We're not cowards say Aussie troops

[Stuart Mackey]

Oh dear, not nice

We're not cowards say Aussie troops
5:00AM Wednesday May 28, 2008
By Greg Ansley
Australian troops salute a makeshift monument dedicated to their fallen comrades during an ANZAC day ceremony at the camp Armadillo in Afghanistan. Photo / Reuters


Australian infantry troops are ashamed and furious that they are being kept from combat and regarded as cowards by allied troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Army chief Lieutenant General Peter Leahy has confirmed that morale has been hit by operations that place special forces in combat roles but keep infantrymen in protection, support and policing roles.

The complaints were aired in the official Australian Army Journal by officers who questioned the future of foot soldiers kept at the rear despite world-class training and equipment.

In an article headlined "We were soldiers once", Major Jim Hammett said that in a period during which the infantry have been busier and deployed overseas more than at any time since the Vietnam war, frustration was growing.

He said angst was emerging from behind earlier silence because while the infantry had not been tasked with conducting offensive actions since Vietnam, special forces had been engaged in combat operations almost continuously since 2001.

"The logical deduction is that either the role of the infantry is now defunct, or that only special forces are considered capable of the role," Hammett said.

This was despite training that had pushed the Defence Force, and the infantry in particular, to a previously unseen level of readiness for combat.

"It could be argued that the infantry corps, in relation to war-fighting operations, is over-trained yet under-experienced."

Hammett said anecdotal evidence suggested that disillusionment was a major factor in the infantry's problems in keeping its soldiers.

In Afghanistan, where American, British and Canadian counterparts were aggressively used against the enemy, the restriction of Australian infantry to the protection of its reconstruction task force had drawn adverse comment and questions from the international media.

"The restrictions placed on deployed elements ... have at times made Australian infantrymen ashamed of wearing their Australian uniform and regimental hat badge," Hammett said.

He said that at the combat coalface, Canberra's claims to be a staunch ally of the US were dismissed as political rhetoric. While American, British and Canadian soldiers laid their lives on the line, Australian infantry appeared to do little more than act as interested spectators.

Despite mutual diplomatic accolades, Australia's contributions to both Iraq and Afghanistan had been derided and scorned by soldiers and officers of other nations more vigorously engaged in combat.

Australia's much-heralded deployment in the southern Iraq province of al Muthanna had been met with incredulity by British troops, who used the region for respite for soldiers taking a break from sustained fighting in Basra or Al Amarah.

"The initial caution of such a deployment is both prudent and understandable," Hammett said.

"[But] the ongoing inaction and lack of contribution to counter-insurgency and offensive operations has resulted in collective disdain and at times near-contempt by personnel from other contributing nations for the publicity-shrouded yet force-protected Australian troops.

"The restrictions and policies enforced on infantrymen in Iraq have resulted in the widespread perception that our army is plagued by institutional cowardice."

In another article in the same publication, Captain Greg Colton said there was a growing sense of frustration within the infantry that regular units were only receiving perceived second-rate operational taskings, while the Government and army hierarchy seemed to favour special forces for offensive operations.

While special forces were being stretched by back-to-back tours, infantry company and battalion commanders were missing an excellent opportunity to gain the operational experience needed as they moved into influential, higher command positions.

Leahy confirmed to ABC radio that infantrymen were unhappy that they were excluded from combat.

"I've travelled around on visits to our deployments," he said. "These are some of the views that I have got and I must say they are not ones I share entirely because what we've seen is the changing nature of war.

"This is no longer infantry wearing red jackets and white cross-straps, taking on the army of another king.

"What we're seeing now is that we're required to work in different populations to protect, to support and persuade ... "

[Stuart Mackey]

I have no doubts of Australians combat capability, or bravery, but I do doubt the bravery of any politician and that, I think, is what is at issue here, not the Aussie infantry.

[Stark]

This sort of thing wasn't unheard of even before the War on Terror; the ADF are professionals, and missing out on the combat roles they've trained their lives to conduct has been a downer for troops before. I've known people to change branches to those more likely to be deployed when a crisis comes up, so I think it'd really suck for them to get stuck with political grandstanding instead of useful combat roles.

[CaptainZoidberg]

That's kind of a selfish attitude if you ask me.

I mean, it's not like we start huge wars so we look tough and don't get called cowards - we start them because we feel that the strategic benefits outweigh the costs to the nation's people.

In this case, Australia made the (probably correct) decision that any benefit of putting troops in Iraq would not outweigh the cost in lives, national resources, and negative impacts of going into Iraq.

[Stark]

Um, they're in Iraq, just not places that really need it. They're in Afghan too, but apparently not in offensive roles. They've already been deployed, they're just being kept from the dangerous zones where they could help and use their training, apparently, and it's earning them a reputation among other allied forces.

Did you read the article?

[thejester]

The actual article can be found here.

He makes a fair point in that Australian battalions are suffering under ridiculous self-imposed restrictions; I think he's a bit naive in arguing that is the result of a lack of self-belief in the upper echelons on the Army and not as the result of politicians (particularly the Howard Government...it'lll be interesting to see how Rudd reacts) realising public support/tolerance for these wars may evaporate with a higher body count.

[CaptainZoidberg]

Um, they're in Iraq, just not places that really need it. They're in Afghan too, but apparently not in offensive roles. They've already been deployed, they're just being kept from the dangerous zones where they could help and use their training, apparently, and it's earning them a reputation among other allied forces.

Sorry about that error. I'll read more carefully next time, although that error doesn't really affect my point about national priorities. If they're not stationing troops in the danger zones, then the government has made a strategic decision about what Australia's best interests are and how they can best operate in Iraq. It's unreasonable for the military to expect their own desire to not get called cowards to trump the national interest.

Did you read the article?

Oh, okay, I must've misread that.

[Winston Blake]

If they're not stationing troops in the danger zones, then the government has made a strategic decision about what Australia's best interests are and how they can best operate in Iraq. It's unreasonable for the military to expect their own desire to not get called cowards to trump the national interest.

There are troops and there are troops. The special forces are very active in offensive roles. The article mentions back-to-back tours.

There seems to be a lot of emphasis on the SF - I recall Howard wanted to double the size of the SAS, but they said it was impossible without increasing the size of the army. IIRC the problem was that their training is as much about selection as it is about development.

[thejester]

Instead he converted a battalion of the RAR (4th, to be exact) into Commandos - and they're currently deployed in Afghanistan, but still in the force protection role.

[Lonestar]

I note that I never heard of Aussie troops being referred to cowards until we my ship visited Townsville, when a local referred to them an "Mangoes"("Green on the outside, Yellow on the inside").

[Resinence]

I bet the idiot bogan calling them that volunteers to get shot at and have rpg's launched at him all the time, clearly the soldiers should disobey their standing orders and go find someone to kill . I think it was a PR move to keep the general infantry on purely defensive roles, as someone in this thread mentioned; if a stream of bodies starts coming home then the support (which is already nonexistent) will turn from passive disagreement to anger.