One thing that’s puzzled me for a long time is how Australia has been able to continue to deploy soldiers to all manner of risky spots without significant casualties. Did our diggers have some kind of movie-style good-guy bullet repulsion field?
Apparently not, according to a pair of army officers writing in the Army Journal. Two separate articles reveal that in Iraq, Afghanistan, East Timor and the Solomons, that any actual “offensive manoeuvers” - that is, actual warfighting, has been virtually the exclusive province of the tiny number of SAS troops - that is, the super-elite “Special Forces”. This is in contrast to our American, British, and Canadian partners, where regular infantry troops have done much of the offensive fighting(there simply aren’t enough special forces to do everything). They’ve been effective, but have suffered far more casualties as a consequence.
The complaints of Australian troops about being left out and leaving the burdens to their allies are understandable. But, particularly when it comes to Iraq, I’d prefer them to feel cowardly and come home in one piece, rather than die or be maimed in glorious battle. But - assuming that these army officers (and my understanding of their articles) are basically accurate - it does raise some questions about our diplomatic posturing, particularly when it comes to Afghanistan. Our posturing about Europeans not putting their troops in harm’s way looks a bit hypocritical, given that only the SAS, who make up a very small fraction of our total deployment, appear to be really doing so. Force protection (as I understand it and very much in a nutshell, standing guard while people do stuff) is of course hardly risk-free, but much, much safer than offensive roles. And does the fact that we’re not prepared to actually risk our infantry in combat suggest that our generals think that they’re not up to the job?
The response of the Chief of the Army can be read in this ABC article; notice that he doesn’t disagree with the basic assertions of the officers.
I wrote a post about this (with illustrations from the ADF PR web site) at the Road To Surfdom in December 2006.
It was clear then that the Diggers were being protected.
One part of me says Howard was a fraud with all his “protecting innocent Iraqis” and that “taking it up to The Terrorists” etc.
Another part of me says, “Thank God” these guys who seem to want to put their training into effect and kill other people haven’t so far gotten the chance to do it (or be killed themselves).
We’ve heard too many stories about young, eager soldiers just itching to get at The Enemy, only to find out their enthusiasm lasts about three seconds once one of them has his head blown off in front of his mates, or his guts hanging around his neck for a decoration.
Not only the SASR has been involved in offensive operations, Robert. A ‘Special Forces Task Group (SFTG)’ was formed from: the SASR, 4th Battalion Royal Australian Regiment (Commando), Incident Response Regiment, 1 Commando Regiment and the Special Operations Combat Services Support Company.
[link]
A commando from 4RAR, Private Luke Worsley, was killed during the course of an attack in November last year.
Your general point is correct, though: all the above are ’special forces’ of one sort or another.
Not necessarily. During the Indonesian Confrontation, which perhaps bears some similarities to the current military situation in Afghanistan, the SASR lost a grand total of 3 troopers KIA during offensive cross-border operations against the Indonesians. (One was due to being gored by a rogue elephant!)
Some British and Malay units defending North Borneo suffered much heavier casualties. Sometimes in war, it can be more dangerous to be on the defence.
Thanks for the correction, Paulus.
Are you aware of any good blogs on Australian military topics, by people who know exactly what, say, special forces means in the Australian context?
“Are you aware of any good blogs on Australian military topics …”
Sadly, no, but then my general knowledge of the Oz blogosphere is very limited.
I’ve seen some good posts and good comments on the occasional military topic at catallaxy — and of course yours here at LP!
To answer the last question you posed:
Certainly not! Even the non-special forces Australian infantry battalions would undoubtedly be regarded as elite units by historical standards.
Compared to, say, WW2 standards, the modern regular ADF is very selective, picks and chooses the most fit and motivated applicants, and then gives them extensive training.
I’m sure their ADF commanders would be more than happy for non-SF infantry to go into offensive operations. I suspect the reason they so far haven’t comes down to the (probably erroneous) fear of their political masters — under both Howard and Rudd governments — of high casualties and a consequent collapse in political support for the mission.
“I’d prefer them to feel cowardly and come home in one piece, rather than die or be maimed in glorious battle.”
et moi…that’s a big YES.
&…what Aussie Bob said.
Interesting info Paulus.
The Au SAS has a prima facie case to answer in that they are linked to illegal aggressive actions, actions including killing that amounting to war before the 48 hour ultimatum given to the Hussein family was even started.
As this is so little different from the activities of the Wermacht in Poland in 1939 I would expect some capital charges to be laid as the full truth emerges.
‘ Just obeying orders’ is no excuse.
Gotta call you on this, Paulus.
The Howard government was big on sabre-rattling and small on actual sabre-wielding.
The Rudd government, at least as far as Iraq is cincerned, has an oft-stated - to the point of ad nauseam - policy of non-involvement.
Lumping the gutless Howard government with their flag-wrapped (but ultimately meaningless) rhetoric together with the decidedly unenthuiastic Rudd government on risking the lives of Australian troops in stupid foreign wars we shouldn’t have been involved in in the first place is unfair.
You could say that the Rudd government would be likely to be quite happy for its troops to wear the opprobrium of their allies in Iraq for lack of battle action. After all, no-one who is in the middle of extracting troops from a “battle” situation wants anyone at all to get killed in the meantime.
I’m perfectly happy, indeed proud, for the Rudd government to be as fearfulas necessary of the needless loss of lives (no matter how keen the particular soldiers in question are to throw them away for the sake of “training” or, worse, undiluted “testosterone”).
Paulus [2]:
Defence can be rather dangerous. During the Viet-Nam War, it was probably aggressive patrolling - together with good training and a practical understanding of the complex political and social aspects of our involvement in the war - that was responsible for the extraordinarily LOW casualty rate in the SAS squadrons. Lessons for today’s soldiers in that.
Everyone:
If you are in a war, your primary objective is to win that war - and if you can win that war by diplomacy and deceit or by preventing an open clash-of-arms, so much the better.
Your primary objective is NOT to “shoot guns” - that’s only for the gun-nuts and the cowboys. If you have no choice but to fire on the Enemy then identify them clearly and do so accurately, swiftly and without hate.
Your primary objective is to win the war …. and victory is definitely NOT measured by body-count!!! Your primary objective is not to kill the Enemy but to frustrate them and wear them out so that they willingly give up fighting. Your primary objective is certainly NOT to suffer casualties yourself - not matter what political ratbags thousands of Kilometres away might expect: we had more than enough of that “glorious dead” lunacy during two World Wars.
If the Americans and some of our other allies now keep getting themselves blown up and keep getting into fire-fights because they were too ignorant, too lazy and too stupid to win the hearts-and-minds of the ordinary Iraqis but instead, by their bungling and incompetence, drove many potential friends into the ranks of the insurgents …. that’s THEIR problem, not ours. [And yes, I do have compassion for the thousands of women in the U.S.A. who became Gold Star Mothers on George Bush’s watch!]
And by the way, what’s all this Aussie-bashing garbage …. some of our other allies in Iraq also have low casualty rates. Are they a bunch of squibs - or are they doing something right too?
“The response of the Chief of the Army can be read in this ABC article; notice that he doesn’t disagree with the basic assertions of the officers.”
Sorry, I am going to have to call you on this. You are wrong. He agrees that there is a morale problem, but he doesn’t agree with Hammett’s general thesis. Perhaps people should read the article in the Australian Army Journal and compare it with what Leahy says. And please don’t ask how I know, but the Chief of Army was very happy to have this article published and for there to be discussion of it, because it gives him a way of stating things that otherwise he wouldn’t have an excuse to say.
AG: I did read it. The officers are saying that the infantry isn’t being used for “offensive manoeuvers”, I think, and that this is evidence that the Army is too chicken to do so.
Leahy does disagree with the conclusions about “instutional cowardice” and lack of confidence in the infantry being drawn. He does, however, agrees that offensive manoeuver skills aren’t being used. It’s that they’re not needed for the wars we are currently involved in.
But the claim that those skills are not needed strikes me as a bit dubious, given that our allies are using infantry for precisely the things our infantry isn’t doing. Given Australia is currently asking NATO to put more troops in harm’s way in Afghanistan, it’s entirely reasonable to wonder whether we are serious about doing so ourselves.
I’ll pay that Robert. Did you also read the article in the same journal by Captain Colton? It explains a little better why the ADF is not deploying infantry (and he suggests what needs to be done to make it more likely).
Sorry, just re-read your reply and you mention officers plural, so I guess you did
Frankly, I think Colton’s article is much better, and does the Infantry a lot more credit. Unfortunately, that is not what gets the attention of the media.
I didn’t read it in detail, but I’ll make the time to do so now.
In fact, clearly I’m going to have to add the Army Journal to my reading list…
“(One was due to being gored by a rogue elephant!)”
Really? Now that’s a 21st century war story.
Which nicely sets up my point about the changing nature of warfare as waged by contemporary OECD countries.
If you need overwhelming firepower, it’s delivered by technicians controlling cruise missiles, drones or aircraft operating in a completely dominated battlespace. This is not to denigrate their comittment. After all they volunteered for a low paying job working with tech that can sometimes kill them, whether it’s a missile handling accident on a carrier, a tank accidently backing over someone during training exercises or a sub blowing a vital gasket at 200 feet down. Almost as dangerous in peacetime as working on a major construction site.
But when we go to war, the risk factor does go up, not just because our underarmed enemies may get off a lucky shot or well planted IED obut also because dangerous and complicated miltech gets severely stressed under combat conditions and is more liable to strip a gear, short circuit, backfire or seize up.
Anyway what seems to be evolving now is that most of the boots on the grounds of OECD forces like the ADF find themselves working as peacekeepers, cops, first responders and poorly trained social workers while the probing, poking and killing falls increasingly to elite army units and air force and navy weapons platforms.
Not saying this is bad or good, rather that what is happening.
My personal view? Build up and send in the Navy. Unlike the other two branches, they carry their own basing infrastructure around with them and so can loiter for yonks aand have the tech to deliver mean punches at both short and long distances - from localised facility denial to iterdicting and prutecting major shipping lanes nukes to just wrecking clipjoints on shore leave. And navies of all countries tend to be led by somewhat more worldly and pragmatic technocrats than you’d often find in hidebound armies or messianic airforces. You’ll notice that under the Bush Administration, fewer Admirals are getting moved into the top politicised military slots.
I’m hard pressed to think of any other branch of any country’s armed forces that could pull off something like this these days.
Disclaimer: I have taken money from the USN for services rendered.
Umm, that should read
“interdicting and/or protecting major shipping lanes to pointing at their nukes with significant *cough* action to hauling their citizens’ arses out of trouble when runways are too dangerous to just wrecking clipjoints on shore leave.”
I must have left some vital editing and proof reading brain cells behind in The Golden Dragon.
My last comment would make more sense if my one preceding it hadn’t gone missing in action.
Rob, wanna roll your sleeve up and have a fish around in the spam filter?
Robert Merkel and AG:
Better ask the steward to open a bottle of something different; the one you have been drinking might have been spiked with a psychoactive recreational substance.
Don’t panic about getting combat experience and blooding young officers …. the Enemy will provide plenty of that soon enough - at times and under circumstances when you are least prepared for them.. Unlike the gun-happy character in the Canadian film “Police Academy I” fretting about missing out on the gun-play, try instead taking a good hard look at our involvement in Iraq.
i. WHY are we in Iraq? Exactly WHAT are we hoping to achieve?
ii. WHICH strategic and economic disasters do you wish to avert because of our involvement there?
iii. HOW can we best achieve our objectives in Iraq with [a] the fewest casualties ourselves, [b] the maximum distress and discomfort to those who would harm us and prevent us achieving our objectives, [c] the lowest material, social and political cost to ourselves, [d] the maximum long-term benefit to the people of Iraq - of whatever faction or sect - so that Australians will henceforth be welcomed there?
iv. WHAT training lessons can we take out of our involvement in Iraq? [Learning from the mistakes of our allies - especially in doctrine, in civil affairs and in political warfare - should not be ignored].
v. Which “butcher’s bill” would you prefer to pay? Chelmsford’s at Isandlhwana and Yamashita’s at Gemas …. or Younghusband’s in Thibet??
Nabakov [13] and Paulus [2]:
Historical note: Elephants are not native to Borneo; the Japanese Imperial Army brought them in from mainland Asia and the elephants were left to go feral at the end of World War II. Nobody expected to find elephants in Borneo in the middle of the night during Konfrontasi! b.t.w., the other two SAS casualties there were by drowning in a swift-flowing river - not by enemy action.
Robert Merkel and AG:
Errrr …. not quite sure how that nom-de-satire came over from another Larvatus Prodeo topic …. but agree with Post No.16 here in its entirity.
Everyone [re my post 8]:
Lest anyone think I am advocating that our troops become renowned for sweetness and loveliness or for wimpishness and for being a bit “gun-shy” ….
I AM NOT!
There is indeed a place in war for overwhelming firepower and for violent aggressive attacks that wipe the Enemy from the face of the planet ….
…. but not in Iraq and not at this moment.
“the Japanese Imperial Army brought them in from mainland Asia and the elephants were left to go feral at the end of World War II.”
Good point. But we also need to investigate & comprehend the determinants and antecedents of certain National/Government/Military behaviours that lead to aggressive stances, pre-meditated attacks & invasions…in doing so it’s possible to use new ceated & existing institutions & media outlets to change/modify behavioural patterns of influential characters in said Nation-States and in turn provide alternative pathways. Not just accept that so & so Nation is going to require a certain amount of resources & therefore will increase their military and attack. Not everything is written in stone.
That however does not mean we should not be prepared for clashes & conflicts that may prove inevitable due to certain impetious actions on the part of agents who do not have peace, harmony, bridge building etc. on their mind related to certain regions…& have spent years by way of spreading propaganda, creating & feeding into cultural & economic tensions & using intentional negligence stategies & “divide & conquer” policies to construct wars, manufacture the perception of need for pre-meditated action and in turn, stir up the hornest’s nest.
Furthermore, producing potential killers on the basis of waiting for the POSSIBLE w/out ensuring moral development, diversity of skills, ability to adapt to changing situations & shifting Nation stances only serves to isolate that individual & potentially create a dangerous OUTSIDER. Particularly if that individual does their job but the job is later perceived to be based on lies & deceit…& then that confused, possibly traumatised individual is left to their own devices &/or treated like scum & doesn’t have their needs for basic living, earning income, need to adjust to changing circumstances, counselling, ongoing health problems and so on, met.
I always try to respect the wisdom & tales of the Elders but take some w/ a pinch of salt…& try to assess their biases. Same goes for young academics. That includes Graham Bell who I believe is a wise character w/ much to tell…as are some of the other participants on this thread. It’s good to hear alternative voices.
“certain impetious actions”
make that “seemingly impetious actions”
and “newly created” not “new ceated”
Was rushing for dinner.
Nasking [19]:
You have hit on several relevant points - some directly; some at a tangent.
Without seeming to gloss over or mistake what you said, IMHO. we are in a situation similar to that at the outbreak of the First World War ….
…. where there were novel concepts and new technologies [total economic war; machine-guns-&-barbed-wire; underwater warships with torpedoes; aerial bombardment by airships and the potential for armed flying machines; mass mobilization and swift railways; wireless telegraphy over hundreds of miles; dreadnoughts and state-of-the-art marine engines; motor lorries that did not get tired; mass production such as had never been seen before] and yet this was in an environment where generals and admirals still thought in the terms of a previous century [reconnaisance by soldiers on good horses; of naval engagements dependent on winds and a clear view of the enemy’s ships; of soldiers marching to battle; of battles in which repeating rifles and quick-firing guns were a novelty; of command and control being dependent on each side wearing distinctively-coloured uniforms; of logistics being a hit-or-miss affair].
This is one of the reasons I burred up at the suggestions that we weren’t pulling our weight or that we needed experience at being shot at or that we needed to suffer casualties to prove our commitment. All of that stinks to high heaven of old fashioned thinking. Old fashioned thinking that cannot avoid dragging us into defeat and ruin. The nature of warfare has changed …. what happened in the Lebanon, in Yugoslavia and in New York showed that …. and so, if we are to avoid annihilation, we must learn to change too.
Yes, there are some aspects of warfare that never change [hurry-up-and-wait; the enemy failing to comply with our plans; the weather conspiring against us, supplies that do not arrive when we want them or arrive at the wrong place; errors in intelligence; allies who confound our plans; plain bad luck; etc., etc]. We do have to learn, over and over again, to live with these eternal aspects …. but let’s learn to keep well ahead of all the changes in the nature of warfare too.
Found the thread…good…well said Graham…it’s about ADAPTATION. Mutability. And using what’s at our disposal wisely , effectively & efficiently. Transforming a nemesis or potential enemy into an ally…or useful agent of intelligence. And thinking like the opposition, enemy/THEM…thinking ahead…breaking codes, creating codes…using CRYPTONOMICON methods to gain advantage…identifying who THEM is…so on & so on. Trying every moment not to take your planners, engineers, warriors and other WORKERS for granted. And also attempting to ensure that mountains are not made out of mole hills.
Ancora imparo (I am still learning…or such)
The pool exists…it’s deep…I am thirsy…time to slack my thirst.
I came across this blog sight while researching information about Australian Deployments. After reading the majority of blogs I had to actually go back to the top and double check that this was in fact an AUSTRALIAN sight. As a 19 year old Australian girl who has a father recently back from deployment in Afghanistan and about to join th ADF herself, I’m absolutely disgusted by the amount of un-Australian and un-educated opinions being disclosed in the forum! Oh, please don’t misinterpret me, I’m sure you all have impressive English degrees from leading universities and feel that your textbook knowledge of life in the ADF and the experiences of the soldiers overseas is quite adequate in order to form your opinions, but it’s not.
Using words such as cowardly to describe the actions of those serving overseas is a disgrace! We might not be badly trained, trigger happy psycho’s like the Americans, but isn’t that something to be proud of? We are after all a DEFENCE force, unlike the Americans who are ARMED forces and it is our goal to defend our country and help keep the peace in others if we are able.
This is the very reason why we will never ‘build up the navy’ like Nabakov has suggested. It would be completely against our military policy because having the means to attack a country (ie. Air Craft Carriers) would imply our agenda as a country is perhaps hostile. Why would we, a peaceful country, want to give the countries surrounding us reason to be wary? why would we want to jeopardies out relations with other commonwealth countries and our inclusion in internet etc? It would not be in our best interest to become one of these countries that feel the more fire power the better (ie America).
And as for the majority of you all who feel that not enough Australian blood has been shed for you to feel pride for your countries involvement in the current situations, let me share with you some reality.
Our men and women over there are experiencing things that you and I could not even dream of, the majority of them may not be running around with guns, firing at anything that moves as you have so eloquently stated, but they sure have seen the results. My father can barley talk about the things he has seen over there, 2-3 times every day a helicopter would land, side open, with the remains of 3 or 4 dead soldiers, most of the time they were mere body parts. These men had been KIA only 2 or the kilometers from where my father was stationed, so close they could hear the fighting constantly and sometimes even see them from the communication towers they were building. My father is a rigger and was sent to Afghanistan to do a job, provide communication’s for the Army and for the local people,
You seem to forget the fact that the majority Australians over there are sent for a specific purpose, as we are a defence force, in these situations infantry and the like are only minor assets. We are not that attacking force, we are not the invaders, we are there to pick up the pieces and help the people so forgive us if we don’t go in, all guns a blazing. And on that point, might I add that my father was stationed in what is called The Red Zone, an area surrounded by hills that Al Qaeda just love to hide in. They were under threat constantly and could not even walk from tent to tent (yes tent, not desert camps that the Americans have built that come standard with Olympic sized swimming pool and Macdonald’s)without a 3 man escort. Can you guess who these escorts might have been? I’m sure your fancy research might tell you SAS, but in fact know, they were regular infantry soldiers, or DIGGERS as some patriotic civilians might call them. Ordinary, well trained, brave men who would patrol this dangerous area, be involved in fire fights almost on a daily basis ultimately ensured the protection of my father and other men who were strapped 100m up building a communications tower.
Publications don’t tell you the whole story, so before you make your ‘educated’ opinions on “how serious the troop deployments actually are”, why don’t you get your fat ass off you computer or you big nose out of the paper and go enlist and see for yourself. Or if, as I suspect, you are in fact to “cowardly” to do this, then try maybe actually speaking to someone who has been there and experienced these things first hand.
I can assure you that the cowards are not those peacekeeping overseas, the cowards are those who sit at on the computer, in the safety of there homes ,in a secure country and have a bitch about the men and women who are fighting to keep it that way.
I would just like to make two amendments to my previous statement,
The 1st is to 3rd paragraph, line 6, word 5 (internet). This is suppose to be INTERFET, spelling check changed it automatically.
The 2nd is to 5th paragraph, line 6, words 6/7 (Al Qaeda). The controlling force in Afghanistan is the Taliban, not Al Qaeda. My father may be deployed to Iraq shortly and I mistakenly wrote Al Qaeda.
Thank you.
Tahnee, I can understand why your angry, but I think you’ve mis-interpreted the thread to some extent. Some questions have been asked about why there hasn’t been any Australian casualties and some people are obviously been wondering whether there has been a deal done to some extent. I don’t think people have been saying that the ADF has been cowardly, rather more grateful that no-one has been killed. There’s aslo been a question asked about whether the troops are up to the job, which is a legitimate question to ask.
Graham Bell, I believe served in the ADF and so has some practical knowledge about this issue.
Good luck with your career.
Tahnee: I’m not - and I’m sure the commenters aren’t - questioning the bravery or commitment of Australia’s soldiers. Furthermore, I’d be careful about making assumptions about the experiences of the posters on this blog. There are at least a couple of ex-ADF types I know about who comment here. And very few of us were born with a silver spoon in our mouths.
As far as “not enough blood shed” to “feel proud”, might I suggest that you’ve misinterpreted what I’m saying. I want you, your father, and every other member of the ADF currently deployed overseas now and in the future, to come home safely. Deploying soldiers to be killed on the battlefield, like a sporting team for a national ego boost, is the most disgusting thing I can imagine.
But the fact is that British, American, and Canadian soldiers deployed in Afghanistan (and, up until now, Iraq) are suffering casualties at far greater rates than Australian soldiers, even taking the relative size of the commitments into account. And while our soldiers are brave, highly skilled, and well-equipped, I think you’d agree that so are those of our long-standing friends and allies. So there’s a discrepancy. And another two soldiers, writing in a journal for fellow soldiers, have said that infantry forces are performing less risky tasks than comparable soldiers from those other nations with similar military traditions. Not risk-free, and not without some horrible experiences, clearly. But less risky.
The rhetoric from Australia’s political leaders - mainly the previous government, but also the current one, is that Australia’s defence force is making a disproportionate commitment to Iraq (in the past) and Afghanistan (now) and that other nations need to get off their arse That may be true in a strict numbers deployed in country sense. But in terms of actually putting our soldiers lives on the line in the highest-risk operations, it appears not to be.
As I said, that’s just fine with me. I don’t think it’s worth sacrificing lives of brave, skilled soldiers like your father and his mates in Afghanistan, a country with massive problems that are highly unlikely to be solved any time in the next several generations - much less Iraq, where Australian troops have been part of an invasion that has created far, far more problems than it ever solved. But, as far as our politicians go, there’s a massive discrepancy between what they’ve been saying and what they have actually permitted Australian troops to do.
“Tahnee: I’m not - and I’m sure the commenters aren’t - questioning the bravery or commitment of Australia’s soldiers.
Tahnee obviously didn’t read the comments carefully. If Tahneee exists.
Is it OK to be for the war but against the troops?
Possibly, Leinad, but not according to WordPress which put your comment in moderation!
Because WordPress opposes un-Australian sentiment.