Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AussieNick Quote: |
What I meant that it would be more helpful for Australia to concentrate its military to help the US in one area.
| Mate, the US asked specifically for our SAS to go to Iraq. It was pretty much said that the US Army/Marines wouldn't go near Baghdad without the SAS going first... so yeah, it would have been really helpful if we'd stayed in Afghanistan wouldn't it.
Think of the work that the SASR do, and see if you can find another military group that can do those same tasks. |
Dear Member,
I have no doubt that the US asked for Aussie troops in Afghanistan. But the reasoning had more to do with politics. It is a lot like the Koran War when the French had their hands full in IndoChina and the US asked the French to send a regiment -- ie to show it was not just a US show. In fact when the US decided to go into Afghanistan the Secretary General of NATO wanted it also to be a NATO involvement and Rumsfeld and the JCS did not want that, not because the disrespected but because of the command and control and logistics, but Powell talked Bush into reversing that decision because of political decsions. I won't get into a p*ssing match about the Australian SASR and whether or not the US has units that can match them. It woud accomplish nothing.
But what I am trying to get across is that concentrating the Aussie military effort in Afghanistan (ie because they are geared more towards long range light infantry, Special Ops) would have been a more efficent use of forces. Basically like the British Royal Navy after 1942 left the Pacific War to the USN and concentrated in the Atlantic. Not till late 1944 did they return with their carriers and battleships to the Indian Ocean and then 1945 for the Pacific.
Jack E. Hammond