Australian Military - Page 4




 
--
 
June 15th, 2005  
Bory
 
 
Any of you guys read Contact Air, Land & Sea. Beaut little mag.
It's Got an article in there about the AATT-I, there doing a really difficult job over there, and doing really well, good on'em. I hope they all return safely.
June 16th, 2005  
jackehammond
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieNick
Quote:
the budget is probably stretched to the breaking point with Australia supporting the US in Afghanistan and Iraq. Personally, I think the US would have been better to have said "Look we appreciate the offer, but a big help would be if you concentrated on Afghanistan."
I suppose that is totally overlooking the fact that the US command specifically requested that the Australian SAS and 4 RAR Commandos were the first soldiers into Iraq. LITERALLY THE FIRST. Weeks before the US even crossed the border, so don't talk to me about "we appreciate the offer" because we did things they wouldn't do ok.
Dear Member,

Unlike most Americans I do know about TF 64 in Afghanistan. What I meant that it would be more helpful for Australia to concentrate its military to help the US in one area. When the US took on invading Afghanistan it spread its Special Ops units thin. Having Australia put what it was sending to Iraq in Afghanistan would have been a better use of Australias forces.

Jack E. Hammond
June 16th, 2005  
ozmilman
 
Ummm, but Australia is an independent country and we decide where our troops are going. We're not, contrary to common belief, a part of America. I guess we decided that we had enough troops in Afghanistan so we committed troops to Iraq.

I think it would be a major insult if the US turned around and said 'we don't really need you here, go over there and do something else.' Ahh but what do i know, i'm not even in the military.

Rich
--
June 17th, 2005  
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.
June 18th, 2005  
jackehammond
 
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
June 18th, 2005  
AussieNick
 
READ MY POST AGAIN....

I said we were requested by the US to go to Iraq.... not Afghanistan. Iraq. You guys asked for us to do a particular job, because the SASR are the best suited to the task (eg long range desert patrols). Low and behold, the US forces are not always the superior at everything, so perhaps take your blinkers off and read my entire post before you say something.

By the way, world war 2 naval campaigns are not at all related to this issue, and Australia isn't part of NATO so that issue doens't come into what I'm talking about.


-Quick note to everyone else... I'm not having a go at the US or US forces, or claiming superiority, just stating my point-
June 18th, 2005  
ozmilman
 
THEREFORE, as Nick is trying to say - it WOULDN'T have been more helpful if Australia had concentrated its efforts on Afghanistan like JackEHammond is stating because we were NEEDED to do a specific job in Iraq. NEEDED by the Americans because we have specific training that they don't have. Having NO Australians in Iraq would have been a mistake, because we played some vital roles.

Rich.
June 20th, 2005  
Warwick
 
Besides the SAS, our Navy and Airforce have provided specialised services as well as the normal taskings any military can be expected to perform.
I believe in the first Gulf war our navy clearance divers out shone their French and US counterparts. So much so that they had to run an impromptue training regime to get the allies up to speed!
As an aside does anyone have info on how the French Foreign Legion went over there??????
June 20th, 2005  
ozmilman
 
Have a look at this! I'm thinking of joining the army and i looked at all the stuff in here. It's all a very VERY good read!


http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/career.../ArmyMain.html
June 30th, 2005  
raglan QA
 

Topic: US arrogance


in backing up both nz and oz as we have both sent troops over to iraq and afgainistan ,how many kiwis and aussies have died /been killed as a % of how many troops were deployed?
us also sent a written request for 1 NZSAS gp to send troops also as they are regarded as one of the best SF in the world as a tier 1 level unit only SASR ,22nd SAS and delta along with a few other elite units come under that heading .not even your beloved SEALs
our inf Bn and units are ranked above most of the US's units in international ranks (janes land forces review)
in nz our army has 6000 slots we currently fill 3700 whiles maintaining troops in afgainistan, sinai, solomans ,east timor, bosnia ,and many more totaling 27 active deployments could the US do that with under 4000 people?and with a tight budget?
and no we are not a peace keeping army any more !!!we are again a warfighting army
US arrogance annoys me for both nz and aust