There's also this, in which the Aussies played the key role.
There's also this, in which the Aussies played the key role.
Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.
Hat tip to the Lowry Institute, an Australian think tank, for highlighting an ADF report, issued by the land Warfare Studies Centre:http://www.army.gov.au/lwsc/SP321.asp
The commentary opens with:Link to the comments by the Lowry:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/...my-report.aspxColonel Peter Connolly's account of his time in command of the ADF's Second Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force in Uruzgan between May and December 2009. 'Counterinsurgency in Uruzgan 2009' reads a lot like an edited post-operation report and its great to see an Australian Army officer writing about his combat experience for a public audience.
(For JMA in particular)...a lack of equipment for pre-deployment training in Australia and meant that his battlegroup never had the opportunity to train together in one location before deploying to Afghanistan.
(Last paragraph) Connolly also concludes that 'it would be very useful to have a strategy from Canberra to synchronise and prioritise whole-of-government efforts in nation building effects, but no such strategy is apparent at this stage'. There seems to be increasing concern within the ADF about the lack of strategic direction from government as to what troops should be doing in Afghanistan.....
About to read the report.
davidbfpo
David, within the context of this thread it should be noted that the writer of the link provided is at odds with the first post and still sells the line that the Aussies are naturals at counter-insurgency. It took two years to package that report and quite frankly I think it is no more than a propaganda piece.
Just as in the Brit experience in Afghanistan there is nothing to be learned from anything that has been officially published. Sadly it takes outsiders (journalists) and ex-servicemen to provide the truth of what is going on on the ground.
You picked up an important aspect about pre-deployment training. So if this pre-deployment training was limited by equipment shortages then it would naturally follow that the troops deployed without being fully prepared, yes?
...and these same under prepared (by their own admission) and probably inexperienced troops are then used to 'mentor' the ANA. Something is not right here.
Taken from a longer article on the Australian-US alliance. Link:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/...Australia.aspxAfghanistan is also a thorny issue. Public opinion is turning against Australia's continued involvement, especially after a number of tragic recent incidents. A poll earlier this month, conducted after three Australian diggers were killed, suggested 72% thought it was time for Australia to withdraw. Back in May, the figure was 40%.
davidbfpo
Bookmarks