Usual camaraderie missing from the House

In sombre tones, Phil Goff yesterday reminded his fellow MPs that it was not the done thing to play politics with the deployment of New Zealand soldiers to a war zone. "It is too serious for that."

If so, Pete Hodgson could not have been listening to his leader. After other members speaking in yesterday's snap parliamentary debate had examined the pros and cons of the SAS deployment to Afghanistan, Hodgson took the call and immediately launched into John Key.

Hodgson went as far as speculating Key would have sent troops to fight in Iraq had he been prime minister at the time of the American-led invasion of that country.

Hodgson's inflammatory contribution demonstrated one self-evident truth: you can't keep the politics out of politics.

Hodgson had a justifiable beef in complaining the Government had not set aside parliamentary time for last week's Cabinet decision to be debated - something which had always happened with previous overseas military deployments. Likewise, he bemoaned National's refusal to give the Opposition a background briefing on the rationale for the deployment.

Yesterday's debate confirmed the bipartisanship displayed on recent occasions when New Zealand servicemen and women have been dispatched to war zones - Timor-Leste in 1999, the liberation of Kuwait in 1991 and tours of duty by the SAS in Afghanistan between 2002 and 2005 - has largely evaporated. That makes things tricky for National. If something goes badly wrong - and no one doubts the troops will be on or near the frontline of the current offensives against the Taleban - National and Act will alone shoulder responsibility.

They cannot say they weren't warned. They got plenty of that during yesterday's debate as one Government ally - the Maori Party - joined Labour, the Greens and the Progressive's Jim Anderton in not only condemning the decision to send combat soldiers, but also the phasing down and eventual withdrawal of New Zealand's non-combat provincial reconstruction force in Bamiyan province.

But things are tricky for Labour as well. In running down the SAS's deployment, the party has to be extremely careful it is not seen to be running down the SAS itself. Thus Goff's carefully-chosen words about not playing politics at the start of an impassioned speech which drew a standing ovation for the poll-pummeled leader from his colleagues.

Together, he and Hodgson effectively revealed that many within Labour had been uncomfortable with the SAS deployments following 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. Some time in 2005, the Labour Cabinet decided there would be no more missions of that nature. But ministers kept quiet about it - presumably to avoid annoying the United States.

Hodgson yesterday argued (somehow) that Cabinet decision had become the official position even though no one had been told about the shift and, therefore, it is National, not Labour which has broken the consensus.

Despite the argy-bargy, both parties agree on the ultimate objective - a secure and stable Afghanistan. And as Defence Minister Wayne Mapp noted, most parties in Parliament believe New Zealand does have a role in that country.

But what role? National argues that the current boost in military force is necessary to stop the Taleban regaining control and creating an environment for al Qaeda to flourish. Then the reconstruction of Afghanistan can really get under way. Labour, the Greens, Anderton and the Maori Party argue that al Qaeda can be found in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen. No one is invading those countries. Afghanistan, meanwhile has changed. It is impossible to win what has become a civil war between ethic factions and feudal warlords.

The final word effectively went to Mapp. In the end, the public would judge. The defence minister "recognised" that New Zealanders would need to be seeing an improvement in the security picture in Afghanistan over the next 12 months. It is a self-imposed deadline he may well live to regret.