| The NZDF Files - Letter to the
Defence Minister, Mark Burton
09 September 2002
Defence Letter - Letter to
the Defence Minister
The Letter
Please feel free to express your opinion
on Defence matters, and this letter specficially.
You can e-mail me on: juni0r@orcon.net.nz
Hon Mark Burton
Minister of Defence
Parliament Buildings
WELLINGTON
Dear Mr Burton,
CURRENT AND FUTURE CONDITION
OF THE NZDF
Some might call me an average New Zealand
citizen, but then, it is more so that I have found it necessary
to forward some collective views on the haggard state of the New
Zealand Defence Forces. Also not discounting the less than appurtenant
agenda style transformation upon which the NZDF is being forced
to undertake. My own views, and those of many others’ who
have shared them with me in differing forms over the last two years,
are presented here.
I am aware that some of the following
points do have forecasted remedies but they are perhaps mentioned
out of frustration more than the purposes of analysis.
To think that it has become necessary
for civilian aircraft and pilots to be used in air defence training
with RNZN ships is not only shameful but also quite abysmal. Our
Special Forces now have limitations put on them for training with
air assets. The radios are obsolete and unreliable I think were
the words on the current sets. Dating back to Vietnam era, with
no digital burst transmission its unfortunate that the government
couldn’t also use the word unsafe. Then it might turn the
heads of people who actually don’t know that much about such
things. These are people, New Zealand citizens who have a right
to really know about such things, rather than being left in the
dark to feed off naivety. All that to be used as a further tool
for belated, inadequate or inappropriate defence spending.
Operationally speaking this is foolhardy
and dangerous. We expect our people to do their best, to do their
jobs yet we continue to make it more and more difficult to do these
jobs. It must be reinforced; there are no civilian equivalents to
these tasks. We don't need bureaucratic words on how it will 'be
OK' nor how resourceful our servicemen and women are, or how well
they hold up to the historical reputation. We need to be fair, and
reasonable. There is no honour in mixing words. Facts are facts.
It is the troops who pay the price for budgetary wrangling.
Recently I read somewhere, an RSA article
I believe, of how the lose of the Air Combat Force was an opportunity
to 'upskill and retrain'. Well now that’s a good way of putting
it. Our well-trained and highly respected pilots, navigators and
ground crews are now setting their sights on new careers overseas
in places like Saudi Arabia, Australia and the UK. And well they
might. Respect it seems, not to mention adequate working conditions,
comes from overseas, not from home.
Why is it consistently the argument
that the Skyhawks have never been used operationally? Why does no
politician in power ever comment the reason they were never used
is because they were a deterrent to hostilities? That deterrent
now is gone. So has 25% of the capacity of ANZAC bilateral air power.
They were on call for the deployment to East Timor, and it can be
reasonably assumed that the hostile acts of the Indonesian Airforce
were negated because of the likely outcome had their threats been
carried out.
What is more worrying is there is nothing
realistically proposed to recover the tactical and strategic shortfall
from the Skyhawk disbandment. There has been comment made on, for
example, an attack helicopter option which would of course make
a significant contribution to the land/air and possibly sea component
of the New Zealand ORBAT, particularly an option like Sea Cobra
equipped with ASW missiles. Sadly they should be proposed on their
own merits and not as a replacement option. An attack helicopter
is designed for quite different roles and has a different effect
from an operational standpoint. Vulnerability and mobility are very
different from fast mover fixed wing aircraft, as such they are
employed in different ways on the battlefield, or should I say,
in peacekeeping operations.
Further to that, the term 'Attack'
helicopter is probably not the best term to use in this day and
age of political correctness. Far be it from me to state how un-PC
being under the gun of an aggressor is when you didn't see sense
to have proper counter measures in place. Probably the same reason
the Eurocopter Tiger acquirement by Australia has referred to the
aircraft as a 'Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter'. The perception
that it goes out and has a look about keeping everyone safe while
having the capacity to defend itself will go a lot further with
certain sectors of the community than would the term ‘Attack’
helicopter. As such this works well for some like-minded members
of government. Stacked upon that is the disturbing and unrealistic
tone of the synonymous nature of being anti-nuclear and anti-military.
They are not one in the same.
At least the Australians see sense
to purchase such equipment. Whether we do is still yet to be seen.
Though be it because we have prematurely retired an old but thoroughly
capable force before having a suitable replacement. All that said
I hope anyone worth their salt in the defence arena realises that
attack helicopters are not designed for air interdiction roles against
fast mover fixed wing aircraft.
Like many things in life if you have
a task to be done, do it with the correct tool, not something that
will simply 'make do'.
On the issue of a downsizing of the
Airforce in this country New Zealand has a great many Hughes 500
and Jet Ranger Aircraft of which there are several military versions.
New Zealand also has a great many skilled pilots. Pilots which are
renowned all around the world for their daring and very capable
abilities in the air.
It makes sense to form an Air Reserve
component within the NZDF ORBAT in order to boost the, particularly
now, dwindling air component of the Armed Forces. Due to a virtual
transparent skill base for flying these helicopters it makes sound
economic sense. The Airforce would also be able to tap into the
vast experience of these civilian pilots.
As required Reserves would train as
the Territorial Force (TF) does now, utilising a mix of civil and
military aircraft to further reduce costs. Personnel can be called
on for civil emergency operations, for SAR duties and training and
be available as Army reserves are, for overseas deployments. Air
Reserve would also be a major contribution to the Air Training Corps
(ATC) cadets.
In some areas of society people loss
large amounts of money, loss deals or loss their jobs. In defence,
it is lives that are lost. As a consequence of inaction or misguided
action it must be remembered that not only military but also civilian
lives are lost. Also, infrastructure, trade and political will and
respect are challenged. How dire is it when such results come about
through political correctness, a lack of willingness to do one’s
part in the wider regional community and wanton restrictions on
expenditure for essential services to the society represented? Defence
is just as vital as any other major theme that makes up this country.
An average kiwi, late last year was
heard to say, '105 chaingun armed, air conditioned LAVs' without
air cover or naval escort...'
While we are speaking of chainguns.
These are essentially, for all intents and purposes, large calibre
direct fire machineguns. I would dearly hope that ATGW, rockets,
mortars and other explosive / anti armour / IF weapons were going
to be added into the mix for these vehicles which will be quite
venerable to ambushes and getting bogged in poorly maintained roads
which are typical throughout the region. Unlike tracked vehicles
wheeled vehicles have an extremely poor turning circle, again making
them very prone to ambush. Even with the infantry dismounted, the
eliminated vehicle means a major loss in firepower assets and mobility.
Supposedly a major reason for purchasing these vehicles, gone up
all thanks to two or three RPG rockets brought for a few local dollars.
Why was the tender for the LAV not
inclusive of tracked vehicles? To save money through cheaper maintenance
logistically only to loose it in lives on a battlefield or peacekeeping
/ humanitarian operation is beyond ludicrous. I will take off road
mobility and a turn on a die over an extra twenty kilometres an
hour on prepared roads and a four to five point turn any day. Our
defence needs are to have the best possible option for our troops
to do their jobs properly, safely and efficiently.
If peacekeeping meant nice places,
then unarmed police alone would be deployed.
In 1948, the British military historian
B. H. Liddell Hart had this to say concerning wheeled vehicles in
combat as it related to the German invasion of the Soviet Union,
"The Germans lost the chance
of victory because they had based their mobility on wheels instead
of on tracks. On these mud-roads the wheeled transport was bogged
when the tanks could move on. Panzer forces with tracked transport
might have overrun Russia's vital centres long before autumn,
despite the bad roads. World War I had shown this need to anyone
who used his eyes and his imagination."
There is no assurance that any promises
for refit, upgrades or new purchase of any defence equipment will
be seen through. To abandon planned acquirement’s, to cut
them half way through or whatever can occur in the future without
public consultation, and be quickly put down to changing needs or
changing political climates or the requirements of other areas.
We have seen it with the F16 deal; we may yet see it with the LAVIII
deal.
Accountability is ever missing. Plenty
of issues / requirements have been presented by the MoD, but as
to whether these will be effectively catered for is questionable.
For example, a modern Army without a modern anti armour capacity
is vulnerable. An army without a reliable individual weapon is vulnerable.
I even had a politician tell me how good the Australian Steyr was
saying he'd used one on the ADF simulators.
He'd obviously never used one in the
field. And he made no comment when I mentioned the difference between
the Australian and the original Austrian rifles. Superb accuracy
should never come at the expense of training, nor should superb
training be an excuse to purchase sub-rate equipment.
Public opinion was routed on the Skyhawk
deal, so here we discover with some anguish and concern that the
democratic process is but a figment of our collective imaginations’.
The dangers of the LAVIII class of wheeled vehicles are well documented
yet the public is not privy to all the facts. How a tender can possibly
work on the principle, 'if someone else has it then...’ is
beyond me. Ask the USMC what they think of the LAV, and then ask
the Australians why they prefer to upgrade their M113 APC as opposed
to getting more LAV type vehicles. LAVIII is tailored to our needs?
I don’t think so.
We can be part of the Echelon program
yet our Defence Force personnel have a sub-rate issue rifle. It
has become harder and harder for a citizen of this country to obtain
a firearms licence. I'm at a loss with that considering the sorts
of things this nation was founded on, yet soldiers sailors and airmen
suffer the raw quandary of a sufferable issue weapon.
Expecting troops to deploy anywhere
in the world, from East Timor to Kuwait, whether you are rampantly
opposed to the inherent concept of military forces' or not, please
provide them with the right equipment, and equipment that works.
I have witnessed the rise in peoples’
patriotism with events in East Timor, and that is great to see.
As a result I hope, and it appears to be the case, that people are
becoming more and more astute in military issues. They are searching
out the facts and are now willing to read, study and discuss issues
of this nature. Before it was tapu, like some unwritten evil in
the air.
My hope is that this does lead down
the road of correct acquirement under heavy public pressure.
It’s interesting that a country
of 4 million doesn't have a problem with their military industry.
Yes, Singapore. But then again they have been invaded in the last
hundred years. They produce all their own equipment and politics
doesn't stop them from buying what they want from whom ever they
want. They produce corvettes, much more suitable for New Zealand
conditions, and requirements. All suitably tailored for our pathetic
budget allowed for Defence spending.
Everything we could ever want and need
for the NZDF right there, and we could actually produce it all ourselves,
as they can, right here. Please remember there are people out there
who would just jump for a chance at a place like New Zealand and
all its fine resources. I would draw attention to fishing and forestry.
Who would do such a thing to such a beautiful peace-loving nation?
Even if it is highly unlikely, it's not the point. The point is
the principle.
Industry, social security and defence
are all intimately linked. Without one the others will suffer. It
is time to stop making excuses, passing the buck. Then New Zealand
can return to that historical prosperity its people deserve. Also
those who make excuses about defence and compare any effective modern
initiatives with the Maginot line simply have no understanding of
defence or how it is best implemented in a country such as ours.
Remember what Kiwis did in Singapore?
Well those that were there don't forget and neither do the citizens
of that country. That is why, low and behold they actually make
a point of ensuring such things don't happen again. For those who
don't think that having a well trained, modernised and capable Defence
Force is very politically correct, then perhaps talking to the East
Timorese might put that view into a real world perspective.
Countries like Singapore do not make
excuses. Countries like Switzerland do not make excuses. We have
no excuse but we still make them. How Kiwi is that?
Food for thought for those that can
think. A nation's military is what stands between the oppressor
and those who wish to assert their 'rights' to believe what they
wish upon those whom remain unprotected and vulnerable, those who
think having a military is a privilege not a necessity.
Riding on the backs of the Australians,
eg: with defence capacity when we can no longer provide 25% of localised
Air Combat capacity, and now lack the ability to meet training requirements
with the RAAF. Not only that we have lost the single asset which
allowed us the capacity to counter a threat like that of September
11. It seems that, by such policy, which has crippled the NZDF,
there must be something inherently wrong with a nation to possess
the ability to defend itself, even by mild standards. I wouldn't
have seen it as wrong or evil but an unfortunate expenditure due
to human nature, 'the nature of the beast' if you will.
One only needs to look to the Philippines,
Bougainville, Fiji or East Timor for some nearby examples. We have
been able to prevent serious escalations in such places. We now
leave it wide open for antagonists to do their worst. Groups like
Laskar Jihad and Abu Sayyaf are real. To treat any potential threat
to your nation as incompetent or incapable is contemptuous. Deficient
and misplaced defence policy is an open invitation to the unthinkable.
Especially, it must be emphasised, in a country such as ours. I
most certainly don’t see this strategic environment as ‘benign’
which I believe is how the Prime Minister referred to it. And so
we leave the security of our children, the future of this nation
to chance.
If we can’t help in the defence
of Australia then why should we expect them to defend us? Other
nations’, potential aggressors / antagonists do watch the
goings on of the world. Australia forms the Incident Response Regiment,
and we disband our Skyhawks. This is not in our interests and does
not in any way match our needs.
To quote the Defence Industry Conference
2002 in Canberra,
‘The emerging trends and
challenges identified in the White Paper and demonstrated so tragically
on 11 September are likely to continue. They have been shown to
be more substantial than originally thought. Indeed, some analysts
see these new challenges as the primary focus of security for
now and the foreseeable future.’
To say we can't afford such essential
assets in our society is inexcusable. We must play our fair part.
It is intrinsically connected to how foreign powers view us with
regards trade and economics. In the plainest possible way, it demonstrates
our willingness, lack thereof, to defend those very things, which
keep the country free and prosperous. If we are unwilling to defend
it then we are not worthy to hold it.
You can’t keep what you can’t
defend. I came across one fellow who said that Defence is like house
or fire insurance, you don’t stop paying for it because it
most likely won’t happen to you.
Indeed it is a different world to the
70's but it is no less unstable, simply put it is a less predicable
environment than the cold war period. And things are becoming less
stable in this region, considered in fact to be the least stable
region in the world by many global strategists.
Our Special Forces can be a critical
part of countering al-Qaeda by way of providing forward reconnaissance
yet we still have to scrounge for equipment, and some photos of
our forces’ show mismatched uniforms as if we represent some
third world nation.
We do not even have a maritime specialist
force for counter terrorism, a specific point that, regardless of
our prestigious historical record and reputation, must be the laughing
stock of our allies considering we have such a vast coastline. The
Navy already has enough on its plate. The Army shouldn’t have
to stretch out to provide maritime forces, for example using the
SAS more often than not.
Our geographic make up dictates that
we should have a specialist component as part of the NZDF for these
purposes. We have no Marine detachment, no word on how Fast Attack
gunboats could be purchased to effectively patrol that coastline.
Yes it costs money. But money well, and wisely, spent.
Perhaps it has suddenly become a point
of discussion post September 11? I don't know. So our Army, Airforce
and Navy must bare the brunt, the responsibility if and when something
of this nature does occur. Not the government, when things go wrong,
but the Armed Forces. That is where public outcry lands.
To put it in very raw terms, no matter
how unlikely, a foreign power has ten C-130 aircraft. On each of
those planes we hypothetically have a collection of 70 paratroops
and 10 Special Forces operatives. I am not a negative person by
nature, but a realistic one. Of those ten aircraft these troops
are committed to make the ultimate sacrifice to see out a particular
political aim, hereby being the spearhead by which those aims will
be met. Each soldier has 300 rounds of ammunition, and minimal support
weapons. Each Special Forces team has explosives and will use these
to destroy critical infrastructure for purposes of initial control
of the populace. These sites are not guarded in any way. We have
no RNZAF Regiment, which could, if instated make such a theory very
unrealistic. Fear is an incredible tool. Ignorance even more so.
The Mercury power crisis for example
was an accident and not the result of malicious deliberate and well
executed military action. Imagine the damage already done. Australia
or US could not respond with significant weight, nor should they
considering we are unable to make reasonable efforts for our own
self-defence.
To say we can not afford an adequate
Air Defence is shameful, and the consequences could well be beyond
our imagining. Five very low-level air defence (VLLAD) launchers
from France of all places simply do not cut the mustard. They might
sound impressive to the uninitiated but without such assets being
complimented with other forms of Air Defence, is to be frank, laughable.
Too hope and pray that a RNZN frigate
is present with its means of air defence is well, just that, hope.
It is up there with ignoring the requirements
for ASW. We have witnessed only recently where submarines can shadow
our own forces, and those of our closest allies, but of course,
a largely unaware population, one which is not informed, can easily
be coerced into believing no threat exists, much less the consequences
if threats were fully realised. It is not about money, it’s
about lives, New Zealand lives, and a freedom we apparently hold
high but are unwilling to pay the cost to maintain.
The people have spoken and they have
been ignored.
War is about exploiting weaknesses,
where and when they make themselves known. To say we have no enemies
is foolish, after all before a war begins; we are not so quick to
speak of others in such ways. Perhaps it was too long ago when Japanese
submarines shadowed these shores. Even Russian ones. Modern times
make us no more immune to the real threats than time has the historical
ones.
Distance and remoteness is no longer
our ally but our enemy. Modern technology means aircraft travel
further, faster and are intrinsically more lethal than ever before.
Early warning systems are fine, so long as you have something substantial
to counter the given threat. We do not. I just get out my history
books and recall what Peter Fraser said after Greece and Crete that
the Army would not go into combat again without air power. That
was in 1941. Have we not had enough examples over the last decade
of how decisive a component air power is in conflict? Since we are
taking the selfish road then we perhaps should in fact look at this,
and ask ourselves, if nothing else, where is the air power for our
own forces’?
A modern force must be self-sufficient,
not counting on other forces' to provide such critical assets as
air defence, air cover or logistical support. It should not be counted
on that a nation's civilian population or assets are mandatory to
perform military operations whatever form they might take. This
includes Humanitarian aid missions or other 'operations other than
war' missions.
We are unable to see this sort of requirement
through, even in the broadest terms. This is unacceptable for our
troops, for those we wish to help; to our country and to any global
partners we may have now or in the future. Pulling tight the purse
strings on any Defence spending is ridiculous, and to have any arm
fighting for scraps over another is just as foolhardy. All elements
of the NZDF need a fair share, and a fair go. Otherwise, they all
suffer. And that goes well beyond any honouring of treaties or agreements
we have made. The gravest of results I am sure you can conclude
without coaching.
Additionally, no matter how unlikely
it is that New Zealand is attacked, in a conventional sense or otherwise,
or those it is responsible for, there is no confusion as to what
the NZDF role is. First and foremost it is present to provide security
for New Zealand’s people and the nation’s interests.
It is a Defence Force. If its primary role were to change, then
I would appreciate a name change to prevent future confusion.
My father was on forty-eight hour stand
by for two and a half years for deployment to Vietnam. My Grandfather
was in the RNZN during the Second World War as a radar operator,
watching, guarding our shoreline. My Great Uncle was killed overseas
in the same war by a German sniper. A close friend was deployed
to Kuwait in recent years. Friends have been involved in East Timor
and the Gulf War, and I know several former and current members
of the RNZAF who have had to trample through the quagmire of ill
treatment, disregard and bureaucracy sent their way.
Each year, one day alone is meant to
be our day for remembering our service men and women. Now it is
but half a day. But it seems commerce is more important now. One
day a year to remember why we have commerce at all. For those who
make defence policy I wonder how they could have such a veil over
their eyes. For many involved any practical meaning that single
day has must surly be brought into question.
Although I don't want assurances, I
would welcome some feedback on defence issues. I make no apologies
for the severity of my language for I believe the consequences of
a defence policy guided by an unrealistic view of the world and
its real and potential threats are much more severe.
Yours Sincerely,
Leon Harrison
Top ^
The Reply
In reply please quote:
MOD/473/02
12 September 2002
<ADDRESS>
Dear Leon
Thank you for your letter of 9 September
2002 to the Minister of Defence, Hon Mark Burton concerning your
perspective on New Zealand Defence Policy.
Your letter has been placed before
the Minister for his consideration.
Yours sincerely
D.R. Ferner
Major
Private Secretary: Defence
Top ^
The Reply PART II
The Defence Minister Mark Burton responded
with the following;
Dear Leon
Thank you for your letter dated 9 September
2002. I have noted your comments and would like to respond to a
number of issues you raised.
I acknowledge your concern for New
Zealand's defence but do not agree with your statement that New
Zealand's defence forces are in a 'haggard state'. The government
stated in its 8 May 2001 Government Defence Statement that it is
building a modern, professional, and well-equipped Defence Force
with the necessary military capabilities across all three services
to meet New Zealand's objectives. The Defence Force will be able
both to meet New Zealand's own defence and security needs and make
a useful contribution when it is deployed overseas.
Defence Equipment
With regards your comments about specific
defence equipment requirements and the need for a commitment to
defence equipment, the government issued its Defence Long-Term Development
Plan in June 2002. The plan commits up to $1 billion of new funding
for defence over the next ten years. By including projects already
improved, and depreciation funding, total spending on defence equipment
will likely exceed $3 billion over the next decade. This funding
will be directed at the Navy, Army and Air Force. The government
is confident that this programme will enhance New Zealand's overall
defence capabilities.
The Long-Term Development Plan clearly
sets out New Zealand's defence equipment priorities. The plan is
an essential component of the government's aim to achieve depth
rather than breadth in New Zealand's defence capability. Decisions
about equipment have been made by taking into account New Zealand's
broad security environment and the requirements of the New Zealand
Defence Force in terms of the tasks set for it by the government.
We have made decisions on a number
of significant equipment priorities. Earlier this year the Army,
including the Special Forces, was issued with tactical mobile radios.
The possibility of purchasing medium range anti-armour weapons is
currently being explored. There are plans to replace the Iroquois
utility and Sioux training helicopters with a capacity that meets
New Zealand's contemporary needs.
The government made the decision to
purchase wheeled light armoured vehicles (the LAVIII) instead of
tracked armoured vehicles, not because of cost, but because of the
Army's operational requirements. It was determined that the longer
range and speed of the wheeled armoured vehicle was more appropriate
for the Army's requirements. Further, a mixed fleet of wheeled and
tracked light armoured vehicles would have been more expensive and
operationally more difficult to sustain. Aside from the deployable
battalion vehicles, specialist tools, test equipment and simulation
equipment may also have been required. The essential thing to note
in relation to this issue is that wheeled light armoured vehicles
were and are the Army's preferred option.
Air Force
The Royal New Zealand Air Force is
resourced and structured to deliver the capabilities required of
it by government policy. The maintenance of sufficient numbers of
personnel, including pilots, with the requisite skills to meet levels
of capacity directed by government policy requires careful balancing
of the resources required to train and sustain these personnel in
their relevant military and technical skills.
With regard your suggestion that an
air reserve should be formed, a small number of military pilots
are retained on the Active Reserve of the Royal New Zealand Air
Force as a means of providing some additional capacity to that maintained
within the Regular Force. The use of Active Reserve pilots is normally
restricted to non-operational flying duties and training roles.
The Regular Force numbers are maintained to meet the commitments
required by government policy. The costs involved in keeping a larger
number of Active Reserve pilots current in the required military
skills would be prohibitive.
Australia
In terms of funding, it is difficult
to make comparisions with Australia as New Zealand has its own unique
policy circumstances and defence requirements. New Zealand and Australia
continue to enjoy an effective and stable working defence relationship.
The recent ministerial talks between the Australian Defence Minister,
Senator Robert Hill and me, highlighted the importance of the New
Zealand-Australia defence relationship. We acknowledged that while
both countries often have similar strategic objectives outside the
region, they may have different approaches to achieving them. Nonetheless,
the New Zealand Defence Force and Australian Defence Force has worked
togehter successfully in East Timor, Bougainville, and Solomon Islands
to promote peace and stability with the region.
We are committed to encouraging more
collaboration between New Zealand and Australian defence forces
on doctrine, training, and capability. Far from "riding on
the back" of Australians, as you suggested, New Zealand makes
a unique and useful contribution to regional security. Current defence
policy seeks to make that contribution one that focuses on doing
what we do well. rather than trying to retain a broad range of capabilities
that are outside our requirements and prohibitively expensive.
Memorial Day
Finally, I would like to personally
acknowledge your family members and friends for their contribution
to New Zealand's defence activities. The efforts of these people
will always be remembered and as a country we owe them a debt of
gratitude. As Minister of Defence, it is my task to ensure that
all members of the New Zealand Defence Forces are treated well and
fairly. I can assure you that Defence Force representatives continue
to have a strong presence at memorial commemorations around the
country.
Yours sincerely
Hon Mark Burton
Minister of Defence
Top ^
Comments
Objectives are policy and these change
with government to government depending on agenda and views. Hardly
an argument to support that the right things are being done. This
is perspective after all, as are whether or not one thinks they
can be met, or by what means.
Apparently someone who takes the time
to write to the Defence minister regarding his given portfolio does
not take the time to read any documents pertaining to the job, or
current policy. Rather more dangerous I think is the prospect that
those in power would not do just such things, much less acknowledge
any materials or discuss with those who have direct practical experience,
anything that might contravene said policy.
Defence spending. Numbers are funny
things they can make anything look good if put across in the right
way. By whose judgment is the funding well spent and who says that
any given project (usually the wise decisions) will not be reneged
on in the future. Much like any other area of governance. Nice to
include depreciation funding. That's a fancy word for, things eventually
wear out. We shouldn't really talk about things wearing out. It
doesn't really matter in Defence if things wear out, people just
get killed. I would have thought that depreciation not need be mentioned,
that it would be part and parcel of any such funding. Not impressed
at all. You would hope that this 'likely' funding would be directed
at all three branches wouldn't you?
No one would argue that our strength,
land forces wise, lies in our Infantry. Yet we are being mobilised
which directly threatens our ability to operate in close country
and in urban environments and reduce our Light Infantry capabilities.
'The possibility of purchasing
medium range anti-armour weapons is currently being explored.'
How many times have I made statements
about this subject? Explored? Man alive, you would think someone
who had the top job would have some concept of the modern battlefield.
Yet again a statement not unlike many others' I have struck which
defies belief. The following statement on rotary wing aircraft is
very similar in nature. So was it the government who made the decision
to purchase the LAVIII or was it the Army's preferred option? No
comments made on the restrictive nature of the tender, nor any research
gone into those, such as the USMC or the Australians as to their
experiences with these vehicles. Also any savings in fuel consumption
is lost because the vehicle is unable to take direct routes due
to terrain it is restricted by. Then we are told it was not due
to cost, yet so many different official MoD statements talk of the
increased cost of tracked vehicles. If it is not an issue then why
mention it? Yes the LAVIII has increased range, but how on earth
can increased speed, which is only beneficial on well maintained
rear echelon type roads be a substantial argument for the case of
this vehicle? 'not because of cost', shortly followed by 'more expensive'
seems more than a little contradictory to me.
The government is confident that this
programme will enhance New Zealand's overall defence capabilities.
Current defence policy seeks to make
that contribution one that focuses on doing what we do well. rather
than trying to retain a broad range of capabilities that are outside
our requirements and prohibitively expensive.
Again more contridiction. Again the
last piece is all relative on how you look at the world and the
job expected. What we do well... We do all things well in Defence,
on an international scale. But agenda dictates we will not able
to perform in many areas very well in the future.
Policy doesn't shape the world. The
world situation should shape policy.
Radio sets, these are something that
should have been in place during the last Labour governance, if
not the previous term and their having being finally acquired should
not be used as some politcal tool to demonstrate the government's
goodwill towards the Defence Forces'. Similiar ploys are used in
other industry and essential services of our society.
'Prohibitive' - no explanation.
All well and good having an Air Reserve, but if it can't fly or
do any adequate training as part of the greater NZDF / RNZAF then
there it has very limited, if any, practical use at all. My proposition
is to make it a real and substantial component and yet a single
very broad word wholly dismisses the idea.
Excuses or 'its in the works' or blaming
previous governments doesn't wash. A threat is here and now. Not
a few days down track nor is it something that can always be dealt
with by our allies. What will it take to convince them of this?
Of course the relationship between
New Zealand and Australia is important. Mister Burton is hardly
going to tell me that the Australian Defence Minister told him New
Zealand wasn't pulling its weight. I read, like many others' in
this country. Australia's view on New Zealand Defence policy speaks
volumes enough for itself without me furthering its cause.
To 'make that contribution one that
focuses on doing what we do well', I wonder how many truly know
what we do well on the world stage? Few is my guess and the government
is sure to ensure that the people of this country remain ignorant
of just how good our service men and women of this country are at
so many things. After all, it suits their needs.
Final bit - I suppose if I wanted a
cherry on top I would have gone to Farmers, but there again
it was nice for him to show his gratitude. The art of politicing.
These days its hard to draw the distinction between politics and
genuine words of compassion.
'As Minister of Defence, it is
my task to ensure that all members of the New Zealand Defence Forces
are treated well and fairly.'
How well and fairly were the crews,
families and other personnel of the Strike squadrons of the RNZAF
treated? Uprooted from their homes to find careers in other parts
of the world were 'well and fair' means something quite different.
How well were Army personnel treated where it took a major deployment
to East Timor before their minuscule pays were increased? When the
limelight shines one is quick to take action. If you want an example
of how the traditional Kiwi spirit is dying, look no further than
the government as per Defence.
Top ^
SAS in Decline
The SAS operate with second and third
generation equipment. The SAS gain new light vehicles and communications
equipment but loses its capacity to work with air power and cannot
guarantee they will receive the support provided by the frigate
force and Orions. As a former Commanding Officer of 1NZSAS Group
said,
"Without air combat SAS
cannot be qualified as FACs [Forward Air Controllers]. This is
a fundamental Special Forces skill. Combat air may well be the
only form of friendly fire that SAS may be able to call on to
extricate selves and more critically may be the destructive fire
used in a mission.
The SAS FAC course was upgraded
to be NATO compliant. I had to train SAS to this standard for
UN peacekeeping. You can say 75 Squadron contributed directly
to the preparation of SAS for peacekeeping missions.
It is unclear whether the SAS
will receive funding for adequate levels of FAC training. If they
do not, that effectiveness will decline."
There are not comments on key points
raised such as;
* Air Defence
* Terrorist Scenario proposed [NB: - just a single
aircaft so ladened would be a problem to New Zealand infrastructure
]
* Close Air Support
* Alternative armaments for the LAV III
* Specific view of Australian position on New Zealand policy
* Instability of our region
* Other regional countries' moves in Defence
I fail to see how any organisation
can promote and enforce any kind peace when it has in inability
to defend itself. Hope is a well meaning sentiment that has no place
on any Battlefield or any hostile environment.
You may, as always, send your comments to juni0r
Feel free to discuss developments and experiences (in convidence)
since 2002.
Top ^ |
