Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   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, s
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
Aussiegunneragain    PS   7/20/2008 8:19:10 AM
After you have taken that cold shower you might also like to note that you haven't actually addressed the issue that we were discussing for four posts.I'm sure that since you are so concerned with not boring our fellow posters that they would appreciate it if we actually got back on topic. Just a suggestion, not an order.
 
In case you have forgotten what the topic is, my assertion was broadly that the real reason that many professional soldiers want to go to war is that they want to get into a fight for personal reasons (job satisfaction? glory?), rather than because they think they need the training as the General implies. I backed it up by relating my experience with other soldiers while I was in the Army and with a reference from the former CGS who says as much. I have also suggested that going to war for training/experience purposes or to give the soldiers job satisfaction is poor policy. You disagree with this. I'd be interested to hear why if you can do so without the agro. The ball is in your court champ.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       7/20/2008 9:29:42 AM

Interesting confirmation.

They recently had a lecture at Russell on counterinsurgency warfare and Iraq.  It was pointed out that the ADF has recognised that it's lost skills in "the art of war" per Molans comments.  Training battleplanners and theatre participation is something that they say will take at least 15 years to inculcate into the next generation.

The focus on specwarfare is deskilling general warfare command skills.


Considering the nations that are helping us in Iraq, the general warfare categories are too biased toward the United States. There's Australia, South Korea, Japan, Romanians(RIP), Czech Republic and even the British to a certain extent. All of these nations should be much more involved across the range of operations that are conducted.  Small force protection missions as the exception, most of these forces are limited to ISR, special operations or logistics support. I would personally like to see something similar to prior conflicts where allies took much more direct combat roles and leadership. Considering the quality of the troops and equipment it would be mutually beneficial. It would be interesting to look back at the way OAF was run by comprison.
 
 
-DA
 
 
 
PS: GF are you a MAC user?
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    DA   7/20/2008 10:32:26 AM


Considering the nations that are helping us in Iraq, the general warfare categories are too biased toward the United States. There's Australia, South Korea, Japan, Romanians(RIP), Czech Republic and even the British to a certain extent. All of these nations should be much more involved across the range of operations that are conducted.  Small force protection missions as the exception, most of these forces are limited to ISR, special operations or logistics support. I would personally like to see something similar to prior conflicts where allies took much more direct combat roles and leadership. Considering the quality of the troops and equipment it would be mutually beneficial. It would be interesting to look back at the way OAF was run by comprison.

-DA  

PS: GF are you a MAC user?

I have several issues with the US expecting others to undertake more direct combat in Iraq.
 
First, this war was primarily started by the US to protect US citizens from a percieved threat of Iraqi support for terrorists, to ensure US access to Iraqi oil and to try and spread democracy in the Middle East. I don't have a problem with any of those reasons, but I would note that it was your countries choice to proceed in that manner for the protection of your citizens and that it is primarily your country's responsibility to deal with the problem.
 
Second, those of us who supported the US during the invasion did so after being led to believe by the US leadership that the removal of Hussein would not lead to an extended insurgency. Even the White House thought that this would be the case, as evidenced by only an adequate number of troops being deployed to change the regime and the fact that troop withdrawls started very early after the victory. Our PM at the time made it abundantly clear that we were not signing up for an extended conflict and the US leadership made it abundantly clear that they did not think this would be required. The analysis that lead to the decision to invade with inadequate troops turned up to be wanting and the fact is that the US leaders were warned by many but insisted on proceeding.  While I am not going to condemn the US leaders for doing what they thought was right at the time, the fact is that the decisions are foremost the US's responsibility to live with.
 
Third, in the early couple of years of the counter-insurgency campaign the war was not conducted very well by the US civilian and military leadership. This was partially because assets were spread too thinly between Afghanistan and Iraq, but also partly because of inappropriate operational methods used by the US military. This was raised by both British and Australian senior officers at the time, but it was ignored for a substantial period. To the US militaries credit it seems to have gotten a handle on those problems but it took an unnecessarily long time and cost a lot of lives and good will with the Iraqis and the general public in the US and elsewhere.
 
As such I am very retiscient to see Australian ground forces dying in Iraq in a conflict that is a US responsiblity and which has been made worse by a chain of blunders by US civilian and military leaders. Australia has a long history of having our troops killed in large numbers because of poor decision making by larger allies whilst fighting their wars, so many of us are (in my opinion) rightly unhappy at the prospect of this happening now.
 
Afghanistan is a bit of a story because the terrorist threat that came out of there has directly taken Australian lives in the WTC attacks and Bali, along with those of many of the NATO allies. I could handle increased Australian participation in Afghanistan, though am a bit resentful of the fact that it is likely to be more dangerous because of the US decision to spread its troops into Iraq as well. However that is done now so I would support a bigger deployment so long as it doesn't lead to a proportionate decrease in US troops being re-deployed to Iraq or NATO troops being sent home.
 
Realistically I think we could afford to send a battalion group backed by armour, artillery and air support. While we theoretically support a brigade like the General suggested, I am worried that if we did we would leave ourselves short in the instance that a serious conflict emerged in our own region. That
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       7/20/2008 12:34:06 PM





Considering the nations that are helping us in Iraq, the general warfare categories are too biased toward the United States. There's Australia, South Korea, Japan, Romanians(RIP), Czech Republic and even the British to a certain extent. All of these nations should be much more involved across the range of operations that are conducted.  Small force protection missions as the exception, most of these forces are limited to ISR, special operations or logistics support. I would personally like to see something similar to prior conflicts where allies took much more direct combat roles and leadership. Considering the quality of the troops and equipment it would be mutually beneficial. It would be interesting to look back at the way OAF was run by comprison.




-DA  



PS: GF are you a MAC user?




I have several issues with the US expecting others to undertake more direct combat in Iraq.

 


All those reasons are null and void if the "others" don't want to be involved. That's is the issue. Your generals and ours want you more involved. Your politicians don't. This is hurting your ability to develop leadership under fire which is the best place to do so bar none. Theory and training are fine but it's in combat where you find out how well your system works. These are all perishable skills too. All that other stuff I edited out of your post about how you feel about OIF is besides the point. If you are going to deploy to a combat zone as a participant for whatever reason, DO COMBAT.
 
-DA
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    DA   7/21/2008 6:46:32 AM

All those reasons are null and void if the "others" don't want to be involved. That's is the issue. Your generals and ours want you more involved. Your politicians don't. This is hurting your ability to develop leadership under fire which is the best place to do so bar none. Theory and training are fine but it's in combat where you find out how well your system works. These are all perishable skills too. All that other stuff I edited out of your post about how you feel about OIF is besides the point. If you are going to deploy to a combat zone as a participant for whatever reason, DO COMBAT.

Granted that neither sides of politics here is keen on committing conventional ground forces into offensive roles. My comments reflect how and why I think we should go about deploying them if that situation changes.
 
However, I still think the notion that going to war for the practice as suggested by Molan and supported by you and others here is wrong headed. It is undoubtedly the best way to improve and test your military skills, but it definately isn't the overriding factor in ensuring victory. If it was the US and Allies wouldn't have given the Iraqi armed forces such a thumping in '91. The US hadn't been in a major air battle since Vietnam, a major conventional land battle since Korea and hadn't fought in the desert since WW2. In contrast the Iraqis were only three years out of the biggest conventional conflict of the '80's. Training, theory, good equipment and astute observation of the conflicts of allies won over direct experience in that conflict, so I'd suggest that if we focus our efforts and resources onto those we can still have a formidable fighting force. 
 
Basically its a choice of putting our troops into operations where we can be fairly sure that a large number of them will die and hoping that the skills gained will be of relevance in a future combat which may or may not happen, or alternatively forgoing the "opportunity" and risking them being less prepared in the said future conflict. Personally if there isn't another good reason why we should be fighting, I reckon its a no-brainer that we keep them out of risky ops.

 

 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Another perspective   7/21/2008 7:05:16 AM
Take a look at this link from time magazine for an opinon diametrically opposed to the Molan's on how we should be dealing with Afghanistan. The author's name is Rory Stewart and he is a British University Professor who lives in Kabul and who has extensive experience in Afghanistan, so his arse and presumably those of his family and friends would be on the line if they did what he said and things went to the pot.

The article is too long to post here, but Stewart  basically says that our current strategy of trying to eradicate the Taliban is unsustainable, as we will never be willing or able to deploy enough troops for the required length of time. He believes that trying to do so will just result in the Afghans blaming us for their problems and not taking responsibility for solving them. He suggests that we should be withdrawing most of our troopsand letting the Afghans take the lead in fighting the the Taliban and rebuilding their country. He advocates limiting our own military operations to providing support to th Afghans and containing of the terrorist threat to the West, predominantly using special forces to locate and destroy any training camps in both Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere. He also suggests that foriegn aid should be directed to the most secure areas as this is where it will do the most good.

Its an interesting take on the situation there and one that makes some sense to me. I don't know if there has ever been an insurgency that was eradicated by a foriegn power, but I can't think of one. They can be beaten down for a period of time but inevitably pop up again once the foriegn power leaves. Only the locals will have the will to do the long-term hard yards to defeat them, as they are the ones who have the most to lose. Perhaps this is the way we should be going, rather than all the hairy chested bluster about destroying them on offensive operations?

>>
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       7/21/2008 10:32:11 AM
First you need to be careful when you use statements like "wrongheaded". That is a very strong characterization especially for an outsider. Second, no one is advocating going to war just for the practice. If that's what you thought, you have a serious misunderstanding of what's being said. Australia, is at war against a common enemy. It does not matter whether or not the actual attack happened on Australian soil. There is still a threat to Australian national interest. There was an act of aggression against an ally. A set of common interest is why Australia is participating in operation Iraqi freedom and operation enduring freedom. That is why you are at war and not for "practice".
 
Finally, if you want to see what it looks like when "insurgency" is defeated by an outside power. Just pay attention to current events. History is full of examples of the same as well. Insurgents are not invincible.
 
-DA

 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    DA   7/21/2008 12:19:16 PM

First you need to be careful when you use statements like "wrongheaded". That is a very strong characterization especially for an outsider. Second, no one is advocating going to war just for the practice. If that's what you thought, you have a serious misunderstanding of what's being said. Australia, is at war against a common enemy. It does not matter whether or not the actual attack happened on Australian soil. There is still a threat to Australian national interest. There was an act of aggression against an ally. A set of common interest is why Australia is participating in operation Iraqi freedom and operation enduring freedom. That is why you are at war and not for "practice".

 Finally, if you want to see what it looks like when "insurgency" is defeated by an outside power. Just pay attention to current events. History is full of examples of the same as well. Insurgents are not invincible.

 -DA
 
An outsider to what, Australian foreign policy? That is what we are talking about isn't it? I guess you can accuse me of that but I doubt that you have much more of a claim to know much more about it. Molan might, but then there are heaps of prominant Aussies and Americans who wouldn't agree with him. Our former CDF Peter Cosgrove made a not so subtle warning that Iraq could easily end up as another Vietnam prior to the invasion and your former Secretary of State and head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff made no bones about the fact that he thought the idea of invading was lousy. Anyway, I don't think I could come up with a more benign characterisation than "wrongheaded", so if you are going to get upset about it I'd suggest that you are being somewhat over sensitive.
 
As for the war effort in Afghanistan, I know very well why we are there and I have always support the decision to support an important ally. I also supported the invasion of Iraq at the time it happenned and still hold hopes that it will work out, though I don't support a serious combat commitment on the part of Australia when US forcasts of a quick and easy transition to stable government turned out to be woefully wrong.  However, just because I support the effort does not mean that I think we should be writing blank cheques with our own troops blood when the thing drags on because of bad decisions by US civilian and military leaders. You need to do a bit of reading on our military history to understand how previous generations of Aussies have suffered because their governments were eager to please a major ally at all costs, to understand why some of us might be a tad retiscient about repeating the experience. I certainly don't think that the prospect of gaining experience on the battlefield should figure prominantly into our decision about what types of forces to deploy, and despite your protestations otherwise anybody who reads what you and Molan have written previously can see that is what is being suggested.
 
I also think you should reconsider your approach of trying to lecture us on why deploying ground combat forces is in our national interest, it is probably the worst way to try and convince us of anything. We make the assessment and decision as to what is in our national interest, what is the best course of action and whether we think it is our responsibility to do so, not you. Since as the smaller ally we don't get listened to in terms of how you are intending to conduct the war it is really the only choice that we have and it behooves our leaders to exercise it when they think that your leadership is likely to lead our troops into grief. I would note that I believe that it would be perfectly reasonable for the US to expect us to take primary responsiblity for providing the manpower for military action in our region as well and there are precedents in recent histroy where your government has certainly done so.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       7/21/2008 6:00:38 PM
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

 
Quote    Reply

Enterpriser       7/21/2008 10:11:19 PM

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





DA,
 
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.   
 
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)
 
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).
 
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).
 
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)
 
5) There would be real training and experience benefits (possibly for overall moral too)
 
Brett.
 
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.  

 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics