Following on from Part 1 in the series I will examine how New Zealand could have pursued alternative strategies in the war against Isis. In this instalment in the series I will take a glance at how New Zealand could have opted to provide support to the Kurds who are fighting Isis in Iraq and Syria.
The title of this article stems from The Winds of Change speech made by Harold Macmillan in South Africa. In the present day I believe the Arab Spring and the rise of Isis in Iraq and Syria represent “The Winds of Change” drifting through out the Middle East. The Kurds in Northern Iraq have weathered the storm well in comparison too their fellow compatriots in Iraq and Syria.
In post Saddam Huessein Iraq the Kurds enjoyed semi autonomy in the Northern Part of the country. From 2004 - 2007 Iraq was embroiled in sectarian violence;subjected to whims of Al-Qaeda and any number of insurgent groups. The Kurdish areas of Iraq stood out as a Medium security environment that escaped the worst of the senseless bloodshed.
Starting in the 1970's Kurdish separatists (the most commonly known of these organisations being Kurdistan Workers Party or the PKK) waged a campaign for a Kurdish state in Northern Iraq , Syria , Iran and southern Turkey. Crucially the separatists claims never gained international legitimacy. In the wake of the territorial gains by Isis the international community perception of the Kurds changed from rogue separatists to freedom fighters.
Kurdish forces have proved to be the only genuine stumbling block in the way of Isis completing a take over of Iraq. Why did the Kurds not melt away like the regular Iraqi Army did in the face of the enemy? The answer that will spring to mind with many readers is the Kurds are fighting tooth and nail for their own survival.
Another dimension exists as the Kurds are also fighting for their own homeland. A historical parallel is when the Jews in the British Mandate of Palestine were struggling for statehood. In the Jewish campaign for statehood between the end of WW2 and the passage of UN Resoultion 181 (the creation of the modern day state of Israel) , terrorist tactics and illegal migration were employed. The rest as they say is history.
Why didn't John Key and his cabinet opt to send troops to act as trainers/advisers to Kurdish forces?
I believe the answer is complicated by how Key is wearing blinkers that prevent him from seeing how the Winds of Change have changed the Middle East forever. In fairness I should point out that the rest of the international community is in the same boat.
The results of the damage inflicted by the Winds of Change are that Iraq now only exists as a sovereign state on a map. Isis sole interest is spreading its tyranny across the world. A unified Iraq isn't a part of Isis aims. By unofficially partitioning Iraq along ethnic/religious, Isis will be able to subdue the population.
Purely from a military stand point in my view the coalition's policy of opting to try and resurrect a dead patient (the Iraqi Army) instead of a heavyweight boxer (the Kurds) is a very unfortunate mistake. In order to continue with the discussion I am going to assume that it would have been possible for the NZDF to work with the ADF and other coalition military forces in support of the Kurds. If you disagree with this assertion , feel welcome to leave a comment on the article.
What obstacles stood in the way of New Zealand opting to go the Kurdish route in the war against Isis?
The Kurds are land locked. A lack of seaport would have made resupplying coalition and local forces a logistically challenging. When the NZDF deploys beyond the South Pacific logistics do come into play. When New Zealand deployed a Provincial Reconstruction Team to Afghanistan Kiwi troops plugged into the logistical supply chain of our coalition allies. Clearly where ever the NZDF deployed in Iraq they had to able to plug into logistical support.
Staying with logistics any efforts to strength the Kurds would be at the whim of our coalition partners. New Zealand lacks a home grown defence industry that can support the peacetime NZDF , little alone a would be wartime army in the Kurds. Essentially New Zealand would have no say over how Kurdish forces were equipped. The full implications of relying on off the shelf Military hardware will not be seen until New Zealand faces a national emergency (read the Chinese going on the Warpath.)
In the real world there is no such thing as Rambo. Leaving front line troops without native air cover from the RNZAF in a high intensity area of operations is simply a non option. Due to political correctness demanding that Kiwi troops never face combat just how many causalities were incurred in Afghanistan due to a sole reliance on coalition air forces for tactical air strikes , will never be discussed. Let me point out to the reader how New Zealand's Provincial Reconstruction Team served in a Medium security environment.
Another point I wish to raise with the reader is how Isis and its rival Iranian backed Non State actors seek to meet their ends. Isis is acting like a conventional army. A conventional army seeks to meet its aim via territorial gains. Insurgencies seek to undermine the legitimacy and authority of government's while gaining control of local populations. The War in Iraq has shifted from a counter insurgency too more of semi conventional in nature. Events have moved well past the point where training the Kurds in counter insurgency doctrine would have been a productive aim.
In spite of the obstacles some options deserved to be discussed. Key's disgraceful political dance around New Zealand's role in war against Isis, came at the expense of such discussions. I believe that training Kurdish forces in New Zealand would be a sound idea. Why wouldn't it be better to train the Kurds away from the war zone?
Improving or creating the Kurds Special Forces capabilities is the option that springs to my mind. Partnering with our Australian allies would have been the only prequest. By partnering with Australia sufficient manpower would be available to train Kurdish Special Forces . The different climate and terrains of Australia and New Zealand offer ideal training grounds to any Special Forces selection courses and training exercises.
The Australian and New Zealand SAS could act as trainers/advisers to the new unit. A Kurdish Special Forces unit modeled on the SAS is a realistic aim. New Zealand would have a greater say over how a small special forces unit is trained and equipped than it would over the regular Iraqi Army. The role of our coalition partners like the USA would to supply the equipment for the unit with little or no cost being incurred by the Australian and New Zealand governments.
