AUSSIE COMMANDOS PAY POLITICAL PRICE?

Australian commandos in Afghanistan face political pressure from media over incident.

www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO1008/S00486/commandos-pay-political-price.htm

AUSTRALIAN COMMANDOS PAY POLITICAL PRICE?
28 August 2010

By Sasha Uzunov

Australian commandos involved in a botched raid which resulted in 5 civilian deaths in Afghanistan could face courts martial because of intense political pressure from the media, as TEAM UZUNOV writing for www.scoop.co.nz warned last year.

The Fairfax press, which together with the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS TV) have been ferociously investigating the incident, reported on 27 August 2010 that:

www.theage.com.au/national/diggers-may-be-charged-over-deaths-20100826-13u5j.html

“In an unprecedented move that has angered some senior military officers, Brigadier Lyn McDade has told the army she is preparing to lay charges in connection with a deadly raid involving Australian troops near the village of Surkh Morghab in Oruzgan province.”

But both Fairfax and SBS TV have for reasons unknown not taken the story further. The focus has been on the soldiers, not the politicians or the highly paid defence experts.

A scoop article titled “Commando Regiment in Firing Line,” on 7 December 2009, revealed:

www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0912/S00060.htm

“The Australian Army’s elite reservist unit, 1 Commando Regiment, is being made a scapegoat over allegations of misconduct in Afghanistan, a former unit member has told TEAM UZUNOV [blogsite].

“The experienced ex-Commando said that he was deeply concerned over claims that poorly trained and led members had breached rules of engagement during a raid on house in Afghanistan which resulted in the deaths of 5 local children after grenades had been thrown last February.

“My concern is the unit has been left out to dry by the Defence Department even before judgement has been passed. Let due process of law take place,” he said. “If people were innocent then that should be shouted from the rooftops but if people were guilty then throw the book at them.”

“Whatever the outcome of the investigation, the responsibility is with the government of the day as well Defence Department bureaucrats. It is they who send troops to war.”

It boils down to an unfortunate incident which saw Commandos entering a Taliban compound and being fired upon. And in the fog of war a grenade was thrown into the wrong house. Now it has been blown up, pardon the pun, into My Lai Massacre proportions.

The Australian newspaper’s Rory Callinan and Jeremy Kelly have summed up the dilemma for the soldiers involved:

www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/fateful-oruzgan-grenade-was-part-of-training/story-e6frg6nf-1225911089567

“A source said the troops came under fire from a building in the compound and they responded with a grenade. When the firing continued they responded with another one as their training required, the source said. "What were they supposed to do?"

“The source said there was anger among the troops about what they would do if prosecution for a possible manslaughter went ahead. "Every time someone goes into a compound and gets shot at they will be thinking will we get charged with manslaughter if we use a grenade."

“The former governor of the province where the incident occurred, Asadullah Hamdam, described the night raid as a mistake but one largely attributable to the behaviour of the raid's alleged target, who was killed while shooting back at the commandos.”

SBS TV’s Dateline program reporter, the self-styled media tough gal, Sophie McNeill, broke the story, which initially got off to a false start, and Tom Hyland, self-appointed defence expert, has followed it for Fairfax.

McNeill back in 2008 asked not to be contacted to discuss media issues, including Afghanistan. It would appear taking no for an answer only applies to those who do not scrutinise SBS or Fairfax journalists!

McNeill’s advice for young journalists ( Walkely Magazine, issue 62, Aug-Sep 2010, page 37):

“Don’t take no for an answer. And once they actually let you in the building refuse to leave. Just quietly take over a desk and become part of the furniture...”

The ABC TV’s Media Watch program, hosted by Jonathan Holmes, revealed that SBS Dateline on 8 March 2009 with such haste put together a story by McNeill, which ended up quoting Zahir Khan, a survivor of the commando raid. But it turned out he was an imposter.

www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2853029.htm

A year later McNeill went to Afghanistan and finally tracked down the real Zahir Khan. SBS Dateline threw the blame on wily Afghan media fixer Fazel Reshad “Arshad” Wardak for the mistake in the first story. If all else fails, blame the hired help!

You can see Wardak boasting about his services to SBS in 2008 on this youtube clip. www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-5TaNvLsrk

Jonathan Holmes then smacks naughty Sophie McNeill on the hand with the full force of a feather duster: as if the second story somehow redeems the first big mistake, a sack able offence. Great spin by Holmes. If only all journalists got such second chances.

Holmes:

“Sophie McNeill's second report is compelling. It includes film of the surviving family, and the graves of the victims, in their village in Oruzgan. And it poses serious questions about the ADF's original account of the incident, and why a year later it has said nothing more, and not even interviewed this family.”

You’re now beginning to get the picture: a boutique scandal which has Walkley Award, Australia’s version of the Pulitzer Prize, written all over it.

While the ABC’s Media Watch, quite rightly criticises the Australian Defence Force (ADF) over a lack of information on the commando story, an ever sceptical Australian public is still waiting for any more information about the controversial life and death of ABC cameraman Paul Moran who had alleged links to the CIA and was killed in Iraq in 2003. It seems the ABC is reluctant to open up its own scandals. Link:

www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0912/S00083.htm

A source, former Australian Special Forces soldier who served in Afghanistan, has revealed to TEAM UZUNOV that there are far worse incidents involving Australians in Afghanistan and cannot believe they have been buried and ignored.

“I can’t understand why they’re picking on the Commandos?” he said.

There could be three reasons why a court martial could be held. First, there is enough evidence of misconduct. Second, there is not enough evidence but a court martial would appease the media but find the soldiers eventually were not in the wrong. Third, and dare we even mention it, someone within Australia’s Defence Department, has a grudge against Commando reservists and wants them out of the frontlines.

The Sydney based 1 Commando Regiment is largely a reservist Special Forces unit, and has a high number of New South Wales State police officers who serve within the ranks.

Hyland, flashing his Fairfax Media Sherriff’s Badge, wrote on 21 March, 2010.

http://teamuzunovmedia.blogspot.com/2010/03/fairfax-crusade-against-1-commando.html

" Along the way, it has exposed a rivalry almost as old as the army itself, between full-time troops and part-time reservists - chocos, some regulars call them, chocolate soldiers who can't take the heat."

"The regiment's experiences have triggered an intense debate within army ranks - about Special Forces tactics, and wider questions about a political and military preference for sending Special Forces, rather than large infantry units, to conflicts like Afghanistan."

Hyland, after picking up the correct scent, pardon the military pun, then pulls back and does not take another step forward, likewise SBS TV’s Dateline. But why?

Here is a key point that has been missed: why is it Australian Defence Policy to use Special Forces in an infantry role in Afghanistan, as well as throwing Army reservists in the deep end? Who caused this dramatic shift in defence thinking?

The change came about in Defence policy when two key “experts” Professor Paul Dibb and ex-Fairfax journalist turned government advisor Hugh White decided to cut back the number of full time infantry soldiers with the consequences of using reservists in combat roles.

Mr Bruce Haigh, a former diplomat, in an interview which slipped under the radar, told SBS TV’s Dateline program on 27 September 2000 that:

“Defence is the department that’s divided amongst itself, as far as I can gather, and there are certain people inside Defence who’ve taken a certain line for a long period of time - the Paul Dibb line, if you like, which is high-tech, US-alliance - and you’ve got others who are saying, "No. We’ve got the situation to the north- we need to have more people in uniform, we need to have them trained, we need to have night-vision equipment provided for them. “… the Australian Army can see what needs to be done, but many of the civilian Defence personnel, who’ve built their careers on playing up to this particular line, are arguing the other case, and feeling increasingly isolated, because they are not facing reality. That’s the problem.”

Respected Brigadier Jim Wallace, former Special Forces Commander, wrote in 2003:

“Unfortunately, Australian defence policy has been mainly wrong for the whole of this period. Even after we committed troops to East Timor, Professor Paul Dibb, the policy's chief architect, was standing in front of parliamentary committees vowing that Australia would not be conducting what he called "expeditionary" operations out of the region. This was despite a series of major UN deployments over many years to places as far afield as Rwanda and Somalia. Afghanistan and Iraq have hopefully now discredited this logic.

“At the same time, Dr Hugh White was arguing in initial drafts for the 2000 white paper to reduce the size of our army to about 19,000, on the basis that, like Professor Dibb, he didn't see the Government needing options for deployment out of the region, particularly for sending the army. The result has been an incredible demand on the dedication and professionalism of our special forces as they have again been thrown into the breach that our supposedly expert defence planners couldn't predict.”

McNeill and Hyland now need to take their story all the way and not just take aim at sitting targets—soldiers. But we seriously doubt if failed defence theorists and ex-Fairfax journalists will be scrutinised.

(end)

OVERLAND HYPOCRISY ON TERROR LEAK

IN DEFENCE OF THE AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPER REPORT:
Overland hypocrisy on terror raids

By Sasha Uzunov

Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Simon Overland is on the warpath over the publication of a story in The Australian newspaper on 4 August 2009 hours before a major raid on suspected Melbourne based terrorists who allegedly planned to attack Holsworthy Army Barracks in Sydney. . He has claimed that the leaked story had placed his officers in danger.

www.theage.com.au/national/the-australians-editorinchief-defends-terrorraids-story-timing-20090804-e80i.html

But the Chief Commissioner’s anger, or more like a case of protesting too much, is misplaced. The reporter of the article is Cameron Stewart, a well respected journalist and who according to his website profile is a former “spook” with the super secret Defence Signals Directorate (DSD). www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22653583-5014045,00.html

I am sure that Stewart would realise the magnitude of his story and I would personally as a journalist trust his news sense in running the story. www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25879554-601,00.html

The story was given the go-ahead by the Australian Federal Police (AFP), of which Commissioner Overland once served with.

If any blame is to be apportioned perhaps the Chief Commissioner should realise that the media is a double edged sword. Leaks usually occur for a number of reasons. Governments or the opposition release information in advance to test the waters. If the reaction is unfavorable, then the information is disowned.

To put it simply Commissioner Overland cannot have his cake and eat it too. Last month a “leaked” Office of Police Integrity (OPI) report was published in The Australian newspaper by Stewart which alleged a “shoot to kill culture” within the Victoria Police. It was noticeable that the Chief Commissioner did not jump up and down and condemn the leak but used it for political mileage.

The Australian newspaper story ran on July 13 2009 titled 'No Tasers' for deadly police, by Stewart quoted a soon to be released report from the Victorian Office of Police Integrity (OPI):www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25770795-5006785,00.html

There is a long running battle between the watchdog OPI and the Victorian Police Association, the union, over the introduction of the Taser Gun. The Victorian Police Commissioner Simon Overland is opposed to the non-lethal weapon being handed out to all police.

Senior Sergeant Davies of the Victorian Police Association quite rightly has expressed skepticism at the leaked OPI report.“We do have some issues with the fact that reports are released-leaked from the OPI and then nobody butters up to answer questions about it," he said.

More to this story can be found at my article SHOOTING FROM THE LIP ,
http://teamuzunovmedia.blogspot.com/2009/07/shooting-from-lip.html

(end)

SHOOTING FROM THE LIP

SHOOTING FROM THE LIP: Office of Police Integrity spin
By Sasha Uzunov

Award-winning reporter Cameron Stewart together with Greg Sheridan, Mark Dodd and Patrick Walters form The Australian newspaper’s dream team of defence/national security experts but it seems Stewart has trouble understanding the basics of ballistics.

Cameron "James Bond" Stewart who previously worked as a civilian employee for Australia's super secret intelligence organisation Defence Signals Directorate (DSD) before becoming a journalist should you would think understand the principles of marksmanship or shooting. www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22653583-5014045,00.html

In a story that ran in The Australian on July 13 2009 titled 'No Tasers' for deadly police, Stewart quoted a soon to be released report from the Victorian Office of Police Integrity (OPI):
www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25770795-5006785,00.html

“Victoria Police has failed to tackle the shoot-to-kill culture that made it the nation's most deadly force, and its officers should not be trusted with Taser stun guns, the state's police watchdog has declared.”

There is a long running battle between the watchdog OPI and the Victorian Police Association, the union, over the introduction of the Taser Gun. The Victorian Police Commissioner Simon Overland is opposed to the non-lethal weapon being handed out to all police.

The Stewart story does not explain what this shoot to kill culture is, which it is not. If Stewart will indulge me, maybe I can give him a soldier’s five (Australian Army slang for lesson).

Ok, let us start with Victorian Police Association Secretary Senior Sergeant Greg Davies, who summarises it correctly:

"These are highly adrenalin charged situations, where people are trained to shoot to the centre of body mass. Now, if that then becomes a shoot-to-kill policy in someone's view, then, they're entitled to their view. That's not the case, our people do not go out and deliberately try and kill people." www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/13/2624046.htm

If Stewart has not lost me yet I will use simple language. There is no such thing as shoot to kill as a marksmanship principle either in the Australian Army nor any police force. If anything, it is shoot to stop an armed attacker as a last resort.

What does the centre of the seen mass or centre of the body mass mean? In one scenario it means that if the target is an adult male/female standing up, then you aim your weapon, pistol or rifle, for the abdomen or chest area in order to hit the target. In plain english, if it is a bullseye paper target, then you aim for the centre circle.

But why not just aim at the target’s hand or leg in order to wound him or her? Well, pistols are usually accurate upto 25 to 50 metres; assault rifles, such as the Australian Army’s F88 Austeyr, upto 300 metres. Wind, rain and other conditions can affect accuracy, as can the level of nervousness in the person handling the weapon.

Therefore, if you aim at the centre of the seen mass you have a better chance of hitting a target than if you aimed at a hand or leg. In other words, you have a bigger area to land a bullet on.

The consequence of missing an armed offender with weapon drawn can mean death for a soldier or police officer.

Any Police weapons instructor will tell you that firing 3 or 4 bullets may not stop an armed offender high on drugs. Australian soldiers from the Townsville based infantry unit, 1RAR, who served on the Somalia mission in 1993 in Africa were finding that in clashes with militiamen, high on a drug called the Khat leaf, that 5 or 6 bullets fired from the Austeyr rifle was not enough to stop them.

But police shooting an armed offender is always the last resort when every other means has failed. It is always difficult for those who have never been in such a situation to understand.

Snr Sergeant Davies quite rightly has expressed scepticism at the leaked OPI report.

“We do have some issues with the fact that reports are released-leaked from the OPI and then nobody butters up to answer questions about it," he said.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/836787/vic-police-watchdog-urges-against-tasers

A media that does not scrutinise basic marksmanship principles is easier to persuade with spin.

(end)

links:

US MARINE SHOOTING TEAM GUIDE
http://www.aihpa.com/Training&Guides/US%20Marine%20Shooting%20Team%20Guide.htm

2006 WARNING: BIKIE THREAT TO ARMY

The Sydney Daily Telegraph newspaper ran an "exclusive" story titled "Army in lockdown over bikie threats" by Simon Benson April 07, 2009... It reads:

"MILITARY facilities are in lockdown across southwest Sydney over fears bikie gangs may try to break in to weapons armouries.

The security alert at Holsworthy army base has been elevated to "safe base charlie" since 11am on Friday - around the same time bikie laws were being brought in to effect - The Daily Telegraph has learned."

read more...
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25300385-5018886,00.html

However, I had warned in a 2006 Herald Sun article of the danger posed by Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs to the Australian Army, especially Holsworthy Barracks in Sydney's South-west...

read below


Army finds a smoking gun
Article from: HERALD SUN NEWSPAPER
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20979777-5006029,00.html
By Sasha Uzunov
December 28, 2006 12:00am

SASHA Uzunov writes: AN ASIO investigation into Defence Force security follows reports of stolen weapons falling into the hands of drug dealers, hardened criminals and terrorists.There are fears criminals have obtained shoulder-fired 66mm rocket launchers, which the Australian Army will now restrict to specifically authorised operations.

Couple this with the Private Jake Kovco scandal and our frontline troops in Iraq receiving inadequate equipment.

More scandals are likely to follow as the decades of damage done to the Defence Force by desk warriors comes to the surface.

Desk warriors are the highly paid experts with no hands-on military experience who have created the mess within the Defence Department.

The irony is that these powerful people label those who investigate them as loose cannons or trouble-makers.

But they are the ones who are creating dangerous mischief. The ordinary soldier on the frontline is now suffering because of inadequate equipment and the public is facing security concerns because of missing weapons.

Some media organisations are listening, but others appear to ignore what is happening.
If so-called medical experts are to be questioned as to whether they have medical training, why not defence bureaucrats?

I had experience with instances of stolen weapons when I was a soldier serving with an infantry unit based at Holsworthy Barracks in NSW.

Two sniper rifles were stolen from the unit in 1999.

In 2001, a soldier, who was a storeman at the barracks in Liverpool and suspected of taking the sniper rifles, was caught stealing a 9mm pistol.

Military police raided his home in the neighbouring suburb of Moorebank and found an enormous amount of missing equipment in his garage.

He was thrown out of the army. But the sniper rifles are still missing.

Other equipment, such as night-vision goggles, GPS, or global positioning systems, and firearms would regularly go missing from the unit.

Drug dealers, outlaw bikie gangs and even possible Middle-Eastern terrorists were under suspicion.

There was thought to be a racket to steal weapons from Holsworthy Barracks by supplying soldiers with drugs and then blackmailing them.

Another method was for young, attractive women of Middle-Eastern background to meet soldiers on internet dating sites.

Young soldiers, being young soldiers, would meet these women and take them back to barracks for sex.

The unit's commanding officer found out and banned women from being brought back to barracks.

In Darwin, bikie gangs obtained night-vision goggles from soldiers serving with 5/7 RAR in exchange for drugs.

For too long security at our army bases has been lax. And for too long desk warriors in the Defence Department have not been held to account.

I only hope the Australian public does not have to pay the price. Taxpayers have already had to foot the salaries of these experts.

SASHA UZUNOV is a freelance photo-journalist and former Australian soldier

REMEMBRANCE DAY - PHOTO ESSAY - MELBOURNE

REMEMBRANCE DAY SPECIAL PHOTO-ESSAY

IN STEP: Victorian State Premier John Brumby (without hat) gives an eyes right salute to the eternal flame as he marches up the steps to the Shrine of Remembrance, Melbourne, 11 November 2008...

The Premier has gone out of his way to make himself known as the Veterans' Premier...

THE SHRINE

CROSSES: Shrine of Remembrance forecourt. A newspaper photographer lines up a shot of a small child and its mother amongst the poppies and crosses, symbolising those who died in war.

STANDING TALL: An Army Chaplain stands tall, despite the heat and his age, probably in his 80s, to show the flag of the United States, Australia's ally in World War I and II, Korea, Vietnam and now Iraq and Afghanistan. He was offered a chair to sit down but wanted to stand to remember the fallen.

COSTLY PRICE: A plaque in St Paul's Anglican Cathedral, Swanston Street, Melbourne, shows the great cost of war. Three members from the Steele family were killed during World War I.

LEST WE FORGET

Photos by Sasha Uzunov, copyright 2008

WILL EDDIE JOIN THE ARMY?

CHALLENGE TO EDDE MCGUIRE:
EDDIE ASKED TO JOIN THE ARMY
By Sasha Uzunov

Channel 9 television personality and Collingwood Football club president, Eddie McGuire, has come up with an idea to solve youth violence on our streets--send the young offenders into the Australian Army.

In theory it sounds like a good idea but it would help to promote the idea in the media if Eddie joined the Australian Army as well.

Eddie could be commissioned as a Captain or Major in the Australian Army Public Relations Service (AAPRS); he could do a 6 month tour of duty in Afghanistan in the field running a defence media crew. AAPRS recruits media professionals, many aged in their 40s and 50s, straight from civilian life. They are given an 8 week, officers “knife and fork” course in military etiquette at the Royal Military College in Duntroon, Canberra.

One of Eddie’s former Channel 9 colleagues, news reporter Chris Hill, did a stint in APPRS.

We will be putting this proposal to Eddie to see what his response is?

However, some veterans groups do not like the idea. Mr Keith Tennent, who runs the influential veterans news website, http://www.theaussiedigger.com/ wrote:

“The Australian Defence Force is not a day care centre, it is not as child minding centre it is not a juvenile delinquent centre and it is not a nursery.

“The ADF is a very large group of men and women, enlisted to defend the Nation. They don't have the time or the inclination to sort out drug infested criminals, thugs, ratbags and idiots. Everybody knows most criminals [70% or higher] commit their offences because of their drug and/or alcohol habits. In fact a Police Officer friend said to me last month that she would be out of a job if drugs and alcohol were outlawed.

“It is the responsibility of parents to raise their children and inculcate in them high principle, manners [yes manners] and ethics. This responsibility also falls in part to school teachers, who are either hamstrung in how they can discipline children by a politically correct, silly system OR the school teachers simply don't care or don't know about discipline because they had their irresponsible characters former in the same mad system.

“Let parents take full responsibility for their children and let the ADF get on with training to defend the Nation.”

(end)

MINISTER SHOW SOME LEADERSHIP

Australian Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon. Photo: ADF

MINISTER SHOW SOME LEADERSHIP

by Sasha Uzunov

copyright 2008

The Taliban must be rubbing their hands with glee at the news that our Defence Minister, Joel Fitzgibbon, keeps on changing his mind about the war in Afghanistan. Months ago it was a tough talking Minister, now it is a politician who believes the war is unwinnable and negotiations with the Taliban must be started.

Fine idea but why weaken your negotiating position and place Australian troops under increased threat from a confident Taliban. What's wrong with keeping your cards close to your chest?

Pity our brave Australian soldiers who are putting their lives on the line; they must be thinking their efforts are in vain, especially when they are now being jerked around with their pay.

Why does this have overtones of defeatism ala Vietnam 1971-72 just before the US and Australian pullout...when soldiers were still fighting and dying.

In July 2008, during a visit to Washington Fitzgibbon said: "What does winning the war in Afghanistan mean from my perspective? It means winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people, proving to them that what we're offering as a construct, as a government construct, as an economy, as a model, is better than what the Taliban or any other group can offer them."

"First of all, we're going to need more troops, substantially more troops - a sort of a surge, if you like."

In Washington, our Defence Minister was also beating his chest defiantly as he talked tough on the international stage about the war in Afghanistan. But somehow the sales pitch now has a hollow ring to it and we have heard all before.

He also said that Australians were willing to accept casualties in the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Now, the Minister has echoed the recent comments made by a British Army Brigadier, Mark Carleton-Smith, that the war in Afghanistan is unwinnable. "

As I have always said, there is a significant difference between discussing the situation in Afghanistan with moderates and negotiating with extremists, and surely success will only come if we are all working with those who share our same vision for peace and stability in Afghanistan," Fitzgibbon said.

Moreover, if the war in Afghanistan is unwinnable then why call for more troops?

Surely after 7 years of war would have made the politicians realise that the answer to “winning” in Afghanistan is a political one, not a military one. It does not matter how many troops you send.

In the past decade the previous Howard Government and the current one have been telling us about how important the war on terror is and how we should be fighting the bad guys overseas to stop them from coming to Australia.

That’s fine but how do you reconcile that media message with the fact that those leading the war on terror, including the current Defence Minister, keeps changing his mind… One minute he is confident, next he is not.

The reality is Joel Fitzgibbon is out of his league in the Defence portfolio and lacks proper judgement. Remember the mate he brought with him on a plane trip to Afghanistan earlier this year.

Prime Minister Rudd, sir, it is all about credibility. The war in Afghanistan is serious business; we have already lost 6 diggers with the possibility of losing more. This is not a laughing matter. We either stay and fight or we begin to withdraw.

(end)

EXPERT: COMBET FOR PRIME MINISTER

(ADF archival photos): Greg Combet (right)- future Defence Minister or PM?

Expert questions Rudd’s leadership
COMBET SHOULD BE PRIME MINISTER

By Sasha Uzunov
Copyright 2008

Former Trade Union boss and current ALP Federal MP Greg Combet should become Australia’s Prime Minister, according to an influential political commentator.

Mr Bruce Haigh, a retired Australian diplomat and expert comments man on international and security issues, said:

“Prime Minister Kevin Rudd can’t change a light bulb; he has about as much comprehension on defence matters as Kim Beazley or Brendan Nelson.”

Mr Haigh said Combet should take over as Defence Minister prior to becoming Prime Minister.

Mr Combet (pronounced COM-BAY) is the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Procurement and served as Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (1999-2007).

Joel Fitzgibbon in the firing line?

Mr Haigh is a long standing critic of current Defence Minister Mr Joel Fitzgibbon.


“The US-Australian military alliance is dead. The financial crash has/will gut the US, it does not have the money or the capacity to assist Australia,” he said.“The world has changed, although it will take some time for the Australian media and politicians to catch up.


“Fitzgibbon and the current crop of senior defence leadership in the same league as Australian bankers.“On Defence, water, infrastructure, Australia is going to do some hard thinking and undertake positive action in the very near future.”

- Combet in political Combat? (Packing heat)

A high ranking ALP source has called nonsense any suggestion that Mr Combet would challenge for the Prime Ministership.“Everyone knows Greg wants to be Defence Minister, that‘s no secret” he said. ‘But Joel is doing a good job and playing it with a straight bat.”


Bruce Haigh is a rarity in the Australian media; as a defence expert he has actually served in uniform. He was called up for National Service as a soldier in 1966 and served with the Royal Australian Armoured Corps, Australian Army. He served on Centurion tanks and M113 Armoured Personnel Carriers.


He has questioned the Defence department’s purchase of the US Army’s Abrams tank. “We have no use for the Abrams tanks and the F35 is a lemon,” he said. “The F22 or nothing.


“The US cannot afford the cost of its adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq. The war in Afghanistan is breeding terrorists. Australia cannot affect the outcome.

We need to build up and train our forces for regional undertakings.”


(end)

LINKS:


http://brucehaigh.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=91&Itemid=33
Call for Combet to Head Defence

by Bruce Haigh
5 August, 2008.

photo credit: ADF


"FAILED" NELSON-HOWARD DOCTRINE ON AFGHANISTAN?
By Sasha Uzunov
copyright 2008

The political and military fallout of the Taliban ambush attack on Australian soldiers in Afghanistan can be traced back to the failure of 2006 Nelson-Howard doctrine on the Afghanistan war.

Nine Australian Special Forces soldiers in Afghanistan were recently wounded in some of the heaviest fighting seen so far. If I was the current Defence Minister, Joel Fitzgibbon, I would be raising questions in the Federal Parliament over the previous government's handling of the war.

SAS WITHDRAWAL- 2006

As the then Defence Minister, Dr Brendan Nelson, together with the Prime Minister John Howard made the decision to withdraw our Special Forces troops from Afghanistan in November 2006, giving the Taliban the breathing space it needed to re-organise.

Then Dr Nelson denied that there was a rift with our coalition partners the Dutch which was causing a delay in restoring stability to our Area of Operations in the Oruzgan province. But later read the Dutch the riot act if they pulled out of the mission.

“The consequences of a Dutch withdrawal, if we can't find another partner, is that we would be far too exposed to continue,” Dr Nelson said in August 2007.

German expert finds the "smoking gun" --Dutch-Aussie rift over mission

When I was in Afghanistan in May 2007, I bumped into a well respected Ulrich Ladurner, who is the foreign editor of the German weekly Die Zeit and co-author with Gerow von Randow of The Iranian Bomb. He said he had been to the Dutch-Australian base at Tarin Kowt in Oruzgan.

"The Dutch and Australians are making a big effort but it is too slow in bringing stability to the province," Mr Ladurner said."'The local people are not happy with the progress made. It is still not safe. The region is still wild." In the vacuum left by the Special Forces departure, the Taliban were roaming into other provinces such as Helmand, run by the British, and Kandahar, run by the Canadians.

KEVIN 07--Rudd was right on Afghanistan

Later, the Special Forces were sent back to Afghanistan in mid 2007, an admission that a mistake had been made. In the irony of ironies, the then Opposition Leader and now Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said the previous reduction of Australian troops in Afghanistan was an absolute mistake that let Osama bin Laden, leader of the terror group Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, off the hook. In response to the criticism of withdrawing the SAS, the then Prime Minister John Howard said:

"But we will not win it without renewed and increased effort and that is why we are playing our part. It's important, in dealing with the Taliban, not to be too passive."

NELSON-HOWARD MILITARY DOCTRINE: contradiction?

To top that off, a legacy of the Nelson-Howard military doctrine has the Special Forces doing most of the fighting, because of the fear of casualties to our regular infantry units. The long term effect could be burn out of our Special Forces. But the irony is if we withdraw our SF units and do not replace them with infantry units, then the pressure on Taliban is eased. It is one contradictory military doctrine, to say the least.

SF BURN OUT?

"Twice now we have had to deploy special forces in Afghanistan and twice now we have had to withdraw them because they are too tired," said Neil James, of think tank the Australian Defence Association in October 2006.

The highly respected Brigadier Jeff Sengelman DSC CSC, deputy commander of Special Operations, revealed the SAS had faced problems with recruiting and retaining soldiers but put a positive spin by also saying that it did not affect its operational capability.

The Australian Defence Force Chief, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, was on the money when he said days ago that the increase in Taliban activity against Australian troops in Afghanistan was a last attempt to inflict casualties before the northern winter set in, bringing a close to the traditional war season for another year. But let us take a closer look and read between the lines, if we can.

"It was an ambush. My understanding is it was gunfire and rocket-propelled grenades," Brigadier Robert Dawson, Defence PR, said.

Brigadier Dawson said the Taliban were fighting hard to repel Coalition incursions into their heartland areas. "Some of the operations which ISAF are conducting are in areas where Coalition soldiers have not been before," he said. "I think we can expect more heavy fighting." (Herald Sun, 4 Sept 2008).

Our diggers were operating against the Taliban in the strategic Chora valley north east of Tarin Kowt.

Okay, an ambush means that the enemy knows you are coming and are waiting for you. Obviously the Taliban’s intelligence gathering is working excellently and it must be getting some form of support from the local population. However, what is distressing is the statement that our troops are operating in areas they have not been before.

BREATHING SPACE FOR THE TALIBAN?

We have been in Afghanistan since 2001 that is 7 years so far and have not been able to still secure our AO. Is this because of the Nelson-Howard "breathing space" given to the Taliban in late 2006? In the military when a senior commander makes a mistake he accepts full responsibility and falls on his sword. Under our Westminster system of Parliamentary democracy, the buck stops with the politicians.

MORE FORCE?

Victory in Afghanistan can be achieved through political means backed up by the surgical use of force. When you give the local people, security, clean water, education and hope, they will turn against the Taliban.

More force does not translate into winning.

(end)

----------------------------------------------

LINKS:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24301037-7583,00.html
Let the infantry do its job
Greg Sheridan, Foreign editor September 06, 2008

THE wounding of nine Australian soldiers in a Taliban ambush on Tuesday night is not only the biggest single combat casualty incident since Vietnam. It also tells us important things about the Rudd Government, about the nature of the Australian Army, about the dreadful
----------------
Sasha Uzunov story - 10 July 2008 http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23995986-5000117,00.html
New options to blunt Taliban Sasha Uzunov
July 10, 2008 12:00am

The SASR and 4RAR (Commando) are our two Specials Forces units and are a precision tool to be used sparingly, not as a blunt instrument. Australian infantry soldiers have recently expressed their dissatisfaction at being kept away from the sharp end in Afghanistan. And the question must be asked: how long can the new Rudd Government use the SAS Regiment and 4RAR (Commando) in an infantry role before they become worn out? When will the Government allow our infantry to do the job they have trained for?

In 1999 the Howard government used the army's elite Special Forces unit, the SAS, to do most of the fighting in East Timor, which should have been performed by the infantry. The political logic was that the public and media would accept SAS casualties rather than a young infantryman, fresh out of home or from a small country town. That political priority seems to remain. But political logic does not necessarily make good military sense, and vice-versa.

In East Timor, the pro-Indonesian militia tried to inflict as many casualties as possible on our infantry units, including battalions made up of many reserve soldiers, in the hope that Australia would withdraw. The moral of the story is, no matter how hard the Australian Government tries to insulate our infantry from combat by using the SAS, the unexpected happens.
---------------------------------------------------------------
- August 31, 2007.
The Australian
Nelson warns Dutch on Afghan pullout
Dennis Shanahan August 31, 2007

BRENDAN Nelson has warned Dutch MPs that a decision to remove their troops from southern Afghanistan could lead to the withdrawal of Australia's military personnel based alongside the Dutch in Oruzgan province.

The Defence Minister met 12 Dutch parliamentarians in the Afghanistan capital of Kabul this week after meeting President Hamid Karzai and Australian commanders.The Dutch parliament is considering withdrawing the country's troops from Oruzgan province following a series of combat deaths and rising public concern in The Netherlands about the wisdom of the fight against theTaliban.

The Australian engineers and special forces - part of a 970-strong Australian contingent in Afghanistan - have had increased contact with Taliban fighters in recent weeks, with small arms fire being directed at police checkpoints being built by Australian soldiers to protect local Afghani police.The checkpoints are being used to control traffic around the Oruzgan town of Tarin Kowt and to monitor movements by Taliban insurgents.

Apart from the small arms fire near the Camp Holland base at Tarin Kowt, Australian soldiers on patrol have made contact more frequently with Taliban fighters in the nearby mountains and hills.Two weeks ago, Australian forces had a decisive victory against local Taliban forces with a US air strike killing 18 Taliban leaders, including one of their most senior commanders in Afghanistan.

The Dutch forces provide vital helicopter air cover for the Australian troops working and patrolling around Tarin Kowt, and Australian commanders fear they would not be able to operate without it.The Dutch parliamentary committee members met Dr Nelson and the Chief of Defence Forces, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, at Kabul Airport.

Dr Nelson told The Australian that the Dutch MPs were informed that Australia was against any decision to reduce the Dutch presence in the region."We are not in a position to increase our numbers in Afghanistan and we won't and can't take the lead position in Tarin Kowt," the minister told the MPs.

"There are Australian soldiers who owe their lives to the Dutch Apache helicopters and they play a critical role."The consequences of a Dutch withdrawal, if we can't find another partner, is that we would be far too exposed to continue."The Dutch have 2200 troops at the Camp Holland base at Tarin Kowt and have suffered the deaths of six soldiers, including one on the day the parliamentary delegation was visiting Kabul to assess the situation in Afghanistan.

---------------------------------------------------
http://newmatilda.com/2007/06/06/news-front
Afghanistan 6 Jun 2007
News from the Front By Sasha Uzunov

Australian journalist Sasha Uzunov reports from the Afghan front

The Forgotten War Sometimes it takes an outsider to tell us the most uncomfortable truths.
Last week, Defence Minister Dr Brendan Nelson took a swipe at critics who question the pace at which Australian troops are securing their designated province in Afghanistan, saying:

Any suggestion Australian troops are not pulling their weight in southern Afghanistan is beneath contempt. Australia is steadfastly committed to Uruzgan as shown by the recent decision to deploy a Special Operations Task Group of approximately 300 people to the region. However, the recent decision to send Special Forces back to Uruzgan could also be read as a tacit admission that not all is well with the mission. (Who was the genius who decided to remove our Special Forces soldiers from Afghanistan late last year?)

When I asked the Defence Minister if a rift had developed between Australian troops and the Dutch Army engineers they are serving alongside, over who was doing the most to secure Uruzgan, Nelson would not comment.

The controversy was sparked by prominent German journalist, Ulrich Ladurner, who claimed, in an interview he gave to me at Kabul airport on 14 May, that both the Australians and Dutch were being slow in establishing security in the province. Ladurner, who is the foreign editor of the German weekly Die Zeit and co-author with Gero von Randow of The Iranian Bomb, spent weeks as an embedded journalist with Dutch Army engineers in Uruzgan Province at the Tarin Kowt base they share with Australian troops.

'The Dutch and Australians are making a big effort but it is too slow in bringing stability to the province,' Ladurner said. 'The local people are not happy with the progress made. It is still not safe. The region is still wild.'

One of the reasons it takes a non-Australian to provide this insider's view of the situation around Tarin Kowt is the Defence Department's obsession with controlling media access to our troops.
--------------------
Ulrich Ladurner interview at Kabul Airport, 14 May 2007

Ulrich Ladurner on Afghanistan Australian and Dutch troops were making slow progress despite their best ...

Interview can be seen on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPSc9hP6qA4

TALIBAN PRISONER CONTROVERSY

LETS NOT JUMP ON ABU GHRAIB BANDWAGON
By Sasha Uzunov
Copyright 2008

A report in today’s The Australian newspaper by Mark Dodd has revealed that Australian soldiers are detaining Afghan Taliban suspects in dog pens, which are culturally insensitive.

Before we jump on the Abu Ghraib Iraqi prisoner scandal bandwagon here, let us get all the facts before we condemn our soldiers.

I have visited Afghan administered prisons in Kabul in 2008, and Kandahar in 2007 and 2008.

Let me tell you, it is not the place I would like to be held. The NDS (Afghan Intelligence) run Detention centre for Taliban suspects in Kandahar has improved as the local authorities are eager to comply with western standards.

I am sure our soldiers are aware of the Geneva Convention and prisoner of war procedures and so on.

The balance that needs to be weighed up is keeping suspects safe and secure, and cultural sensitivity. In a war zone this is something very hard to juggle. But it is part of the winning of hearts and minds.

Photo of Taliban suspect being held in NDS detention centre in Kandahar 2007. A small, clean cell. copyright Sasha Uzunov 2007.


Links:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24279569-601,00.html
Fury as Diggers admit Taliban held in dog pens

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse - 181k

Video: Interview with an Afghan suicide bomber
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3xSEGHm5xQ

Scott Taylor on NDS Detention Centre, Kandahar

http://www.espritdecorps.ca/Visit%20to%20Kandahar%20prison/Visit%20to%20Kandahar%20prison.htm

Sasha Uzunov interviewed on Triple J ABC radio about captured teenage Afghan suicide bomber
http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/hack/notes/s2287075.htm

TIME TO THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX

TIME TO THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX
By Sasha Uzunov
copyright 2008

The Australian Army’s new Chief, Lieutenant General Ken Gillespie, has recently called for a dramatic change in the way our army fights in a modern and complicated world. This is long overdue, but we will have to wait and see if that ever materialises or just gets buried away in some report.

General Gillespie has acknowledged the need to peel away the layers of headquarters and bureaucracy that hinder the chain of command’s ability to direct soldiers in battle. This makes excellent sense.

For the record, General Gillespie is held in high esteem by many.

The Chief of the army has also acknowledged that the “enemy” the Taliban has cleverly adapted the use of modern technology such as the internet to wage war. However, his claim that “our operations will often be less about killing the enemy than about making them irrelevant to the population,” is pie in the sky stuff unless we make some dramatic changes in our Army.

I do not believe that the Generals or politicians would be prepared to do that.

Let me explain, General Gillespie has acknowledged that soldiers will have more to do on the battlefield overseas.

That is they will have to undertake humanitarian assistance, nation building, and so on. We will need to have flexible soldiers. But where will these flexible soldiers come from? Army training can only do so much.

You have a 19 year old who enlists in the Army and his life experience is limited and yet he maybe required going to Afghanistan and assisting in that country’s restructuring. Or a 20 year old who is commissioned as an officer lead men into battle.

The current professional army does not allow for flexibility. I am not talking about changing the traditional chain of command structure or hierarchy. No army can function as a democracy, unfortunately. It is the nature of the beast.

What I am saying is a fully professional army consists of enlisted men and officers who, if they play the game, get promoted and move up the career ladder. Therefore, you do not encourage flexibility or initiative or the ability to think outside the box.

One way to overcome this is to have officers first serve two years as enlisted men before they can be lead men, the way they do in the Israeli Army. But our traditional military system inherited from the British is unlikely to change. There would be too much resistance because officers have a privileged role in our army.

Moreover, we need to encourage people from a wide variety of professional backgrounds to join the army. At present the system, known as Direct Entry Officer or Specialist Service Officer takes lawyers, dentists, doctors, engineers, journalists directly out of civilian life and puts them in fields related to their professions. This is a great idea.

However, we need flexible soldiers who will have to do the fighting. We need warrior-scholars, as opposed to a lawyer in uniform. We need to get people into infantry corps, the frontline troops.

How do we do that? One way, and this is highly controversial, is to re-introduce conscription. You might say why do you want people who do not want to be in uniform? They are precisely the people we need. It sounds crazy but a person who does not want to be in the Army is not interested in playing the career/promotion game and is more likely to speak his mind, within the boundaries of course. These are the people we need to fight these complicated new wars.

Let me give you an example of someone thinking outside the box. Colonel David H. Hackworth, US Army’s most decorated soldier from Vietnam, once proposed to the Pentagon that it hire a caving specialist (speleologist) who claimed he could locate all of the Viet Cong underground tunnels. But the Pentagon Generals with their narrow minded view knocked back the idea. It is one of the great what ifs of that controversial war.

Whilst the Taliban modify, adapt, change, organise, we just talk and pass ideas around.

(end)

links:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24248144-31477,00.html

http://www.theage.com.au/national/new-army-chief-flags-shakeup-to-fight-modern-war-20080827-4424.html

AUSSIE DEFENCE BECOMES OLD CANADIAN JOKE

AUSSIE DEFENCE BECOMES OLD CANADIAN JOKE
By Sasha Uzunov copyright 2008

There used to be a long running joke within the Australian Army about Canada's touchy feely military that had gone soft because of years of peacekeeping.

Canada's National Defence Department (DND) became the butt of jokes when it employed an expensive California guru to run meditation sessions and bongo drum classes for senior bureaucrats during the 1991 Gulf War whilst Canadian soldiers were complaining about a lack of proper equipment.

Ex-Canadian soldier turned award winning journalist Scott Taylor initially drew a lot of heat from the media establishment when he published his ground breaking book, Tarnished Brass--Crime and Corruption in the Canadian Military, which exposed the guru incident as well as other scandals.

Recently in Afghanistan, we have heard of discontent from our infantry soldiers not being allowed to fight on the front lines whilst our Canadian cousins had finally got their act together. Even when Australians are permitted to fight in Afghanistan, there is no guarantee if they get wounded or seriously injured that they will be evacuated in time.

Questions were also raised over Australia's Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon bringing a mate on a joyride into a war zone at taxpayer expense last year. A fortnight ago the Australian government after 42 years finally recognised our heroes from the epic Vietnam War Battle of Long Tan (August 18, 1966). There were wild rumours that the government was also refusing to pick up the tab for a South Vietnamese bravery citation, which costs $12 a piece.

You could make all sorts of jokes about penny-pinching and bureaucratic red tape. A lot of these so called experts in Canberra spend more on morning tea or cappuccino.

In 1998 the then Chief of Australia's Army Lieutenant General Frank Hickling was so concerned that our army was following the Canadian path that he issued his famous back to basics directive ordering all soldiers sharpen up their war fighting skills. A year later his move had potentially saved the lives of many young Australian soldiers engaged in a conflict with pro-Indonesian militia in East Timor. General Hickling had to fight off opposition from some of Canberra's desk warriors and self-appointed experts who "knew better."

Let us not forget some of the hair-brained schemes to save money from the Defence budget. Highly paid academic and a former Secretary of Defence, Professor Paul Dibb, proposed in 2006 to "civilianise" some trades within the Army. He complained that there were too many Army cooks. But what he failed to understand is first and foremost cooks are trained soldiers who can be used to patrol bases, and secondly how many civilian cooks are prepared to work in a warzone. Maybe if we hired many Gordon Ramsey styled chefs, they could hurl abuse at the Taliban!

Maybe we need to employ some unorthodox methods to beat the Taliban. Here is a suggestion to the Defence Minister why don’t you commission Professor Dibb to go to England and recruit these foul-mouthed cooks who would strike terror into the terrorists.

Let us call it Dibb’s Deli. It would also be televised. Great reality television.

We cannot do any worse; consider the Canadians hired a guru and bongo drummer!

(end)

links:

http://www.espritdecorps.ca/tarnishedbrass.htm
Tarnished Brass - Crime and Corruption in the Canadian Military

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24271772-953,00.html
Govt to pay Long Tan commander's bill for gallantry awards

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:R23ZcbpIv6YJ:blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php/theaustralian/comments/restore_adventure_to_army/desc+%22paul+dibb%22+army+cooks&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=23&gl=au
Professor Paul Dibb's Army cooks!