“That was an insult. It doesn’t take guts; you've got to use your common sense” – Phil Goff

Labour’s Defence spokesperson Phil Goff told TV One’s Q+A programme that going to Iraq is a high-risk venture that is probably the least effective thing that we could do to stop ISIS.

“I lost a nephew in Afghanistan. I've had four nephews fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's not the armchair politician, the armchair warrior that needs the guts; it's the people that are out there doing the job for us,” he says.

Terrorism Expert Professor Richard Jackson also told the programme that there is a strategic logic that's going on here.

“ISIS are a weak party in one sense, when they are faced against this international coalition. So their strategy is to try and shock us with a major psychological impact,” says Professor Jackson.

“I think we are absolutely playing into their hands.”

ENDS

Q+A, 9-10am Sundays on TV ONE and one hour later on TV ONE plus 1. Repeated Sunday evening at 11:35pm. Streamed live at www.tvnz.co.nz

Thanks to the support from NZ On Air.

Q+A is on Facebook, http://www.facebook.com/NZQandA#!/NZQandA and on Twitter, http://twitter.com/#!/NZQandA

Q + A
2015 Episode 1
PHIL GOFF + PROFESSOR RICHARD JACKSON
Interviewed by SIMON DALLOW

SIMON Firstly to you, Mr Goff. Labour's opposition to military action here - what is it in a nutshell?

PHIL In a nutshell, it’s because this is a high-risk venture that is probably the least effective thing that we could do to stop ISIS. I’m totally opposed to ISIS. I think there are some really effective things that we could do. We've got a seat on the United Nations Security Council - we could be pushing to stop countries like Syria, President al-Assad, who’s killed 200,000 of his people. We’re not going to war with al-Assad - he’s buying oil off ISIS; he’s actually supporting them. We could be providing humanitarian assistance. There are 13 million people in refugee camps in this region, not only from ISIS, but from some of the other regimes that are just as brutal.

SIMON What sort of systems are you talking about?

PHIL Just keeping people alive, giving them healthcare, giving them food, giving them proper accommodation. The $35 million that we are spending on putting troops into Iraq so that we will have 16 trainers - that money could make a real difference in keeping people alive in those refugee camps.

SIMON Even humanitarian aid workers are at risk. You’re putting them at risk without any military support. We’ve seen them being beheaded.

PHIL No, we’ve done this before. We provide our assistance through people on the ground from the region who deliver that aid. So what is required from us is the money. That would make a real difference. Why do I think it’s going to be ineffective? Because the United States has spent $25 billion and put thousands and thousands of trainers in with no effect at all. Why not? Because the Iraqi army is corrupt, it's sectarian, it’s incompetently led, it lacks morale. None of those things can New Zealand trainers do anything about. This is sheer tokenism by John Key. The club has asked him to go. He's doing the minimum. Forget the passion about not having the guts to send people there; when you're an armchair warrior, you're putting other people at risk. He’s not putting himself at risk.

SIMON So you’re denying that you don’t have the guts to send people?

PHIL We have made the hard decisions as a Labour government time and time again. I was part of the decision to send people into Afghanistan, to the Solomon Islands, to Timor. Those were decisions where you had a clearly achievable objective. There was risk. We were prepared to take that risk, but we were going to achieve our objectives and we did. In this case, trying to do something with the Iraqi army with its 50,000 ghost soldiers, it's ineffectual.

SIMON John Key said he’d go to Iraq. Would you?

PHIL Absolutely. I’ll go with him if he likes.

SIMON On a humanitarian mission, would you go?

PHIL I’m happy to go anywhere. I went to Afghanistan many times and to Timor and to all the other deployments.

SIMON Were you insulted by the accusation that you didn’t have the guts?

PHIL I lost a nephew in Afghanistan. I've had four nephews fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's not the armchair politician, the armchair warrior that needs the guts; it's the people that are out there doing the job for us. That was an insult. It doesn’t take guts; you've got to use your common sense. You’ve got to say, ‘Have we got an objective that we can achieve, and will this achieve it?’ The answer on both of those questions is no. The risk that we are putting our people at is high risk. Gerry Brownlee won’t admit that in the house, but the Australians have told me - It's high risk, low outcome. It’s the worst thing we could do.

SIMON Nevertheless, you have lost this battle - hey are going - and your Labour counterparts in Canada, the UK, Australia have all backed their government in this. Why not Labour now? You know it’s going to happen.

PHIL Because we believe in an independent foreign policy. We make our own judgement. John Key is making his own judgement. He’s not sending people there because he is passionate about beheadings. I haven’t heard one word of criticism about what Saudi Arabia does with its 70 beheadings a year. In fact, we ran our flags at half-mast when the King of Saudi Arabia died. He’s going there, as he said in the BBC, as a member of the club. And it’s totally disingenuous to say that that club was 62. I’ve read that transcript many times. He was talking about the club of five. The other thing that I would say is, why do you think ISIS wants us to go to Iraq?

SIMON Well, I’m going to hold you right there, but I’m going to throw that question over to Professor Richard Jackson, terrorism expert.

RICHARD There is a strategic logic that's going on here. ISIS are a weak party in one sense, when they are faced against this international coalition. So their strategy is to try and shock us with a major psychological impact. That is why they have been using these beheading videos and so on. And the idea here is to try and make us make bad decisions and get involved in this conflict. I think it's very much similar to the 9/11 attack, where the idea from Al-Qaeda was to try and suck Western forces on to their ground so that they could then engage them and fight on the ground.

SIMON So are we playing into their hands, then?

RICHARD I think we are absolutely playing into their hands. US generals have already said that there’s no way we can defeat ISIS through an air campaign, so it’s inevitable that at some point, there will have to be a land invasion and possibly an occupation. This is another way of bringing American and Western troops back into Iraq so that they can fight in hand-to-hand combat with these groups. Now, this does a number of things – it allows ISIS to fight directly against their enemy; but it also confirms their narrative. It confirms their argument that Western countries only want to kill Muslims, want to keep invading, want to prevent the emergence of an Islamic state.

SIMON So you talked about this being a psychological tactic. This is a publicity driven war for them. Are we in the media complicit?

RICHARD I think so. In many ways, that is correct. If you look at the difference between Nigeria and Iraq, you’ll note that similar terrible things are happening in Nigeria – perhaps even worse things in some cases. But because it doesn't have that media element, the call for action, the desire of politicians to get involved is not as strong. In many ways, ISIS are setting the agenda here. The media are playing along, and then the politicians are feeling pressured to do something. And they’re trying to do something for the sake of doing it without looking at the actual evidence of what the right thing to do would be.

SIMON Are you trying to do something for the sake of doing it?

PHIL We’re not, but I agree entirely with Richard’s point that that's exactly what the government's agenda is. ISIS is luring us in there. They’re not doing a whole lot of things that are different from President al-Assad or Boko Haram in Nigeria. What they are doing differently is that they are publicising what they are doing. They are setting out to shock us, and they’re setting out to lure us into the region, and they are succeeding. The thing that will most help ISIS is to say, ‘This is a crusade. We are up against the Western nations, the Christian nations that are setting the agenda,’ and that will bring people in in their thousands, misguidedly, in the recruitment drive.

SIMON If this gets worse and exacerbated, at what point would military intervention be justified to Labour?

PHIL We’ve said that when the bombing occurred to stop the massacre of the Yazidi people, we were not opposed to that. We did not speak out against that. That had a humanitarian purpose. But the real thing is this – that we will not solve the ISIS problem by military intervention. What we have to do for Iraq is through the United Nations, do something about the sectarian divide between Sunni and Shia that was aggravated by the Western intervention in 2003. That’s underlying support for ISIS in that region, and we have to do something about the regime of President al-Assad, because that's what gave rise to ISIS in Syria.

SIMON I think Richard Jackson would disagree with you on that. Wouldn’t you say it’s Western intervention that’s given rise to it?

RICHARD For me, this is the biggest concern about this whole issue is that it doesn't seem to be based on any of the academic research that I am familiar with. And the academic research I am familiar with shows that first of all, using military force to try and deal with terrorism like this doesn't really work. It makes things worse. And the evidence we have from the Middle East and from all studies, including from the Pentagon and the CIA and MI5 and so on, is that the invasion of Iraq was the single greatest radicalising element in the recent terrorism threat.

PHIL Absolutely.

RICHARD So we are at risk here of repeating this by invading again.

SIMON All right. Thank you very much, Professor Richard Jackson. Phil Goff, thank you very much for your time. So consensus there.

END

© Scoop Media