NZ Defence Forces in Iraq “given right to defend themselves”

NZ defence I can’t believe I could read such words. I can’t believe that politicians and the bureaucracy and somewhere some craven gutless faceless men have brought us to the stage where before we can send our troops overseas, into a war zone, we must “negotiate” their right to defend themselves. Just through the looking glass stuff and that we have negotiated this “right” is written up as if its some kind of achievement.

What the West should be doing in Iraq is what the West wants to do and in the best interests of its own security and safety, with Iraq’s requirements coming a distant second or else they’ll be treated no different to ISIS. These are people who reject democracy in preference for Sharia law and who in many cases would prefer to have Saddam Hussein or some other vicious murdering totalitarian dictator ruling them.

We do not need to placate these people. We don’t even need to train them. We need to use their country as a beachhead and blast ISIS and their supporters into oblivion with heavy weapons and smart bombs and do the same in Syria. Maximum destruction with as little as possible engagement on the ground. And to hell with such garbage concerns as “collateral destruction”. To hell with “winning hearts and minds”. To hell with rules of engagements written by back room shysters with no idea of the mission or what it takes to win.

Frankly, if we have to negotiate with Iraq over our troops right to defend themselves then what the hell are we doing even thinking of going there. As George Bush said, “you’re either with us or against us”, and if our troops need to damn well negotiate their right to defend themselves, then obviously the Iraqis are unsure about which side they’re really on. We either go to war or we do not. End of story.

8 thoughts on “NZ Defence Forces in Iraq “given right to defend themselves”

  1. Unbelievable. Doesn’t *anybody* have the natural right to self-defense?

    How can someone in authority operate from such a weak starting point for needing to assert this? Can they be standing up to an even weaker, more opposing view of the Armed Forces, their needs and objectives? I doubt one exists. “No, actually the, er, Armed Forces have NO right to defend themselves as of today…”

    The brave soul who opposed these words has staved off the attack for now!

    See, the attack is in making the statement that they still have the right! That’s the rot, right there.


    • Yes, exactly, they’re operating from an unbelievably weak starting point. How could they even think about sending toops there if there was even the slightest suggestion they could not defend themselves. Incredible as you say.


      • This article was linked by the Vox Popoli blog recently.
        The whole article is salient but here’s one of the interesting paragraphs:
        “Instead, far from honoring their troops or even showing them respect, Western societies have done the opposite. During training and in garrison, they are surrounded by a thousand regulations that prevent them from doing things every civilian can do as a matter of course. That includes, if they are American and not yet 21 years old, buying a can of beer and drinking its contents. On campaign they are bound by rules of engagement that often make their enemies laugh at them, prevent them from defending themselves, lead to unnecessary casualties, and result in punishment if they are violated. Anybody who openly says that he took pride in his deadly work—as, for example, the legendary, now retired, four-star U.S Marine Corps General Jim Mattis at one point did—will be counseled to shut up if he is lucky and disciplined if he is not.”

        And it doesn’t just criticize “higher ups” it also makes observations on our culture’s soldier’s primary goal being to not get killed: “Yet from the time the Persians at Marathon in 490 B.C were defeated by the outnumbered Greeks right down to the present, troops whose primary concern is not to get themselves killed have never be able to fight, let alone win.” Different if you’re in an existential war; and the last really serious war Western nations (the article points out) was seven decades ago.

        Food for thought. Must read the whole article tomorrow! 🙂 Too late for tonight.


  2. When I was an infantry soldier and I’m sure, for the current soldiers, a deployment like this would be considered a privilege and something to be excited about. Only now it occurs to me, how easily you could find yourself in a situation that hinges on the support and backing of top brass. No joke.


  3. “Given the right to defend themselves”. When this even has to be stated, you know we have a problem. But do the MSM or eve the blogosphere pick up on this or examine the absurdity of such a statement?

    When hell freezes over.

    I don’t always agree with what you say but by God we need voices like yours heard by a larger audience.


    • Decades of LW propaganda about making peace not war, demonising guns and or any kind of aggression has made us pushovers for the playground bullies of the globe. The West is a spineless shadow of the force it used to be, and its enemies are taking full advantage.


  4. blast ISIS and their supporters into oblivion with heavy weapons and smart bombs

    With nukes, TB. Iran and Iraq. No need for “boots on the ground”. Just Trident D5s and Minutemen — and arm up the old Minutemen-IIs with the 1.2megaton warheads to hit the cities.


    • I saw a news report on the graduation ceremony at the end of training for ISIS recruits in Syria. If we can get news reports on these vermin, why can’t we blow their damn training institutions to hell? The West is so uncommitted and so weak.


Comments are closed.