Make no bones about it – however the politicos sugar-coat it (by saying NZ is NOT sending combat troops but rather weapons trainers), we ARE sending warriors into harm's way in Iraq.
But are we really needed there?
Honestly? No. We can't supply big bucks, or enormous equipment piles. But we're putting our limited resources where our mouths are. Why? Speaking bluntly, it really has NOTHING to do with standing shoulder-to-shoulder in the fight against ISIS. It's more like if we DON'T step up, then the crumbs we currently receive from the global intelligence community will dwindle to zip!
So what role will our troops play? Prime Munster John Key's gone to great pains to assure us this is DEFINITELY a non-combat mission. He naively states that if the shit goes down just a few blocks away, we'd actually stand back and let our "allies" sort it out themselves!!! REALLY??!! But you can bet your last brass that, if OUR team was hit, he'd be expecting allied help to extract our derrieres from the fire!!
What, getting HIT??? Ya mean, NZ troops will be at risk???
Of COURSE they will be. They're soldiers in a war zone with weapons at-hand. To think otherwise is extremely childish. But don't patronise these troops: they've volunteered for their jobs and they know the risks. You don't send soldiers into a war zone, and then tell them to run if something goes 'bang' nearby!!!
So, by sending troops, are we now more at risk back home? After all, ISIS has shown itself capable of and eager to extend its fight beyond its immediate battlefields. It's recently called for jihadists to attack shopping malls around the world.
The big question is: will its poison spread to New Zealand?