Editorial: Withdrawing Iraq troops makes sense

COMMENT

An unfortunate element of unfinished business surrounds the end of the New Zealand Army engineers' deployment in Iraq. Over the past few weeks, the 61-strong force has been virtually confined to base in Basra, unable to complete reconstruction tasks. Yet that very constraint underlines why it was sensible to withdraw the soldiers on schedule, and to be steering clear of another military deployment. Effectively, the engineers had achieved all they could within the framework of New Zealand's well-judged policy on Iraq.

The outstanding business in no way signifies that the dispatch of the force was ill-conceived. New Zealand was right to make a contribution to Iraq in its hour of need. The Government's deployment decision, announced in June last year, was, like its earlier refusal to support the United States-led invasion, an appropriate, United Nations-led response. Iraq's needs were dire, the product of Saddam Hussein's downfall and more so of prolonged UN sanctions. The engineers, during two six-month stints, were able to achieve much, including the restoration of water supplies, the refurbishment of schools and the rebuilding of bridges across the Tigris River.

But they operated in a deteriorating security environment. Whatever the fondly-held hopes, the involvement of non-combatant countries such as New Zealand in infrastructure work did not leaven the hostility of many Iraqis to a Western occupying force. Nor was the United States willing to make that force more acceptable by clearing the way for a more multinational unit, containing strong input from Middle Eastern states. American troops are now paying a heavy price for that failure. The increasing chaos in Iraq, even in the predominantly Shiite south where the engineers were based, meant New Zealand could no longer contribute effectively to the reconstruction. Government policy was always that the soldiers would stay only as long as they were able to carry out this work. In effect, the point of severe constraint was reached a month or so back, as the conflict crept steadily closer to them.

Perhaps, in fact, it pertained as far back as mid-June when their compound came under mortar attack. That they stayed to end of their scheduled tour probably reflected not so much the chance of completing their work as the desirability of deflecting the public criticism that would have accompanied an early pull-out. The Government received an implied hint of such a backlash when it was pressured to maintain the deployment. In May, the Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, a strong supporter of the American cause, advocated an extension. Four months later, the option was no longer realistic.

Equally, it makes no sense to claim, as Act leader Rodney Hide did last week, that the withdrawal represents a surrender to terrorist intimidation. New Zealand's force, unlike that, for example, of Spain, was never part of the occupation force. It was in Iraq for reconstruction and humanitarian work, not to fight or to keep the peace. When that work was no longer possible, withdrawal became the only sensible path. New Zealand's already stretched Defence Force can, in fact, be better used elsewhere. Most obviously, there is Afghanistan, where a 100-strong provisional reconstruction team is mixing soldiering and humanitarian work as part of Nato's International Security Assistance Force. In April this mission was extended until next September. The SAS has also been involved in Afghanistan, mocking further any claim that New Zealand has bowed to terrorism.

The Government has been able to tread a fine line on Iraq. Opposition to the invasion has been no impediment to a worthwhile contribution to the international rebuilding effort. The position of the engineers had become untenable, however. To leave them in Basra would, quite simply, have exposed them to too great a risk.

Herald Feature: Iraq