Yes, my blog post today certainly does have a provocative title, but I firmly believe it to be true.

What the well meaning, but seriously misguided, advocates (and their supporters) of destroying spy bases, like the one at Waihopai, don’t seem to have got their heads around is the fact that destroying the Western intelligence gathering technologies is an act that will simply lead to more wars, more violence and more deaths.

Firstly, destroying Western intelligence gathering technology would simply lead to a West that had to rely on nothing more than on the ground intelligence to try and defend itself against the very real problem of terrorism and other forms of violent extremism.

This would take us back decades, and it would allow terrorist organizations (and others) to freely use communications technology to plot and carry out terrorist acts – this would provide them with an unbelievable advantage that would make things like bombing gatherings of innocent civilians, or vital civilian infrastructure, a very easily accomplished act.

There is absolutely no doubting that not having technological intelligence gathering capabilities would result in an increase in the killing of innocent civilians in the West.

The other thing that would result from ridding the West of intelligence gathering technologies would be a marked increase in violence, deaths and wars in places like the Middle East, Asia and Pakistan.

You see, without technological intelligence capabilities, the US (and other Western nations) would simply have to resort to much more aerial bombing, invasions and carpet missile strikes on innocent populations in an attempt to wipe out terrorists, etc.

What the spy base opponents seem to be totally ignorant about is the fact that an increased use of surveillance technologies would reduce the need for large scale military responses, instead it allows the West to engage in more precise, direct and focused actions which reduce the harm to the innocent civilian populations where terrorists hide themselves.

In fact, by providing such an ability, electronic intelligence gathering technology actually makes the use of large, wide ranging military responses (all out wars, rocket attacks, etc) more and more morally unacceptable, because with this technology, such military actions become less and less necessary to protect against an unjust aggressor.

Intelligence gathering technologies allow the West to respond to dangerous threats against them with the military equivalent of a scalpel, but without this technology they would only have a broadsword to respond to these problems with.

Is that what the spy base vandals, and their supporters, are hoping for, or is it that they have such a self-loathing hatred for their own Western civilization that actually harbor a fondness for the idea of terrorists bringing an end to it all?

These people seem to be operating under the totally false assumption that less technological intelligence gathering capabilities will equal less innocent deaths, particularly in non-Western nations.

But this is pure nonsense.

Are they so naive as to believe that the US and other Western nations will simply stop responding to terrorism, and other forms of violent extremism, if they have no technological spying capabilities?

The tragic irony here is that increasing intelligence capabilities is actually a way of reducing the likelihood of wars.

No, it doesn’t stop them from happening, and that is not what I am arguing, but it certainly does reduce the need for all out war as a response to these threats.

Why go to war, which costs money, lives and political support, when a threat can be neutralised with a more precise, and less destructive response?

Look, I’m no supporter of Western foreign policy in places like the Middle East, I don’t support the war in Iraq, and I am not so foolish as to think that the US (and other Western nations) aren’t misusing these technologies for evil ends.

But the problem isn’t with the technology itself, or the use of it, which is a neutral thing, instead the problem is with the misuse of the technology for immoral purposes.

Destroying the thing which is being misused for immoral purposes, and which can actually be put to morally good uses, doesn’t resolve anything.

In fact I would argue that it is incredibly shortsighted and foolish.

You don’t solve the problem of people using computers to commit criminal acts by destroying all the PC’s in the world – that would be lunacy.

Or is this a luddite/hippy/conspiracy theory thing?

Where the opposition to spy bases is being driven by a general underlying mistrust of technology, governments and politics, and a misguided belief that all of the world’s problems would be solved if we went back to Medieval village living?

Now I suspect that the spy base vandals, or their supporters, might respond to my suggestions here today by claiming that they don’t actually oppose spy bases, and that their recent attack was simply an attempt to draw attention to the evils taking place in the Middle East thanks to US foreign policy.

To that I simply say; “I have a very hard time believing such a suggestion”.

Everything I have heard from those who participated in this spy base attack, and their supporters, is that they want an end to spy bases, especially the one in NZ.

And are they so uninformed as to think that the majority of New Zealanders don’t already oppose the war in Iraq, or that they don’t already harbor distrust and opposition for much of US foreign policy?

I’m not exactly sure what they hoped to achieve by their actions, and I am even more unsure about exactly good they have managed to achieve for their cause with this whole incident.

If they wanted to educate people, then there are far more effective methods (especially from a PR perspective) than having three bearded fellows break in to a facility and commit acts of vandalism using gardening tools.

In fact, I would argue that they have done the cause of social justice more harm than good with this stunt, because the majority of New Zealander’s are not comfortable with this sort of extremist activism, in fact I would suggest that most Kiwis consider it either counterproductive or comical.

The sad reality is that these three vandals have taken all the attention away from the suffering going on in Iraq, and other places, and have instead focused all of the attention on themselves.

No one is talking about US foreign policy in any meaningful way, instead they are talking about the senseless, misguided actions of these three men.

With this stunt, these three guys (and their supporters) have managed to relegate their cause to the backseat (actually, it’s probably more like the car boot of the vehicle three cars behind them), while they become the centre of a three ring circus.

This is a classic example of how NOT to gain publicity for your cause.

If they consider this sorry incident a victory for social justice and the advancement of peace, or for those who are suffering in the Middle East, then it really is time for them to hang up the sickles and look for another day job.

30 minutes of prayer would have been far more effective than the hours it took to plan, organise and execute the vandalism at Waihopai.