There really was no choice: Prime Minister John Key's trip to
Afghanistan had to have been a "secret".
Indeed it is standard operating procedure for all
high-profile politicians and personalities who visit the
volatile and dangerous region.
As Mr Key has pointed out, not only would he have been at
risk were the visit to have been publicised in advance, but
the safety of accompanying members of the armed forces, his
staff and journalists covering the trip would have been
endangered, too.
Still the cloak-and-dagger element of "the mission", the
carefully observed news embargoes, and the spread of media
representatives selected to accompany Mr Key, has meant the
visit has been a dramatic public relations coup.
To the many popular faces of Mr Key has been added that of a
leader not prepared to send New Zealand troops "to a
destination I am not prepared to come [to] myself".
And further confirmation of a prime minister who likes to
"see for himself" - to gather information or insight
first-hand to enable better quality decision-making.
He told accompanying reporters that he wanted to make his own
assessment of the work of the 70-plus SAS team on active duty
in the country, and of the 140 troops in Bamiyan involved in
reconstruction activities.
He would also have been wanting to get a feel for how the
Nato mission of the International Security Assistance Force
(ISAF) is faring.
It is now nine years since allied forces invaded Afghanistan
and ousted the Taleban regime in the wake of the devastating
al Qaeda demolition of the Twin Towers of the World Trade
Centre and the attack on the Pentagon.
New Zealand has had a lead role in the Provincial
Reconstruction Team (PRT) based in Bamiyan province since
2003, and played its part in the War on Terror by providing
Special Air Service units between 2001 and 2005.
In August last year it was announced that an SAS team would
be redeployed.
That force is scheduled to leave in March next year and the
PRT troops this September.
General Stanley McChrystal, the ISAF commander, took the
opportunity of the New Zealand Prime Minister's visit to air
the desire that this country's military commitment to
Afghanistan be extended.
While Mr Key has been generous in his praise of the efforts
and quality of the New Zealand forces in the region, and
their achievements, he has remained non-committal on the
question of an extension, citing domestic factors "with the
Rugby World Cup and all sorts of other things".
Further to such domestic questions, Mr Key and his advisers
will be weighing up a number of other factors.
Is the military effort getting any closer to its goal of
enabling Afghan forces to take control of security in their
own country? The indications are not positive.
Mr Key will also be taking advice on political stability and
the long-term prospects for the leadership of Afghan
President Hamid Karzai.
This controversial and unpopular leader seems to have
achieved the feat of alienating large sectors of his own
population as well as a number of "friendly" Western leaders
concerned about the role of corruption in last year's
elections.
The war in Afghanistan is also becoming more unpopular by the
month in parts of Europe, with fissures emerging in the
46-nation ISAF effort.
The Netherlands, which lost a government over the matter,
will withdraw it troops on August 1 this year, and resistance
is growing in Germany and to a lesser extent France.
The economic problems afflicting the European Union and a
lack of conspicuous and permanent progress in the war against
the Taleban will not help with solidarity over the
occupation.
Will New Zealand wish to be involved if the consensus
crumbles? That may depend on the extent to which the
Government sees a continued presence as being helpful to
other aspects of the relationship with the United States, by
far the largest military presence in ISAF.
It might also consider that while New Zealand maintains an
army with a specialist fighting force which requires, from
time to time, the mettle of actual military experience, the
Afghan deployment is possessed of a logic beyond those of
good global military partner.
But whether the occupation and the work of the ISAF is headed
anywhere but towards a stalemate - and thus whether New
Zealand should recommit troops towards its mission - is the
burning question.
Mr Key is right, at this point, to remain non-committal.
A name, residential address, and (preferably residential) telephone number is required from readers who comment on ODT Online. These details will not be visible to site visitors.