Some of you may already know this.

 

AUSTRALIAN troops are to embark on a new front in the Afghan war, joining a looming coalition offensive against the Taliban in the southern province of Kandahar.

Defence chief Angus Houston has revealed that Australian special forces and helicopters will be involved in the summer campaign by NATO-led forces.

Air Chief Marshal Houston also revealed that Afghan army battalions - known as kandaks - will take part in the offensive if the coalition asks for them, along with dozens of Australians who have been training them.

 

The commitment in Kandahar will mark a big shift in the Australian deployment in Afghanistan, where the Rudd government has reportedly been criticised by its allies for not committing sufficient troops.

Australian forces have until now been mainly stationed in Oruzgan province where, as well as training the Afghan troops, they have been involved in reconstruction and special forces operations.

''As we look forward to [the coalition's] next effort, which will be in Kandahar, Australian forces will be made available to support that operation and I think you can expect to see Chinook [helicopters], special forces and, if requested, Australian-mentored kandaks participate in that operation,'' Air Chief Marshal Houston told Australia Network, a television service broadcasting across Asia, the Pacific and Indian subcontinent.

Although Australian special forces personnel supported a coalition offensive in neighbouring Helmand province earlier this year, it was reported that American military chiefs were angered by Australia's refusal to allow the kandaks to take part.

The Age reported earlier this month that the coalition's top military commander in Afghanistan, US General Stanley McChrystal, had warned Air Chief Marshal Houston that Australia's unwillingness to allow Australian troops to take the fight to the Taliban was impairing the US-led war effort.

The commitment to supply special forces troops and helicopters, and possibly the kandaks, for the Kandahar offensive could be seen as an attempt to mollify General McChrystal.

However, it is unclear from the language used by Air Chief Marshal Houston, and Defence Minister John Faulkner, what Australia's role in the upcoming offensive will be.

 

Australia provided ''support'' in the earlier offensive, against the town of Marjah in Helmand province, which consisted of blocking the path of possible Taliban reinforcements and stopping insurgents fleeing the Marjah area. Yesterday, Senator Faulkner used the same language in response to queries from The Age.

''Nothing is more important to me than the safety of our troops - I'm always careful about talking too much detail about current or future operations for very good reasons,'' Senator Faulkner said.

''Australia's focus remains on Oruzgan province and training the 4th Brigade Afghan National Army.

''If Australian force elements are asked to play a supportive role in Kandahar, Australia would be likely to assist where it can.''

Retired Major-General Jim Molan, who was senior Australian commander in Iraq and advocates a greater Australian presence in Afghanistan, said yesterday that the significance of the Australian commitment hinged on the kandaks' role.

''For example, it will only be of marginal significance if they are merely moved to the western side of Oruzgan in order to block escape routes or prevent reinforcements. But it's still better than nothing,'' Major-General Molan said.

 

 

Souce

http://www.theage.com.au/national/au...0325-qzvu.html

 

 

 

Recon

Oooo potential new area for an PR Aus faction map

Don't want to sound gung ho and all, but I've always questioned why Australia wasn't more involved/committed in A-stan.

 

I mean, honestly, the officials use words like "safety of troops"... is there a single bloke who signed on the dotted line for a combat role not knowing what was being asked of him? Most interviews we've seen conducted have shown a desire by the very troops they're talking about to be out there at the front.

 

Hell even countries like Estonia are more committed, and they don't even have as strong as political ties as we do with America.

 

On the other side of the coin, there's always the argument as to whether we should even be in this war, but that's a whole other can of worms.

i would'nt expect much from the Rudd Government , well exepct for tax hikes and more money squandering

Don't want to sound gung ho and all, but I've always questioned why Australia wasn't more involved/committed in A-stan.

 

 

 

 

The former government kept it that way. I sometimes find it hard to believe but the Rudd government is doing more to support her allies than Howard, even if I did like him better.

 

The thing with Australia is (in my observation and opinion) as soon as people start getting killed the people of Australia will have them brought home. I think it has to do with being so far and separated from the rest of the world. It also has to do with the misguided feelings of America dragging Australia into another war. Vietnam was in Australia's interests at the time. Think of Indonesia as commie with full Russian/Chinese backing.....

 

I think people really believe that what happens in other areas of the world do not effect us here.

 

Unfortunately memories for good deeds are short and lack of help will be remembered for much longer should Australia ever need help in the future. I agree that it's about time to let the guys who signed up for the job be allowed to do it.

Edited March 30, 201015 yr by Snazzy

And why is it that we as a small country ....always get a verbal "you're never here" flogging by the US? We dont just run in and blatt away like the Yanks but we are always in either a supportive role or mopping up their mess!

Do we as a country yell and SCREAM about our successes?

I call it "MacArthurisms" as he was a finger pointing tosser aswell!

One thing will always be true though. Whenever the Australian Defence forces come off the bench and play the hard game........we play hard.

UBIQUE.

What mess that Australia has mopped up do you refer to?

 

 

You can't play hard if you're not allowed to. The Yanks have been finger pointing as you call it in Iraq and Afghanistan because until very recently other than the SASR Australia hasn't been there. By "there" I mean the direct combat go after the Taliban combat role. I do understand that Australian soldiers in the past when confronted put on a good showing which in turn frustrates not just the Americans but every other country that is there doing the job they said they would.

 

 

This is no fault of the Australian soldier. The politics involved kept regular force Australian soldiers out of combat roles and other ISAF countries want Australia to do more to share the burden of keeping Afghanistan from falling back into Taliban hands.

 

Canada with our small force has suffered more than our fair share because we have been fighting since day one.

 

 

Rabbit' date=' post: 182342"']

I call it "MacArthurisms" as he was a finger pointing tosser aswell!

 

A lot of Americans don't remember him fondly either. Ask any American who served at Bataan or Korea.

 

 

Besides there is no finger pointing here, they are just asking for some more help from some top quality professional soldiers that they know Australians to be. I've spoken to many American military personnel and they love you guys.

Edited March 30, 201015 yr by Snazzy

Can someone elaborate for me the Australian rules of engagement in Afghanistan? Is it true we are under a 'only shoot when fired upon or in danger' kind of policy? I'm not sure, but i have heard a few things about it.

I wouldn't dwindle in politics, you mind ventures to dark places. Just understand that we don't have a strong political angle to commit a large combat force in Afghanistan. Iraq we were there to 'prevent' SCUDs launching rockets into Israel, and to protect our foreign interests (Embassy etc), a strong political reason (always is when you go to protect another nation). Afghanistan there's a lot of opinions, I agree that we should continue our strong bonds with the US, but we just need to be careful of reactions that may occur if we do (think Bali).

i beleive it was like that a few years ago (not sure now however) they wernt even allowed to provoke violent action from the enemy..... so for example if they saw a person with a rifle standing up on a hill a K or so away, jhust watching them, they wouldnt beable to do a thing. i think it may of changed recently though, however im not really sure, kinda out of the loop atm.

Not sure how up to date this website is.

 

 

http://www.globalcollab.org/Nautilus/australia/australia-in-east-timor/australian-security-general/legal-rules-of-engagement

 

 

This one is a bit older but shows Australian troops have wanted to be able to engage at an earlier stage of a firefight..

 

http://www.actnow.com.au/Opinion/To_shoot_or_be_shot.aspx

 

It's just an opinion article though so take it with a grain of salt.

Edited March 30, 201015 yr by Snazzy

21 June 2009

....

That was the most recent I could find.

 

I'd love to find the most current but try as I might I can't.

It probably is the most recent , I doubt the ROE's have changed in under a year.

It probably is the most recent , I doubt the ROE's have changed in under a year.

 

depends on the task force and the unit though for each ROE, obiously the SF guys have a more loose ROE than the Regs, especially when they partaking in an offensive ISAF operation.

In this article I posted this paragraph sums it all up and is what is frustrating other ISAF members.

 

 

http://www.actnow.com.au/Opinion/To_shoot_or_be_shot.aspx

 

According to a Defence Department spokesperson, the ROE for fighting in Afghanistan are ‘designed to minimise loss of life and for Australian soldiers to defend themselves and those they have been authorised to protect’. For national security reasons, the Australian Defence Force are unable to release the full details of the ROE to the public. However, Executive Director of the Australian Defence Association, Neil James, told the SMH that the ‘operational limitations’ placed on Australian troops mean that they can’t ‘take the fight to the Taliban as their allies…are able to do’.

 

 

It appears that this is changing though.

ROE are set to prevent individual soldiers getting pinged on a murder charge for following orders . We are not at war its a policing action.

i beleive it was like that a few years ago (not sure now however) they wernt even allowed to provoke violent action from the enemy..... so for example if they saw a person with a rifle standing up on a hill a K or so away, jhust watching them, they wouldnt beable to do a thing. i think it may of changed recently though, however im not really sure, kinda out of the loop atm.

 

You can't just shoot people because they have a gun.

 

If they point and shoot at you, you can engage to your hearts content.

 

ROE's are in place for a reason. The same goes for the Americans. Their ROE's have been reigned in heaps in the last 2 years.

i know that, but i thought it was obvious i was implying that that person with a gun was a taliban scout or spotter... what if that person was calling in mortor strikes on your company geting your guys killed and you couldnt do sh*t about it?

 

either way i do beleive the ROE is there for a reason, however they should be revised and made for realistic for the enemy we are fighting.

i seem to recall that after the intevention in ET was turned over to UN control that the ROE was changed so the digs couldn't fire unless fired apon or person was in the action of engaging the diggers. This lead to a couple of instances near the boarder where they could see militia aproach check points carrying a grenade and then throwing said grenade at the check point but not being allowed to return fire because while he was holding it he wasn't attacking and after it had left his hand he was not carrying an offensive weapon so therefore was also not attacking and could not be engaged. hows that for tying your hands?

The problem with Australia is that the politicians are scared of the public and the public are too lazy to find out anything more that what the 20 year old cutie on the 6pm news tells them.

 

Things would be different if we were landlocked thats for sure.