FYI.

This story is over 5 years old.

News

Commemorating a Disastrous Defeat in WWI, New Zealand Troops are Set to Return to the Middle East

New Zealand's government is hoping the 100-year anniversary of the tragic defeat will help sell troop deployment to Iraq.

There was a recent outbreak of braid and pomp at the Pentagon, as ambassadors and military leaders from Australia and New Zealand joined Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the landings of Australian and New Zealand troops at Gallipoli, the site of a spectacularly failed offensive during the First World War. This news immediately generated a surge of "Gallipol-what?" followed shortly afterward by a sharp return volley of "meh" among those who heard it.

Advertisement

In places like the Pentagon, military folk mostly march up and down corridors simply for the purpose of getting from point A to point B, but in some cases (like this) they do it as a strange courtship display hinting at a deeper and more intimate liaison. And that's what this was—it's the frosting on top of a changing relationship between the US and one of its more reluctant allies. This reception happened during the very same week the New Zealand Defense Force announced that a first detachment of troops had gone to Australia for training in advance of a new deployment in Iraq.

First, the colorful background story (for those of you who haven't seen the 1981 movie Gallipoli, featuring a young Mel Gibson): The mythology of the actions of the Australia and New Zealand Army Corp (ANZAC) in Turkey in 1915 is a massive piece of the national identity of both countries—the annual commemoration is kind of like a Memorial Day on steroids—a public holiday with khaki, marching bands, and solemn ceremonies for all. In Australia, ANZAC day is regularly held up as a de-facto "national day." This year's centenary of the ANZAC landings has set off a wave of monument building in both countries, with the Australian government reported to have spent a staggering $230 million on events and memorials (to the battle, not Mel Gibson).

All of which is curious, given that the campaign in Gallipoli was a spectacularly bloody, messy defeat for the Allies, with troops from across the British Empire suffering enormous casualties and being forced to withdraw eight months after they had arrived. The supposed nationhood moment for both countries comes not from glorious success, but more from the horrifying realization that a very large number of soldiers were never coming home. So for the New Zealand government to send troops off to the Middle East again in such a week is highly symbolic (if a bit grim) and possibly even carries a whiff of jingoism to it.

Advertisement

In Australia, a country which George W. Bush once described as the deputy sheriff to the US sheriff in the Asia-Pacific, the support of US foreign policy has always been strong. New Zealand, on the other hand, has been much more of a … free spirit. A defense treaty from the 1950s to the 1980s between the three countries was effectively blown out of the water by the decision of New Zealand to ban the entry of any ship that might be nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed (and the US Navy has a lot of nuclear-powered and -armed ships). It was a decision that made New Zealand very unpopular in Cold War Washington, but which generated significant national pride of the look-at-us-we're-the-little-guy-sticking-it-to-the-big-guy variety in New Zealand. The No Nukes position remains national policy to this day.

Earlier governments did commit to combat operations in Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11 and over the course of a decade a number of regular army and elite SAS troops served there. Its military involvement in Iraq since 2003 has been much more muted, with the deployment of engineers, frigates, and transport aircraft, but all notably in "non-combat" roles. Indeed, the New Zealand government initially condemned the US invasion.

Which makes it even more puzzling that New Zealand, a country more famous for its endless villages full of hobbits vowing to stay at home to wonder at the scenery rather than go off on some silly quest, is now sending 143 troops off on a mission to train the Iraqi army. While it's been played by the government as another non-combat mission, it's a major change of policy.

Advertisement

The current center-right government of Prime Minister John Key—don't get too excited if you're the sort to threaten leaving the US if Hillary gets elected; even the right-wing in NZ is still a Fox News nightmare of publicly funded healthcare, strict gun control, gay marriage, and shitloads of greenies—is a mix that most Kiwis find quite agreeable. Nonetheless, Key has definitely made it a priority to improve relations with the US since coming to power in 2008. This has been at the forefront of a slow but steady increase in military cooperation.

But beyond the warming military relationship, there has also been a continuation and strengthening of the so-called Five Eyes intelligence gathering alliance of the US, the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Leaks of material by Snowdon and others have shown New Zealand to be a fully paid-up member in the NSA-led intelligence network.

Revelations that this has included New Zealand's spying on pretty much all of its neighbors have been largely met with deafening apathy by the New Zealand public. But it is probably this price of being in the club, of staying close to the US, that has contributed to New Zealand's decision to deploy to Iraq.

Across the Five Eyes, deployment to Iraq to face off against ISIS has not received widespread political support. In the US, UK, and Australia, deployments in Iraq have generated many disputes between political parties about strategy, but there has been by and large agreement between most major political parties in those countries about the importance of sending troops. In Canada and New Zealand that support has been less enthusiastic. The New Zealand decision to deploy troops wasn't even put to the vote in parliament amidst a fear that the government wouldn't have the votes. Some of the opposition in New Zealand may have a bit to do with the Labour Party's foreign policy spokesperson David Shearer, a former senior UN employee who has served time in Iraq, who knows that fixing instability and dealing with ISIS is going to take a lot more than teaching what's left of the Iraqi Army to shoot straight.

But also unlike any of the other Five Eyes partners, New Zealand has not suffered any public act of al Qaeda or ISIS inspired terrorism. It's a country where you can meet a large number of senior government ministers and officials simply by walking up and down two streets in the capital city of Wellington. And the final unanswered debate is precisely that: Will New Zealand troops in Iraq protect or threaten that safety and openness?

Follow Sefton Darby on Twitter: @SeftonDarby

Photo via DIVDS