Other People’s Wars

Superficially satisfying as it might be to dismiss Nicky Hager’s new opus as the ravings of a conspiracy theorist and left wing loon, that would be too simple.

Indeed listening to Sir Jerry Mateparae on Morning Report yesterday being interviewed it was as interesting for what it did not say as as for what Sir Jerry did so. Listen carefully when he talks about the right of everybody to have their own viewpoints.Similarly with at least one interview with Sir Bruce Ferguson, where the miltary sidestep is on display..

As Fran O’Sullivan, in an interesting Herald piece, notes:-

The tsunami of flannel emanating from John Key, Phil Goff and the former Defence top dogs will not bury Nicky Hager’s latest exposure on New Zealand’s involvement in Afghanistan, Iran and the war on terror.

Nor should it.

She notes:-

Clearly Hager has filtered the new disclosures through his own predictable prism. That’s what he does.

Nothing new, as Hager grinds his axe in everything he writes and that is his right in a democracy.

Fran O’Sulliavn goes on to comment:-

In my view the focus on whether or not the CIA is working alongside NZ’s provincial reconstruction team in Afghanistan is banal. So what.

Adam agrees. Ms O’Sullivan then states:-

But that does not negate the substance of leaked military and intelligence documents he has unearthed.

Indeed, especially as Fran indicates that in a number of areas Hager’s ‘revelation’ accord with the conclusions she reached herself and illustrates where.

Adam agrees 100% with Ms O’Sullivan when she writes:-

It’s obvious to other than the obviously obtuse that Hager is not going to disclose the identity of his confidential sources. They would appear to be well-placed.

But he should now follow in Julian Assange’s footsteps and make his confidential source documents public through an open-source website so journalists and Defence commentators can independently assess them.

Absolutely.

A major reason enabling denigration of the substance of the disclosures is the identity of the author of the book and his tendency to strident political polemic, rather than reasoned argument.plus Hager will have cherry-picked what fits his viewpoint, whereas full disclosure would enable a more objective analysis and might conceivably yield a better outcome for the government than the current spin and obfuscation.

However, the issues raised are important and deserve a more complete airing and analysis rather than the merely partisan.

We will return to some additional aspects of this matter in due course.

Advertisement