Australia: catch all

[SWJED]

26 July The Australian - AFP to Form Paramilitary Wing by Mark Dodd.

The Australian Federal Police will form a 1200-strong paramilitary-style International Deployment Group to be equipped with the latest weaponry including armoured personnel carriers.

Tenders are now being called for the vehicles designed to provide maximum protection for the specialised police unit, which will be capable of being deployed alongside the army on peacekeeping operations.

The force is expected to be at full strength next year, AFP officers told a Senate inquiry yesterday. The IDG will be equipped with a formidable arsenal and structured along similar lines to the crack Portuguese National Republican Guard with which the AFP has worked closely in East Timor, said Commander Steve Lancaster.

Both the AFP and the Australian Defence Force are having to adapt more frequently to non-traditional missions, whether in Afghanistan or the immediate neighbourhood, an area dubbed the "arc of instability".

The government-backed Australian Strategic Policy Institute recently released a report saying Defence was becoming increasingly involved in non-war fighting roles such as civil border protection, while police and public servants were in the front line of security in areas as diverse as Baghdad and Bougainville.

Mr Lancaster told the inquiry this meant the IDG would be equipped to deal with a wide range of security challenges and would need to be able to dispense lethal and non-lethal force to restore order in hot spots such as the Solomons and East Timor...

[Rob Thornton]

Can we get some more info on this one? Who are our folks from down under?

Mr Lancaster told the inquiry this meant the IDG would be equipped to deal with a wide range of security challenges and would need to be able to dispense lethal and non-lethal force to restore order in hot spots such as the Solomons and East Timor

I think we can say the Aussies understand the 21st COE and are organizing to meet it. So, how is it a state with a considerably smaller budget can/would do it and we ..................?

[Steve Blair]

Originally Posted by Rob Thornton

Can we get some more info on this one? Who are our folks from down under?



I think we can say the Aussies understand the 21st COE and are organizing to meet it. So, how is it a state with a considerably smaller budget can/would do it and we ..................?

Because since the end of World War II the major services have remained focused on large-scale conventional warfare. They do look at other things, but that was always the main focus. That focus has allowed (to a degree) smaller countries to specialize a bit more in Small Wars than we have. When they could rely on the large military maintained by the US, it's easier to branch out and undertake more specialized missions. Also, it tends to be easier to effect rapid change in a smaller organization.

Also, most nations have a rather different LE structure. Note that this is part of the AFP, not necessarily their military. In the US that would be something similar to either a US Marshals' task force or some sort of special FBI unit. LE working with the military in many countries is considered nothing unusual, and may even be normal in some cases.

[Rob Thornton]

Steve,
I know, and I'm usually the one asking the straight faced questions, but I'm still acknowledging that here is Australia with a significant, but comparably smaller budget for foreign policy matters (I'm not sure it makes a difference if its military or other - these are $$$s marked for other then domestic policy) that makes a big leap about how its going to spend its $$$ based on how it perceives its 21st Century role in the world.
We can't seem to decide on that. I know our responsibilities are broader, but we have to decide on what role we are going to play in order to make good use of our resources - how we divide them, etc.

[Rob Thornton]

I missed it the first read, but good point about it coming out of the AFP. By building it from the AFP they side step the argument about what the military's mission should be by preserving it.

On the blog LTC Kilcullen mentioned Barnett's SYS-ADMIN approach. If the U.S. FP called for more of X (and possibly less of Y) would it be better to follow the Aussie lead?

Troufion and others have posited similiar ideas on SWC before. Presidential hopeful R.G. has proposed somethng like it too. It has some advantages and disadvantages but it potentially could be born without service loyalties, even if it had to compete for service resources.

[Mark O'Neill]

Hi Rob,

I would not necessarily agree that we 'get' the requirements of 21st C warfare anymore than the US - we have the same excess of rhetoric regarding the nature of what we face, but by and large have maintained an almost one -eyed focus on developing capabilities that anyone looking at the pattern of development since we left Vietnam would find remarkably consistent.

The same applies to our intellectual capital. Our recently released Joint Future Operating Concept describes a 'new' world, then proceeds to describe how the same old structures, conventional equipment and training regimes will 'win' in them through networking the inherent power of trite buzzwords and meaningless phrases that successive Australian exchange officers and visitors to the US have plagarised from the US transformation lexicon....

The IDG is really a case of necessity being the mother of invention. We have been engaged in wide range of stabilisation missions in our immediate region over the last eight years or so that have been demanding on resources -and even a casual scan of the issues would reveal that our requirements to be engaged would appear to be enduring. Quite simply, we had been doing this in an ad hoc fashion with the AFP working the the military in these areas, it made practical sense to institutionalise the arrangements and achieve some efficiencies of planning , training and readiness.

One thing that the devlopments have highlighted to us over the last few years is the profound cultural differences between the Army and the Police. We all get on fine, but that often leads to an assumption that we are on the same page when we are doing things together. The experiences of the last few years have shown that whilst some understandings have developed, there is still a wide cultural chasm between our elements of the interagency that needs to be addressed.

Finally, your point about relative size is not insignificant. It allows us a flexibility and agility that a behemoth like the US interagency probably could not attain. I attended a 'Joint Interagency Symposium' at the NDU last year, the Americans in the seminar with me were struggling with just how 'small' our national security structures are. Your NSC alone would absorb several of our national bureaucracies. Of course, it is a case of what suits one does not suit the other.

[Rob Thornton]

Hi Mark,
How do you think this is going to go in terms of standng it up, manning, training and equipping? What do you see as the major challenges? How is the debate shaping up at both the uniformed and political levels? Will the capability be leveraged when not deployed in a domestic capacity? Did not mean to broadside with the 1000 questions, but its of great interest

Your comment:

The IDG is really a case of necessity being the mother of invention. We have been engaged in wide range of stabilisation missions in our immediate region over the last eight years or so that have been demanding on resources -and even a casual scan of the issues would reveal that our requirements to be engaged would appear to be enduring. Quite simply, we had been doing this in an ad hoc fashion with the AFP working the the military in these areas, it made practical sense to institutionalise the arrangements and achieve some efficiencies of planning , training and readiness.

makes me wonder about the "tipping point" (can't shake Gladwell) of political risk and how that influences organizational change. I'd mentioned in the "adapt or die" thread that I thought the grass roots was sewing change with regards to SSTRO.

If as this develops you can provide insights and commentary on how this goes, I for one would really appreciate it. I honestly see this as a key capability in the area of security cooperation based on the threats of non-state types, and sponsors of non-state types - which I think translates well to conflict prevention and conflict resolution.

Best regards, Rob

[Mark O'Neill]

Originally Posted by Rob Thornton

Hi Mark,
How do you think this is going to go in terms of standing it up, manning, training and equipping? What do you see as the major challenges? How is the debate shaping up at both the uniformed and political levels? Will the capability be leveraged when not deployed in a domestic capacity? Did not mean to broadside with the 1000 questions, but its of great interest

Your comment:


makes me wonder about the "tipping point" (can't shake Gladwell) of political risk and how that influences organizational change. I'd mentioned in the "adapt or die" thread that I thought the grass roots was sewing change with regards to SSTRO.

If as this develops you can provide insights and commentary on how this goes, I for one would really appreciate it. I honestly see this as a key capability in the area of security cooperation based on the threats of non-state types, and sponsors of non-state types - which I think translates well to conflict prevention and conflict resolution.

Best regards, Rob

G'Day Rob,

I will try and address your questions - I must stress that I have no 'special' knowledge of how the organisation is going - I am merely an interested mil observer. That said, I have met with and discussed the groups with some senior AFP officers in my capacity at the Think Tank I am currently attached to.

Firstly, my overall sense is that the development is proceeding relatively well. Recruitment seems to be meeting its targets (they are taking folks from within the AFP, various state police forces and are also attracting some current and ex-military folk). The leadership and development is a mix of AFP hands and ex-mil staff employed for their knowledge of the mil planning, log and deployment aspects.

I have some confidence in their 'ops' training - I know the ex-mil advisers they are using. I cannot offer any competent or professional assessment of their police training as it is beyond my area of knowledge and expertise, but I would think it a reasonable assumption that it meets the standards of the wider AFP.

I believe that there is the likelihood that the capacity will be leveraged domestically - it makes sense when you consider that many of the capabilities inherent in the IDG could supplant the 'traditional' concept of using the military in what we generally refer to as the 'aid to the civil power' role. For example, in the case of a requirement for the provision of cordons etc during any possible domestic terrorism incident. It would also be a lot 'neater' legally than using the military in some circumstances.

Regarding the 'debate' in the pol and mil circles, there seems to be a fair bit of bipartisan consensus that this is a good and useful development. I would summarise the military view as being the same (you have to remember we currently only have 6 and a half infantry Battalions on a growth path back to eight. We are quite 'busy' with these 6.5 bn (Iraq, Afghanistan, East Timor and the Solomons - before you allow for contingencies and 'reserve'). So, as you can imagine, any extra boots that may be available to assist with some of our 'lower order' stabilisation tasks in more benign security environments are very welcome.

One important thing that needs to be kept in mind is that whilst these guys are more 'deployable' than the average police officer, ultimately they are still cops - use of lethal force will remain a last resort culturally, and even a mild form of 'non-permissive' environment will quickly see them out of their depth. That said, I believe that they will (do) provide a useful additional capability in our national response options.

I note your request for me to keep the forum posted on developments as they occur here in Oz, I will comply as best I can, although this will probably become limited as I will be deployed soon-ish on an operational tour and will necessarily lose touch with these issues (and maybe this site) for a while.

Best,

Mark

[Rob Thornton]

Mark,
Many thanks for your thoughts. You know we ought to send an observation team or two to document and embed early on. Given the US/UK/AUS/CAN special military relationship this capability not only stands as one that might possibly be emulated, but one that will be in high demand (a case for more of it??).
I made a case in the last SWJ volume that ISF needed more capabilities along the lines of para-military given the type of domestic and domestically enabled threat they face,and arguably will face for awhile - (we'll take care of deterring the neighbor's conventional forces I suspect).
A Joint/Inter-Agency LNO team could save us allot of steps down the road if through persistant experience our view of the world accomodates constructing a similiar capability - or even to note how they augment and enhance domestic Civil Response crises. It would also serve as the bridge to resourcing the AFP IDP right and smooth over C2 issues if they become part of a coalition.
I was thinking about how their education might go and wondering if it will be a combination of AFP and Mil type service schools? Not so much about idividual development, but how the inter-action and sharing will benefit both sides of the coin.
If you drop off the net before long, be safe and have a good deployment.
Best Regards, Rob

[SWJED]

Canberra to Sign Security Pact with NATO - David Nason, The Australian

Australia will sign a treaty with NATO in a move that will boost security and intelligence ties and assist the evolution of the 60-year-old Cold War alliance of democracies into a global force.

The treaty is due to be signed in New York next week by Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer.

Australia is officially a NATO "contact country", but the expression does not cover the depth of the relationship, which has strengthened considerably since Diggers deployed in Afghanistan began operating under NATO command two years ago...

[Jedburgh]

ASPI, 28 Aug 08: ADF Capability Review: C4ISR(EW)

Over the last few years, the concept of network centric warfare (NCW) has been at the forefront of planning for the way the Australian Defence Force will conduct warfare. The basic idea is that the ADF will use advances in communication and computer technology to take advantage of the sensors and systems of its various components, wherever they are located, and be able to draw the collective data together into common operating pictures. In the world of NCW, the ‘fog of war’ can be pierced by advanced sensors which immediately transmit their information to a network of men and machines that orient, decide, and act on that information in near real-time. Acknowledging the limits of similes, C4ISR is to the ADF what the nervous system, eyes and ears are to the human body.....

[Mark O'Neill]

gather exists in the realm where it can be readily collected and disseminated by technical means.

Of course, you are up the proverbial if collection involves unfortunate 'low tech' frailities in the system like dependance upon HUMINT.

Good thing that Australia isn't involved in any current fights where human factors and HUMINT are central...

Well done ASPI.

[Jim Rodgers]

A white paper is little to get excited about, but it is Anzac day.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...10-601,00.html

[Badmash]

Of current interest is the US force restructure and how it would see Australia as a "place to base" and what involvement in terms of basing and training within Australia our American readers would see as likely outcomes?

The view in Australia is that the most likely basing options are Darwin and Perth for the navy, with some ground based training at Bradshaw field, Cultana and the Shoalwater Bay Training Area.

Is any Pacific Rim engagement likely to be naval and USMC centric or is it likely to be tri-service as all three compete for the same pot of money?

Finally, does the Okinawa/Guam restructure mean that US forces are looking for training real estate?

Thanks in advance for any help.

Best

Badmash

[davidbfpo]

Badmash,

From this faraway vantage point I do recall that Australia has been for a long time the home to a range of ostensibly shared intelligence facilities - although my source is Desmond Ball's now dated book published in 1980 'A Valuable Piece of Real Estate'.

Secondly I understood the USA had made limited, temporary use of Australian bases in the last twenty years, mainly by the USN and USAF.

I noted today The Daily Telegraph ran a short story, which opens with:

President Barack Obama is expected to reveal plans to station about 500 to 1000 Marines at a barracks in Darwin and to expand the US navy's use of bases at the Northern Territory capital and in Perth in Western Australia.

It cites a former Australian official, now a professor:

In Washington and in Beijing, this will be seen as Australia aligning itself with an American strategy to contain China...In the view from Beijing, everything the US is doing in the western Pacific is designed to bolster resistance to the Chinese challenge to US primacy.

Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ence-grow.html

Personally I don't think the potential new facilities, not bases, have a role in the strategic equation

to bolster resistance to the Chinese challenge

[davidbfpo]

Two alternative Australian responses to the newly announced policy:

Yet, I wonder if future historians will see this as the moment where Australia fundamentally cast its lot in with the US.

Link:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/...-the-ride.aspx

We have been on the ride that Andrew refers to for some time; it just got a little faster.

Link:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/...-alliance.aspx

A third article 'Why Washington wants a base here' is a succinct guide and points at the potential impact in the Indian Ocean:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/...lian-base.aspx

[davidbfpo]

A background article on the Australian-US alliance, which opens with the 1943 DoD advice for US troops going to Australia:

You're going to meet a people who like Americans and whom you will like. The Australians have much in common with us – they're a pioneer people: they believe in personal freedom: they love sports...But there are a lot of differences too – like tea, central heating, the best way to send Sunday morning, or saluting officers and such. You'll find out about all those, but the main point is they like us, and we like them.

Link:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/...Australia.aspx

One trusts that the USMC facilities in Darwin have central heating!

[Ray]

Analysts say China stung by defence pact

CHINESE defence analysts have condemned what they see as Australia's contribution to the growing security rivalry between the US and China, noting that Darwin is comfortably within range of Chinese ballistic missiles.

But unofficial analysts and the media yesterday described the new Darwin base as a major step in American efforts to ''contain China'' by creating a ''net'' of defence ties stretching from Japan to Australia and India and including most of south-east Asia.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/an...117-1nl8p.html

Asia Pushes Back Against China

Beijing is caught in a diplomatic bear trap of its own making. After trying to bully the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) into not discussing disputes over the South China Sea at a summit this weekend in Bali, the territorial dispute is becoming the meeting's focus. ......

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

[Mark O'Neill]

Originally Posted by davidbfpo

A background article on the Australian-US alliance, which opens with the 1943 DoD advice for US troops going to Australia:

Link:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/...Australia.aspx

One trusts that the USMC facilities in Darwin have central heating!

Darwin has 'central heating' built into the climate... it is in the Tropics. The weather there makes Miami look like Green Bay...

[Backwards Observer]

Stone the flamin' crows China, shut yer flippin' yap!

Australia tells China not to interfere

[...]

"Number one position from us, and it's based in absolute reality, is that this enhanced set of arrangements with the United States are not directed at any one country," he said.

At the same time, Rudd, a Mandarin-speaking China expert and former prime minister, warned Beijing not to get involved in Australian policy decisions.
"Let's just be very blunt about it, we are not going to have our national security policy dictated by any other external power. That's a sovereign matter for Australia," he said.

"We don't seek to dictate to the Chinese what their national security policy should be. Therefore this must be advanced on the basis of mutual respect."

Australia Tells China Not To Interfere - AFP - Nov 18, 2011.

...

In previous non-interference news:

Al-Qaeda 'praying for Obama win'

[...]

The man who wants to be the first black US president has pledged to withdraw US troops from Iraq by March 2008, a timetable Mr Howard believes is dangerous.

"I think that would just encourage those who wanted completely to destabilise and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for (an) Obama victory," Mr Howard told the Nine Network.

"If I was running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats."

Al-Qaeda 'Praying For Obama Win' - news.com.au - Feb 11, 2007.

...

If China is sincere about Confucian values and not just engaging in rhetorical legerdemain, she should probably take this opportunity to radically recalibrate what is realistically achievable in an international scene largely characterised by vacuous egotism, shameless hypocrisy, crippling greed and a wilfully debilitating ignorance.

A measured policy of defensive disengagement coupled with an attention to the well-being of the Chinese people may be prudent for the foreseeable future, meanwhile salvaging what is left of her virtues after decades of brutal authoritarianism.

If China's rise is indeed peaceful, this should be self-evident from her political behaviour, just as it would be for any other nation. "He who speaks without modesty will find it difficult to make his words good."

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a few more impossible things to consider before breakfast.

"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Alice in Wonderland.