Our Iraq war policy explained

Written By: - Date published: 10:52 am, April 16th, 2015 - 32 comments
Categories: iraq, national, war, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags: ,

The government is doing a poor job at explaining our Iraq war policy, but never fear, we have the answers. By popular demand, promoted from comments yesterday, McFlock explains:

So, to recap: John Key is sending soldiers (we can’t identify) into an area (roughly outlined) for a length of time (we’re not clear on) to train soldiers (whose loyalty we don’t know) to fight (alongside allies we don’t trust) an enemy (that is loosely defined) led by a person (whose name he doesn’t remember).

Sounds legit. /sarc

32 comments on “Our Iraq war policy explained ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. tracey 1
    16 April 2015 at 10:58 am

    Gold McFlock… have been emailing and facebooking

  2. Malconz 2
    16 April 2015 at 11:11 am

    Spot on. What could possibly go wrong?

  3. dukeofurl 3
    16 April 2015 at 11:41 am

    Vietnam started as a training mission with very small numbers

    “May 1961 — Kennedy sends 400 United States Army Special Forces personnel to South Vietnam to train South Vietnamese soldiers following a visit to the country by Vice-President Johnson.- Wikipedia

    The jargon is all the same: Where do we stop them, dominoes, enemies demonised

    The politicians all think send a few troops and we can get out when we like. But of course ‘defeat’ is not something any general wants on his record or politician on his watch. And so it goes.

    And on top of it all you have Persian revolutionary guard units in Iraq fighting as well.

    • tracey 3.1
      16 April 2015 at 11:49 am

      And korea wasn’t even a war… it was a police action? All those police cars zooming through the countryside with their sirens blaring and lights shining.

  4. Paul 4
    16 April 2015 at 12:40 pm

    Maybe as an ending or addendum to McFlock’s comment.

    ‘Lest he forgets.’

    By the way, Malcom Evans has drawn a superb cartoon on the subject.
    http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/04/16/malcolm-evans-for-king-and-club/

  6. saveNZ 6
    16 April 2015 at 1:40 pm

    McFlock for Foreign Affairs portfolio!

  7. Sable 7
    16 April 2015 at 1:47 pm

    As long as Obama’s is happy our vassal government is happy.

    • AmaKiwi 7.1
      16 April 2015 at 9:28 pm

      @ Sable

      I would say, “As long as the American military contractors and American weapons suppliers are happy.”

      What a fantastic business to be in! The bomb costs $5,000 to build and you sell it to the US government for $20,000. They immediately destroy it and you sell them another one.

      It’s like paying Fulton Hogan to build a bridge and immediately having them demolish it so we can pay to build another.

  8. dukeofurl 8
    16 April 2015 at 2:06 pm

    Qantas ran a charter 747 yesterday for RAAF. Starting Sydney- Brisbane-Darwin…..

    This is definitely a passenger charter carrying Australian army troops ( plus kiwis ?)

    “QANTAS Boeing 747-438 VH-OJI operated a charter on behalf of the RAAF today initially routing Sydney – Brisbane – Darwin using callsign ASY8.”
    http://www.theqantassource.com/

    This flight track from Darwin using Flightradar24 shows it landing at a military airfield Minhad AB near Dubai city

    http://www.flightradar24.com/data/airplanes/vh-oji/#6020df4

    It seems to have gone the long way, skirting Indonesia and the southern tip India

    • exkiwiforces 8.1
      16 April 2015 at 3:12 pm

      Sorry mate, it was the weekly milk run to UAE and last week it A330 so i wouldn’t read to much into.

      • dukeofurl 8.1.1
        16 April 2015 at 4:56 pm

        Not its not, the people who keep track of Qantas charters only show a 747 a few weeks back. No Qantas A330, cant do it non stop anyway.

        RAAF has its own C17 cargo transport and A330 passenger/tanker so these might be doing regular runs.
        Departure yesterday fits the schedule Abbott has given

        • exkiwiforces 8.1.1.1
          16 April 2015 at 7:13 pm

          Sorry mate you are wrong, I flew from SYD- DAR-to Al Minhad in a A330 back in late 2009, heck we even flew the Kiwi’s back to Townsville ( we had offer to fly them all way back to Ohakea) via DAR early 2010 when their 2xC130’s and the B757 went U/S so they could get home and 2 weeks ago a mate of mind flew out to Al Minhad on a Air Tahiti A330 via Darwin.

          So a A330 can do the milk run to the Gulf on a tank of gas unless you are flying with the Kiwi Airforce.

          BTW I used Flightradar24.com live flight tracker to keep track of any FLT’s out Darwin.

          • dukeofurl 8.1.1.1.1
            17 April 2015 at 10:20 am

            That would be interesting if he flew A330 on Air Tahiti, as they dont have any.
            They use the 4 engine version which is for longer range non stop flights.
            You seem to be well informed in this area, so it was obviously just a slip.
            An exception to the use of A330 is by the RAAF themselves who have around half a dozen with extra fuel tanks

  9. dukeofurl 9
    16 April 2015 at 2:33 pm

    Looking back at Comments that Abbott made yesterday, he said Australian troops would be deploying- and they were

    But this is the lies Brownlee says:

    “But today, Defence Minister Mr Brownlee said Australian and New Zealand journalists had jumped to conclusions about what Mr Abbott’s statement had meant.

    “With all due respect to your journalist colleagues, Cabinet makes a decision on a day, as they did on Tuesday, if everyone’s going to expect that that means they’re on the plane this afternoon and gone, then I think they’re not really understanding the necessities of putting the mission together,”
    ( This was pap he told Hosking, his lap dog)

    Really it beggars belief that he trys to massage the message on when the troops are leaving. That plane has allready left the airport

    • Paul G. Buchanan 9.1
      16 April 2015 at 6:09 pm

      One reason that the government may be refusing to reveal much about the deployment–which clearly started a while ago with the pre-positioning of equipment and SAS personnel–is that identifying the units from where the troops were drawn and the equipment that they are taking with them would reveal the true nature of the mission.

      For example, I wonder if any LAVs were sent over, or Javelin anti-tank weapons. The heavy lifting was/is done by the RAAF C-17s given the limitations of the C-130s, so plane spotters might have seen them coming and going. In any event, anything more substantial than individual and squad weapons would suggest that something a bit more “robust” than on-base training is part of the Task Group Taji mission.

      And judging from the experience of other Building Partner Capacity (BPC) missions involving US, Spanish, Italian, German, Danish and Dutch troops, the concept of “behind the wire” does not exist as far as Daesh is concerned.

      • tracey 9.1.1
        16 April 2015 at 6:33 pm

        thanks Paul. That doesnt preclude Brownlee stating they have left nz though? there are ways to answer without lying?

        • Paul G. Buchanan 9.1.1.1
          16 April 2015 at 7:50 pm

          Brownlee appears to be out of his depth, very ill-informed about what is going on under his nose, or is just being pathological with his misdirections.

          Besides the Australian announcement that 100 NZDF are accompanying the Australian complement of 300 that were dispatched yesterday, the NZDF has already confirmed that advance personnel are in theatre (while at the same time being obtuse about who those personnel are). The deal has been sealed and is now being delivered.

          Remember that pre-deployment preparations usually take 90 days for infantry, of which most of the NZDF detachment are likely to be. That means that they started training in mid January or earlier, well before the visit by the Iraqi foreign minister “requesting” NZ assistance. The BPC name given to the non-Arab component of the coalition is a fig leaf that was likely agreed to during the meeting of the military chiefs outside of Washington in mid-October. That way involvement in the anti-Daesh fight can be more easily sold to domestic constituencies even if the nature of the mission involves a fair bit more than mentoring and training.

          Presumably there is a military intelligence component to the NZDF contribution, and the good old GCSB may have an unmentioned role as well. One can reasonably assume that they will be proactive in their targeting, which involves more than defending the base. Such intelligence gathering involves close coordination with other coalition forces and local security units, something that takes significant preparation time (language training being just one aspect of it). So the ruse that they just started preparing after the Iraqi minister’s visit and have not yet deployed should be dispelled once and for all.

          As an aside, I meant to say “why” rather than “that” in the first sentence of my previous comment. My bad.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 9.1.1.1.1
            16 April 2015 at 9:04 pm

            Dr. Buchanan, please can you shed any light on Dr. Veysel Ayhan?

            • Paul G. Buchanan 9.1.1.1.1.1
              16 April 2015 at 9:13 pm

              Sorry OAB, I know nothing more than what is publicly available. From your link it looks like he has a pretty good grasp of the ME. He also does not appear to be beholden to Erdogan, which is a good thing IMO. The Kurdish canton model, something that has been discussed here and elsewhere in recent months and which he mentions, seems like an interesting bit of political engineering.

          • tracey 9.1.1.1.2
            17 April 2015 at 8:03 am

            thanks for your input Paul. Your knowledge in this area adds so much.

            • Paul G.Buchanan 9.1.1.1.2.1
              17 April 2015 at 11:39 am

              Thanks Tracey. Just trying to encourage the debate. I am hoping that Jon Stephenson is on the case and will publish something soon (if he is not in Iraq).

  10. felix 10
    16 April 2015 at 4:04 pm

    Not sure why anyone expects him to remember who we’re going to war with. He doesn’t remember the Springbok tour ffs!

    • dukeofurl 10.1
      16 April 2015 at 4:59 pm

      Yes does remember.
      He has remembered he told his wife on the first date, Im going to be PM.

      The real answer about the Springbok tour , is that he was on the losing side of history.

      • tracey 10.1.1
        16 April 2015 at 6:31 pm

        i bet his wife has never confirmed he said that on their first date.

        • Anne 10.1.1.1
          16 April 2015 at 6:48 pm

          Yes, I think she did shortly after he became PM. She might wish she’d hadn’t since he’s fast becoming the worst PM this country has had the misfortune to possess.

          • tracey 10.1.1.1.1
            17 April 2015 at 8:04 am

            i take it back then and unreservedly apologise to the PM for thinking he might have been lying when he said it.

      • felix 10.1.2
        16 April 2015 at 7:16 pm

        duke your handle is awesome

  11. AmaKiwi 11
    16 April 2015 at 9:20 pm

    I’ll consider supporting this war when Max Key joins the NZ Army and volunteers to go.

  12. Jim 12
    19 April 2015 at 8:53 am

    Let’s start from the beginning – Iraq was initially an illegal war (war crimes) based on lies, and the CIA installed puppet regime and men that Iraqis have never voted for came over to “ask for our support” to reinvade again- another war crime. These Zionists are War Criminals – to the letter. No difference to the Nazis. In fact most would argue, the same inbred gang at it again.

Links to post

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.