Just like the ilLiberal Party to create conflicts as a distraction from the reality of what their misrule will be like.  Typical right-wing war mongers!   

Pantheon wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 7:19pm:


Well, there goes Christmas Leave.  You really will be popular with the diggers.

So, what threat is our nation presently facing that we need to keep all our forces on "heightened alert"?  Is the Indonesian/PRC/PNG/Indian/Vietnamese fleet about to haul over the horizon tonight?  What about tomorrow?  Next week?  Next month?  Next year?  Come now, you speak as if we are about to be attacked or even invaded immediately!   

More level headers thinkers rate our present threat environment, apart from the possibility of a Terrorist attack, which is really an internal security problem rather than a military one propery, as pretty damn low.  We have no overt antagonism with any of our near or far neighbouring nations or even further afield.  So why should we fear the sky falling so much that we need to raise the alert level of our defence forces to a higher level than it already is?   

Quote:


Well, considering we never actually "mobilised" (ie placed the entire nation on a war footing, which is how the term is generally used) during the Vietnam War, I suspect it was rather hard to "demobilise" us and our defence forces.   

Quote:


This would of course explain why the Howard Government:

1. Raised a new Commando Battalion?
2. Allowed the RAN to lease the fast ferry HMAS Jervis Bay?
3. Allowed the RAAF to enter into a leasing contract with Volga-Dnepr Airlines Heavy Lift to use An-124 Ruslan heavy transport aircraft at short notice?

They did that 'cause they couldn't foresee the East Timor crisis and were not preparing for it, right?   

In reality, of course we weren't quite caught as flat-footed as you appear to be thinking.  Where we "struggled" was organising the largest deployment of Australian troops since Vietnam.  Where we "struggled" was maintaining that force on East Timor well after the crisis had finished and we found ourselves with other ongoing commitments in the Solomons and elsewhere, which is why I've mentioned the foolishness of disbanding the Ready Reserve.

Quote:


See my comments above.   We also deliberately kept our commitments small because of the unwillingness of politicians to see large numbers of "body bags" coming home with dead diggers in them. 

Quote:


As I've pointed out, you really do have little idea, don't you about East Timor?   

Giving credit where credit is due, East Timor was a well executed political, diplomatic and above all else, military operation, under extremely difficult circumstances which was notable more for its almost complete lack of casualties and unwillingness of all sides to actually fight, than anything else.   It would have been easy to slide into conflict and for the Indonesians to have decided to stay and fight but sensible heads on all sides prevailed and prevented that.   Howard and Downer deserve all kudos for the speed and adroitness which they steered the whole issue, first through the UN Security Council where they gained the UN's imprimatur which provided the legal basis for our intervention and secondarily negotiating with Jakarta to prevent a conflict breaking out between our two nations.  Security Council Resolution 1264 was I understand one of the fastest raised and voted on in the Security Council's history and that it was agreed to unanimously shouldn't be overlooked either.

Still doesn't negate my point.  You claimed we did not foresee what was happening in East Timor.  I showed we were preparing for it, before it happened.

That we did have the JERVIS BAY, the An-124s and the extra Battalion, indicates that we did foresee we would need extra transport, extra manpower and equipment.   Did we prepare as well as we should?  Perhaps not but we were aware that a deployment to East Timor was in all likelihood going to occur.

Pantheon wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 11:57pm:


The Australian Army has never had sufficient Flak jackets (indeed for many years it disdained their use).  It is hardly surprising that it suddenly woke up one morning and found it didn't have enough to match what it believed it wanted.

Quote:


Neglect.  Those problems had been identified long before East Timor.  Indeed, I remember them being obvious in 1983 on Exercise Kangaroo 83.  However, that still doesn't negate the point I made.

Quote:


HMAS JERVIS BAY had an interesting history.  Leased by the US Navy for tests, it was returned to Australia in early 1999.  That was fortuitous for the ADF which quickly took it on and provided a RAN crew.  She could carry approximately a battalion of infantry (sans vehicles) or half a battalion and it's vehicles.  It could cross to East Timor from Darwin in less than IIRC 12 hours.  I toured it in late 1999 when I visited Darwin.

Quote:


Yes but it wasn't.  It was carefully orchestrated not to.  No one, on either side wanted a larger conflict so it didn't happen.

Quote:


Events moved quickly, I agree but it was obvious from March that events weren't turning out nicely.

Pantheon wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 12:27am:


I agree it was a small crisis.  We have learnt.  Each time we have deployed troops overseas, we learn.  We have made up quite a few of the deficiencies we found in 1999 and improved on them.  We have purchased new ships, new aircraft and new vehicles.  You however seem to be assuming that we learnt nothing and have not improved matters for some reason.

Next week I'll be attending the Chief of Army's Annual History Conference in Canberra where a great deal of that institutional learning is analysed and discussed.  I expect Al Palazzo whom I know reasonably well, will be there.  I'll say, "Hi," for you, shall I?

This year's topic interestingly touches on East Timor - "Armies in Maritime Strategy".

Quote:


We won't be.  In reality we will be in a stronger position, having learnt many lessons and improving our knowledge base and our equipment base.

Two examples are that the CANBERRA class LHDs were acquired directly because of East Timor.  The C-17 transports were acquired direclty because of East Timor.   The ADF is not dumb, despite how you seem to think of them.

interesting discussion

you both seem to be arguing from the same side of the track.

that is good..

brian Ross//..
I'd suggest that the Abbott govt does /will/should already..  perceive a threat to domestic security.. from  Indonesia.

I despise the govt's position on refugees in boats.. 

but I do agree we need to be much more alert....

after all//???

the world needs lerts

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 7:21pm:


Yes it comes with a steep price tag but in return you have a modern powerful force able to respond with ease to threats or humanitarian crisis's, and the knolage and no matter what we can defend ourselves and others.


Brian Ross wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 7:21pm:


A bit slow there Brian, i was talking about the LHDs which has been around since the 1980s.

And i have much respect for our men and women in the defence forces but historically thire planing hasn't been the best and often are short sighted, as illustrated multiple times by the Lowy Institute.