Canberra's annual event for hot-rodders has attracted a vulture. The Australian army, keen to attract lovers of "extreme" life have targetted the event to turn "rev-heads" into "grunts."
For the first time the nineteen year history of the annual January Summernats event (here's the ad) everyone driving a car home can feel patriotism with every burn-out.
The Army's psychological tool, brainchild of the ADF's propaganda boffins, is called "Armygeddon". It's a converted Land-Rover that does everything that Herbie the Love-Bug can, promoting high adventure in the Humvees and Abrahams tanks. Below the fire licking from its headlights, the word "ARMY" is emblazoned on its bumper.
Head of Army, Lieutantant General Peter Leahy, spokesperson for Armygeddon, says that the 'Street Machine' is ".. an outstanding piece of machinery. Anyone can do a normal burnout, only this vehicle can do these in incredible combinations."
Who would have thought that joining the Army means that you get to drive "Street Machines" like this?
The only catch is that the car fanatics wouldn't ever get near the steering wheel unless they happen to be specifically trained experts. Even the company commissioned by the ADF to build the Armygeddon Street Machine found themselves moving into the background, as the vehicle needed ".. the skill of a trained operator to optimise it's performance" Lucky the Army had drivers who "demonstrated that they would be capable of an awesome display during the Summernats."
Lieutenant General Leahy says that the machine is designed to entice lovers of "extreme" life into the armed forces. "It's about working our image amongst that crowd, the young crowd, the adventurous people, those with technical skills"
I'm trying to think like a member of the ADF's target demographic....
"Wow.. the Army's really cool. I thought it was all cluster bombs, insurgents and thousands of dead people. Now you tell me you get to do tricks in cars. I'm in!!
No worries, mate.. give us a car like this and it'll be just like a Clint Eastwood movie. If we find ourselves invading a village of hostile natives that want to kill us, we'll be able to whack the Land-Rover up on wheel and do a "doughnut". Then we'll p*ss off back to the barbie and have a laugh about it. It was good fun, in Armygeddon."
The streets of Canberra's suburbs are going to be interesting for a few days afterwards. Every kid doing a "burn-out" will be considered justified in their practice of military training.. you'll be able to smell the testosterone way beyond the NSW border.
I cannot understand the thinking in this project. If the name is only a Freudian slip, then those who proposed and approved the the promotion of the name of the final battle-site of Christianity should be resitting psychological exams. At any rate, it's not great timing to call anything a name resembling Armageddon in the lead-up months to June 6, 2006.
I'm thinking of a fantastic radio ad the army could use. "Which Australian city will see Armygeddon on 6/6/6?" Too tacky, you say? On the tackiness front, after the Army's Canberra Recruitment Drive, anything is now possible.
Two Wrongs Make It OK?
Russell Edwards does “…the fact that hundreds of thousands of Jews were forcibly ejected from their homes in Arab countries…” justify Israeli occupation of lands that do not belong to them? Two wrongs do not… etc.
Some References about War and Occupation
I direct Webdiarists attention to two sites of interest. The first is regarding the legality of the war against Iraq.
The second is an important Jewish site that advocates peace and an end to the occupation of Palestine.
Lataan at it again
, could you please explain to the same Webdiarists what exactly is "important" about the Jewish web site that advocates an end to the "occupation of Palestine"? Could you also tell us which country you are referring to as "Palestine"? Does this include the part of the British mandate that was cleaved off into Transjordan? Maybe you could also explain why the Palestinian fascists will no live Jews in their midst. Is this not fascism at its worst? Judenrein?
Damian, are you also concerned as I am about the fact that hundreds of thousands of Jews were forcibly ejected from their homes in Arab countries and have never been compensated for this? Does this Arab occupation of Jewish homes concern you at all? If not, why not?
I am always suspicious when people rant on endlessly about what is presumably a universal ethic that is curiously limited in its application when Jews are the victims rather than the perceived antagonists.Bush, Blair and Howard - War Criminals.
Justin Wilshaw, since the reasons given for the invasion and occupation of Iraq were based on deliberate lies, the war is illegal, not to mention immoral. ALL targets, therefore, were illegitimate – not just civilian – and regardless of whether or not the civilian targeting was deliberate or otherwise. Any deliberate civilian targeting merely compounds the crime.
Bush, Blair and Howard are war criminals. While a court may not ever get around to judging them so – history most certainly will.
In the unlikely event
In the unlikely event that it ever gets to court, I don't think Goldsmith's chain of UNSC resolutions would hold up very long.
There are lots of arguments. Here are From Word Play to Gun Play and Was the US and British invasion of Iraq in conformity with international law? (PDF).
I suspect that a big problem would be a legal principle I have come across in a few legal judgements. It probably has a Latin name (anyone?). The principle is that deprivation of liberty requires explicit and unambiguous language in the statute (or, in this case, UNSC resolutions). I'd say that claiming UNSC authorisation would make the principle relevant. "All necessary means" is probably explicit enough. "Serious consequences" is lesser, and probably not. But the chain of resolutions is to long and tenuous to constitute explicit and unambiguous language.
Occupation
Mark, further to the issue of the invasion there is the matter of other crimes associated with the conduct of the war and the occupation.
Just some of the issues.
Shock and Awe
Bob, shock and awe would only be in breach of the charter if it could be showed that the US forces attacked non-military targets in Baghdad. Targets that served no military purpose.
Bob, power stations, telecommunications facilities, anti aircraft sites, military headquarters are legitimate targets. These are what was attacked during shock and awe. There has been no evidence or assertions even that the American Military deliberately attacked civilian targets during that, or any other phase of the campaign.
Pleae direct me somewhere, anywhere Bob were it shows coalition aircraft were DIRECTED and DELIBERATELY attacked civilian targets.
Shock and awe
Justin, I supplied you with a legal opinion which made the claim you reject. The claim was based on the Nurembeg Charter. It made no mention of deliberately attacking civillians but rather "..wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity...". Perhaps you could address that point and include substantiation in your response.
Also, you refer to "power stations, telecommunications facilities, anti aircraft sites, military headquarters are legitimate targets." I have posted links to sites on which can be found the various legal instruments that govern these things. You could refer to those to prove your claim. Citing the evidence you use there as well.
"wanton destruction"
"..wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity...".
Bob, please provide evidence that the coalition deliberately targeted any of the above.
I maintain that Shock and Awe was directed at facilities which had a military purpose, or were used to supply the military of Iraq. This made them legitimate targets.
Bob, I am not making any accusations I don't need to prove anything. You are the ones making the accusations. You prove it.
Thats the way law works Bob. Putiing up legal opinions does nothing. They're just opinions Bob. Just like arseholes, everyones got one.
Proof Bob, thats something else. Something you lack.
Perhaps you could post up the target package for Shock and Awe?
Plenty of Evidence
Can you imagine the outcry if our enemies bombed and shutdown hospitals to prevent reporting of civilian casualties? These are war crimes by any reasonable assessment.
The absence of charges merely indicates the realpolitik of war. War crimes are only ever committed by the enemy.
Wanton destruction
Justin, try understanding the term "wanton destruction..." Try understanding what the expression "Shock and Awe" means. Try reading the material I linked to on matters of international law.
"I maintain that Shock and Awe was directed at facilities which had a military purpose, or were used to supply the military of Iraq. This made them legitimate targets.
"Bob, I am not making any accusations I don't need to prove anything."
First, you are claiming something. Second, see above re "Shock and Awe".
For someone who has been making claims such as re 1967 that were palpably wrong your resort to demands for evidence are a bit rich.
Evidence there has been aplenty, yet people seem to forget all about it.
As to legal opinions, you did not mind proffering your infamous one a long while ago. One that I proved was based on erroneous assumptions and was thus useless.
I note you are concentrating on just one claim made in the legal opinion I posted. There are lots of others - read the linked material and you might just see.
Re: Umpire
Bob Wall says, "Lord Goldsmith? Has been a great deal of controversy over his views has there not?"
There has indeed. It's a controversial issue. There's controversy over nearly everyone's views. I put forward his view so that the Webdiary discussion doesn't get too "selective." Let's hear all sides of the argument, shall we?
"Speaking of opinions, what did the secretary-general of the UN have to say on the matter?"
Are you asking rhetorically, Bob, or do you really want to know? I'll assume the latter.
UN S-G Kofi Annan stated on September 16, 2004 that the Iraq War was "illegal" saying, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."
Umpires continued
I don't think anyone is questioning the content of international law as embodied in such documents as the UN Charter. The question is: has the legality of the COTW's action in Iraq been tested by a legal arbiter with the jurisdiction to hear and decide the question on its legal merits under that body of law? The answer so far is (as far as I know): no. There certainly is a wide spectrum of opinion on the matter.
The legal argument for the invasion was put forth by UK Attorney General Goldsmith, who said in mid-March 2003 that UNSC
Resolution 678 authorised the use of force against Iraq. UNSC Resolution 687 had also required Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction, and Goldsmith argued that a material breach of Res. 687 would revive authorisation to use force under Res. 678. UNSC Res. 1441 declared Iraq was in material breach of Res. 687 because it had not disarmed completely.
Umpire
Will Howard, Lord Goldsmith? Has been a great deal of controversy over his views has there not?
Speaking of opinions, what did the secretary-general of the UN have to say on the matter?
ADF Recruitment Audit
Here's the 2002-2003 figures for recruitment advertising and market research. Nice to see KBR in there, however small a player they might be (nine thousand out of twenty-five million). As they're listed for market research for civilians, I wonder what service they provided could be worth so little. Perhaps a concept?
The big one is Starcom (worldwide) Australia, who, I notice when skimming around google, seem to have a large lion's share of recruitment work in many departments. I'm having trouble finding out who they are. Can anybody help? Maybe they're related to US broadband corpStarpower, who's Washington envoy is the former ADF Head of Personnel?
At any rate, you get the impression from todays's ABC story that recruitment requirements are about to become a little more lenient.
ABC Radio's The World Today has just broadcast a synopsis of ADF recruitment... I'll bring back the transcript when it's up.
International law
For those who have no argument but resort to abuse, who ignore suggestions to do some research and render:
'My suggestion is that you review my posts follow the clues and do further research. Let me know when you work it out.' as "I have read all your posts."
Here are some places to do research:
UN Documents
There is much more.
Eisil.org
Hours of informative reading.
Iraq War Umpire?
One potential "umpire" in the "Iraq War Legal v. illegal" debate would be the
International Criminal Court, but neither the US nor Iraq have ever ratified the treaty creating it. Other members of the COTW (UK, Spain, Australia) are signatories, so I suppose there's some potential there. Last May some antiwar groups in the UK made a submission to the ICC contending the UK gov't had violated international law in participating in the US-led invasion. I don't know the current status of this submission, whether the ICC has agreed to hear it, etc.
Another potential umpire would be the International Court of Justice. The ICC does not appear to have ruled on or received any submissions regarding the legality of the invasion of Iraq.
Pay
Thank you, Dave.
Having looked properly at the figures, I now realise the police are slightly better off than I thought - in SA a constable in his/her first year of service gets $40,641 and a cadet $35,000.
In public hospitals in SA from 1/10/05 an enrolled nursing cadet under 21 gets $25,411 and $29,547 over 21. A 3rd or 4th year nursing student gets $33,354 and a level 1 EN $35,107. I can't find the figures right now but I believe pay rates in aged care are slightly worse.
I'm not sure how the training works in the ADF. I guess the friend who told me his 18 year old son was getting "$40,000" in the army was including the $9,548 pa service allowance.
Iraq War Illegal?
It seems to me the legality or illegality of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam Hussein is still something of an open question. In particular, there remains the question of whether Saddam was in violation of UN prohibitions against WMD programs. The legality of the invasion has not yet been tested in any international courts, though as many posters have pointed out, politics may well keep that from ever happening. The problem is that the "umpire" has not really spoken (and may never do so).
In Iraq Survey Group head David Kay's US Senate testimony he stated "Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of [UN Security Council] Resolution 1441" and "the work of the Iraq Survey Group has shown that Saddam Hussein had WMD intentions, had WMD programs that did survive, and did outwit for 12 years the United Nations Security Council and the resolutions [...] in large measure." However, Kay believed that "the effort that has been directed to this point has been sufficiently intense that it is highly unlikely that there were large stockpiles of deployed militarized chemical and biological weapons there."
The Iraq Survey Group report is available. Though it is a CIA report, remember their more realistic pre-war intel was what was ignored, hyped, spun, etc. by the Bush Administration in the lead-up to the invasion.
Peace and calm
I need to clarify that in my last hasty post I did not intend to denigrate members of our armed forces who, having sworn to serve their country, do only what they are ordered to do. The madness I had in mind was our collective madness in putting them in that position. (Though we could have another discussion about what war does for combatants’ mental health.)
I acknowledge that the ADF is itself involved in some humanitarian aid work, as has been pointed out, and because of their organisational efficiency I imagine it is done very well. I will also acknowledge that, from what little I have seen, the Australian Army appears to conduct itself in occupation in a somewhat more culturally sensitive manner than the US Army.
However it is still madness to have them involved in medical treatment and evacuations and infrastructure reconstruction in one part of the world, whilst bringing death and destruction to another.
Among other things, Justin expresses concern (in a roundabout way) for my personal safety and freedom. But I am far from convinced that all that the ADF do is actually needed to preserve them. How much defence work is preparation upon preparation for events of extremely small likelihood? How much do ADF activities actually increase risk? I am not alone in believing we are at greater risk of terrorist attack since we have been involved in Iraq. How much of our security is actually due to thousands of good relationships between individuals across borders, of cultural and sporting exchanges, of collaborative scientific research etc which have nothing to do with the ADF? I believe it is the greater part.
The ADF are not alone on their rates of pay so I don’t think they need special sympathy in that regard. Their base rates are similar to those of nurses and police, who also number in their thousands, and also serve the public, sometimes in dangerous situations. Possibly the service I am most likely to need in the near future are the CFS – who get nothing at all for the time they spend defending us from bushfires.
I’m calmer now too. But I still think that with the challenges which face this world at present all nations can do a lot better than spend so much on defence. Employ our defenders, yes, but engage them in humanitarian efforts and environmental remediation rather than most of their current activities. Better to start now rather than wait until we are forced to by the environment.
Pay
"The ADF are not alone on their rates of pay so I don’t think they need special sympathy in that regard. Their base rates are similar to those of nurses and police, who also number in their thousands, and also serve the public, sometimes in dangerous situations."
Base pay rates for unranked members:
NSWFB Firefighter level 1: $43766pa
NSW Police prob constable: "around" $45000pa
"Starting" Teacher NSW: $46234
Enrolled Nurse (emergency dept, ad on Healthjobs): $37339
Army Private: $32799pa
No Justice for Justin
Justin... " it was the "mad" people who get paid $30 000 a f&4*ing year to step in front of bullets and go to the ravaged parts of the world"
First of all, I would have thought that they were trained to do anything but step out in front of bullets.
Seriously Justin, you're telling us that military personnel on active duty get paid less than $600 a week.
Now that you've had a moment to calm down and think about it, would you care to try again?
I wasn't far off
That so many have died in the past defending our country says that whilst they may not deliberately step in front of bullets, the critters have a way of finding you.
Most of these guys don't do it for the cash though, do they?
I have calmed down though. I can handle criticism of the government. But criticising our troops when they are following legitimate orders of a democratically elected government is bullshit. Criticise the government all you want. But don't criticise the chap putting his life on the line for us.
Robyn,
Robyn, why dont you jump in a bloody time capsule and go back seven years to East Timor. Chances are you would have been raped or murdered within one day of setting foot in that country by the roving thugs and militia.
ed Hamish: you do mean the Indonesian military don't you?
Who restored peace to that country Robyn, you and your pathetic olive branch friends?
What about the airman aboard the Sea King chopper who died on their way home providing releif to Tsunami victims? Where were you at that time Robyn?
No it was the "mad" people who get paid $30,000 a F&$*ing year to step in front of bullets and go to the ravaged parts of the world. They do it so you can have the freedom to type this crap into a keyboard. Go off to North Korea, and try typing what you type here. You would be tracked down and shot.
Hundreds of thousands of Australians have died for this freedom you enjoy and you have the gall to call them "mad".
Bloody disgraceful.
What did they die for?
I am sure that the vast majority of the Australians who have died in the service of their country fought to uphold the truths embodied above. It would sicken them greatly to have lived to see thier country's leaders choose to unleash the dogs of war and thereby become "responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan".
I, for one, am absolutely disgusted by the rank cowardice of those Australians who would allow the executive government and secret police to snatch citizens from the streets without charge or trial and in total secrecy for an illusion of security when threatened by a rag-tag band of isolated loons who have killed fewer of us than the December road toll. Can you imagine how those who fought the Nazis would feel to see hard-won freedom being abandoned by gutless cowards at the first sign of fright?
Your Point?
Michael, I dont understand your point.
Please direct me to the appropriate court where a member of the Australian Government, the Australian Government, or a member of our armed forces has been in the last 10 years found guilty or frankly even charged with one of the crimes listed above.
This is the same discussion I have had with Bob in the past. If it's all so illegal... where are the charges?
ROTFLOL
Justin, get real.
The very same people who have planned, prepared, initiated and waged a war of aggression in Iraq are the only ones capable of bringing appropriate charges to court.
Had Germany won WWII do you think the Nazis would have been charged with war crimes? Would the absence of charges have made them any less guilty of crimes against humanity?
Stop it. My ribs hurt from laughing.
So when you stop laughing,
So when you stop laughing, you admit that their has been no case, and as such your post is really irrelevent.
Do you have any proof to back your claims that Australians have committed war crimes?
You have a point of view that the war is unjust and illegal. I have a different point of view. The onus is not on me to prove legality. The onus is on you to prove it's illegal. It's the way most of our justice systems work FYI.
War of aggression
War of aggression
Justin, you have been free in passing opinion on the quality of other 'Diarists posts yet you now take recourse in what is one of the COW apologists' most pathetic defences.
Let me repeat something I have posted previously:
There is no need for a court case to determine the illegality of the invasion of Iraq. The umpire has spoken.
The matter of charges being laid is mired in international politics but the fact of their crimes is established under international law and the UN Charter. If you throw in the Geneva Conventions you can also find other breaches committed in relation to the occupation of Iraq.
Who is the umpire Bob?
Who is the umpire Bob?
Craig R Ed: I would say that each individual reader is the umpire, Justin.
Therefore if each individual
Therefore if each individual reader is the umpire and people across the world thought this was a gross violation of law. A war of agression, the like never before seen...
They would have thrown out the government of Australia.
Nope. Elected with an increased majority.
They would have thrown George Bush out.
Nope. Elected by an increased margin.
They would have thrown out Tony Blair.
Nope.
Looks like the umpire did speak.
Don't know
Justin, I'll take that to mean that you don''t know the answer.
My suggestion is that you review my posts follow the clues and do further research. Let me know when you work it out.
Bob,
Bob, I've been over the legality of the Iraq war a hundred times with you. I have read all your posts.
Frankly Bob. I'm over it. I don't really care as to your opinion. You're like debating with a brick wall. Information that you don't like you simply ignore, or claim it's wrong. Without ever pointing out why it's wrong.
The Iraq war happened. No charges have been laid. The greenies don't like it.
The simple fact is Bob your kind aren't in power in this country. It is not likely to change soon. I'm happy with this. You are not. Again I don't care.
You, and only you, can keep contributing to "irises". Nobody else does. Nobody else even reads it I think. Let's rename it to the "Bob" thread. Then you can continue to carry on about the legality of the Iraq war all on your lonesome.
ed Hamish: both of you, Jay and Bob, have proclaimed that you are over this debate, yet you each keep wading in once more. Both of you, a long time ago, should have 'agreed to disagree', or just carried out your promises to ignore each other. Here it is: Bob thinks the war was/is illegal. Jay doesn't. What's infuriating for this third party is that neither side is self-evident yet both treat it, arrogantly and condescendingly, as if their side is self-evident. In this respect I am bored with both sides. The arguments are all there for another reader to decide for themselves. Over. Please, a) new material only, and b) stop addressing one another Jay and Bob.
Forgotten?
Army recruitment
One more point.
Maybe the Army's recruitment problems should be taken as an indication that people have lost the taste for such madness.
Crap!
Malcolm, I was not advocating the biggest army, I am advocating the best trained and equiped.
Our Army (particulary our special forces) are already the envy of many other nations. They are already marvelously equiped.
Our training standards are second to none, and with the upgrades coming through our equipment will match our soldiers ability.
I never said we need 4,000 tanks. We don't. We need to ensure our 70,000 man defence force has the best equipment available to allow them to do the job we ask of them.
Hamish, we are not getting another tank battalion. The M1A1's are replacing the Leopard 1's that are already in service. There is a requirement, and an allocation within the budget for an additional infantry battalion of 1,500 troops.
It will also be quite difficult to supply our M1s as part of a front line US force. Our M1's will not have Chobham armour, will carry a 105mm cannon vs the 120mm of the US's tanks (making resupply difficult).
So what would you do?
The ADF
Malcolm and Gareth, it's my view that since WWII, and especially the Kokoda experience, the ADF has been largely constructed to defend Australia, given the resources we have. Malcolm is right that we are best at deploying small specialist forces and that's what our imperial masters have generally used us for (the Gallipoli disaster the most notable exception), and still do in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Meanwhile, these are the same skills it would take to resist an invader, if such a situation ever arose, so it makes sense to maintain them as Australia's military tradition and culture.
Australia, in this view, is as unconquerable as it is undefendable, for about the same reasons. The weakness is immediately supply, for either side of a battle for this country, and the best defence is a guerilla defence, with small, light, mobile and versatile forces. The Bush Tucker Man was a popular indication of the sorts of investments the ADF were making in this regard, and in my view this was very wise, if the objective was actually covering contingencies of defending Australia.
Making a new tank battalion, on the other hand, has f*** all to do with defending Australia, and everything to do with supplying a battalion to a United States front-line force.
Another classic from
Another classic from Justin Wilshaw:
Well, welcome Justin Wilshaw to the real world. We have the largest emptiest landmass with the longest coastline on the planet. We also have a very small popultation. We cannot afford to have the best equipped and trained army. We simply do not have enough money and never did. That is not to detract from the dedication and skill of our groundtroops.
When it comes to dills like General Leahey (and I've met and spoken to him) we depart from soldiering and enter the realm of yet another toadying public servant. It was the influence that was destroying the Army in my day and it has finally done the job.
We are capable of deploying very small units in very specialised roles. We do not have the capacity to wage war. The fact is that the grip of the General staff on logistics is so poor that Cosgrove was lucky not to lose the whole deployment in Timor.
Add to that the perennial problem of recruiting and retaining personell (that's when we are not dropping them out of the sky because someone didn't replace the right widget) and you enter the real world.
The Australian defence force is an expensive way of making the voters feel safe. If you wanted to equip it properly, Justin Wilshaw, you'd send the whole place broke in a week.
Army
Malcolm Duncan, so you have met a General Leahey who you say is a toadying public servant. Well I haven't met a General Leahey and I can't find a record for one in Google.
Perhaps you were thinking of someone else but didn't know him well enough to spell his name correctly.
As for this whole thing about ARMYGEDDON, surely people using it to make a point are taking themselves too seriously.
Defence spending
Justin, the countries we have given tsunami relief money to would indeed have more money to spend on fixing their own back yards if they lowered their defence spending. If I thought it would do any good I would send the letters you suggest. But the response I am most likely to get (after none at all) would be something along the lines of "Every country will always field a defence force. We have a responsibility to ensure that ours is the best equiped and trained. They protect our freedom after all."
Humanity is capable of much better choices than keeping up with the Generals Jones. True, there would be risks involved if we were to choose to focus more on humanitarian aid and less on defence, but unless someone is willing to take such risks and lead by example, it is hard to see how the gridlock of defence spending will ever be eased or how extreme poverty will ever be overcome.
Globally, true security will only be achieved when economic disparity is much less than we have now.
But maybe the ecological disasters we are heading for will help us all to concentrate on what is really important.
Ah Robyn
Ah Robyn, so there we have it. You just don't want money spent on the army.
Well, welcome Robyn to the real world. Armies have been needed and have existed since before Christ. Every country will always field a defence force. We have a responsibility to ensure that ours is the best equiped and trained. They protect our freedom after all.
We actually rank 16th in Asia for defence spending (as % of GDP), behind (and this quite ironic) Indonesia, Thailand, India and a host of others.
See, these are the countries that we donated the $1 billion to. Perhaps instead of winging here send a little letter to these coutries and get them to lower their defence spending. Then they would have more money to spend fixing their own backyards.
Oh, and Robyn, my point was you don't need to "just do" the $17 million, when you have already "just done" a BILLION.
Securing security
It is not the amount spent on the “car” that is obscene, Justin. What is obscene is that we choose to spend money on such things as this bizarre piece of ecologically damaging machinery which serves little useful purpose - while people starve. I actually object to a lot more of the $1.5 billion committed in the Defence Update.
If the $17 million extra needed annually for the UN Central Emergency Response Fund is seen as such a trifling amount, why haven't we just done it?!
The $1billion aid package for tsunami relief is certainly a significant contribution, even though some of it will return to Australia through the companies contracted to do reconstruction, rather than stay to circulate in local economies. My point is really that we gain more in security through $1 billion spent in this way because of the goodwill gained in the region than if we spent the same billion on the ADF.
Robyn...
"I actually object to a lot more of the $1.5 billion committed in the Defence Update."
So did the Democrats. Until they realised in the 90s that the result was soldiers with falling-apart boots, crap rations, 1 PC between 3 staff (running Win3.1), and below-average salaries.
A massive amount of defence spending doesn't go on tanks and baby-killing, you know. There's over 50,000 employees to be looked after - Aussies like you and me - who deserve to have their employment as well-funded as any public servant.
Army apprenticeships
Dave: "...Aussies like you and me - who deserve to have their employment as well-funded as any public servant."
Yep, and I don't mind pointing out something I have learned over drinks with a number of military people I've known, and a major source of ongoing bitterness in the armed forces against the ALP. Apparently, while the Hawke government was spending money on training and employment (which I thoroughly supported and Howard promptly scrapped), one of their cuts to Defence was to all but dismember the army apprenticeship scheme. I just don't understand this. There was no chance Howard would reintroduce the scheme, but all the same it is one of the dumbest and anti-labour things Hawkey did, hypocritical to boot.
Surely, if we're going to recruit people into the army, we want to make sure training for life afterwards is part of the deal. Might even have filled some of the skills shortage.
A plague on both their bloody houses.
Robyn
Robyn, this little nation of 20 million has just committed $1 BILLION in regional assistance with Tsunami disaster, and your quibling over an extra $17 million!
OXFAM needs an extra $17 million from us. We have given more than that PER DAY in the last twelve months to Thailand, Indonesia, Bali, Pakistan, Sri Lanka.
And you're complaining about the "obscene" amount of money we have spent on a ... car?
ROFLOL
Armygettin' - Good Value?
All part of the Defence Update which means $1.5 billion more for the Army over the next 10 years, I guess.
It's always good to think about what else could be achieved with the money we are spending, I think - it's "opportunity costs" in Economese, isn't it?
One thing which comes to mind is that (unless I've missed the announcement) Australia is yet to commit to the new UN Central Emergency Response Fund. See Oxfam Briefing Note (.pdf). This fund will allow more rapid intervention in humanitarian emergencies, preventing much suffering and death, especially in crises that do not gain high media profile eg. this year's food crisis in Niger. Australia's calculated "fair share" of the additional US$1 billion aid funding required for this fund is US$17.7 million annually.
In my opinion, Australia currently under-estimates greatly the security value in being a good global citizen. In this context “Armygeddon” seems obscene.
Will Armygeddon actually attract soldiers?
Will Armygeddon actually attract recruits suited to critical trade jobs? That's what it has to be aimed at. The ADF, Army and Navy services in particular, have faced challenging times during a period where the generalised skill shortage makes finding suitable recruits a very hard task.
Add to the recruitment challenge the constant bleed of critical trade qualified NCOs, which is killing not just Army, but Navy too. Continuing recruitment shortfalls on critical trade targets combined with a retention problem that has yet to be successfully addressed could see the Navy unable to do much not too far over the horizon. A Commander once commented to me that if things don't change we'll have no Navy before too long.
Problem is our youth are too stoned and fat, at least according to the Herald Sun. They're not totally wrong. I've had a long conversation with a RAAF Officer about that very issue in days gone by, and seen the kids who couldn't cut it at Kapooka or Cerberus for that matter.
So do events like Summernats attract those with a technical trade qualification (or apptitude) who are fit, healthy, drug free and willing to take to the profession of arms or fat stoned hoons?
Even if those that race to recruiting centres are fat stoners the upside is, since Defence recruiting was outsourced, that the ADF pays a lower fixed cost of recruitment component with more of the cost base turned variable with the contractors fee structure. Plus the contractor may be able to channel the fat stoners elsewhere into work when they fail the ADF's recruitment hurdles. More of an upside if it turns out the contractor has made the kind of contribution to the cost of Armygeddon and its appearance at events like Summernats that it should.
By the way Richard, a good piece in that it prompts thought about the ADF's recruitment and retention issue (which isn't talked about publicly perhaps as much as it should be), but I'm certain Army Psych would have had nothing to do with the Armygeddon concept.
it's to be expected
Is nothing sacred in this country? Even our armed forces, the one lot us old lefties can be proud of have sucumbed to more US style spin with little substance. This is not only a waste of money it's simply a very very bad PR exercise. Better off spending it on the actual recruits themselves.