Editorial: PM takes silence on SAS too far

Opinion

Our secretive participation in modern warfare apparently knows no bounds. Early yesterday, not a full day after the Prime Minister confirmed the Government had received a British request for greater assistance in Afghanistan, our combat force of 50 Special Air Service soldiers arrived home, probably for good. Greeting them, Defence Minister Phil Goff said the third rotation of SAS troops had played an important role against remnants of the Taleban and there were no immediate plans for them to return.

So that seems to be that. An Army reconstruction team remains in Afghanistan but our fighting contribution has been withdrawn as secretively as it operated there. There has been no opportunity to discuss the condition of Afghanistan today and debate whether the moment has come to pull out. The British Government clearly does not think so. It is trying to organise through Nato a counter-insurgency force to step in when the United States reduces its commitment early next year.

Reports from Britain last week suggested Canada, Australia and New Zealand were being asked to help fill the gap left when 4000 American troops depart. On Monday Helen Clark revealed that Britain had approached defence officials here around the time of the election but no formal talks had been held. She said the subject might be raised when she met Nato leaders in Brussels early next month but she thought it unlikely that New Zealand could meet the request.

Even as she spoke the SAS contingent was on its way home, as she must have known. The public deserves better. The Prime Minister obviously feels obliged to honour the strict secrecy that protects the lives and operations of special forces that infiltrate enemy territory. But other countries that put these sort of units in the field seem able to keep their citizens reasonably briefed on what is being done in their name.

Military force is the most serious action a people collectively can take. And increasingly the only fighting contribution we can make is in the shape of the relatively small, highly trained clandestine units that can be sent on special operations. Officially we are never told what they do, even long after they have done it, unless more candid allied forces mention them in passing, as happened at least once during their time in Afghanistan.

With no more reliable information available, critics have a free ride. Green MP Keith Locke yesterday claimed the US forces, with whom the SAS served, used questionable tactics, were trigger-happy and treated prisoners poorly. He also claimed that despite the four-year campaign, insurgent activity and casualties were increasing. The last is true. Taleban survivors have stepped up attacks on police, aid workers and occupying forces this year, killing almost 1500 people. It is the largest death toll since 2001, when the US drove the Taleban from power in retaliation for the terrorism of September 11.

The subsequent attack on Iraq and the continuing success of insurgency there has inspired renewed Islamic militancy in Afghanistan at the same time that it has drawn US energy away from the place where al Qaeda was based and possibly survives. The elected Government in Kabul still struggles to impose its will in many parts of the country. Warlords still rule and the heroin trade thrives. The conditions that bred terrorism there remain.

Helen Clark has cited Afghanistan whenever it was suggested her Government was not doing its bit for international security. This is not the time to quit.