[Ahovking]

Australia's new Defence Minister, David Johnston, says he wants to keep the military battle-ready for further possible conflicts in the unstable Middle East and south Asia.

Senator Johnston said that after 14 years of involvement in overseas conflicts from East Timor to Afghanistan, the Australian Defence Force had a strong fighting momentum that should not be lost as troops return from Afghanistan.

In an interview with Fairfax Media, he said he plans to maintain and ''augment our readiness'' for future fights, which will most likely be in the unstable region stretching from Pakistan to the Levant, including even fresh trouble in Afghanistan.

''It will be Pakistan across to Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan. That's the area where there will be instability and that's the area that we might need to go back into at some point in the future.

''I can't foresee that right now, but … if you were to look at where the next area of instability is likely to be - and we're seeing it unfolding in Syria today - a contribution from Australia is most likely to be in that part of the world in the future. I think Pakistan is also highly problematic.''

The West Australian Senator (pictured), a former justice and customs minister in the Howard government and Tony Abbott's defence spokesman, stressed he did not see Australians fighting in Syria.

He said he was not preparing for any particular conflict ''in an alarmist sense'' but was determined to build on the knowledge and skills the Australian Defence Force had gained running counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan. That included exposure to enemy tactics such as the use of improvised explosive devices and fighting in urban areas among a civilian population ''against a very, very resourceful and callous enemy.

These are experiences that we've lived and breathed for 10 years and we've become quite expert in those things. And we've got to make sure those lessons are passed on to our soldiers in the future.

''Operationally, we're starting to come down [in Afghanistan], so we've got to maintain some interest for the troops. They've got to keep training, got to keep a level of readiness.''

The bulk of Australian troops are set to withdraw from Afghanistan by the end of the year. However, in a reminder of the continuing danger, three special forces soldiers were wounded last week in a battle with insurgents.

A Defence statement issued on Friday said the three elite soldiers had received ''minor fragmentation wounds'' while helping Afghan forces fight off insurgents.

Senator Johnston's remarks come amid a continuing international standoff over the response to Syria's suspected use of chemical weapons.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/austr ... 2u5he.html

Very happy, the last thing we want is to bring troops home, weaken and reduce our ADF all in time for the next conflict to arise and we have to start taking funding out of domestic serves just help help fund a quick build up of capabilities and troop experience and trained skills and etc we had during the last conflict but never maintained. Its really an unhealthy cycle for the ADF. 

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Why exactly did Australia have troops in Afghanistan in the first place? What did any Afghani ever do to an Australian? Why when NATO says jump does Australia have to say how high, instead of why? As if the USArmy wasn't bloated and deadly enough as it is, it also has all these other nations willing to offer their services without question. Why does Australia send its sons to die for American Business men and politicians?

[Ahovking]

Why exactly did Australia have troops in Afghanistan in the first place? What did any Afghani ever do to an Australian? Why when NATO says jump does Australia have to say how high, instead of why? As if the USArmy wasn't bloated and deadly enough as it is, it also has all these other nations willing to offer their services without question. Why does Australia send its sons to die for American Business men and politicians?

Hope this explains why we did it (A Quote from an essay i'm currently working on).

As has been pointed out many times ANZUS is not a military alliance like NATO. It obliges each party to do no more that consult with one another in the event of an attack. Which is why Over the decades, Australia has periodically committed forces to American-led coalitions in the hope that this would ensure Australia was never abandoned by the US in some future time of peril. This lack of certainty in the alliance treaty remained a long-running concern.

Our leaders proudly trumpet that we alone have involved our armed forces in all of America’s wars since World War II. The implication is that thereby the United States is deeply in our moral debt and that accordingly its armed support can be relied on in all circumstances. However history shows that Great Powers, no matter how close the relationship may seem, are unreliable. We found that to be so when Britain joined the European Community, to give just one example from my personal experience. With nations blood is definitely not thicker than water.

[foxdemon]

Why exactly did Australia have troops in Afghanistan in the first place? What did any Afghani ever do to an Australian??

Exactly! Why should we send troops to places we have no shared history with? I am all for deployment of the ADF to keep the IRA out of Belfast though.

Hope this explains why we did it (A Quote from an essay i'm currently working on).

In regard to your essay, another factor why the Australian government pursues such a policy of commitment to US expeditionary missions is to gain influence in world affairs. As an ally of the Americans, our leaders get to sit next to them and enjoy a perception of sharing some of the power. This increases the Australian government's status, for example amongst our neighbours in SE Asia.

Umm, perhaps a little more cynical is the notion that Australian politicians might advance their personal standing in the world by being able to strut around in front of the cameras pretending their are more powerful than they actually are. That is, involvement in US military operations by Australian forces means a perception of shared power that feeds the vanity of Australian politicians.

[colliric]

When George Bush pointed out that John Howard was a man of steel, and his deputy... I thought he summed it all up pretty good.

And I support the situation. We are a westernized country after all, and should support other western countries.

[Bounce]

As has been pointed out many times ANZUS is not a military alliance like NATO. It obliges each party to do no more that consult with one another in the event of an attack. Which is why Over the decades, Australia has periodically committed forces to American-led coalitions in the hope that this would ensure Australia was never abandoned by the US in some future time of peril. This lack of certainty in the alliance treaty remained a long-running concern.

Our leaders proudly trumpet that we alone have involved our armed forces in all of America’s wars since World War II. The implication is that thereby the United States is deeply in our moral debt and that accordingly its armed support can be relied on in all circumstances. However history shows that Great Powers, no matter how close the relationship may seem, are unreliable. We found that to be so when Britain joined the European Community, to give just one example from my personal experience. With nations blood is definitely not thicker than water.

You need to cite half those statements. When Britain had joined the EEC, you can debate it wasn't even a great power - certainly, its empire had collapsed. There are quotes by Gareth Evans - in particular - on why Australia must act in certain ways in regards to the UN and globalisation, which is much more convincing that 'to give one example from my personal experience'. Which makes it seem like you were alive then. I'd say it is pertinent to mention that as governments change their allegiances realign, so it becomes in Australia's continual interest to seek favor with each American president (Kenneth Waltz writes about this in the 'Man, The State, and War').

When George Bush pointed out that John Howard was a man of steel, and his deputy... I thought he summed it all up pretty good.

And I support the situation. We are a westernized country after all, and should support other western countries.

At a similar time Bush stated that the AUSFTA could only happen if Australia brought "everything to the table". Australia cannot rely on American benevolence in international affairs, and we embarrass ourselves endlessly by following their actions. Whitlam stated in 1972 (I think) that Australia deferred to the US and the UK too much in regards to the UN and other international issues when it clearly went against our aims.

That attitude doesn't even make sense either. Not all Western nations have supported US aggression leading to inherent contradictions between which countries are 'Western'.