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: 1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
gf0012-aust       7/19/2008 12:09:47 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.
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       7/19/2008 6:07:08 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.


 

 




You get to go to better lectures than I do.
Maybe I should change jobs.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       7/19/2008 7:08:38 AM

You get to go to better lectures than I do.

Maybe I should change jobs.



here's a free tip.  stay where you are.  we're getting screwed by this govt - and it's not going to get any better some time soon.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       7/19/2008 8:10:30 AM
here's a free tip.  stay where you are.  we're getting screwed by this govt - and it's not going to get any better some time soon.
 
How about DSTO?
 
Quote    Reply

AMTP10F       7/19/2008 9:49:58 PM


You get to go to better lectures than I do.

Maybe I should change jobs.

here's a free tip.  stay where you are.  we're getting screwed by this govt - and it's not going to get any better some time soon.


We haven't fully recovered from the last time Labor was in power. It's getting to be bad enough that even the most left wing residents of R1 are praying that this government is a one hit wonder.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       7/19/2008 11:01:31 PM


How about DSTO?



well, the govt is so proud of DSTO they've cut their budget by 60%.  they can't even afford to send staff to some of our projects (and they have veto rights on some projects)
 
the yanks are wondering wtf is going on, they'd have DSTO in a blink if they could... 
 
fitzgibbon is making nelson look like a genius in comparison.  we have square wheels on a round axle....
 
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Ho Hum...    7/20/2008 12:44:05 AM
... thats all just code for senior Australian Army officers being frustrated that they haven't been allowed to have their shot at being the next John Monash, because that the last two governments rightly have rightly decided against putting conventional ground troops at extreme risk on offensive operations in wars that are the primary responsibility of the Americans. They should have a read up on the Nixon doctrine and perhaps a bit of more recent modern history (East Timor and the Balkens spring to mind). From that they will see that the Yanks are pretty shy of deploying ground forces requested by their allies if it is not in their direct national interest to do so. If it helps the senior officers to get experience by all means continue to embed them in US HQ's, but we shouldn't be unnecessarily putting our troops lives on the line just to fulfill their delusions of grandeur.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       7/20/2008 2:13:25 AM

... thats all just code for senior Australian Army officers being frustrated that they haven't been allowed to have their shot at being the next John Monash, because that the last two governments rightly have rightly decided against putting conventional ground troops at extreme risk on offensive operations in wars that are the primary responsibility of the Americans. They should have a read up on the Nixon doctrine and perhaps a bit of more recent modern history (East Timor and the Balkens spring to mind). From that they will see that the Yanks are pretty shy of deploying ground forces requested by their allies if it is not in their direct national interest to do so. If it helps the senior officers to get experience by all means continue to embed them in US HQ's, but we shouldn't be unnecessarily putting our troops lives on the line just to fulfill their delusions of grandeur.

delusions of grandeur?  LOL,  it's the same message coming back via WO2's, half colonels, capatains and 3 stripers - and no offence, if you think that any one of them are looking for accolades on the battlefront you've got no fracking idea.
 
even lowly squadron leaders had the smarts to stand up at Russell the other day at the R1 lectures  and say that we're losing battlefield skillsets - because staff college hasn't been focussed and has missed the conceptual boat.  considering how clueless the RAAF are at the moment, that says legions about how far the problem has been identified. (think tank strategy is headed by RAAF at present).  ADF view is that coming to grips with new concepts and battlespace thinking will take a full generation (15 to 25) before it's ingrained.
 
blind freddy can see that you can't keep on using specials in general warfighting, and if you don't work out how to keep those skills up, then you imbalance your force capability. both sides of govt have used specials for a reason - and they're fundamentally altruistic.
 
if you think the answers are so simple, then I'm sure they'll welcome you with open arms at F1. :)
 
and as has been said, us crowing about our capability in benign events such as ET and the Solomons is where the real delusions sit.  The Portuguese do the same things with Special Police elements.
 
btw, we embed into other countries HQ's so as to give them the capacity to identify where we are deficient as well as fine tune skills.  returning from a posting means that they are expected to give an opinion when debriefed - Molan is not the only one (but unfort the most senior one) to give that message.
 
we run the risk of being all bark and very litle bite.  considering that the current adviser to DefMin is attuned to "sexy bits"  then the regs won't be employed for a while

 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    GF   7/20/2008 4:55:56 AM
Nice to see that you are responding to my posts despite your previous promise that you wouldn't so. Its just a shame that as usual you are throwing a high browed, uninformed tantrum dressed up as "in the know" comment, when somebody dares but question your point of view. For all it is worth you may as well not have bothered.

delusions of grandeur?  LOL,  it's the same message coming back via WO2's, half colonels, capatains and 3 stripers - andno offence, if you think that any one of them are looking for accolades on the battlefront you've got no fracking idea.
 
What a complete load of bollocks, those are obviously the words of somebody who has only ever wielded a stapler in the defence of Australia. I served with the sorts that you talk to on a daily basis and believe me when many of them espouse their views on the desirability of participating in combat to their troops, it is a different story to the one that you are relaying. One of the first things that was drummed into me in basic was that I should want to fight in a war or "why would we be doing all this training". I don't think you would have to look too far on related threads on the Australia board to see it echoed  by former serving personel here. You are undoubtedly recieving the version for public and political consumption of why they want to go to increase the commitment in Afghanistan and Iraq.
 
even lowly squadron leaders had the smarts to stand up at Russell the other day at the R1 lectures  and say that we're losing battlefield skillsets - because staff college hasn't been focussed and has missed the conceptual boat.  considering how clueless the RAAF are at the moment, that says legions about how far the problem has been identified. (think tank strategy is headed by RAAF at present).  ADF view is that coming to grips with new concepts and battlespace thinking will take a full generation (15 to 25) before it's ingrained.

blind freddy can see that you can't keep on using specials in general warfighting, and if you don't work out how to keep those skills up, then you imbalance your force capability. both sides of govt have used specials for a reason - and they're fundamentally altruistic.

Blind freddy should be able to see that a major ground conflict is not to be viewed primarily as a training opportunity, we need a better reason to be send troops who signed up to defend Australia into a meat grinder than that. Lots of armies have to maintain their skills during extended periods of peace and then manage to do a good job when war comes around, which makes the messages of impending doom because we don't have conventional combat forces on operations in Afghanistan and Iraq is pure bullsh1t.
if you think the answers are so simple, then I'm sure they'll welcome you with open arms at F1. :)

If you are so keen to see other Aussies going off to get killed then you should have signed up for a stint and risked having your own precious arse sent overseas to get shot off, instead of joining straight up to the public service :).
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       7/20/2008 5:26:35 AM

Nice to see that you are responding to my posts despite your previous promise that you wouldn't so. Its just a shame that as usual you are throwing a high browed, uninformed tantrum dressed up as "in the know" comment, when somebody dares but question your point of view. For all it is worth you may as well not have bothered.

I've avoided your rubbish up until now.  Against my better judgement I decided that someone should respond to your drivel.  As for being in the know, a couple of people in here do know exactly where I work, so I'm sure they know that I have some form of qualification to comment.  I certainly have better currency and insight than you.  But, your comments as usual are full of sanctimonious tripe.  You go girl,  I'm sure you'll impress someone eventually
 

What a complete load of bollocks, those are obviously the words of somebody who has only ever wielded a stapler in the defence of Australia. I served with the sorts that you talk to on a daily basis and believe me when many of them espouse their views on the desirability of participating in combat to their troops, it is a different story to the one that you are relaying. One of the first things that was drummed into me in basic was that I should want to fight in a war or "why would we be doing all this training". I don't think you would have to look too far on related threads on the Australia board to see it echoed  by former serving personel here. You are undoubtedly recieving the version for public and political consumption of why they want to go to increase the commitment in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Sorry sport. I have been shot at.  But you go for your life and make some more grand assumptions.  You're an ass. 


Blind freddy should be able to see that a major ground conflict is not to be viewed primarily as a training opportunity, we need a better reason to be send troops who signed up to defend Australia into a meat grinder than that. Lots of armies have to maintain their skills during extended periods of peace and then manage to do a good job when war comes around, which makes the messages of impending doom because we don't have conventional combat forces on operations in Afghanistan and Iraq is pure bullsh1t.


How about reading the good Generals comments properly.  How about reading what I said without going into automatic mode?


If you are so keen to see other Aussies going off to get killed then you should have signed up for a stint and risked having your own precious arse sent overseas to get shot off, instead of joining straight up to the public service :).
 
Again, another lesson in reading comprehension is in order.  make the effort to read and understand first.  As for me, I have been shot at overseas you tool - and I have no desire to get shot at again if I can help it.  As for my current situation, where the fuque does an amateur like you get off on bragging about their background let alone making assumptions about others.
 
Delusions of Grandeur? - have a look in the mirror muppet.  
 
BTW, if you want to question my courage feel free to email me at anytime, we can make it personal and resolve your opinions first hand.
 
 



 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics