Air New Zealand Secretly Transporting Troops To Middle East
By Logan Murphy Wednesday Oct 03, 2007 4:15pm
The scandal that almost wasn't: Why is commercial carrier Air New Zealand -- rather than the Royal New Zealand Air Force-- flying Australian and US combat troops to staging areas for the Iraq war?
Login or Register to post comments.
ok frist
Commercial transportation of combat troops is not unusual. There is something called the Civil Reserve Air Fleet/Transportation system. With all due respect to C&L, would appreciate why there is this "concern" with commerical use of aircraft for combat-support in transporting troops. This is not unusual. Commercial carriers were used during Desert Storm. Commercial ships were used to transport troops during WWII.
Well, that's just interesting, isn't it? Just interesting.
More on CRAF. Could someone explain the concern? This isn't a new issue. Has something changed or been newly disclosed that shouldn't be happening under CRAF? Or is the concern that non-US carriers are involved? Again, NZ is part of the ANZUS alliance. Very unclear what the concern is with the NZ commercial fleet.
Because they're really being staged for the invasion of Iran so it has to be done under the radar.
QANTAS flew Aussie troops to & from Vietnam...
Since I don't know diddly squat about these matters, can someone sum it up for me? Wonderings comment makes sense.
Wondering @ 2:
The point that you either missed if you read the article, or just didn't read the article before questioning, is that the head of the New Zealand government is claiming she didn't know this was happening. Kiwis are not supportive of the occupation in Iraq and apparently it was thought that they could sneak past them using commercial airlines.
I...Uhhh...We....Ummm, You See...Uhhhh...Ummmmm...It's Like This...Uhhhhh...
OK, who blabbed??? You, The Decider just ain't gonna like this! Nor will Lord Vader Cheney! Someone's in for a galactic can o' whoopass for letting this juicy bit of news get out!
Here's a sample support sytemM which integrates between CRAF and New Zealand Air.
Is someone suggesting the opposite: That there be no integration system; and that equipment from the US not be transported on any other system but American military? The US military does not have enough DoD-owned assets to conduct warfare. it relies on civilian reserve transportation systems to conduct battlefield support. Unclear what the concern is with New Zealand and the US. It's well established that NZ is a US ally; and that US DoD funds have been expended to permit transfer of US assets into NZ commercial aircraft.
Nicole Belle @ 8:
OK. So, the issue isn't that it's "secret" only that despite long-standing US-NZ agreements to integrate US troops into NZ commercial equipment, the leadership isn't aware of this. The issue isn't that the NZ troops are or are not "secretly" doing anything; but that the world now knows the NZ government is doing something that the US and NZ have long been doing.
Thank you for the clarification.
Nicole Belle @ 8:
Kind of like the UK saying, "we didn't know about rendition"? Is that he issue: Their denial doesn't appear plausible given the extensive US-NZ coordination?
I think the real issue is the US doesn't ahve enough commercial aircraft to do the job. It has to depend on other nations. The issue appears to be the NZ government isn't openly discussing the scope of its involvement.
Or am I misssing something else?
Wondering Says:
"It’s well established that NZ is a US ally"
And vice-versa?
NZ does not allow US nuclear warships in their waters.
New Zealand troops left Iraq in September 2004.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraq
Right. I think the concern trolls are missing (or throwing) the scent.
The issue here is that the NZ airline is some 78% government owned, they claimed they didn't know, when it would need to be cleared through those government holdings in the first place for something of this scale to happen. Why lie about it? Some what because the NZ public is not very supportive of the war, and there's hints that the staging going on as a result of these flights may not have anything to do with the current acceptable GWOT theaters.
If I missed something or overstepped, feel free to correct. Still investigating...
Nicole Belle @ 8:
As to claims that the Kiwis don't support the war in Iraq, that may be an issue in 2007; but the NZ government has supported the US.
YBNurmal @ 14:
But the issue with NZ was troop involvement.
Troops in harms way are one thing. CRAF is something different.
The issue appears to be: Why would NZ government, with its involvement with CRAF, have an interest in not publicly saying, "Yes, we're involved as a US ally. But there are no NZ troops on the ground."
Glad to see Nonny Mouse's post.
Am watching NZ carefully as my "baby" is off to work there in January.
I'm quite surprised that NZ sent troops to Iraq. I thought that after PM Helen Clark had refused to host a US base, and refused to allow nuclear subs in NZ waters, and after her 2003 remark that had Gore been president the US would not have invaded Iraq, this sort of thing would not happen. What the hell is in it for the airline and the government? The US can't possibly be overpaying for these flights, can they?
Helen Clark has a record of telling the US to piss-off. I'm shocked she didn't in this case.
Here's the NZ govt statement:
The issue for the public: Is "NZ using CRAF-related resources" something that would mean "not participating"? Depends on how you define "participate". Ground combat is participation; and support roles is "not participating"? I agree, the leadership in NZ would be in a position to know whether NZ aircraft were or were not being used under CRAF to transfer US troops.
Conversely, if the NZ government is "lying" about involvement with the CRAF, perhaps their real goal is to hide other cooperating with the US on other matters. Question becomes: Is NZ involved with rendition in permitting overflights? Recall the Cheney visit to Australia. Is there a back-up detention point in Australia and New Zealand now that E. European centers were found to violate Geneva?
Link for this quote: Wondering @ 20:
Having been in the Army during the first gulf war I rode on planes that were from Kuwati Air to Aer Lingus, they were all charters, this to me isnt that big, until the PM of NZ lied about it. The chartering of jets to wierd places is a well know fact in the military, look at the fact that the US govt is using the largest plane in the world to transport oversized pckgs to Iraq, the plane is owned by the Russian Air Force. The best(worst) use of a charter I have heard about was from Africa; there is a guy who used to be Spentnaz(?), Russian special forces, who runs guns, and everything else, in Africa. There is a picture of all these guns belted into the seats with ammo and all the other crap, move outside the plane, and thats right, it is the Seattle Supersonics logo on the fin of the plane, so the owners of the plane will charter to anybody.
Wondering @ 2:
The unprecedented levels of secrecy are a cause for "concern". Private and commercial jets were also used in "extraordinary rendition" and for the boosh international gulag system.
But why are you so "concerned" with the "concern" at C&L? hmmmm?
Looks like the people of NZ have had their trust betrayed. My advice to them is to kick every guilty party out of office, lest they end up in the sorry state that we in the US now occupy. Best to nip the dirtbags in the bud, before they can destroy your entire civilization.
Dhalgren @ 19:
Maybe people with huge vested interests either persuaded Helen or they lied to her.
Loook at the original C&L question: The issue wasn't primarily that NZ was or wasn't involved; but that the NZ civilian carriers were involved.
Does this mean it would have been "OK" if the NZ military was doing this? Sounds like the point of concern is drifting from the original C&L point.
Wondering @ 13:
the real issue is secrecy. this activity had to be "discovered"!
The concern is that getting caught supporting GWB's Irak adventure in NZ will get you un-elected before lunchtime, but the pressure from the U.S (in term of a free trade deal carrot) means that out M.P's have to sneak around like this so the can keep the Yanks happy, while keeping the voters at home happy.
Makes you wonder how many of the "coalition of the willing" where bullied into going along with the Yanks in the first place.
BaScOmBe @ 23:
LOL.
Why are you "concerned" about attempting to respond to the original C&L question:
The concern wasn't whether NZ was or wasn't involved, but that civilian, not military, aircraft were used. It's not unusual for civilian aircraft to be used. Whether the NZ govt lied about it was outside the C&L original question. The issue has changed to something else. Called a moving argument. That's the concern.
I think the next step is New Zealand will invade the United States.
I knew we couldn't trust those kiwi's.
I was unaware that concern had to be regulated to the guidelines of the original C&L statement.
Christ, here it is again. People making a bigger stink about the non-issue to ignore the actual issue. This is a discussion, not a high school debate competition.
Errr... This is a complete non story.
What did the PM of NZ know about the flights and when did she know it, that seems to be the question.
Jeff @ 32:
It may very well be, or it could be the Iran-contra of NZ.
A story is not a non-story of you cannot immediately grasp the concept.
4 Wondering Says: Again, NZ is part of the ANZUS alliance.
Not entirely: See "New Zealand bans nuclear ships", "The United States suspends ANZUS obligations to New Zealand", "The Alliance today".
That said, we have forces in Afghanistan, but the New Zealand military is largely geared to peacekeeping roles these days, and while there are doubtless some special forces personnel there, most are involved in such work as disposing of unexploded ordnance.
24 Paul Says: Looks like the people of NZ have had their trust betrayed. My advice to them is to kick every guilty party out of office, lest they end up in the sorry state that we in the US now occupy.
We're in a Lesser Evil situation there: a National-led government would represent a lurch to the right. Clark's a triangulator, which can be hugely frustrating, but alternative is a beeline in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, people who don't remember the 80s are voting now...
Paul, I'm sure people were saying the same sorts of things in the US in 2000, and look where that's led.
Still learning blog-speak.
What is a concern troll?
Someone who's concerned about and living under a bridge?
Because airlines need the oil we're gonna take outta Iraq.
Mentis Fugit @ 36 nailed it: Clark's nominally leftist party is hanging on to power in NZ by its fingernails - if she's seen as co-operating with the Iraq war effort, it's not going to go down well with voters. Thus the big melodrama over 'not knowing' Air New Zealand was flying troops into staging areas for the war, and accusing ANZ of doing something nefarious in secret.
Which they weren't.
So when ANZ could prove they had obtained government approval, Clark then couldn't sacrifice a member of her government and sack him, so she shrugged it off to a 'bad-hair day'.
Most Kiwis were unaware of these not-so-secret 'secret' flights, until Clark responded to an Investigate article on it by trying to scapegoat the airline. An airline 78% owned by the NZ government, where flights of this nature have to be approved, by the government. So while Clark is busily posturing as anti-war, she's nothing of the kind.
And that's the real scandal.
Nobody has gone on record saying ANZ made these flights under pressure from the Bush Adminstration. Even though 78% owned by the government, it seems ANZ is struggling financially and can use all the business they can get, especially charter flights for which they are probably paid handsomely.
nonny mouse,
Well said and thought at per the norm for you, good to hear from the wilds of the UK once more.
VietVet8666 @ 37:
'A concern troll is a pseudonym created by a user whose point of view is opposed to the one his/her sockpuppet claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view (for example, Democrats or fans of the Prius), and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals but with some "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#Concern_troll
Er, thanks, Jeff... except I'm not IN the wilds of the UK anymore. I'm now living in the suburban wastelands on the outskirts of the City of Sails, the capital of Kiwiland.
And the government's current faux pas notwithstanding, New Zealand in general is abso-frickin-lutely fabulous. Best decision I ever made.
Air New Zealand recently acquired 25% of Ansett Australia Holdings Ltd. Guess who still owns 50% of Ansett? Give up. It's News Corp headed by Rupert Murdoch (see http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980CE2DA1239F93BA25752C1A...).
Well, not just, but in 1995. My bad.
nonny mouse Says: I’m now living in the suburban wastelands on the outskirts of the City of Sails, the capital of Kiwiland.
You're just saying that to bug us Wellingtonians, you are.
Mentis Fugit -
I haven't been to Wellington yet, but I've heard it's a lovely city, very cultural, lots art and music, need to visit the Alexander Turnbull. Oh, and yes - I DO know that the capital of New Zealand is Wellington... but I DID say 'Kiwiland'...
I'm just not fond of suburbs anywhere - and Auckland hasn't done much to improve on the original soul-sucking design. Have to say, I was actually surprised - in such a progressive and green country, public transportation in Auckland is abysmal!!! The only thing that is keeping Auckland from turning into one giant permanent traffic jam is that in comparison to any other city of the same geographical size, Auckland has a 10th of the population density. Bad enough already that far too many Kiwis are really terrible drivers... ;)
Yes, Mentis, I think he is.. WELLINGTON has a number of very large, hot seats in power.
Great to see so many Kiwis popping out of the woodwork when an NZ topic appears on a US based site - confirms my theory about most Kiwis being well read in interested in world affairs.
Welcome to Auckland nonny - and a lot of us south of the Bombays think you're welcome to it too!
Sorry nonny - should that have been a SHE....? My bad...
Great blog BTW - try to get up north some time, some lovely roadside wine shops round Whangarei. Wellington is well worth a decent visit and don't miss seeing the Marlborough Sounds - the nearest thing you will see to the Norwegian fiords. Stunning.
Mike Grey - I've been wanting to get up to Whangarei ever since I got here, actually! I did my master's dizzy on Jane Mander, who's buried there. Unfortunately, the current car that comes with my current job is currently not terribly reliable, so I'm hesitant to take it too far away from a taxi stand.
Thanks for the comment about my blog - I'm brand new at this gig, y'know. Took me ages to figure out how to imbed hyperlinks, I'm that much of a techno-Luddite. It's been a bit of a thrill watching my site meter count, though!
As for so many Kiwis popping up when an NZ topic appears on C&L, it doesn't surprise me. In my other day job, I write novels. The NZ Society of Authors had a publisher come to give a talk last month. I asked what a typical print run was for his rather small, rather specific genre type company. He - very apologetically - said it 'only' averaged about 3,000 a book. Which, if you know anything about the publishing world, is a phenomenal amount for a population base this size! Kiwis are extremely well read, period, not just in world affairs. It's still got some ways to go yet, but I feel like I'm on a crest of a wave that is just about to become one hell of a great ride, culturally.
bush/cheney are determined to have their war with iran and what better way to get troops in place secretly than to use foreign commercial transportation. we don't need to tell the American people that we(bush/cheney) are staging the worst of all their lies to the American people.
these guys, bush/cheney, should BE IMPEACHED NOW,before they destroy the USA.
Helen Clark knew about it. There isn't much that goes by her unnoticed. Since the government owns a huge chunk of Air New Zealand, she is looking for ways to bring in the cash. She has also been involved with other things and denied knowing about it like stealing taxpayers money to buy her into the last election. She is "chomping at the bit" to develop trade with the US so it will help her reelection because New Zealand is anti nuclear and that doesn't sit right with the US government.
Nicole Belle @ 8:
the new zealand government has openly been opposed to the Iraq war but yet has covertely sent sas troops to iraq, nz'ers reperesent a large number of private mercenarys in tha area and we have sent many naval ships to the area.
The nz-us military alliance has been frayed since we declared ourselves nuclear free, meaning us nuclear frigates couldn't enter our waters
this previous poster gets it accurately. the kiwi govt is a charade. never forget it is an echelon partner.
and he also has it accurately, nz harbors sas. all of whom have been deployed to the middle east to kill iranians. that is where they are invested. along with the mek.
the kiwi govt also invested kiwi military into vietnam. at the behest of the usg. it is a little known story. which precipitated lots of demonstrations in kiwiland. a sty unreported in the usa.
just as the ozzie opposition to the amerikan invasion of seasia went unreported.
nothing seems to have changed. except for the fact that no ones are out protesting.
a generation of cowards.
Just stumbled upon this forum. If you are going to be picky about supporting Australian troops, how many of your exports end up in Aussie army supplies? If you were serious, you would block all exports to Australia. That would really make us take notice. ROFLOL.
And here is the real reason that it will be VERY HARD to end this war.
EVERYBODY is making TOO much MONEY!!!
It's about privatization of military forces.
... a world in which the hand which loads the sniper's rifle denies any culpability for the eye which aims at the target, or the finger that pulls the trigger.
The "Revolution in Military Affairs."
Of the estimated 30,000 contractors employed by private military firms in Iraq, nearly 10,000 come from countries other than the United States and Britain--1,200 Chileans, 1,000 Peruvians, 700 Salvadorans, and hundreds each from Colombia, Honduras, Guatemala, and Nicaragua, among others.
None of this shit is unintentional.
Because the Royal New Zealand Air Force planes are ferrying the Aegis and Blackwater mercenaries, stupid.
whtt: re: privatizarion of forces - I flew on leased commercial jets in 1982, 3, 4 ... 1995 while deploying on field exercises with the US Army. Nothing new. The issue here is that (A)NZ is sucking up to Bushco.
peaceful easy: "air new zealand is struggling financially?" Are you watching Fox News on cable or smoking funny stuff?
Air New Zealand profit flying high
10:10AM Tuesday August 28, 2007
Air NZ CEO Rob Fyfe
Air New Zealand today announced its June year net profit lifted 123 per cent to $214 million.
The airline, 80 per cent controlled by the Government, declared a final dividend of 5 cents per share which is on top of the interim dividend of 3cps and the previously announced special dividend of 10cps.
The Government will receive $152m of the total payout of $190m.
The company said its profit before unusuals and tax rose 79 per cent to $268m.
"This is the strongest result in the past decade and comes off the back of significant growth in passenger revenue, and a continued reduction in unit operating costs," chairman John Palmer said.
diver99 @ 56:
Mother Courage as a symbol for war-profiteering first gained literary recognition in 1670.
"History does not repeat itself, It rhymes."
Mark Twain
Wondering @ 2:
The concern is this - Passengers from all over the world will be taking risks the minute they board that jet, and they are not military personnel, but they will be targeted as such.
Wondering @ 2:
Wasn't the Lusitania carrying troops/materials what got it sunk?
If the Germans felt that putting military targets on civilian transport makes those transports military targets, wouldn't terrorists make the same asumption? And since Allied forces made a big deal about Germans killing innocent "civilians" when they sunk the Lusitania, wouldn't the US coalition have similar propaganda ready to go should alQaeda target these "passenger" planes?
Goodness! How flattering to find my photograph of an Air New Zealand 747 gracing an article on Crooks and Liars. There are many more pictures like it at the Goleta Air & Space Museum.
rain @ 61:
What evidence do you have that this is a "new" problem? US commercial airliners already provide DoD support. You're talking about an issue which "might happen," but you fail to discuss the current problem: Airliners are already subject to attack when they enter combat zones. Are you suggesting that the combat zone is extended worldwide?
thebigerns @ 62:
Using civilians as mercenaries does the same thing. When the enemy cannot tell the difference between combatants and non-combatants, all civilians are at risk. Dresden and Tokyo fire bombings are one example.
You can thank the President for putting all Americans at risk.
Wondering @ 29:
Maybe it is a 'scandal' of the NZ proportion - otherwise lots' a-do'bout-nothin with what else much MORE IMPORTANT is going on in the US, or the world ==> clumsy promotion of this refrerred to 'blog' of one entry, nothing else !! It's a pity C&L changes its ways/standards so much relying on "instant expertise'.
"It's not unusual for civilian aircraft to be used."" - for at least 25 years. Furthermore, except of the US, very few govts have ANY military aircraft transporting capacity at all - the attack/fighter planes are NOT capable to transport the troops !! One wonders how much of air transporting capacity does NZ military have, altogether ? Had all forgotten about the Boeing 'lease' brouhaha in the past few years ? The US govt was trying to avoid buying the transporter aircraft, and, LEASE instead from new, specially created Boeing financed entity, when NEEDED only. It was a very fuzzy math/creative accounting/ 'just-in-time' resources management logistics story when looked into, but, hey, these are the times we live in.
If anything, it is one more small detail in 'privatization/ outsourcing' of the wars.
The UN Peacekeeping operations have been using nothing else but the 'private' charter aircraft to transport 'official' military units dedicated/committed to peacekeeping operations worldwide by whatever governments. It was unheard of that these governments would be providing the 'national'/ govt military transportation (even Germans would subcontract Lufthansa). They often had NO air transport capacity of any significant size. The only factor: RESOURCES vs. PRICE.
I was procuring these aircraft almost daily during my UN work - it was weird to fly very western troops on the Soviet Aeroflot charter planes during the 'cold war', but Soviet price was much lower, and it was a required cosideration, demanded by ALL the UN member govts (incl. the US). The only factor in favor of the western charter: RELIABILITY. Then the higher price could be justified, but, still had to be approved by a special procurement committee.
New Zealand is a lovely country, and (luckily for them..) does NOT stand out with any significant size millitary force - looking for conspiracies can always find some anywhere in the world. As quite a few posters asked above, WHY would C&L bother with so much more going on ? We know ALL want to share in the spoils of war - MONEY made is the secret.
At least say this is a PROMOTION of some friend of yours - readers will decide/judge what is it. Putting it in the same bag as FDL, or, DailyKos,etc, is kind of insulting - to these established blogs of substance, and, to C&L readers. There are MILLIONS of blogs much better than this one you refer us to. Schizo cats comeback next again ?
I do recommend C&L to whoever I deal with, but, it's becoming more difficult when the quality and C&L 'branding' is being shot down by stuff as this, more and more often. WHY would you keep doing it with so much great stuff you offer ??!!
New Zealand is a peaceful country. This is interesting..
CappuccettoRosso@66:
Just to answer a question or two....the RNZAF has extremely limited airlift capability (a handful of C-130 Hercules aircraft and a couple of Boeing 757s). Ironically the NZ Air Force no longer has any fighter aircraft, the combat air wing having been ditched after the 1999 election.
In this instance though I think the 'privitization' aspect is part of the problem: Air New Zealand is largely a government owned entity run as a commercial business. As such if ANZ gets involved in politically contentious areas, questions have to be raised about whether their actions should reflect Government policy. And whilst I realise to you a kerfuffle about whether the NZ Prime Minister lied doesn't seem like a big issue worth a blog post, I think it ties back to a larger issue regarding the Iraq war, namely the alienation of countries traditionally close to the USA and how the sheer unpopularity of the war has caused political damage elsewhere.
Looking across the ditch to Australia, we can see that the Howard government made itself extremely unpopular at least in part due to involvement in Iraq, even though there was very little public support for such a venture. Helen Clark portrayed herself as very firmly against NZ involvement in the invasion and refused to commit troops, even though that if she had done so it would have strengthened New Zealand's relationship with the USA. More than that, she attempted to score cheap political points here by claiming that the opposition National party would have gotten involved in Iraq like Australia did (which may have been fair enough, considering statements made by National leader John Key). Now we're seeing a backlash at a New Zealand domestic political level due to her contortions to try and both placate the Americans and remain to be seen as opposed to the war.
So the bigger issue is that the current Administration is potentially burning bridges and making life difficult for friends and allies by tying continuing good relations into the Iraq question. For example even though New Zealand are no longer active allies of the US we have attempted to play ball as much as possible (1991 Gulf War, Afghanistan, 100% examination of all sea and air cargo being shipped through NZ ports to the USA), the Bush administration cares more about our lack of support for Iraq.
That said, I'd be careful about relying on "Investigate" magazine as the blogger for the original story does, as Ian Wishart is roughly New Zealand's equivalent of Drudge or WND.
brian @ 63 - I didn't choose the photo on C&L (the one on Mouse Musings is completely different), but I checked out your site - very nice!! I'm assuming that this Goleta is the same Goleta just up the road from Santa Barbara? (I went to Dos Pueblos High School, btw...)
ps @ 59
“air new zealand is struggling financially?” Are you watching Fox News on cable or smoking funny stuff?
Of course ANZ is making a profit. Now. It's how they're making a profit that concerns me. And should concern you, and anyone else who travels by plane these days - here's an interesting corner all too many airlines have had to cut: air circulation inside the cabin. It costs too much in fuel these days to run all the air scrubbers, so planes now run just enough to keep people actually breathing. Stagnant, dirty, bronchial virus infested air.
But as long as it's making a profit for the shareholders, what's a few germs between friends?
Oh, and have you ever wondered why it's so bloody hot these days on long-haul flights? It's because the cabin crew crank up the temperature to make passengers sleepy - sleeping passengers don't demand as much out of the crew, or supplies.
Nice, huh?
It would seem that a large number of people didn't know about commercial airlines being used in the quasi-military capacity of ferrying troops & equipment for battle; I didn't.
Would this not make the airline a valid target for an enemy?
Would we not accept them as such?
I realize commercial airplanes are a terrorist target now, I ask in a philosophical sense.
nonny mouse @ 70:
No argument here. Their fees and penalties are also pumping up their margins, despite their "low" fares.
Login or Register to post comments.