Freedom belongs to nations willing to fund it

John the Zombie says:

08:21pm | 21/02/12

Well your lovely Kim Beazley was awesome in the role of defence minister. The Collins class sub stuff up. Even the current F35 back log will never compare to this and the fact that when he was the defence minister it lead to the largest, let me repeat that to you acotrel the largest resignation of ADF memebers. The army had members leaving in droves.

What would you know about defence acotrel? Let me guess you were a member once. Where you in the Army, Navy or Airforce.

While Labor reduces spending the other countires including Indo are increasing thier military hardware.

Ow yeah one last note. Was it not labor who had a go at the purchase of the F35 but then went and endorse it anyway. What a joke your labor govt is. Also dont forget the first few years of labor in power were they screwed up ADF members pay roles. Remember those members that did not get paid and some after returning from Afghan and Iraq recieved notices that they had to repay thousand of dollars back and in the end it was found out that it was due to a stuff up by the govt. They did not implement the new system properly or maybe they thought they could rip off diggers.

Another interesting point I would like to make is the fact that the report into the ADFA scandal is out but it has not been released to the public. Do you know why this is? It is because it critises the current minister of defence Stephen Smith foe his handling of the issue.

Max Power says:

09:14am | 21/02/12

Wow, States are responsible for Defence funding are they?
And this article is about infrastructure is it?

Even the Captain of Concordia had the sense to abandon a sinking ship, not Acotrel, he would rather ignore the gaping hole in the side of the ship and run around screaming it ain’t sinking, it ain’t sinking.

Mark G says:

01:20pm | 21/02/12

“the ADF goes out of its way to do the latest US bidding.”

Sorry who does the US’s bidding? Last time I checked all ADF operations are directed by the democratically elected government of Australia. The Chief of the defence force does not make the decision to go to war or to deploy troops to a foreign land, the Australian government does. In regard to defence ties to the US, again the ADF has no power. Its the Defence minister who signs the defence agreements not the Chief of Defence Force. If you want to accuse anyone of kissing the US’s arse, I suggest you direct it at the government not the ADF. If you don’t want Australia to be a US arse kisser then government policy is where you should direct your rage.

“The ADF is used as a police force and enforcer for US energy policies.”

I have never seen an ADF policy that said “protect US energy policies and shoot anyone who dares to raise the price of oil”. Again those are Australian government policies not those of the ADF. Either way are you trying to argue that Australia gains no benefit in regard to energy policy? Australians are normally amongst the first to whinge about rising petrol prices and want the government to do something. We stand to gain as much as the US from this but that has nothing to do with the ADF.

“But, we’ll be there, killing and getting killed.”

WE??? yes i’m sure you will be their. I dont think ‘We’ is an appropriate term there.

“Australian forces have always sought to be involved in other peoples conflicts”

Australian forces can seek as much as they want. Its the Australian government and ultimately the will of the Australian people that sends them to war.

“OZ lifes and capital shouldn’t be wasted in supporting murderous US neo con adventurism. “

I agree except for inference that you make about OZ lives. The ADF doesn’t randomly grab people of the street and send them into a war zone.

TChong says:

01:53pm | 21/02/12

MarK G
I use the term “we” because I am an Australian citizen.
As you say,the ADF are there as a projecton of foreign policy, of an democratic australian govt, and as part of that process I use the term “we”.
Even you have that right, and its not a right that only belongs to military personal , or those who seek reflected glory in a phoney show of patriotism.
MarkG- you like to be taken seriosly on military matters, yet you dont see Oz hitching ourselves to the US?
The ADF isnt a stand alone entity, but as you say works on behalf of the govt.
All Oz govts follow the US lead.

acotrel says:

07:17am | 21/02/12

The Labor party was the only political body in our history which believed in Australian defence manufacturing.  When Barry Jones described the factories as ‘centres of excellence’  he sealed their fate.  They became a target for the Liberal party, - they are now defunct, and Australia is the poorer for that idiocy.

MarkS says:

08:58am | 21/02/12

@John Jones
Rubbish. In fact the ALP has often been a very strong funder of the ADF.

The Hawke government increased funding of the ADF & improved the basis for funding decisions. Much of the present equipment was approved during the Hawke government.

John Curtin, the Prime Minster of Australia during most of WW2. He oversaw a massive increase in the size of the ADF. His war time leadership was so well regarded that Arthur Fadden, leader of the Country Party said “I do not care who knows it but in my opinion there was no greater figure in Australian public life in my lifetime than Curtin”.

What about Billy Hughes, another war time ALP Prime Minster, who also oversaw a huge increase in the ADF. He fought a bitter fight for conscription. 

The only times that the ALP have not been strong funders of the ADF is during the Whitlam, & Rudd/Gillard years.  Furthermore the present government is not as bad as the writer makes out.

John Jones says:

09:15am | 21/02/12

@ MarkS - Strange how those that stck up for the Labor Party have to go back to the dim distant past to find anything good worth saying about them.  The modern ALP is a shadow of what it was and cannot be defended by bringing up the ghosts of past glories.

Max Power says:

09:30am | 21/02/12

Well if the quality of the Collins Class submarines are anything to go by, those centres of excellence, are far from excellent.

It wasn’t the Liberals who outsourced military equipment and clothing to China.

Direct says:

10:29am | 21/02/12

The Collins Class submarine was a victim of ideology. There is simply no point having non-nuclear powered submarines.

James1 says:

10:40am | 21/02/12

“Strange how those that stck up for the Labor Party have to go back to the dim distant past to find anything good worth saying about them.”

Nice backtracking attempt, John, but not good enough.  You originally said “always have and always will”.  That has been shown to be incorrect.  Be intellectually honest enough to admit you are wrong, and move on, rather than attempting to change your position.

I may not support the ALP (and agree with Mr Robert except on the White Paper - it was dead in the water when it was published), but I do support honesty.

MarkS, can you point out where Mr Robert has exaggerated?  As far as I am aware his figures are spot on, and the way he characterises the current government’s position is entirely accurate.

MarkS says:

12:20pm | 21/02/12

@James1
The ALP is playing silly buggers with the timing of the funding. The author admits this it without explaining why or making it clear that this of course affects the present % spend.

“Yet over the last three years Labour has pushed $14b worth of capital equipment acquisitions to the out years of the Defence Capability Program so they do not show up in the current budget estimates”

There are two main reasons, one is that some of the capital equipment is being delayed, in a least one major case, the F-35 because it simply will not be ready on time. The other is the ALP’s wish to fudge the books to create a false surplus in 2013.

Furthermore he has not mentioned good things that the ALP government has done. Among them and off the top of my head. The agreement with the US over a Marine base, review of the navy engineering capability & cancellation of some white elephants.

But note that I do not disagree with the main thrust of the article. Defence is not a priority of the Rudd/Gillard government. They think they can delay spending on defence until the mythical time that funding will be easy. Australia is awash in cash now, if they cannot fund it now they may never.

James1 says:

12:43pm | 21/02/12

Fair call Mark.  Put that way, I agree.

Max Power says:

02:35pm | 21/02/12

It is just a shame that the only times in Australia’s history where the ALP have overseen an increase in force size is because our country was at war. Every govt of every country involved in World War One and World War Two expanded the size of their military. Just like every govt of every country involved in World War One and World War Two scaled back the size of their military after the war.

To claim the expansion of Australia’s military during a time of war as proof of the ALP’s love of the ADF is farcical. The truth is, Labor have always presided over the degredation of our military. From World War One to current day, our troops have always been poorly equipped by Labor governments.

John the Zombie says:

08:28pm | 21/02/12

acotrel which govt just gave the a contract to a private UK owned company for provided meals for deployed troops. It was your lovely labor govt. Which govt wanted to outsource the making of the ADF akubra hat, let me help you. Your beloved labor govt. Which govt has gone about the privatisation of the ADF, you beloved Labor govt.

I can go on all day acotrel.

Direct says:

09:20am | 21/02/12

That’s a hefty furking fee.

Wynston Cruso says:

03:21pm | 21/02/12

Awesome, I now have that stuck in my head. Thanks gents, no sarcasm intended, really, thanks.

Have a shpadoinkle day.

Jane2 says:

09:30am | 21/02/12

However, many of the “legendary procurement stuff ups” are figments of popular folk law perpetrated by the media and bare little resemblance to reality.

SimonFromLakemba says:

10:01am | 21/02/12

So what are they meant to do? Leave women in the kitchen and sweep indiscretions under the carpet?

“No doubt this is all correct”

Well of course it is, it’s written by a Liberal, how could it not be! blind leading the blind really..

Direct says:

10:24am | 21/02/12

@AdamC, I’d love to hear your opinion on the Collins Class submarines.

AdamC says:

01:56pm | 21/02/12

Jane2, then they have a terrible image problem.

Simon, oh dear. No, I don’t think women should be left in the kitchen, nor do I think indiscretions should be swept under the carpet. However, they should not be disproportionately fixated-upon, either. The main concern of a defence minister should be the effectiveness of the ADF as a military organisation, not its role in promoting equality of the sexes or suitability for Maoist re-education.

Seriously, do you actually disagree with anything of this? You seem to be being argumentative just for the sake of it.

Direct, they certainly got some bad press for both cost and operational issues. The problem, for an outsider like me, is understanding what the Collins Class submarines were supposed to be used for. That and, as I think someone above pointed out, what is the point of diesel submarines, as opposed to nuclear-powered equivalents?

Brian says:

03:09pm | 21/02/12

Used defensively, diesel submarines are more effective than nuclear (you can’t shut down a nuclear reactor to be quiet, but you can run silent on batteries). The major benefit of a nuclear sub is range, particularly underwater range, which is essential for:
a) a long range, offensive submarine, and;
b) a nuclear missile sub, which has to stay hidden until ready for use.

We don’t need either type, and are better off with shorter ranged, cheaper and more effective (at their specific task) diesel subs to interdict any invasion force. Sure, they won’t help us turn China’s cities into an inferno of death or allow us to sink Russian ships in the North Sea, but neither of those are big objectives for the Australian military.

Interestingly, the Collins class subs have turned into quite capable units, although they had to go through a lot of effort to get there.

Rowdy says:

10:50am | 21/02/12

Agreed Erick…..and I bet no one cuts them off in traffic either….

SimonFromLakemba says:

11:26am | 21/02/12

Lol be a bugger to drive!

Mark G says:

01:29pm | 21/02/12

Uuuummm guys. Thats is really just a varient of the six wheel landrover modified for the Australian SF. Its a LAND ROVER. The thing that you are getting distracted by are the cool weapons. There is a 50 Cal and a 7.62mm MAG 58.

Erick says:

01:58pm | 21/02/12

@Mark G - Yes, I know it’s a modified six-wheeler. I’ve seen some, admittedly less spectacular, variants of these before.

But it’s still awesomely cool, and the mounted guns are a part of that. Along with the smoke dispensers and other goodies that can be seen here.

Nothing wrong with Land Rovers, or Landcruisers for that matter, if they’re suited for the job.

Wynston Cruso says:

03:29pm | 21/02/12

All the mums who take their kids to school in these would be horrified that they’re used in combat. Whoda thunk it.

St. Michael says:

04:59pm | 21/02/12

“We have been suckered and used every since the Japanese nation decided to take on the American and Australians for so ruthlessly, for over a decade, embargoing that island nation and denying it essentials such as rubber (synthetic rubber had not been invented then) and, in particular, oil.”

Your points on Vietnam, Korea, and Afghanistan have some merit, gidgee, but this one does not.

That is mostly because you missed out the crucial reason why the US embargoes were placed against Japan in the first place: because Japan had invaded Manchuria in the early 1930s and had massacred men, women, and children in pursuit of its imperialist ambitions on the mainland.  You also skipped the fact Australia had not put those embargoes up: “Pig Iron Bob” was still shipping minerals to Japan right before the Japanese launched their attacks on Singapore.

The Sino-Japanese conflict is a forgotten war within WW2, notwithstanding that it got started roughly 6-7 years prior to Hitler kicking off in Poland.  As an example of the brutality the Japanese visited on the Chinese, consider what the Japanese military did after finding out the Chinese helped downed US airmen following the Doolittle Raid: the Japanese murdered 250,000 Chinese civilians in retaliation.  Including the bombings of Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, there is not a single act of butchery intended solely at killing civilians that the Allies perpetrated against a civilian target.

And before you raise the tired old “imperialist” example of the US being in the Phillippines ahead of World War 2: the US was in there as, basically, a peacekeeper force.  Nothing more.  They gave the country back to its inhabitants in 1945.

The Japanese would not have done so to China - not given all of the materials we have now and the fanaticism that saw the Japanese army try to instigate a coup d’etat to stop the Emperor surrendering even after two atomic bombs had been dropped on Japan and Russia had entered the war against it.  Japan had to be stopped, and it cost hundreds of thousands of US and Australian lives to do it.  Don’t come in here with our “ruthless” embargoes.  The Japanese could have ended the embargoes at any stage by getting the hell out of China.  They chose not to.  Forcing them to wind back their imperial ambitions was a bloody, brutal exercise, but it was not a fight that we started, and it was a fight that had to take place.

marley says:

06:12pm | 21/02/12

@Gidgee - well, nice diatribe, but I see that facts aren’t your strong point.

Japanese invasion of Manchuria 1931.  Japanese invasion of China 1937.  American termination of trade treaty with Japan 1939.  American embargo on petroleum to Japan June 1941.  Now, anyone with even a vague grasp of timelines would realize that the Americans were responding to Japanese aggression.

As for Afghanistan, I’ve got no time for Karzai, but the Taliban have killed a lot more Afghans than the Americans have. And they’re loathed by anyone who’s not a Sunni or a Pashtun. But might makes right, and they will no doubt prevail.  And god help the Tajiks, the Uzbeks and the Hazara. 

Does it ever occur to you that the world is a little bit more complex than your simplistic black/white scenario?  That the Americans might be wrong, but that doesn’t make the Taliban or the Palestinians or the North Vietnamese or the Japanese right?