I wonder if any here realise the relevance of what has been “discussed”, to the original subject of the thread? That is, the lack of helo support to Australian troops in Afghanistan?
Maybe I can explain.
The Australian Defence Department has created a top heavy and somewhat paranoid
PR machine, devoted to spin doctoring and politically sanitising all information coming out of Afghanistan and other operational areas of Australian involvement. Some of this censoring is justifiable on grounds of operational necessity, but unfortunately this mantle tends to be used to cover anything that might reflect adversely on the ADF’s political masters, and of course any blundering within the defence department – particularly your DMO.
Part of the “spinning” has involved furthering the ANZAC legend. A common phrase that has been popularized is that the Australian Digger can “punch above his weight”. While the Australian soldier is certainly well trained, this statement may or may not be accurate.
Now before you Aussies clench your bayonets between your teeth and swim pirate-like across the Pacific in pursuit of my hide, let me explain the dangers of perpetuating such a belief.
Your politicians for generations have continually under equipped your defence forces. The reason is simple, it costs big $$$ to do it properly. There have been a litany of bad decisions in equipment acquisitions (just look at the Collins Class submarine fiasco and the Seasprite) that have drained funds.
Meanwhile those who really have taken the brunt of the action – the Australian Army – has been continually short changed.
I read about how one battalion deploying to Iraq in 2006, purchased their own webbing and how the head of your DMO admitted they’d failed the troops in the subsequent investigation (he kept his job though)
Your politicians and senior officers who should know better have relied on this mantra of “They can punch above their weight” to avoid their responsibilities by adequately equipping the ADF at all levels.
Whether the mantra is correct or not, doing this is fraught with danger. It runs counter to many of the principles of war – assuming you’re superior is underestimating your enemy and leads to disaster.
Because this belief flows through to politicians, they have tended to remain ignorant of reality. After all it’s an extension of the great Australian “she’ll be right mate” ethos.
A classic example of this has been the current situation in Afghanistan. Because you have politicians and senior officers who unfortunately remain ignorant of the lessons of history, they accept the belief – after all who’s going to dispute such an accolade?
So when your Defence Minister visits as has recently happened, and is confronted by a vast array of US weaponry lined up in revue order and when told by some cigar chomping jarhead one-star that "these are all available to support your men” he floats away with a glowing feeling that the objections and warnings being sounded by your diggers are merely the usual rumblings that the grunts of all nations are renowned for.
What politicians do not fully understand is the difference between “in support” and “under command”. They believe that all the toys on show can be instantly be thrown into the conflict to help out our favourite ally if the time comes.
This of course is far from true.
To explain further, let’s review the Battle of Long Tan, since it’s been raised already.
This will be done in
Part Two, currently awaiting moderation.