Comments on: Shaping Up To Fight

By: Robo

Robo — Sat, 30 Oct 2010 16:15:11 +0000

Aussie Yobbo – lay off the drugs mate – you’re off with the pixies….

By: Robert Miles

Robert Miles — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 04:59:35 +0000

The presentations to the Quigley review in the late l990s did foreshadow the Clark governments thinking in some ways, but the Quigley committee was as much a coup against the Shipley government and existing defence policy as an open forum. Certainly those who advocated a strike force and a sophisticated coastguard navy but didn’t see the Army as the core or really important were basically dismissed. The views of Quigley, Braybrooke and Mark dominated. Quigley himself was very hostile to sort of Project Protector like naval forces that have evolved and which I advovated. The view of the reports Quigley put out which reflected Act views was for a two frigate navy of Anzac frigates, one of which would be upgraded to Anzus capability with the upgrade some Australain Anzacs were built with and recieved. THe Navy would also get two ‘Canterbury style logistics vessels but Quigley against the views presented to the Committee and was actually very hostile to the essential requirement of Offshore Patrol vessels like the HMZS Otago and Wellington which have now been accepted in to the navy and will be future of the present navy in patrols in the Southern Ocean and north of NZ and Aus.

By: ghostwhowalksnz

ghostwhowalksnz — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 21:44:22 +0000

About time the Army artillery was assigned to the Territorials. Since the cold war ended western forces have cut back on ground air defence and armour ( which we dont really have) along with artillery. The separate forces for the ‘light’ artillery should be replaced with ‘heavy’ mortars integrated with the current infantry

By: Stuart Munro

Stuart Munro — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 07:36:04 +0000

Quigley’s report was a healthy breath of sanity in a field ruled by mysticisms like the ‘ANZUS relationship’ and a blue water navy – but even it was exploited in the Army’s LAV purchase campaign.

A closer military relationship with Australia is more likely to reflect their needs than ours, and there has to come a point at which the cost of maintaining interoperability is questioned.

The SAS for example, is substantially not needed by New Zealand – it is exclusively deployed abroad on missions for other nations. I should not like to have to argue that state mercenaries enjoyed any species of superiority to private ones…

By: Drakula

Drakula — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:37:35 +0000

China is now seen as the big bogeyman and I think that paranoid view is unfounded and fueled by religious bigotry.

One only has to look at the kind of leaders and regimes of China and Indonesia given that neither country is democratic or has a very good record for their human rights.

China is putting a lot of energy in it’s economic reforms and does have crackdowns on corruption however I don’t see Indonesia as having a culture that deals with it’s curruption issues. It’s ‘democracy’ seems to be a contest as to which bunch of gangsters are in power, Suharto’ cronies are still very influential with a government that claimed to be rid of him.

Unlike China Indonesia has done very little to address it’s population problem it now has over 200 million people that is the same as the USA, but the land mass of the two countries are very different.

Then there are the religious groups there,Indonesia is a very shakey unit and Australia needs to be very carefull.

By: Aussie Yobbo

Aussie Yobbo — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 15:38:59 +0000

Australia is of minimal strategic value to Indonesia. New Zealand more so- but NZ is far more favourably perceived than the cheating, lying racist nation of uppity convicts. Aoterua and the Maori, after all, are also (part) Austronesians and thus our racial and cultural brothers.
Australia is the greatest “nuisance threat” to Indonesian security due to its neo-colonial puppetry in the financial support and political harbouring of terrorists such as GAM in Aceh and OPM in Irian Jaya.
But such agit-prop is excellent for honing our COIN skills.
However, Indonesia is 100% safe as a Unitary Republik as Australia and other such neo-colonials vastly over-estimate their ability to manipulate these minuscule, quashable separatists and other minority interest groups. The military extends down to every tiny hamlet- there is not a whisper we do not hear or sleight of hand we do not see.
Australia will be punished in due course severely over their duplicity about Timor. Even Xanana Gusmao has signed sweeping Indonesian military protection treaties to prevent these duplicitous self-appointed sherrifs from colonizing them as they did and do to Papua New Guinea and the Pacific islands.
Indonesia looks North to its historic vassalage and allies.

Australia NEEDS Indonesia, not vice versa: 60% of all Australian imports are shipped through Indonesian waters.
A mere 3 month blockade will bring the convict colony to its knees. India, Russia and China will support us and the US and UK will make token protestations as they salivate over more lucrative mining rights.
We have more commandos than Australia has total combat personnel and a Bushido warrior ethic where our soldiers have prepared their souls to die as Indonesian heroes.
Every Indonesian is educated to never never forget Austrlia protecting the Dutch colonies from our Japanese liberators, ABDACOM, 1945-1948, 1951-1952, 1956-1957, 1963 and Timor.
When China or India start marching, Indonesia will not impede them. The Chinese remain far more, demonstrably, trustworthy.

By: George D

George D — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 04:18:01 +0000

Duncan Graham overstates Australia’s difficulties with Indonesia. Indonesian elites have no desire for any kind of conflict with Australia, and many are intimately connected. A good portion of the current cabinet have close links with Australia, including the foreign minister, a PhD graduate of the Australian National University. To the extent that there will be conflict, it is on issues where either country is seen to be seriously interfering in the affairs of the other. Governments would be remiss to let these issues develop, and even more so to let them explode.

Indonesia will become a major regional power. However, it has only just begun to look in any direction beyond its borders, and it remains committed to peaceful multilateralism.

New Zealand defence policy would be worse-off if it adopted even a low level of suspicion towards its largest near neighbour.

By: Werewolf on the Defence White Paper « The Standard

Werewolf on the Defence White Paper « The Standard — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 03:00:03 +0000

[...] Campbell has written in Werewolf an excellent pre-review about the Defense White Paper due for release in March. Needless to say whatever it returns with will be controversial because it [...]

By: Joe Wylie

Joe Wylie — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 18:41:40 +0000

If you’re going to use the excellent John Shakespeare’s distinctive artwork to enhance your article, wouldn’t acknowledging the author be the decent thing to do?

By: Duncan Graham

Duncan Graham — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 06:06:02 +0000

Another reason to go it alone is to avoid getting mixed up in Australia’s often turbulent and testy relationship with Indonesia – an issue not canvassed in this story. Indonesia is central to Australian defence planning. In 2008 Australia ratified the Lombok treaty with its nothern neighbour. This commits each nation to cooperate and consult in defence and defence technology along with a raft of other issues under the all-purpose rubrik of ‘security.’ It’s a treaty that has yet to be tested. When that time comes, and it all goes pear shaped, we need to be standing apart, not buying into the squabbles of others based on fears of threats from the north and a desire to play regional sheriff.