Category Archives: Defence
In case you wonder what us retired soldiers think of the recent decision to court martial three soldiers due to their actions in Afghanistan then here is a letter doing the rounds of the ex-service community with explanatory notes by a Vietnam Veteran.
For those of you who don’t know, Roger Tingley won his Miltary Cross as a 2nd Lieutenant in Vietnam during the Vietnam War. The email letter below has been written by Roger as a result of the decision (apparently against the wishes of the Chief of the Defence Force) by one (military) lawyer to court martial 3 young soldiers who made a (split second) decision, tragic as the consequences were, to return fire in a combat situation recently in Afganistan, a situation which it is certain that lawyer has never nor never will have to face, and a situation so dreadful that lawyer could never in her worst nightmares begin to imagine or understand.
Combat soldiers who served during the Vietnam (and any other) war could almost certainly tell of at least one situation that they either knew of, or themselves experienced, where innocent people became casualties. The politicians who send our young men to war know, or should know, without question, that a tragedy such as this is always likely to occur. That these young men now have to face further tragedy in their own lives, regardless of the outcome of their respective courts martial, is a disgrace beyond belief. If someone is to be punished for the tragic deaths of the innocents in this situation, why not the politician(s) who made the decision to send them in the first place or even the electors who chose that (or those) politician(s) to make that decision.
These three young men, privates, the lowest rank in the military hierarchy, are the scapegoats for just another of the tragedies which occur when old men send young men to fight their wars.
former Lieutenant Platoon Commander during the Vietnam War.
One of the young men sent to fight old men’s wars.
I am but a small part of growing and grave concern: not just within the ADF Family and the wider Veteran Community; but of the Australian Electorate at large; that we are seeing the first real nails in the coffin of the ANZAC Military Forces as we knew them.
That the nails are being manufactured from political, delivered by civilians, held by senior civilians in uniform and hammered in, by direction, by mid level military careerists who recognize their masters.
Recruitment is already, although the real facts are obfuscated, becoming a less than cost effective factor and we may be struggling in less than a decade, to find enough service personnel, particularly on the ground and NOT in a barracks base or airfield complex.
Those in power at this time, will by then be well supered….but we will remember them.
So, speaking of Remembrance Day…and the young men (and their poor families) who are about to be dragged through dirty political mud, be publicly pilloried and, whatever the outcome, have their very lives changed forever, may I, in the spirit of fair play, gently ask our current (RAAF) ADF Chief:
Is the Australian Government now going to publicly discriminate: or are they now going to charge any and every single Australian RAAF Ex Serviceman who ever took part in any deliberate bombing (especially Firebombing) of any city or town, anywhere in the world, in World War 2.
I sincerely trust that every addressee will ask the same question of at least one journalist and one elected representative…..well before Remembrance Day.
Roger L Tingley MC
The Gillard government has reintroduced legislation that will allow soldiers to use deadly force in response to terrorist attacks at defence bases.
The original bill was introduced in June but lapsed when the election was called.
The aim of the bill was to to strengthen defence’s capacity to deter, detect and respond to any attack on a base, Defence Minister Stephen Smith said.
The Bill is in response to the Terrorists targeting Holsworthy Army Base.
In light of the recent charging of soldiers for soldiering I trust they have a Lawyer on duty with the sentries at each base.
A soldier pens an email to a mate criticizing the Army generally and his headquarters specifically and we are having a national debate. So far the Minister for Defence and a Lt Gen have made statements and hundreds of would be arm-chair generals have given us the benefit of the erudite and considered opinions.
At the Herald Sun every tenth comment says we shouldn’t be there and then there’s some who shouldn’t be allowed to have an opinion.
Houston, Chief of Army, who ever is in charge of “OUR TROOPS” plus the obvious incompetent Major all should be immediately removed.
Houston is actually Chief of the Defence Force. Gen Gillespie is the Chief of the Army and he sure as hell won’t ‘be removed’ He’s doing a sterling job considering all the problems he has. As for the Major who the soldier accused of not doing his job properly, as if he would know, is accused, court martialed, found guilty and dismissed all on the basis of a disgruntled soldiers words.
Every one has an answer. Bring ‘em home – they shouldn’t be there, sack the Generals…sack the Majors…send abraham tanks…send Tiger attack choppers and sack the politicians.
Here’s a new thought….remind the soldier about the chain of command, then sack him and get on with it. Defence will always be reviewing the situation and asking for more troops and equipment and the politicians will, as always, not give them everything they ask for.
News.com say the soldiers email will be investigated and in due course, after a lot of questions the Minister for Defence will announce that all is well.
One drop kick says “It’s Vietnam all over again” Well, yes in a sense, it is. It’s a war and you can never get too many tanks or attack choppers or artillery in a war. There will always be a priority and every patrol cant be guaranteed to have full support every time they clash with the enemy.
Whereas I’m reluctant to give credence to one email from a Private soldier I do listen to Generals and Jim Moylan, ex General, has a lot to say on this subject. If you are really interested and look to forming a considered opinion you would do well to read anything he says.
I have written about Moylan before so maybe you should also check that out so you can see I am really on the side of the soldiers. Just not ones who abuse the chain of command.
AN OFFICER in line for a medal is among a group of Australian soldiers who will face manslaughter and negligence charges over the deaths of five Afghan children in a bungled raid last year.
The soldiers, mostly from the 1st Commando Regiment, are facing an unprecedented court martial over the raid, codenamed Operation Pakula, near the village of Surkh Morghab in February 2009.
Well, thats it then. Soldiers can no longer go into battle for their country without worrying about legal charges. It could force them to be reluctant to return fire when they are in contact.
That could add to our casualty count.
The soldiers were targeting an insurgent leader who was not found at an initial compound. A crucial part of the prosecution argument will rest on the decision to move to a second compound, and whether the intelligence was sufficient for it to be approached with the same level of stealth and tactics.
In the field, particularly in Afghanistan with no clear and recognisable enemy, all places needed to be approached with […]stealth and tactics.
The interpretation of Intelligence in the field is often at odds with the opinions of staff officers in safe rear echelon compounds – particularly when you are being fired on.
It goes like this: I’m being fired on from a second compound…f**k intelligence ….return fire…still being fired on…throw grenade….still being fired on…throw another grenade…thank God! Not being fired on anymore!
Yes, it’s terrible that civilians died but the Taliban do that. They fire on Coalition soldiers from within a group of civilians and then use the resultant civilian casualties to wind up left wing armchair warriors.
What are the Coalition soldiers to do in these circumstances?
Take casualties, maybe die, because there might be civilians in the compound?
The report suggests the Commando weren’t fully trained. Well, if true, that’s another problem but that can’t be sheeted home to the soldiers themselves.
I have to back the Diggers on this one.
What a week!
Tuesday I went down to Sydney to hand out swags to the homeless at Homeless Connect as part of my duties as a Director on the Street Swags board. If you don’t know about them you should – go visit their website
My lasting impression of the homeless I met at the Sydney Town Hall is that they were mostly mentally impaired. Years ago, they lived in institutions called Mental Asylums but that term become politically incorrect. As a result they were mostly closed and the inmates transferred to hospitals.
The bean counters who run hospitals said, in unison, “these people aren’t sick, we can’t help them and they are taking up too many beds. We can rotate paying physically sick people through at a far greater rate giving us a far greater income, so they need to to go”.
And they kicked them out.
From mental patients to the worlds condemnation of Israel isn’t too far a stretch. Those who always condemn Israel no matter what she does, claims the blockade is illegal.
More reasoned commentators argue that Israel has a point.
Whatever the case, from my perspective, if I was head honcho in Tel Aviv and had endured thousands of rockets fired at my citizens I would reserve the right to blockade supplies to minimize weapons entering Gaza no matter what the world said. Western media are still referring to the people in the convoy as peace activists and ignoring all evidence to the contrary.
Abraham Rabinovich from Jerusalem files a report in today’s Australian indicating how the Turkish PM was involved in the planning of the operation and how the Terrorists aboard the IHH vessel Mavi Marmara had a clear mission “to expose Israel’s true face to the world”.
The mission given the group, according to Malam, was to prevent the Israelis from seizing control of the ship before it reached Gaza.
The militants used small, hand-held saws to cut metal bars from the ship’s railings and to shape knives. They also gathered knives from the ship’s cafeterias and armed themselves with fire axes.
We know IHH has terrorist links and we know how terrorist act. Israel was sucker punched but it was surely reasonable to think it was a peaceful protest and that their troops weren’t in danger. After all, everyone said that was the case.
It could be said that a man named Abraham Rabinovich has a conflict of interest when commenting on the matter but when the only opposite point of view has a base premise of denying Israel’s right to exist, let alone defend herself, then he should be heard.
For another view that accepts Israel’s right to exist go here
Back home, by the end of the week, Kevin Rudd was having a bad time of it as he negotiated with the Mining mob. Well, Kevin says negotiating but the mining mob reported Kevin’s idea of negotiating was “If you want to change the tax you will have to change the government”
Bad call Kevin because a lot of people are now thinking “Yep! thats a good idea”
Maybe a case exists for Mining to pay more tax but one of those reasons shouldn’t be to simply get the ALP out of a fiscal hole.
Can the tax be fixed? asks Dennis Shanahan; Cabinet cracks emerge on tax says Matthew Franklin; Gerry Harvey says Rudd couldn’t sell a fridge let alone a mining tax, and John Singleton says I’ll sell anything but Kevin Rudd
My week started bad with having to move my lazy arse to Sydney and actually do something worthwhile and then the loss of two diggers always hurts. However it finished on a high note with plenty of signs that the punters are starting to get Rudd’s measure and it’s very small indeed.
‘Av’ a good weekend and I for one, look forward to the Weekend Australian’s continuing litany of ALP stuff ups.
“These new weapons provide an increased direct fire support capability and will be employed by the Infantry, Special Forces and RAAF Airfield Defence Guards.
Soldiers will appreciate the weight savings afforded by the M3 Carl Gustaf anti-armour weapon”.
Many years ago, last century, in the mid 60s, I was attending an Anti Tank course at the old Infantry Centre at Ingleburn, NSW and being instructed in the handling, maintenance and firing of the 106mm Recoilless Rifle.
Near the end of the course, the Senior Instructor, Major Name Forgotten called us together and told us we were the chosen few. The Army were looking at the Carl Gustaf anti tank weapon (M1, I presume) and had literally borrowed one from the Swedish Ambassador. Along with the weapon came two rounds; a High Explosive Ant-Tank (HEAT) round and a flare (from memory of 200,000 candlepower) We were to fire these rounds with high ranking officers witnessing the event as a pre-cursor to actually conducting a user trial.
I was elated, I drew one of the straws but elation turned to dismay when I then drew the flare! “I’m an infantryman, not a light technician”, I muttered to my mates, who couldn’t care less. I toyed with the idea of using it aggressively as in a 200,000 candlepower missile aimed directly at a target would light up my life and ruin the enemy’s day. At least he wouldn’t be able too see clearly for a while!
The Sergeant was onto me though and I did what any smart soldier would do in the circumstances and fired the star shell into the heavens.
Better blind obedience than stoppage of leave, particularly when I was in love with one of the Railway Hotel ladies and Friday night was leave night!
From day one we called it the Charlie Gutsache and noted with cynicism, some years later, that even after a successful user-trial we couldn’t use the weapon in South Vietnam because the Swedes were against the war.
Now, I note, that major Western armies are all buying it – yanks included.
I wonder if the flare round ever got to be used aggressively – hope so!
All those old soldiers with bad backs caused by carrying 100lb packs should check the video on the right.
THE decision to upgrade honours to Vietnam veterans who fought at Long Tan was the culmination of “a long, hard struggle” for greater recognition, according to Bob Buick, who served as a sergeant in one of Australia’s most famous battles.
Forty-three years after the battle, in which 18 Australian soldiers died, the men of D Company 6 Royal Australian Regiment will receive the nation’s highest unit award — the Unit Citation for Gallantry — with the backing of the Honours and Awards Tribunal.
They have already been awarded the Presidential Unit Citation as were there earlier mates who fought in the battle of Kapyong in Korea but that is an American award so it’s reasonable to give them an Australian one.
Now stand by for the Kapyong vets to put their hands up and say “what about us?”
There still exists anomalies re bravery awards for this battle. Individual cases of bravery are still to be recognized and most probably never will.
Still something is better than nothing.
Just a small point, pedantic as it may be, D Company 6 Royal Australian Regiment should read as D Company 6th Battalion The Royal Australian Regiment The Australian’s version would suggest that we have at least 6 Regular Infantry Regiments which of course we don’t. You’d expect the journalists to at least be able to designate our Army units correctly. Wouldn’t you?
Mate, says my mate Jack, can you imagine having women in our bunkers? Don’t put the hexy stove there – it should go in the corner here and for God’s sake clean up your mess…tidy up your spent rounds…No! try the hexy stove in the other corner….God you stink – at least try and keep yourself clean..and…and
Jack, of course is joking, but Combet isn’t as he pushes the subject and I can only begin to imagine those behind him pushing as well. Women libbers, gender equality at any price ideologues and other assorted left wing ‘divorced from reality’ nutters.
I wrote on this very subject four years ago. Obviously I had more time on my hands then but the comments are an interesting overview of the debate.
The subject is cyclic, comes up every few years and so is service in Infantry. The Roman Centurion carried similar weights to what I carried in Vietnam and the soldiers in Afghanistan, and I’ve met a lot recently, are still struggling with a 100 lb plus pack. If their mate is wounded they then have to carry him and his gear in a ‘fireman’s carry’ as well for short distances so treble that for short bursts.
But then it isn’t all physical, although that fact alone would stop most women successfully finishing infantry and special ops courses. It’s the whole physcological and social considerations that make me wary.
Bob Baldwin who is Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Personnel and the Assisting Shadow Minister for Defence said psychological aspects of battle made the frontline unsuitable for women.
“The coalition believes in the equality of opportunity for women in the defence force,” he told reporters today.
“The coalition, however, doesn’t agree with the placement of women into forces such as the SAS, clearance divers, commandos or frontline combat engineers.”
Fair enough too!
But Labor MP Yvette D’Ath said the issue of serving on the frontline should be “irrespective” of gender.
“I’m very strong on equality and basis on who can do the job,” she told reporters.
“If you can pass the course, you can meet all the criteria, you should be allowed to perform that job irrespective of what that job is.”
Which totally ignores the social and physcological aspects of women in combat.
My local Priest nails it in letters to The Australian today;
AS well as being dangerous and impractical in many cases, the push to put women on the front lines would erode something valuable in our civilised society. It would diminish the dignity and special status of women as life-givers and nurturers (“Now is the time for our women as well”, Editorial, 10/9).
Women wielding machine-guns and bayonets as the aggressors in war seems to defy the natural law. While I’m all for equal pay and equal opportunities in education and the professions, sending women to the front lines in the name of equality diminishes rather than enhances their status.
While nobody is forcing them to go now, it would be a different matter in the event of conscription or a ballot if we faced a major war. Young women and the hard-boiled feminists who claim to have their interests at heart in supporting this move should consider such implications carefully.
Father Tim Norris
St Kevin’s Parish, Geebung, Qld
In Vietnam I did a forty day patrol; that is forty days without stopping in a safe base like Nui Dat. Think about that – in the dry season there was insufficient water to wash so no showers, no body wash for forty days!. Gave up on wearing socks and jocks (can’t carry or resupply) and a bout of dysentery didn’t help. Defecating and urinating publicly without any privacy. Blood and bits of enemy flesh on my filthy uniform, skin diseased and abraded from thorns and the prickly heat making every step painful. And then there’s the enemy.
Do you want your daughter there? I don’t and Yvette D’Ath would have vomited if she ever got downwind of me.
You see, us conservative chaps think women and kids need protecting and they are harder to protect when they’re close by and how the hell are they going to nurture the next generation if they’re in the combat zone.
As Father Tim says;
…sending women to the front lines in the name of equality diminishes rather than enhances their status.
I’m happy for girls to do most things military but I want them protected from the filth, terror and mind boggling physical and physcological aspects of infantry service.
I’ve been there but I see no combat infantry service in the CVs of people advocating that women should be able to join me.
Keep the home fires burning sweetheart and hopefully I’ll be back soon.
Sailors are in trouble for being sailors.
FEDERAL Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick has defended the navy against suggestions it cultivates demeaning attitudes towards women.
Ms Broderick’s comments followed revelations sailors aboard the HMAS Success offered financial rewards to crew members who slept with female sailors.
Revelations! Wow this must be serious
Yesterday, the navy confirmed four crew members from the Success were sent home from Singapore in May as a result of the allegations.
The sailors had reportedly compiled a book, titled The Ledger, detailing financial rewards for male crewmen who slept with female sailors.
Sailors who slept with female officers or lesbians stood to gain more money, according to the reports. The book was apparently discovered by crew and the captain was alerted.
Yesterday the Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Russ Crane, said the navy would not tolerate the sort of behaviour the four were alleged to have engaged in.
Chief of Navy! How the hell did he get involved. Admittedly it’s a bit tacky but that’s it. It should have been handled in house and the media should have had the manners to leave it alone.
Now the PM is involved
Reports of a sex betting ring on board a Navy ship are disturbing, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says.
I agree – it’s almost as disturbing as public figures frequenting strip clubs and drinking too much to remember the event next day. At least there is no report of the sailors paying the ladies for their services unlike that on offer at the venue Rudd visited.