The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 8, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: A nation at war, but kept clear of combat
Volkodav    7/18/2008 11:29:25 PM
Patrick Walters, National security editor | July 19, 2008

WHEN Jim Molan came home in April 2005 after a year helping the US-led coalition run the war in Iraq, he was asked by his Canberra debriefers what was the most significant thing Australia could do to influence the way the war was being fought. Molan had just finished serving a hectic eight months as chief of operations to the US commander of the multinational force in Iraq, George Casey, which included planning the second battle for Fallujah in November 2004 and the successful general election the following January.

"You should have replaced me with another Australian general," was the major-general's one-line answer to his Canberra interlocutor. Impressed with Molan's performance, Casey had made a specific request for another Australian to take over the chief of operations role but, as events in Iraq took a turn for the worse, Canberra politely declined the US commander's request.

Molan has written a remarkable account of a turbulent year in Baghdad helping the Americans run the war. Working deep inside a command structure controlling 175,000 coalition troops, he had little to do with the 400-strong Australian military presence in Iraq. But Molan's book, Running the War in Iraq, poses some fundamental questions about the way our defence forces are being used in Iraq and Afghanistan and how prepared Australia's military will be for the wars of the 21st century.

Compared with the complex counterinsurgency war Molan helped run in Baghdad, the Australian Defence Force, with the exception of its special forces, has not been involved in long-running, close-combat operations in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Molan worries about how the ADF will effectively manage the "operational art" in the years ahead, conflicts that may demand Australia take the lead in planning, commanding and deploying joint forces on the battlefield.

His experience in Iraq has caused him to doubt Australia's capacity to prosecute an effective counterinsurgency campaign in theatres that demand a complex mix of war-fighting, peacekeeping and humanitarian skills: the "three-block war".

At the command level, he worries that the standard set by the ADF is skewed too far away from fighting towards humanitarian operations, peacekeeping and peace-making.

Australia's war-fighting tradition has retained strengths at the lowest tactical level, but in Molan's view we have failed to keep abreast of conceptual debates and developments about how commanders use forces on a battlefield at the level above tactics.

He notes that the ADF has not been involved in serious, joint sustained combat since Vietnam and has not practised "operational generalship" in a war since that time.

"We in Australia luxuriate in what I describe as wars of choice within wars; we choose the wars we will fight in, we choose the timing of our participation, we choose the geographical areas of our participation (and so control the level of likely combat), we choose the kind of operations we will conduct and we choose when we come home," he says. As Molan tells Inquirer, Americans do not have that luxury in Iraq or Afghanistan. Australia may not have that luxury in the years ahead.

"The Government is spending $50 billion buying excellent war-fighting equipment between now and 2018," he says. "But I don't think we are matching that with an attitude and an ethos of combat. We say it, but I don't see it being manifest in training at a higher level, and that concerns me."

Iraq and Afghanistan should teach us the counterinsurgency struggle or "war among the people" is getting harder to win. If the extreme violence in Baghdad has taught Molan one thing, it is that militaries must be able to fight to win a long counterinsurgency campaign in addition to the provision of a range of non-military skills and assets.

When Molan was in Baghdad, Americans would refer to "swimmers and non-swimmers": those nations willing to fight and die in Iraq and those just there to show the flag. "If you can't fight, then you will never get to the clever parts of counterinsurgency, which is the hearts and minds. Because it is the strategy of the enemy to get between you and the people.

"If you are not strong enough and tough enough, you can't touch the hearts and minds of the people."

When it comes to Afghanistan, Molan warns there is a gap "a mile wide" in terms of the Rudd Government's rhetoric about the importance of the Australia's military commitment and our presence on the ground in Oruzgan.

"To be generous, we (NATO and its allies) have a quarter to half the number of troops that we need to make a fist of it. Not having enough troops means that it's going to be a long, long fight and that exposes your national resolve."

Molan says the question of more Australian troops in Oruzgan is a matter for the Government but observes that a 52,000-strong ADF, now costing the taxpayer $22 billion a year, should be able to sustain a brigade-strength combat force by 2010 to conduct offensive operations in Afghanistan or elsewhere.

"I believe the Afghan people are worth fighting for. If we match the rhetoric with our actions, then someone has got to provide the forces in the province sufficient to do the job.

"If we do nothing, we can wait around for the Americans to come in. I can only assume the overall American strategy is to stabilise Iraq, generate some forces and put them into Afghanistan, and that's what people are talking about at the moment."

Molan says the ADF can maintain its 1000-strong military commitment to Afghanistan at minimal cost until "the whole war falls apart and we bring our troops home".

"It all depends whether you are in the fight to show commitment or in the fight to win. If you are in the fight to win, you have got to conduct offensive operations. If you are only in the fight to show commitment, you can have one man and a dog there."

Molan says securing Afghanistan's border with Pakistan will be absolutely critical but stresses the counterinsurgency campaign inside Afghanistan may have only just begun.

Leaving the army this month after a 40-year career, Molan acknowledges the Australian Army is far more capable than at any time since Vietnam, with "99 per cent" of the overhaul having occurred in the wake of the 1999 intervention in East Timor.

"Our capability now at the tactical level is very high except for our experience of close combat. Our strategic generalship is as good (as), if not better (than), it has ever been. But there is a black hole in the middle in the operational area," he says.

"We haven't seen sustained combat since Vietnam. You can compensate in some ways for that, but I don't think we are taking advantage of the opportunities we have at the moment to learn from those who are fighting.

"The concern I have is that the ADF thinks that the superb performance it has shown in East Timor and Solomon Islands in less than ferocious combat situations is the maximum level of capability that we have to show. I would argue that there is a lot more to it than that."

 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV  1 2 3
Aussiegunneragain    DA and Enterpriser   7/22/2008 5:20:13 AM

You are confusing a military issue for a political issue. I respect your opinions on the politics but that is not what I'm discussing. I'm talking about leading men in battle. It is a perishable skill. Once it is bred out of your armed forces, you lose a very powerful force multiplier. I almost feel like quoting abridged dialogue from Col. Kurtz to you when he said "It's impossible for words to describe to those who do not know..." -Col Kurtz

If you lose these skill sets the price of learning them back will be in blood. So you can pay now or later. At least now you would know what you are buying into. Later could be under much more dire circumstances. The politics don't matter. Sometimes wars just choose you,
-DA

And I respect your opinion that the best way to learn military operations is to do them. However I continue to disagree that this should be a deciding factor in whether or not we deploy troops.
In the first instance I think that you are incorrect in suggesting that the decision to deploy troops is a military one. As Von Claustiwitz said "war is politics by other means" and in a democracy that means that the buck stops with the civilian leadership when it comes to why we deploy troops on dangerous operations. The military's advice is of course to be valued and respected. However, the civilian leadership has to weigh up a broader range of factors than the generals do in their role of winning the war, so that will often lead to different decisions to what the military thinks is right.
 
A range of political reasons why we should deploy our troops have been raised here, some by you (on which I corrected you on a few Australia specific issues), yet despite saying that it was not a major issue you have returned to the notion that we should do so for experience in future conflicts. I find that a little contradictory, but nevertheless outline why I think it is a poor decision making criteria.
 
Firstly, it is somewhat innaccurate to suggest that we will definately required to fight a future war where these skills are valuable. I would suggest that it is a possiblity that a high-level insurgency requiring our armed forces to deploy will flare in our region over the next twenty years, but it is certainly not definate. Quite apart from the fact that our region is more stable than it has been in recent times, we have are reasonably good at preventing conflict by diplomacy and deterrance or at least in preventing it from moving beyond a low level scenario with peace enforement efforts.
 
Another consideration is whether what we would learn in chasing the Taliban around Afghanistan would necessarily directly apply in East Timor, New Guinea or the Solomons, which are very different geographical and cultural environments. It could in fact be that having our military focused on the methods that were successful in the 'Ghan, might distract them from identifying the unique problems in our region. There are many examples of Generals failing because they were fighting the last war in their minds ... the British Boar War and Sudan vets in WW1 is a pretty good example, with it taking a Australian militiaman (John Monash) with no prior combat experience to adapt his force to the new environment and to start winning before the Germans collapsed.
 
So what it really comes down to is whether we want to send troops on operations now that will almost certainly a fair number killed in the hope that the ADF will learn something that will save other troops lives in the future, but only if a relevent conflict arises. On the balance of probabilities I reckon that deploying predominantly for that reason would be pretty silly. You might want to weigh the possibility that the future conflict is over an issue that poses such a threat to Australian interests that it makes getting the practice now worthwhile. However, I find it hard to see how an insurgency (as opposed to say a major air/naval conflict) is likely to tip the scales
 
Finally, I'd suggest to you that if many of our troops got wind of the fact that this was the reason that Australia goes to war, then they would think pretty poorly of the decison makers. Sure, many troops are gung ho enough that they would support it, but there are many more who want to know that the reason they are fighting is the right one and it would affect their moral somewhat badly I think. If the broader Australian and world communities developed that impression it could be disasterous for maintaining popular and international support for any war effort.
 
If we gain experience from fighting for the right reasons then all well and good, but this suggestion? Forget it.
 
Brett - Good post. I'll answer it either later this evening or tommorrow.
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       7/22/2008 6:04:24 AM
Again, you are confusing the politics. The political decision to deploy troops in harms way is pass tense and you are already "continuing by other means" at this point. YOU ARE ALREADY ASSUMING THE RISK OF LOSING LARGE NUMBERS OF SOLDIERS REGARDLESS. Want to know why?
 
 
 
Because the Mate standing next to me during this link up meet and greet was in some of the most dangerous parts of Iraq. A trained eye could probably make out enough detail to know what I'm talking about...;) On a different occation...
 

 
So if you think that Australian is only just "showing the flag" and husbanding resources while all us G.I.s take all the risk, you are gravely mistaken. I owe my life to these guys and in fact to another group of Aussies I never got to meet "in the flesh". So again, you are taking the risk, these guys more so in a lot of ways compared to SpecFor BELIEVE ME, but your command teams and mid to senior leadership are not getting the full benefit of practicing "The Art of War". 
 
There are differences between soldiers and generalship. Or any leader for that matter. And some leadership skills cannot be practiced or learned in peacetime. TRUST ME. You can't feel the pain of a decision that takes lives you would rather not have lost but for lack of options you did in training. Training cannot ever hope to match the rate and variety of logistics consumption that war has as you try to adjust to a live battlespace. In training, you can't just decide to "up armor" vehicles or set up supply systems for RFI. I could go on and on but that isn't necessary. There ain't nothing like the real thing baby. So since...
 
 a. You are/were here
 
b. are obviously taking the same risk anyway
 
...You should not overly emphasize one form of warfare at the expense of others that clearly exist(see above). You must have balance. Also, by no means should you think Aussie troops were somehow being shielded from harm.

-DA
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    DA   7/22/2008 9:28:17 AM

Again, you are confusing the politics. The political decision to deploy troops in harms way is pass tense and you are already "continuing by other means" at this point. YOU ARE ALREADY ASSUMING THE RISK OF LOSING LARGE NUMBERS OF SOLDIERS REGARDLESS. Want to know why?

  

 

Because the Mate standing next to me during this link up meet and greet was in some of the most dangerous parts of Iraq. A trained eye could probably make out enough detail to know what I'm talking about...;) On a different occation...

 



So if you think that Australian is only just "showing the flag" and husbanding resources while all us G.I.s take all the risk, you are gravely mistaken. I owe my life to these guys and in fact to another group of Aussies I never got to meet "in the flesh". So again, you are taking the risk, these guys more so in a lot of ways compared to SpecFor BELIEVE ME, but your command teams and mid to senior leadership are not getting the full benefit of practicing "The Art of War". 
 

There are differences between soldiers and generalship. Or any leader for that matter. And some leadership skills cannot be practiced or learned in peacetime. TRUST ME. You can't feel the pain of a decision that takes lives you would rather not have lost but for lack of options you did in training. Training cannot ever hope to match the rate and variety of logistics consumption that war has as you try to adjust to a live battlespace. In training, you can't just decide to "up armor" vehicles or set up supply systems for RFI. I could go on and on but that isn't necessary. There ain't nothing like the real thing baby. So since...

  a. You are/were here

b. are obviously taking the same risk anyway

 ...You should not overly emphasize one form of warfare at the expense of others that clearly exist(see above). You must have balance. Also, by no means should you think Aussie troops were somehow being shielded from harm.

-DA
I'd be the last person to disrespect the risks faced by our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment, even if they are "only" conducting force protection and humanitarian work. However, if the official link below is anything to go by your opinion whether or not Australian's are being shielded from risky situations is completely out of kilter with most of the Royal Australian Regiment (start at page 39). It also shows up arguments being put here by others, that the complaints by soldiers that they aren't getting to fight has nothing to do with personal motivations such as glory and thrill seeking, to be demonstrably false.

www.defence.gov.au/army/lwsc/docs/aaj_vol_v_no_1_book_press2.pdf
 
As for your arguement that by undertaking offensive combat operations that our senior officers are going to gain experience that will improve our troops survivability on our current force protection missions, thats an interesting argument that I haven't heard before but not one that I'm terribly convinced by. Feel free to give me some detailed reasons that are more convincing though.

Finally, my trained but somewhat out of date eye didn't pick up anything special in that picture (I know the story behind about how you met them while guarding a broken down vehicle, you've posted it previously on this board), beyond the fact that for a group of guys on operations in one of the most dangerous regions of Iraq you seemed pretty relaxed. I would have thought you'd be keeping a low profile in all round defence rather than standing around taking happy snaps?

 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Enterpriser   7/22/2008 10:15:57 AM
the comments from AG seem to be based on his feelings about the misgivings of simply deploying forces (potentially distorting force structures and finances) in circumstances where we are anything but absolutely certain in relation to the raisons d'etre et d'etat. At this stage, it would appear, to his mind, that you have presented more arguments about the benefits of deploying troops than establishing the why. Additionally, it would appear that where you have attempted to establish the why, he doesn't particularly appreciate the why  being identified for him ( Aus) by others (in this case, you). He also seems to imply that the deployment of troopos might be a political tool in an attempt to alter the perception of incompetently run war styles.   

Pretty much on the mark.


To my mind, the importance of deploying troops is evident in a number of areas:

 1) First and most basic: Our Mates need help (USA, UK, CAN)
 
Agreed, but that doesn't mean that we should be writing any blank cheques.

 2) It is not in Australia's interest to have American forces bogged down and strategically imobile in these theatres for extended periods of time. Ironically enough troops at the critical points might prevent this occuring further.  In a world of rising powers we need the strength of Pax Americana to be focused (those tens of billions every couple of months could be better spent).
 
It is not in America's or anybody elses interest for the force that is best equipped to deal with contingencies in the South Pacific region to be tied up in Iraq or Afghanistan, especially when the brigade at most that we could deploy would be token when the scale of those conflicts are considered.  

 3) In Afghanistan, as noted, we have the chance to persue a tangible aspect of Fundamentalist Islam (despite being an idea, it requires support infrastructure to engage in its activities).
 
Agreed to an extent, though I'm starting to question whether conventional ops are the way to do this. See the article I posted from Time for an alternative view on this, which makes more sense to me the more that I think about it. Despite John McCain's (very sincere I think) thoughts about staying in Iraq and Afghanistan 100 years if necessary, I just don't see that continuing long term deployments in either country are economically, strategically or politically sustainable. The time is rapidly coming when we have to tell these countries that we've given them the opportunity for a better life and that they have to sink or swim. Perhaps snsead we should be focusing on those ops which protect us, such as hunting down and destroying terrorist camps with special forces. 
 
Heres a thought for the day from Henry Kissenger that relates to this,

"The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."
 
In the current context that means that all that Al Quaeda and the Taliban have to do in the face of any major conventional ops by the Western Allies  is to cache their weapons and go into hiding. All they have to do then is to wait until we inevitably draw down our forces, then they can pop up and start causing trouble again. The only way that this will be stopped from happening is if Afghan and Iraqi societies show the will to stop them. I personally don't believe that they don't already have the trained manpower, either of their Army's are big enough now to keep an insurgency in check. It is just that they have to show the balls to do it and there is nothing that we can do to make them do that, other than telling them that we will be putting the ball in their court. 

4) Its a political excuse to re-orient the army after soo long allowing it to atrophy (Don't dismiss the significance of this argument in the minds of Jim Molan etc)
 
The Army hasn't atrophied, it is better equipped and trained than it ever has and has more experience than it has had since Vietnam.

 5) There would be real training and experience benefits (possibly for overall moral too)
 
See my post to Darth for my thoughts on using this primarily as a training opportunity. As for moral, I'd imagine we might get a short term boost from all those grunts who feel that the experience of combat will allow them to self actualize. I would question how they will feel about it after a few years of chasing around insurgents with no permenant results and the loss of a bunch of their mates though. I also don't think it will do too much for recruitement, the "stop loss" policy isn't in place in the US military because Iraq has made the "college of the poor" more attractive to most.
 
P.S In relation to AGs concern about the redeployment of US/NATO troops following an Australian deployment, I would regard an agreement by the Dutch and the Canadians to stay beyond 2010 (on the understanding we deploy to support them) as fulfilling the conditions-precedent set by the DEFMIN for NATO to lift its game. This may also assist Dutch domestic political opinion.  
 
Should we decide that further troop deployments are the best course of action, I agree that these conditions should be in place.
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       7/22/2008 3:19:07 PM




Again, you are confusing the politics. The political decision to deploy troops in harms way is pass tense and you are already "continuing by other means" at this point. YOU ARE ALREADY ASSUMING THE RISK OF LOSING LARGE NUMBERS OF SOLDIERS REGARDLESS. Want to know why?



  



 



Because the Mate standing next to me during this link up meet and greet was in some of the most dangerous parts of Iraq. A trained eye could probably make out enough detail to know what I'm talking about...;) On a different occation...



 








So if you think that Australian is only just "showing the flag" and husbanding resources while all us G.I.s take all the risk, you are gravely mistaken. I owe my life to these guys and in fact to another group of Aussies I never got to meet "in the flesh". So again, you are taking the risk, these guys more so in a lot of ways compared to SpecFor BELIEVE ME, but your command teams and mid to senior leadership are not getting the full benefit of practicing "The Art of War". 

 



There are differences between soldiers and generalship. Or any leader for that matter. And some leadership skills cannot be practiced or learned in peacetime. TRUST ME. You can't feel the pain of a decision that takes lives you would rather not have lost but for lack of options you did in training. Training cannot ever hope to match the rate and variety of logistics consumption that war has as you try to adjust to a live battlespace. In training, you can't just decide to "up armor" vehicles or set up supply systems for RFI. I could go on and on but that isn't necessary. There ain't nothing like the real thing baby. So since...



  a. You are/were here




b. are obviously taking the same risk anyway



 ...You should not overly emphasize one form of warfare at the expense of others that clearly exist(see above). You must have balance. Also, by no means should you think Aussie troops were somehow being shielded from harm.




-DA



I'd be the last person to disrespect the risks faced by our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment, even if they are "only" conducting force protection and humanitarian work. However, if the official link below is anything to go by your opinion whether or not Australian's are being shielded from risky situations is completely out of kilter with most of the Royal Australian Regiment (start at page 39). It also shows up arguments being put here by others, that the complaints by soldiers that they aren't getting to fight has nothing to do with personal motivations such as glory and thrill seeking, to be demonstrably false.

Are you really this stubborn? It isn't my opinion. It's fact. That's why I posted pictures so you could see for yourself.

 

As for your arguement that by undertaking offensive combat operations that our senior officers are going to gain experience that will improve our troops survivability on our current force protection missions, thats an interesting argument that I haven't heard before but not one that I'm terribly convinced by. Feel free to give me some detailed reasons that are more convincing though.
 

Terribly convinced? No offense but you don't seem to understand the subject matter enough to be convinced of anything. Your opinion is like a layman reading a medical journal. Unless you are familiar with the subject matter, you may as well be reading in a foriegn language. Force Protection treats symptoms. Offensive Combat Operations treats the cause.
 
Finally, my trained but somewhat out of date eye didn't pick up anything special in that picture (I know the story behind about how you met them while guarding a broken down vehicle, you've posted it previously on this board), beyond the fact that for a group of guys on operations in one of the most dangerous regions of Iraq you seemed pretty relaxed. I would have thought you'd be keeping a low profile in all round defence rather than standing around taking happy snaps?
 
AG, taking pictures on a battlefield is nothing new. If we appear relaxed it's because the first priority of work is complete. Battlefields in real life aren't compressed and edited to fit into the confines of a 1 or 2 hour movie. There are a lot of periods of pure boredom and almost complete serenity where you could dress up like a circus clown and juggle and nothing would happen to you.
 
Your trained eye should notice the gradual sloping up of the flat open terrain to the horizon where clearly man made objects are protruding upward at 90 degree angles and at regular intervals. It's what remains of the guard rails that separates passing traffic on their respective sides of the road. If you have any familiarity with the region, you will know that only certain types of roads have such infrastructure. If you are familiar with military operations you will know why such roads are important. If you pay any attention to Iraq, you will know that a significant majority of the injuries and deaths to allied troops happens along those roads.  That should give you an indication of the nature of the threat and why offensive combat operations are the real solution, ultimately less dangerous and something your regular troops need to be a part of and not just for "practice."
 
 
 
-DA



 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    DA   7/23/2008 9:13:15 AM
Buddy, even those on this board who have no military training (of which I am not one) are quite capable of understanding something when it is explained to them. The fact that you try to suggest that I am incapable of doing so is more an indication 
of you having no good answer, rather than saying anything about my knowledge and experience.

So for that matter is the fact that you aren't sticking to the issue that we are discussing. You previously suggested that we should be conducting offensive operations, because the experience our officers would gain in leading those operations would improve our commanders abilities to conduct their current force protecton role safely. Now when pressed on the matter, you are saying that we should be conducting offensive operations because these treat the cause (i.e. killing the insurgents), rather than the symptoms (just guarding troops and assets against them).

Those are different arguments. The first one I don't agree with as I see no reason why conducting offensive patrolling is going to improve our commanders ability to co-ordinate convoy protection missions and the preparation and manning of defensive conditions. If you want to explain to me how it will then I'm all ears. I DO agree that offensive patrolling improves the environment so that force protection missions are safer. The fact is that our government's implied take on that at the moment seems to be that this is not Australia's responsiblity. In Iraq I agree with them but I'm open minded in Afghanistan. However, I reiterate that the number of troops that we could ever spare isn't going to make either of those countries significantly safer.

Now to your argument that Australian troops aren't being kept from the most risky situations now, so they may as well go on offensive ops. From where anybody who reads this sits its the word of an Australian Infantry Major who has written a referenced article in a prominant Australian military journal against the word of an anonymous American enlisted man whose only evidence is a couple of photos where we are supposed to tell the risks associated with the location from the type of crash barriers on the road where he was guarding a truck. I know which source I'll be forming my opinions on regarding current Australian mlitary policy thanks. Quite apart from that the low level of casualties which we have suffered backs up my opinion.

As for your time spent taking happy snaps, I guess you are the one whose in the best position to determine the risks associated with exposing yourselves in that way and at the end of the day its your arse on the line. However, if the spot on the road where you were is as dangerous as you say then I'd say you were taking an unnecessary risk. There are a number of videos floating around the web of US troops being shot by insurgent snipers. I'm not going to post them here because I don't want to give extremist propaganda any airtime, but suffice to say most of the troops that were shot in the pictures were standing around looking board and laxidasical. Like I've said previously I still think you are a prick but not enough to want to see you get shot, so be more careful.  
 
 
 
 
 
-DA

 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim       7/23/2008 3:29:45 PM
For the record, DA is a captain, and from the little bit of what I can tell, a fine one at that.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    DJim reply   7/23/2008 10:17:20 PM

For the record, DA is a captain, and from the little bit of what I can tell, a fine one at that.

Incoming.
 
 
-DA
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    AG reply   7/23/2008 10:31:39 PM

As for your time spent taking happy snaps, I guess you are the one whose in the best position to determine the risks associated with exposing yourselves in that way and at the end of the day its your arse on the line. However, if the spot on the road where you were is as dangerous as you say then I'd say you were taking an unnecessary risk. There are a number of videos floating around the web of US troops being shot by insurgent snipers. I'm not going to post them here because I don't want to give extremist propaganda any airtime, but suffice to say most of the troops that were shot in the pictures were standing around looking board and laxidasical. Like I've said previously I still think you are a prick but not enough to want to see you get shot, so be more careful.  


AG,
 
You are pretty convinced of your opinion so I'm just going to agree to disagree with what you said based on my own ability to directly observe and interact with things in the first person. Thanks for not wanting me to get shot!...lol. Anyway, with regard to happy snaps, unnecessary risk and snipers. Hint, think METT-TC prior to your risk assessment. 
 
 
-DA
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       7/24/2008 3:16:10 AM
B, did you end up getting the email from my work address?
 
gf

 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    DJ   7/24/2008 3:33:17 AM

For the record, DA is a captain, ..... 
Fair enough. I assumed that he was an enlisted man from the fact that he was not wearing any visible insignia (quite reasonable on operations) and from the fact that it seems unusual for a commissioned officer to be left in charge of guarding a truck that had broken down. However, that doesn't change the fact that I believe what a Major in the Australian Army has to say about Australian defence policy over what an American junior officer has to say.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    DJ   7/24/2008 3:46:04 AM


AG,

You are pretty convinced of your opinion so I'm just going to agree to disagree with what you said based on my own ability to directly observe and interact with things in the first person. Thanks for not wanting me to get shot!...lol. Anyway, with regard to happy snaps, unnecessary risk and snipers. Hint, think METT-TC prior to your risk assessment. 

-DA
If you are suggesting that it is unlikely that a sniper is going position himself in open country where he is at greater risk of being spotted along a road where it is unusual for troops to operate on foot, then you'll be pleased to know that I had already thought of that. However, I would suggest that the purpose of any risk management activity is to determine when it is appropriate to take necessary risks. I find it hard to see how getting a photo with some Aussie Corporal so that you can post it on SP is at all necessary.
Apart from that I'm always happy to leave it at agreeing to disagree agreeably, though I'm a little disappointed that you have chosen to take the path of just saying "I know best because I'm here" rather than explaining your positions.

 
Quote    Reply

fall out       7/24/2008 7:42:16 PM
My my, it is getting quite fiesty in here!  Come on gentlemen, we are all allies here. ;)
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy