Prince Charles a friend to the UK armed forces

Col Richard Kemp, a former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, said that as Colonel in Chief of the Army Air Corps it was the Prince of Wales' duty to lobby government.

"In many cases senior officers don't want to rock the boat because they are worried about their careers, but Prince Charles doen't have those fears. It's not just that he can do these things, it is his duty to do them."

Article


A lot has been made of Prince Charles correspondence with Tony Blair and other UK Members of Parliament. Until now the commentaries I have read have taken a negative view of Prince Charles actions. Now I do find this to be perfectly understandable. Under the unwritten constitution of the UK members of the Royal are to remain “above politics”.

On balance the way Prince Charles has been a friend to the UK armed forces is well worth some consideration on its own. The reader should note how none of the UK military commanders in Iraq were willing to put their necks on the line for the troops under their command. Nor was the Prime Minster at the Time Tony Blair or his Minster of Defence.

The NZDF doesn't have any friends who are able and willing to raise concerns like Prince Charles did with Tony Blair. As I have noted the NZDF senior leadership leaves a lot to be desired. Every day brings us closer to the out come of the NZDF being neglected for the past 20 odd years.

A glance at the 2015 United Kingdom General Election result

The Conservatives made gains in England and Wales and are forecast by the BBC to secure 331 seats in the Commons, giving them a slender majority.
Sources say Ed Miliband is expected to stand down after Labour was all but wiped out by the SNP in Scotland.
Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg has already said he will quit, with his party set to be reduced from 57 to eight MPs.

Article 



This is my first glance at the United Kingdom General Election Result. The final results have yet to be declared at the time of writing. My first impression is that the projected result shares a Kiwi flavour. Let me touch upon the 2014 New Zealand General Election to explain how David Cameron will be enjoying Marmite on Toast.

At the last New Zealand General Election a National lead government was elected for a third term with an increase in the party vote. (Note to the international reader under New Zealand's MMP electoral system the Party and not the Electoral Vote decides elections.) In short the centre left went out of its way to commit political suicide. Labour convinced themselves that they way to draw the “missing million” voters (voters who don't bother to vote) was drift to the left on the political spectrum.

Voters also saw through Kim Dotcom attempted to try and change the government in order to avoid extradition to the USA. Nor did the majority of voters care about the whole Dirty politics saga. By drifting away from the centre , Labour competed with the Greens and Internet/Mana Party for for the hard left vote.


In New Zealand the centre or swing voters which amount to about 40% of the electorate decide elections. On election night Labour cannibalised the hard left vote. Centralist voters flocked to National. Many of these people would have voted for Labour in the past.

Curiously the SNP success in Scotland appears to have cannibalised the left wing vote. The seats the SNP won made a contribution to Labour's defeat. If Labour and the political left in the UK aimed to emulate their New Zealand counterparts they have been successful.

IMO the SNP is proof that even without Proportional Representation it is possible to see a stark raving mad political party elected to Parliament. The SNP policy of scraping Trident (the UK nuclear deterrent) in the face of a resurgent Russia is bonkers. Never mind the viability of Scotland being a stand alone independent state.

I believe that the Kiwi reader won't be surprised by how the Lib Dem were hammered by voters. Political Commentators in New Zealand have often commented on how minor parties who go into coalition with National or Labour tend to suffer at the hands of voters at the next election. In general these minor parties are perceived to have lived in the shadow of National or Labour. (Note to the reader New Zealand hasn't had a majority government since 1993 due to the adoption of MMP.)

A brief word on the UKIP. I believe the fact that the UKIP gained more votes than the SNP and far less seats is worthy of a close examination. Could there be a better demonstration of just how bad a First Past the Post electoral system really is? Could there be a better advertisement for Preferential Voting? If the reader would like me to cover this matter in greater depth , please leave a comment below.

David Cameron and John Key are friends who share the same political outlook. For instance as Prime Minster both men have supported Gay Marriage. I also think Key and Cameron both ran solid and disciplined election campaigns in their respective countries because they share the same qualities as political leaders.

Both Key and Cameron have benefited from the radicalisation of the political left that I believe is occurring world wide. Alas the drift of the political left is a topic for another day.

Voters perceived Key as being a centre right pragmatist and a safe pair of hands. Voters in the UK likely perceived Cameron in the same manner. As a general rule Government's lose elections. Opposition parties don't win elections.

In both New Zealand and the United Kingdom the polls didn't reflect the final result on election night. I put this down to a greater emphasis on Social Media and unscientific online polls and surveys. The future of scientific political polling is yet to be extensively discussed.

Traditional (and scientific) political polling is done via telephone calls to would be voters. The rise of Skype has seen a decline in the number people who have old fashion landlines phones. We are yet to see how the pollsters will adjust to this trend.

All in all: Cameron can enjoy some Marmite on toast.

The road map for Iran obtaining Nuclear Weapons

White House releases factsheet on the ‘parameters for a joint comprehensive plan of action’ after agreement on Iran’s nuclear program reached in Lausanne

Source Material

Iran has been severely hit by sanctions

Epic BBC Fail




Before I sat down to write this article the main thought I had was how the international community is committed to appeasing Iran's nuclear and territorial ambitions. In my last article I touched upon Iran's territoral ambitions .

In this article I am going to cover the international communities efforts to prevent Iran from gaining Nuclear Weapons , in more contemporary times. I will leave it to the history books to detail the Clinton Administration's middle east foreign policy.

Originally the goal of the international community was to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. Around 2006 the political fall out from the Iraq War lead the Bush admin to opt against using military force to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program. The Iraq War used up the political capital that could have been used to gather support for the military option.

The US and the international community faced a fork in the road. One road would use the so called International Rules Based Order to pressure Iran into backing down from its radio active ambitions. On this route sanctions would be the primary instrument used to apply pressure to the Iranian regime into changing course.

The other road would have seen the US military make a military incursion into Iran. IMO how Iranian backed Shiite insurgents were operating in Iraq provided considerable justification for the US , UK and Australia to curtail Iran's attempt to take over Iraq. The air campaign against Iran could have eliminated that countries Nuclear Program.

A historical parallel would be President Richard Nixon authorising the Cambodian Incursion. Nixon understood that North Vietnamese forces had enjoyed the use of sanctuaries in Cambodia. US forces successfully interjected large amounts of supplies and other enemy infrastructure.

Whether or not the goal of using military force against Iran should have involved regime change or not is purely speculative at this point in time. Incidentally the Iranian backed terrorists/insurgents are now fighting alongside the Iraqi army in an attempted to retake Tikrit from Isis.

Before I move away from the path that wasn't taken it is worth expanding on where a lot of the political capital was spend. Political figures like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton practically ran for the hills in an effort to distance themselves from their prior support for regime change in Iraq.

Now it is worth noting that the sanction highway is still be driven against North Korea's Nuclear Weapons Program. At the time of writing North Korea's nuclear weapons program is continuing to progress unhindered by sanctions or Useless Nations Security Council resolutions.

World leaders continue to have a religious like faith in sanctions. In light of how sanctions have failed to stop North Korea from undertaking nuclear tests , faith is trumping the facts. If the reader views the above article from the BBC they will see the fallacy of religious faith. Below the heading : Iran has been severely hit by sanctions there appears to be a photo of an Iranian auto worker.

Sanctions behave like import tariffs use too in the days before New Zealand embraced free trade and globalisation. If you are a part of the Iranian manufacturing sector your business will thrive thanks to the Tariffs err I mean sanctions. Very little or no imported goods would leave you with a monopoly in your chosen market.

Had world leaders studied how Apartheid South Africa fared under sanctions , they would found their religious beliefs being challenged in a most Darwinism like fashion. Take the instance of how South Africa developed an arms industry. Bans on arms sales to South Africa would have simply benefited the local arms manufacturing industry.

The election of Barack Obama as President of the United States saw the acceptance of a nuclear armed Iran. The much publicised diplomatic breakthrough (officially known as Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action for Iran Nuclear Program ) with Iran puts window dressing on the acceptance of that country's application to join the “Nuclear Club.”

The main stream media has accepted the idea that moderate (aka some what pro western) elements are governing Iran. This idea is even more crackers than the religious faith that I covered above. The real power lies with the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The balance of constitutional authority lies with Khamenei and not the legislator (known as the Islamic Consultative Assembly) or the office of the presidency.

As the reader will be well aware Khamenei is an Islamic hard-liner. Khamenei's public statements concerning the Parameters the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action ; Israel ; and the USA are the Iranian regime's ideologue manifest. The reader may want to think of Adolf Hitler's book Mein Kampf . Just swap Hitler's Nazi ideologue for Islamic extremism.

Now I will give the reader my future forecast. By 2020 -25 Iran will have nuclear weapons. In this time frame Iran will launch nuclear weapons against Israel. Simultaneously Iran will invade secular Turkey. Strategically the focus of the UK and the USA will be on the Third Battle of the Atlantic and not the Middle East theatre of war. I now leave the reader with what I hope has been some food for thought.

John Key in Saudi Arabia

It is also hoped he'll have face time with extravagant Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Alsaud - the world's second richest royal, worth a staggering US$21 billion. He owns a string of palaces and an Airbus A380 with its own concert hall.

Key is in the desert city Riyadh to get a free trade deal over the line. It stalled in 2009 over New Zealand's ban on exporting live sheep for slaughter.

Article

Prime Minister John Key is under fire from his opponents for disclosing Kiwi troops were in Dubai on their way to Iraq after the Defence Force had previously kept a lid on their movements for security reasons.Key has also been slated for telling Dubai media about the troop movements when the Government appeared to have a deliberate policy of keeping its domestic audience in New Zealand in the dark.

 Article



John Key's visit to Saudi Arabia has shown why he is out of his depth in the foreign affairs arena. Key view of foreign affairs is build around securing Free Trade Agreements for New Zealand. This in itself is not a unsound foreign policy objective. Where Key falls down is he disconnect from reality concerning the deteriorating situation in the Middle East.

Once Iranian backed Houthi militia have taken control of Yemen their next target will be Saudi Arabia. The Houthi and any other Iranian backed factions are in a race against Isis to seize the Saudi oil fields. Iranian backed forces will win the race in about 5 years time.

They will win the race because the Iranians are supplying them with arms and training. Republican Guard units virtually serving in the open will be acting as advisors/trainers to Houthi. Isis doesn't enjoy any such backing from rogue regimes like North Korea.

Long term the idea that New Zealand could enjoy increased exporters to Saudi Arabia via a Free Trade Agreement is preposterous. If it would take 5 years to secure the agreement ; by than Iran will be in proxy control of Saudi Arabia.

By 2020 Iran will control large chunks of Iraq , Syria and Yemen and Saudi Arabia as a whole. Saudi Arabia will have been thrown to the Wolves by the international community. The list of Middle East countries being thrown to the wolves consists of Iraq , Yemen, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

Why did Key violate operational security by revealing the fact Kiwi troops were in Dubai while transiting to Iraq? Here is what I believe can be taken as the short answer. In the policy departments of foreign policy and defence he his clueless. Key's pointless stop off in Saudi Arabia is a clear sign of this gross failing. National failure to reverse the damage the Labour government did to the NZDF can be taken in the same vain.

Max Bradford responds to Phil Goff and the guttering of the New Zealand Defence Force

“Comments by Labour MP Phil Goff that the incoming Clark government in 2000 simply followed a decision by the outgoing National government in 1999 to purchase 102 LAV III armed personnel carriers (APC) is, at best, trifling with the truth” said Max Bradford, National’s Defence Minister in 1997-1999.

Mr Goff’s comments were made in response to criticism that the Labour government’s decision to commit over $750m to purchase the LAVs was foolhardy, given that only 11 have seen deployment since their purchase in 2002 (see RNZ report (1) below). “In 1998, the National government made a decision to purchase only 35 LAVs, which was seen as sufficient at the time. The purchase included a number of LAVs as maintenance and recovery vehicles, so there were fewer than 35 available for combat purposes” said Mr Bradford.

“Although National decided in principle to 102 vehicles at the time, we had serious doubts that 102 were ever to be needed, hence the decision to buy only 35 as replacements for the M113 APCs. There was a serious need for other defence force equipment replacements ahead of the full LAV purchase.

• These included: a third frigate for the Navy, which never proceeded and only now are the implications being fel 
• new helicopters to replace the 15 or so Iroquois, eventually replaced by 6 NH90s
•  
• replacements for the A4 Skyhawks: the Clark government scrapped the air combat wing, 
• to help pay for the 102 LAVs replacements for the then-aging Hercules, which only now 
• is being considered replacement of the then VIP transport aircraft with 2 Boeing 757s

“When the Clark government announced the decision to buy 102 LAVs, there was considerable criticism at the time. Indeed, the purchase process was the subject of an Auditor-General Office thorough review and report to Parliament. The Auditor-General found serious shortcomings in Labour’s decision on the LAVs. Now Labour’s chickens coming home to roost” “I am disappointed that Mr Goff should seek to shift the blame for a stupid Labour government decision in 2000 to proceed with the purchase of 102 LAVs, as the responsibility rests solely with the Clark government, not National. Certain very senior officers in the Army at the time have to share the responsibility for poor advice and a poor decision.

We should be thankful that the problems within the hierarchy of the NZDF at the time have now been fixed and I trust the public can now rely on the integrity of the Defence Force to give the appropriate advice to the government today in a difficult international environment.”

“Today’s geopolitical landscape certainly isn’t the “incredibly benign strategic environment” that Helen Clark confidently stated in 2000 should apply to defence procurement decisions, so we must get the very best defence advice nowadays” concluded Mr Bradford.

As far as I know this is a public statement from former Defence Minster Max Bradford . I have reproduced it in full in the interests of highlighting the way successive governments have either guttered the NZDF or done to nothing what so ever to repair the damage inflicted by Phil Goff and Helen Clark.

Max's statement first appeared on Kiwi Blog. I can be reached at the email address listed on the Contact and About page if Max has any issue with his statement being reproduced in this article.

A lack of a 3rd or 4th Anzac Class frigate would highly likely leave the RNZN without a combat capable warship available in the event of a emergency situation. If both HMNZS Te Mana and Te Kaha are being upgraded or are in port for maintenance/resting the crews , New Zealand , our trade routes and interests over seas are left defenceless.

A major red flag concerning the NH90's was how they weren’t deployed to Vanuatu. The NZDF assistance to Vanuatu in the wake of Cyclone Pam was well covered by the New Zealand Media. The question is how much does the NH90 handicap reduce the NZDF amphibious capabilities?

Space doesn't permit me to give the reader a comprehensive answer. The answer may be compared to trying to start a car that has a flat battery. A part of modern day amphibious operations is using helicopters to air lift troops from (in the NZDF case HMNZS Canterbury ) to the sea ports and airfields in the area of operations. The troops who land directly on the coast link up with the units that were airlifted at the start of the operation. If the NZDF had to mount a stand alone amphibious operation , does it have the helicopters needed to air lift troops?

Before I address Max's next point I need to explain my reasoning to the reader.The RNZAF and the RNZN are the 2 services that are the most integral to the defence of New Zealand and our commerce. By far the bulk of New Zealand's commerce is transported by sea. In the event of a limited conflict breaking out in Asia between China and Vietnam a clear threat will exist to trade routes that New Zealand relies on for our exporters and imports.

When the Chinese invade the central pacific the NZDF role will be the defence of New Zealand . Defending commerce aka escorting the oil tanker that is bound for New Zealand becomes a part of the coming war. The question becomes how far will the Chinese advance beyond the Central Pacific? If the reader would like me to address this point in a future article leave a comment below.

The RNZF and RNZAF will be integral to escorting commerce , ASW and MCW in conjunction with our allies/coalition partners. The same goes for injecting any Chinese expeditionary force that are taking part in their invasion of the Central Pacific.

In a future war the Army's movements will be constrained by a couple of factors. The RNZAF air lift capabilities will determine the number of troops and the quantity of supplies that can be flown to destinations in the South Pacific. The limitations of NZDF Joint Amphibious Task Force combat capabilities fall beyond the scope of this article. The limitations will either see the Joint Amphibious Task Force destroyed by enemy action or never set sail.

Now that with all that in mind the Labour government axed what is commonly known as the RNZAF air combat wing. The logic employed by the government of the day can only be called insanity of the highest order. Any Minster of Defence that advocates removing the RNZF ability to provide air cover to the Army and Navy should be carted off to a lunatic asylum. The same goes for the current government who have failed address this capability gap.

Staying with the last Labour government they opted to upgrade the C-130's for one simple reason. By in effect adding bubble gum to extend the life of the aircraft they were able to ensure that a future government foots the bill for their replacement. This may backfire on former Defence Minster Phil Goff and Labour. Labour may well been returned to government by voters when the time comes for the payment and delivery of the C-130's replacement aircraft.

Can the public really trust the NZDF to give the government of the day sound advice? Before the reader feels outraged at my question they should take a step a back for a moment. To my knowledge in 2001 none of the NZDF senior commanders questioned the wisdom of scrapping the air combat arm of the RNZAF. Nor has any senior NZDF Commander since that time.

The reader may argue that senior NZDF commanders may have argued against the actions undertaken by the last Labour and lack of action from the current government. Did any of the NZDF commanders advise Goff against the policy and procurement decisions his nutty ideology demanded? If they did make such objections why didn't they make them public at the time or after they retired?

The the defence policy's of successive government's can only be described as lunacy. The reader ought to bear mind that Max has only touched the surface. My aim in future articles will be to go below the surface and to the depths of the insanity. These articles will come after I have concluded the series on New Zealand role in the fight against Isis. I have been delayed in finishing up the series due to personal issues.

The idea that New Zealand backyard was incredibly benign strategic environment and would remain so was the greatest lie Helen Clark ever told. The planning and funding for China's massive naval build up would have been well under way. In between 2008 -15 the People's Liberation Army Navy submarine and surface fleet was greatly modernised/expanded.


China's ongoing military build up and tension over territorial disputes with neighbouring countries has happened under John Key's watch. Yet because on defence policy he shares his predecessors ideology he is blind to how the international situation is heading for global conflict.

The first duty of the New Zealand government is the defence of the realm. Thanks to the warped left wing ideology of Clark and now Key the first duty of the government is now seen as pandering to the Useless Nations in order to get a seat on the Security Council.

Countless causalities will be incurred by the NZDF in future conflicts/wars because of the lunacy of successive governments. Coupled with the NZDF lacking the combat capabilities necessary to defend the South West Pacific against a would be aggressor and I am left with some very serious concerns.

Make no mistake the next generation always pays the price for the mistakes of current political leaders. The historical parallel is how the failed peace after WW1 would see the next generation pay a heavy price in blood. I really do wonder how the kids who still in school will fare with the burden the current generation is leaving them. Now they aren't old enough to buy alcohol. In 5 to 10 years they will face the kind of situation there WW2 forefathers did ; cleaning up a bloody mess.

The Lens of History: Episode Ten 2015 general UK election preview

Political commentator Martin Bain joins Luke in the refurbished studio.The upcoming UK general election is discussed over coffee. Find out what political issues matter the most to voters the world over and more in this in depth discussion.

New Zealand and the War against Isis part 2

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.