on Friday last week.

I was even more stunned to read the content. Talk about pathetic.

National has been ranting on about defence for years, in the face of major reinvestment and re-equipping efforts by Labour. And now, when it should be putting out a bold vision of how it would reshape Defence, what does it promise?

A review.

How much new money, to fund the new capacities they have been banging on about for the past half decade?

None.

This is what happens, folks, when you prioritise tax cuts. Everything else falls by the wayside, including something that you have campaigned on as being of utmost importance.

It's been panned everywhere, from the Dom Post to Rodney Hide. Deservedly so.

Can't wait to see what their next "policy" is.

Comments

[Paul]

Every single right wing commentator on the radio has given this a big spanking for being in their words 'spineless'.

Gyou gotta love the 4pm friday afternoon release. Sneak it out before the tv news media had time to do anything with it.

[exkiwiforces]

I can't say much about labours treatment of the Armed forces its carry on from where the tories left off. They still leaving the forces in drove's when labour has pump more money into the defence forces and Janes defence website has the defence funding going backwards even when there is still big items to buy and upgrades within the next ten yrs. Like so of us expat's now working for foregin governmemts we would rather to serving the under a Kiwi flag any old day but with pollies keep getting kick guts back home we all left for a better future

[Gooner]

Touche exkf. The first two priorities of any government is security, internal and external.

Successive governments would rather own insurance companies, airlines and banks, universities etc than properly fund armed services including police. *sigh*

[Sean]

Whatever is decided in Wellington is pretty much irrelevent to our defence. The actual job of defending NZ remains, as it has since 1942, in Washington. The Australians recognize this and do all they can to help. We don't. All I ask of our politicians is that they cease indulging in fantasies and start taking their responsibilities seriously. In this, I think National are a better bet than Labour.

[Sam]

Does that mean we have to become a poodle to the US in every ill-conceived war that is pursued in their own self interests? They may or may not defend us if the need ever arose -- but how likely is it to ever be put to the test?

We sacrifice out soveriegnity to them just in case?

If they have a responsibility as the strongest Western Power to assist weaker Western nations (of which we will always be no matter how much of our GDP we spend on defence) it does not mean they can send our men soldiers to war. To do so would be to defy the very same human rights that they are purportedly trying protect.

Lets face it, the last time we were attacked on our own soil (by the French government - Rainbow Warrior) the Americans didn't even condemn the terrorists - you wouldn't expect them to because it didn't suit their nuclear policy. So why should we blindly follow their say so.

[Sam]

...or women soldiers...

(I actually meant to replace 'men and women' with 'soldiers' but messed up there)

[Sean]

Sam - "Does that mean we have to become a poodle to the US in every ill-conceived war that is pursued in their own self interests?" Short answer - no. But we might want to reconsider the overt anti-Americanism of our current rulers (who've never forgiven them for burying their utopian USSR) and replace it with a realistic assessment of our place in the world as an English speaking liberal democracy.

[exkiwiforces]

Got this from Jane's Defence website under its New Zealand heading. Total Defence Speading as %GDP: 2000 1.93%, 01 1.48%, 02 1.60% 03 1.83%, 04 1.32%, 05 1.35%, 06 1.31%, 07 1.27, 08 1.23%. It doesn't look good for future and they said the operational budget is staying about the same but the procurement budget is going down but there is still more big ticket items to get let alone equipment upgrades for the future. Looks like the force's are been taking for a ride again.

[Paul]

Sean,

hate to dash your GI Joe dreams, but America did not deal to the USSR, a small thing a kind to internal combustion did.

And what about the USSR was utopian. It's like us saying your capitalist dream is centred on the San Fernando Valley (porno valley).

Exkiwi, contrary to belief many of us on the left would like to see more spent on the military. Perhaps not in the combat strike capabilities we once had (WWII). But there's something worthwhile we can do with a strong SAS, a very strong peacekeeping styled force, a very stong coastal protection force among many other possibilities.

These can all be done without being a 'Tony Blair Lap Dog' of Bush.

[exkiwiforces]

Paul, i've been a Peacekeeping and you're got to know how to use every combat capability that u have that also means airpower as well because if the other side ends up calling your buff as what happen in Bosnia and u back it up then u might as well give up. I wonder how many of u on left and right remeber a kiwi pilot calling in a airstike in Gorazde his training was done in NZ and also a he was UNMO based in Gorazde. Its all very well having a strong peacekeeping force but needs alot more money to be spent on the force's than what is now also the SAS needs to be able to call in airstikes as well. Which brings me to this question why did labour get rid of 14 sqn as it could have been use for close air support and forward air contol training. And other thing Paul I'm ex Labour party member from the Hei Hei banch, ex youth rep for Hei Hei and for the Wigram LEC plus also I was on the Regoinal Labour Council. Still have my contacts within party Comarade.

[Tiberias]

Sean, you are crazy if you think t Labour supports totalitarianism of any flavour. How do you expect to have any credibility making comments like that?

Essentially we as a nation have no significant enemies, and as respectable members of the UN we will be well defended if that changes. However if you're talking the defence of "The West", well the best defence is maintaining world peace and increasing world stability, not fighting wars of choice and *creating* instability.
And of course there is preventing Nuclear proliferation - but the Bush policy is apparently to encourage it.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/08/02/the-treaty-wreckers-/

[Sean]

Paul - The USSR would likely still be with us today if it wasn't for Reagan deciding to ditch detente and challenge them. It was their attempt to match his military buildup that broke the back of their economy. Mind you, that's only Gorbachev's opinion - yours should be given equal weight I guess.
Sam - since I said no such thing I figure your diagnosis is incorrect.

[Tane W]

Sean,

You didn't state outright that Labour favoured supports totalitarianism but "...the overt anti-Americanism of our current rulers (who've never forgiven them for burying their utopian USSR)" incriminates Labour by association. I think you should clarify this point for us. Do you think Labour supported the totalitarian and murderous government in the USSR or did it not?

Defending NZ is a tough and difficult propostion, but it does not have to be an impossible one. Getting rid of our strike wing was a major mistake; I guess those making the policiy forgot the basic premise that those who control the air control the sealanes...... Any naval force we come up with will be very hard-pressed to defend our shores.

We don't have to be able to defeat the entire Chinese Army. But a page out of Switzerland's book would be appropriate. Switzerland could never hope to defeat Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. All they had to do was make it too expensive to be worth the effort. We could arguably achieve the same result, though the international environment will have to change drastically for us to do this. When Peak Oil starts to bite, when the world becomes a truly nasty place with resource wars, famines and population movements everywhere, then you might see some real action in NZ. In 1914, we had a population of just over a million, and a Territorial Force of about 40,000 men. There is no reason why we could not recreate something similar when the need arises. Whoever makes it this far might have missiles and fancy equipment, but they will also have the longest supply lines in the world, supply lines that will be very difficult to maintain in any sort of energy crisis. We would have a good chance in such a conflict.

But until such time as our strategic environment is no longer 'benign' we will continue to make the same half-arsed defence arrangements that we've always made. I pity the young men who will be in the first infantry contingent we send to our next real war. They'll learn the hard way that you always pay for wars either with blood or with dollars. We're not spending the dollars now, so we'll be spending their blood at some point in the future.

[Sam]

Sean,
So, if we don't blindly follow the US, and if what we are already doing through UN (e.g. peace-keeping in Afganistan) is not taking our responsibilities seriously enough - what is it exactly that you are saying? I seem to have missed your point.

[Sean]

Tane - What I mean is what I said - the Labour government is overtly anti-American. Other than that, I find your analysis spot on - especially the part about wars being won with blood and treasure. We in NZ have always been tight with the dollars - and have made up for it with blood. I'd too would like to see that change.
Sam - Where did I say we should blindly follow anyone? I said we shouldn't go out of our way to upset the Americans. There is a difference.
Tiberius - Your "and as respectable members of the UN we will be well defended if that changes" is delusional! The UN has no record defending anyone without the US doing the heavy lifting. The UN may be good at passing resolutions - but is totally incapable of enforcing them.
In the end, I think Bismark was right when he said that the most significant fact in the geopolitical world was that "the Americans speak English". This remains true today - and we ignore it at our peril.

[andrewd]

Well I've just been having a debate with our American friends on a blog site that started comemmorating Nagasaki. Their debate moved rapidly onto preserving their leading edge in the balance of terror. Unsettled by their arrogance on such an anniversary and their abject lack of remorse I called them to account on their sole use of WMD yet their pursual of war over WMD. I also asked if they'd be OK if we debate the use of the new larger Airbus next September 11. They didn't see the problem. Honestly they're no better than those they depose and are blind to their own actions. Who are our friends when they all seem to have gone over the top. We contribute. Honestly have we insulted them so much that they'll leave us to hang, if indeed there is anyone with a desire to hang us.