Tag Archive for 'defence'

Defence quickies

Published
by
Robert Merkel
2 months, 3 weeks ago
in Afghanistan, China, Foreign policy, Imperialism, International, Security and War
. 34 Comments

You might remember an LP thread some time ago about the details of our Afghanistan deployment - in essence, only our special forces have been involved in “offensive maneuvers”. It seems that may change, in part because our special forces have been deployed for a “long, long time now”. Worrying. Special forces are, by definition, our best infantry soldiers. While our regularly infantry are undoubtedly far better trained and better equipped than those they are fighting against - and still with the massive advantage of air support - as a layperson I’m concerned that the regular infantry will take even more casualties than special forces doing the same job.

Meanwhile, in the world of defence procurement, apparently Kevin Rudd seems to think we need more “high-end capabilities”, notably naval and air capabilities, to deal with the military risks posed by the buildup of arms throughout Asia. Paul Dibb agrees, and gets a plug in for the good old defence of Australia doctrine. How much this is going to cost is of course left open…

Finally, Liberal backbencher, former defence scientist, and noted global warming denialist Dennis Jensen has heard on the grapevine that a “highly classified” computer simulation of combat between the F-35 fighter - Australia’s likely new combat jet sometime in the next decade - and Russian-built Sukhois was conducted last month in Hawaii. According to Jensen, the (simulated) F-35’s got “clubbed like seals”. For what it’s worth, while I remain concerned about whether the F-35 is up to the job, without details of how the simulation was conducted this information is all but useless.

How serious are our troop deployments?

Published
by
Robert Merkel
6 months ago
in Afghanistan, International, Iraq, Security and War
. 30 Comments

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.