defence
22 Sep 2008
Where Are Our External Threats?
Kevin Rudd's pledge to increase military spending, with the Navy as the biggest winner, is misguided, writes John Langmore. The money would be better spent on issues that are of genuine concern to voters
The Community Consultation Panel on the Rudd Government's forthcoming Defence White Paper has just completed an extensive series of public meetings around Australia. This process is welcome because it is important that defence, like all other policies, reflect community preferences.A recent survey of public opinion published by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute concludes that "support for more defence spending has dropped to its lowest level since the end of the Cold War". The reason is that "the proportion of voters seeing a security threat to Australia has declined consistently since the late 1960s".
When respondents were asked after the 2007 election which issue was most important to them, the environment (including global warming and management of water) was identified as most important at 21.7 per cent. Next were health and Medicare at 20.5 per cent; industrial relations at 16.3 per cent; taxation at 11 per cent; education at 10.5 per cent; interest rates at 7 per cent and immigration at 2.9 per cent. Defence and national security came in at 2.7 per cent, closely followed by the war in Iraq, at 2.4 per cent.
Terrorism was the greatest concern of only 1.8 per cent of those surveyed. The Medicare card is of greater importance to the security of most Australians than increased military spending.
Yet those who argue shrilly for the necessity of increased military spending receive much more publicity than those who argue for a rigorous reassessment of it.
Australian defence is usually discussed as though Australia faces a threat of invasion, yet there is no interest anywhere in attacking this country nor has there been for several decades. Australia's future security and prosperity is more seriously threatened by climate change and potential disease pandemics than by hypothetical military action. As a parliamentary committee concluded some years ago, there is only one country with the capacity to invade Australia - the United States - and it has no reason to do so.
The effect of exaggerating military threats to Australia has been to justify increases in defence expenditure larger than are necessary, to the level of over $60 million a day. Does Australia really need far higher military spending per person than Japan or Germany and two-thirds more than Canada?
What external threat justifies spending over $50 billion on expensive purchases of sophisticated weapons?
Past defence doctrine has focused on interoperability with US forces anywhere in the world rather than on air and naval control of the sea-air gap between the Australian and Asian land masses. Invasion from the north with conventional weapons is among the least likely military contingencies Australia might face, and as Brian Toohey has written, "Even a super power would have trouble protecting its commercial sea lanes in the manner envisaged by the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd."
Is this a focus that the majority of Australians really want, especially when the choice is between spending $22 billion a year on the military and improving the quality of health and education?
The IMF and World Bank have repeatedly emphasised the importance of minimising military spending so as to maximise outlays which do most to stimulate economic and social development. United Nations summits and global conferences have repeatedly come to the same conclusion.
Increases in military spending contribute little to the campaign against terrorism. In fact, they may add to the dangers. Collaboration with the United States in the illegal and misjudged invasion of Iraq increased the motivation for terrorist interest in Australia. There are many far more cost-effective ways of reducing such risks by contributing to reducing despair, alienation and poverty by assisting with equitable development. Restraint of military expenditure would release funds for desperately needed increases in aid as well as for high priority Australian economic and social programs.
Restraining military spending also has the benefit of avoiding provoking retaliatory increases by countries in the region.
The forthcoming Defence White Paper is the ideal opportunity to rigorously review current defence strategy, starting with a thorough assessment of external threats. This might lead to identification of ways of cutting military outlays, making way for more cost-effective means of defending ourselves, reducing international conflict and releasing resources for constraining greenhouse gas emissions and improvements in higher priority health and education services.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
John Langmore: Thank you for an excellent article. Surely Kevin Rudd is faced with the task of having inherited the defence decisions from the little dwarf who did more to help big business and destroy Australia than anyone else in our history. John Winston Howard. You know as well as I do, it is not ‘Public Opinion’ that counts in matters like defence. It is The "people who argue shrilly for the necessity of increased military spending….." which are the successful lobbyists. Why? Because war is a growth industry, and the people who demand the spending are the same people who can supply war materiél. Another factor to be taken into consideration by the Rudd government is: Are we going to continue blindly to follow America into ever more wars in parts of the world which have little relevance to Australia? Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan? If the answer is yes, then I daresay we will find ourselves rushing to Colombia to fight America’s drug wars. And the war materiél people will win out anyway.
I am unable to see the threat of invasion from our north. By the time our mines have been gutted, we will have nothing of interest for anyone. This fact, combined with the splendid efforts of our governments’ to maximize our population explosion, has already got most of the state of Victoria under concrete. Other states may take a little longer, but it will happen.
Until such time as no one can produce enough food for anyone, I could imagine the government could spend those billions on a series of very fast boats to really hold off the international pirates who plunder our fish stocks. With a couple or four even bigger ships, having the ability really to get stuck into the Japanese whaling fleet. Perhaps we could use some of those billions of dollars to come up with an invention to corral our sharks and other creatures, (the way the west was won) so other people find it impossible to enter our waters. Of course these boats/ships ideally should be built here, if we have any of our manufacturing industry left to produce them.
However, I’m sure all of this is an exercise in futile thought. Think of Rupert Murdoch’s war, via the Oz, if Rudd was to do anything halfway intelligent; in the area of defence.
Australia is being called out to assist in regional disputes fairly regularly. If we’re to keep the pace on those operations it’s going to require more money. On top of that the US has its hands tied due to Iraq and Afghanistan, which means that it’s not nearly as much of a help as it used to be. With Russia sparking again, and China on the rise, it makes sense to increase the capacity of the military. These countries are not going to invade us, but we may certainly come into conflict with them on some level. A big stick helps when that occurs.
Also, if Australia wants to increase its international clout it needs to increase the capacity of its military. The reality of international relations is that people listen to you more when you have a big stick in your hands.
It’s nice to think that we can all hug it out, but the reality of the world is that a strong military helps a good deal.
- Got Elf?
Crazy Elf: Which century are you living in? Haven’t you noticed that bit by bit the USA is turning completely in on itself. Australians no longer think America as the fountainhead of the world? You sound like a WWII enlisting poster. "Uncle Sam Needs You". Australia’s vast distances proved too remote to consider then. You sound like one of the old codgers sitting in RSL clubs. Christ! I suppose you think the Yanks saved Australia during the Battle of the Coral Sea. God! Do you wear flannel night attire and carry a candle to bed or something?
Now take a long sip of something cooling. And try to think. What on earth is the use of a big stick? Australia’s huge distances are an enormous ‘stick’ for us. Conventional warfare, although the Americans with their wham, bang, and thank you ma’am, approach haven’t a clue about it. (I’m trying to be patient with you as I don’t like insulting elderly people.) American style warfare is great for bombing the shit out of an opponent. But to be really suitable for the huge populations of today. Guerilla warfare is the way to go. And has been so ever since the end of the Korean war. Look at today’s unfortunate Aussie soldiers, lumbered with all the gear the Americans use. The poor soldiers spend all of their energy getting to a place. Once there they would need to rest. Didn’t it occur to anyone that Vietnam proved conventional warfare to be a waste of time? I mean, the Americans didn’t exactly win the bloody thing did they? Why don’t you go and brush up on your Sun Tzu? All a conventional US type war would do is stir up dust and create mud.
Enough! I will leave you to raise your glass to QEII and say "and God bless her", Colonel Blimp.
http://teamuzunovmedia.blogspot.com/
IS RUDD THE REAL McCOY ON DEFENCE?
By Sasha Uzunov
Copyright 2008
In recent weeks we have witnessed the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, deliver sermons from the mount which have struck a chord with the defence community. Is the PM the long awaited Messiah, the Real McCoy?
First there was his government’s decision to award medals to the Long Tan heroes from the Vietnam War after a 42 year wait; then there was talk of changing the Nelson-Howard military doctrine on Afghanistan by allowing our infantry soldiers to take over the fighting from the Special Forces; and announcing that Australia had to strengthen its defence forces to counter an arms race in our Pacific-Asia region.
Whatever PM Rudd’s true motivation is, you have hand it to him he is a very clever strategic/foreign affairs operator that many pundits have not given him the credit. Let me explain by drawing a comparison with Bob Hawke, another ALP Prime Minister (1983-91), also with messianic tendencies.
Hawke was known as the great conciliator whose claim to fame was his ability to bring opposing groups to the negotiating table and hammer out a deal. During his Prime Ministership he brought in British academic Professor Paul Dibb and ex-Fairfax journalist Hugh White.
Their brief was to transform the defence department with a number or reports, Defence White Papers and so on. Instead we ended up with a mess that took over a decade to bring under some form of control.
Mr Bruce Haigh, a former diplomat revealed during an interview with SBS TV’s Dateline program on 27-9-2000 that:
“Defence is the department that’s divided amongst itself, as far as I can gather, and there are certain people inside Defence who’ve taken a certain line for a long period of time - the Paul Dibb line, if you like, which is high-tech, US-alliance - and you’ve got others who are saying, "No. We’ve got the situation to the north- we need to have more people in uniform, we need to have them trained, we need to have night-vision equipment provided for them.
“… the Australian Army can see what needs to be done, but many of the civilian Defence personnel, who’ve built their careers on playing up to this particular line, are arguing the other case, and feeling increasingly isolated, because they are not facing reality. That’s the problem.”
Respected Brigadier Jim Wallace, former Special Forces Commander, wrote in 2003:
“Unfortunately, Australian defence policy has been mainly wrong for the whole of this period. Even after we committed troops to East Timor, Professor Paul Dibb, the policy’s chief architect, was standing in front of parliamentary committees vowing that Australia would not be conducting what he called "expeditionary" operations out of the region. This was despite a series of major UN deployments over many years to places as far a field as Rwanda and Somalia. Afghanistan and Iraq have hopefully now discredited this logic.
“At the same time, Dr Hugh White was arguing in initial drafts for the 2000 white paper to reduce the size of our army to about 19,000, on the basis that, like Professor Dibb, he didn’t see the Government needing options for deployment out of the region, particularly for sending the army. The result has been an incredible demand on the dedication and professionalism of our special forces as they have again been thrown into the breach that our supposedly expert defence planners couldn’t predict.”
Professor Dibb’s response was to make the snide remark on the ABC TV Lateline program on July 11, 2002 that Wallace was a “retired brigadier.”
In contrast to Dibb’s retired brigadier sentiment, current PM Rudd has taken on board his government “retired colonel” Iron Mike Kelly, as parliamentary undersecretary on defence.
Furthermore, the PM told a RSL National congress last week: “…the first responsibility of government is the security of the nation. And it follows therefore that government has a particular responsibility towards those who have worn the nation’s uniform. Because there is in my view no higher calling than to wear the uniform of Australia.”
To counter the possible Asia-Pacific arms race and the emergence of China, he said:
“Our armed forces must be equipped to deal with the emerging security environment That is why the Government has already committed to making sure we stay ahead of the game by extending the real growth of the defence budget by 3 per cent per annum to 2017-18.”
Taxpayers, veterans, and serving defence personnel have heard it all before from politicians promising heaven and earth.
Time will tell if Rudd can deliver on his pledges. One thing is for sure, those who have served in uniform will never again be dismissed as taking no part in the defence debate.
(end)
Link:
Nelson-Howard doctrine on Afghanistan - 9 September 2008.
http://teamuzunovmedia.blogspot.com/2008/09/failed-nelson-howard-doctrin…
——————
Sasha Uzunov is a freelance photo journalist, blogger, and budding film maker whose mission is to return Australia’s national defence/ security debate to its rightful owner, the taxpayer.
He also likes paparazzi photography!
He graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Journalism from The Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology in 1991. He served as a professional soldier in the Australian Army from 1995 to 2002, and completed 2 tours of duty in East Timor. As a journalist he has worked in the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yeah, Venise, I guess you’re right. The huge distances from Australia to everywhere else are going to be a huge deterrence to everybody. Clearly, in the modern world, there’s no need to concern ourselves with a military at all. We should just all be happy with our vast country protected by insurmountable water. It worked pretty well for the Aboriginals for over 40,000 years. That’s a long time! I’m not sure how it worked out for them in the end, but your ocean defence plan has a lot going for it.
- Got Elf?
Australia cannot be defended from the kinds of threat posed in the imaginations of Australian politicians by any kind of military force.
The greatest external threats to Australia are machinations of foreign neo-Malthusian strategic game players who think they can win.
Why don’t we just give up on military force as a lost cause and take the cheaper, more ethical approach of building trust and sharing with our neighbours?
Military aggression is not becoming of Rudd as an Anglican Christian. He could leave force to the born-again Marxist in the White House. State intervention in finance, materialism and protection of military-economic advantage are much more the US’s style.
#2: Do you really believe the Americans will come to our aid-ANZUS treaty and all-if we get bowled over? You might re-read Winston Churchill arguments in the face of John Curtin’s wanting our troops to come back from the Middle East. IN ORDER TO FIGHT FOR AUSTRALIA.!
Sacha Uzunov: You sound like a recruiting officer, "Those who have served in uniform will never again be dismissed as taking no part in the defence debate" Yeah? Well pardon me if I am not impressed with such half-arsed hyperbole. John Langmore wrote an excellent thesis asking ‘Where Are Our External Threats?’ The major part of your comment has conveniently ignored his question. This was followed by someone called Little Bear, Sorry, Crazy Elf; who argued for Australia’s Defence Policy, to remain as is.
This was followed by me, as a bloody annoyed taxpayer, who has, over the years, watched Australia’s Prime Ministers falling over themselves to waste Australian lives in the futile pursuit of kow-towing to the USA. From John Curtin’s capitulation to General MacArthur, to Harold Holt’s cringe-making "All the Way With LBJ"; to John Winston Howard’s groveling submission to George W Bu; the end result has been millions upon millions of taxpayers money being poured into usless enterprises. The only winner being the RSL, (which I suspect is employing you.) whose only raison d’etre is to have the troops of Oz being sent to every war on the planet, so there will always be a never ending supply of diggers for ANZAC day rallies. The RSL is run by aged war veteran’s of homeric right-wing convictions. The sort that lurve the Monarchy and are incapable of asking themselves Where was General MacArthur, gonna go after being kicked out of the Philippines? (during WWII) To the biggest land base he could find. Oz. The sort who think only the USA, and Britain, at it’s peak, were fit to run Australia’s foreign policy.
So what have I learned from you? Bugger all! The stats you presented could be found at any half-way decent library. You tell us Rudd will be increasing the defence budget by 3%.. Personally I would like to read Langmore’s article again.
But where, oh where do you tell us HOW Rudd is going to spend the money? At least I came up with a couple of better ways to spend the billions of dollars involved. As far as the RSL goes, they should collect their half-dead war heroes. Allow them to have their ANZAC day marches. And keep it’s fucking nose out of the Nation’s affairs. Remember Bruce Ruxton? He was always chiming in with his inexpert opinion. Such expertise! He was in the catering corps and hadn’t served overseas. Perfect training for a member of the RSL! Yes, please strip our troops down radically and save them for marches and greeting heads of state. Then recruit as many hard fighting men as is possible to find. Pay them a lot more money than the regular army, train them to shed all the gear which has been allocated to them; because of the American interference. Teach them to live off the land, and teach them to be deadly efficient fighters, as opposed to the pale carbon copies of American Marines which we have at present. Don’t mollycoddle them by having the media going into sobs and having moaning parents selling their stories to the women’s magazines. If one of them gets blown up.
Nothing personal Sacha, but you sound exactly as a lobbyist for the RSL. If I were you I would re-read John Langmore’s article. It contains more good sense in one sentence than the whole of your self-serving effort.
if one of them gets blown up.
Young Venise,
You should never assume….
Have a look at the story by Irfan Yusuf and my comment about David Hicks….
http://newmatilda.com/2008/09/19/terrorise-its-going-out-style#comments
Never jump to conclusions about my journalism without first seeing what I have written…
No one is criticising young John Langmore’s article…. yet you seem ready to condemn those who have served in uniform.
Here is the David Hicks story another time, just for young Venise…
This may or may not be of interest to you…as a journalist I tried to remain neutral on the issue of David Hicks and the war on terror….
http://teamuzunovmedia.blogspot.com/
DAVID HICKS MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE
by Sasha Uzunov
David Hicks, the Australian convicted of supporting terrorism in Afghanistan, has been in the news again.
Whatever you think of David Hicks, there is certainly more to the story than meets the eye.
In May 2007 as an Australian journalist, along with Canadian colleagues, Scott Taylor and David Pugliese we were granted an interview with a former Taliban Ambassador to Pakistan, who spent 4 years in Guantanamo Bay, and were surprised to hear his negative thoughts about David Hicks…
This was an exclusive Australian story in the Melbourne Herald Sun newspaper at the time.
I also video taped an interview with the ex-Taliban diplomat.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21743054-662,00.html
Herald Sun newspaper
David Hicks not ‘true Muslim’
Sasha Uzunov
May 17, 2007 12:00am
DAVID Hicks was not a true Muslim and was regarded as a possible spy by other accused terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, says a former inmate and one-time Taliban diplomat.
"All the people, including me and the Arabs, we’re thinking he was a spy," said Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, back in Afghanistan after spending nearly four years in US custody including at Guantanamo Bay.
"He was separated from us. The Americans were scared he would be killed by the other prisoners," the Afghan man said in an interview in Kabul. "He was not a true Muslim."
After five years in US custody, Hicks is expected to leave Guantanamo Bay within days for Australia, where he will serve nine months in a jail near Adelaide before being set free. He is being returned to Australia under a deal after pleading guilty in a US military commission to a charge of providing material support for terrorism.
Hicks was captured in Afghanistan in late 2001, where he was accused of training with al-Qaida and of fighting alongside Taliban troops. But Zaeef, a former Taliban minister and ambassador to Pakistan, denied Hicks was part of the Taliban regime, toppled from power in Afghanistan by the US invasion in 2001.
After his release without charge by the US, Zaeef now lives in Kabul but under the close watch of the Hamid Karzai Government, which provides a security guard for his protection.
Zaeef said he was not in contact with the current Taliban leadership, who are fighting Australian and other coalition troops.
He said Australia was now an enemy of the Afghan people because it had supported the US-led war in Afghanistan. Zaeef said coalition forces had killed a lot of Afghani people.
"And the people became enemies of the Americans, of the Canadians and others," he said.
"People are not thinking the Americans, the Canadians are neutral, that they have come for peace and stability. "The people are thinking that the Canadians, the British, the Americans are all enemies since they are killing us."
————————————————————
LINKS:
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=86adcc80-9ee6-49b…
NATO, U.S. stand in way of peace in Afghanistan: Taliban chief
Most Afghans blame foreign forces for civilian deaths, former official says David Pugliese, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Wednesday, May 09, 2007
————————————————————————————-
http://www.espritdecorps.ca/Traveling%20in%20Northern%20Afghanistan/Trav…
PHOTOS of 2007 Afghan trip
————————————————————————————-
Sasha Uzunov is a freelance photo journalist, blogger, and budding film maker whose mission is to return Australia’s national defence/ security debate to its rightful owner, the taxpayer.
He also likes paparazzi photography!
He graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Journalism from The Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology in 1991.
He served as a professional soldier in the Australian Army from 1995 to 2002, and completed 2 tours of duty in East Timor. As a journalist he has worked in the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Sasha: Could you possibly, pretty please, stick to the article written by John Langmore?
He was the person to write an article which asks "Where Are Our External Threats?" This is the question you should be addressing. For all that I know you may be the best journalist in the world. How-bloody-ever did David Hicks come into the discussion? Please enlighten us; the readers of NM. How is he germane to John Langmore’s thesis? I’m very happy for you and your obvious ability to maximize your CV. I’m even prepared to read your other comments. However, right now, as of this very moment you should be interested in John Langmore’s original question.
You are correct to say never assume.. I failed to assume you would have anything of vast importance the minute you told us how our Prime Minister addressed an RSL audience.
As for condemning men in uniform? I believe I said the RSL should keep its nose out of defense policy. I know I said the unfortunate soldiers of Oz had been outfitted to carry enough supplies for a whole battalion, as per the United State’s dictates.(When, oh when will defense policy be predicated on what is the best available outcome FOR WE POOR BASTARDS who live in this country?) Why do we always, so simplistically, follow other countries? What is OK for the good old US of A, has little relevance to Australia. Of course you would know that at places like Pine Gap (USA) in Australia. The information they receive about other countries intentions, is considered to be less than important for Australian eyes, especially our governments’ eyes. I mean we only own the land where the installation is sitting. It is for their own consumption, and bugger us.. I’m sure the Australian taxpayer would just love to wake up one morning to find the troops of Amubutaland happily enjoying the use of our great Australian barbeques, sun and VB beer. Only to be told by the Yanks "Sorry, we forgot to tell you they were coming!" anyway it was restricted information to begin with."
I said the RSL wanted more and more troops for their ANZAC day Gymkhanas.Also, I said they collected their half-dead heroes.( Duh! You were the one who invoked Long Tan heroes getting a guernsey after 42 years, not me.) because by the time they get to sit in the saddle they would probably not be very young anymore.
You, who claim to have fought in wars, should know that they tend to be hard and brutal affairs. Affairs which do not benefit by being whitewashed by people like you. For the benefit of the great unwashed! Moi! I’m sorry you feel it necessary to use you age as a shield. It is almost as bad as an evil-doer suddenly resorting to patriotism.
Actually, Venise… you’re right! The Americans are pushing us around too much! It’s like we’ve become a client kingdom for the US empire. We should just tell them they can’t push us around any more! Hmm, but I think they’ll still be able to push us around if we do that, because they have more economic and military weight behind them.
…
I’ve got it! Let’s increase our military spending so that we can go up against the Americans!
- Got Elf?
Crazy Elf: You are a character! But one of the points I was trying to get across, as was John Langmore, that America is a diminishing force as far as we are concerned. If the McCain ticket wins the US election, something which is more than possible-unless Barack Obama can regain the initial interest the voters had in him. We will see McCain go to war with any country that is rich in oil. Iran will be the first, except McCain wont waste time pleading WMD, he’ll just do it. At present Afghanistan’s rich mineral wealth is just a rumour, McCain will make sure of his troops are there to grab the goodies and establish oil reserves.. Also he will send troops to the Kurile Islands to sort out the Russo Japanese bickering-because there are vast oil tracts waiting to be explored in the region. Georgia’s oil fields will be an irresistible magnet to the Americans. And, for good measure they will also invade us because of our mineral wealth. Which is precisely the reason I would welcome a strong army of guerilla fighters who could live off the land. Because those fast, v. mobile ships I suggested to guard our fishing grounds could harass the Yanks and slow down their lumbering aircraft carriers. We could destroy our airfields and build ones which are well disguised. If the South Koreans can do it. Why can’t we? We need forward thinking and imaginative people at Defense. Not the lame brain clods who are all Pukka and no Sahib.
Anyway, I’m buggered. Goodnight.
Cheers
V.
Young Venise
Im a freelance photo journalist who writes on defence/security issues and do not represent any lobby group… You need to let go of the paranoia… this isnt 1968 but 2008.
You falsely accuse me of being a spokesman for the RSL. Im not even a member. Im a journalist not a spokesman.
My article was comparing the styles of Hawke and Rudd as PM’s dealing with defence…. Both at the beginning of the Prime Ministerships had to deal with a changing strategic environment… Both called in the "experts" to help them navigate through the defence debate.
This is highly relevant to young John Langmore’s articles.
You’re reading too much into some non-existent hidden agenda in my article…
By the way, Im only 40 years of age.
cheers
Sasha
PS. You wrote: "I’m very happy for you and your obvious ability to maximize your CV. I’m even prepared to read your other comments. However, right now, as of this very moment you should be interested in John Langmore’s original question."
Ive checked every law in Australia, there doesnt seem to a law against being ambitious and dedicated…as a freelance journalist.. Or are you implying that only ABC and SBS TV reporters are allowed to scrutinise the defence debate???
Sasha why are you wasting your time responding to someone says things like "deadly efficient fighters, as opposed to being the pale carbon- copies of American Marines which we have at present." ? …………. What sort of warped person would say….. "As far as the RSL goes, they should collect their half-dead war heroes. Allow them to have their ANZAC day marches. And keep it’s fucking nose out of the Nation’s affairs" ?…………… "Don’t mollycoddle them by having the media going into sobs and having moaning parents selling their stories to the women’s magazines. If one of them gets blown up"""""……
Who the @@@###%%%&&&@@@$$$ hell does this person think they are???!!!!!! How DARE they speak that way about young men and women who put their lives on the line for this country!!!
Young, ‘not so young’ Sasha:19.05 hrs.
I’m sorry to be so slow to read your post, but at 6.10pm (1810 hours) I have only just got home. Despite being only 40yrs old (and yes, I was guilty of assuming you were older. However, as you referred to John Langmore as ‘young John’) your writing did seem to be that of a 70 year old. THIS IS NOT IN ANY WAY an attempt to be rude, as
someone as dead brained as the Jack booted hoon called-sounds like a famous train wreck-Yes I knew that you were commenting on the differences between Hawke and Rudd, and their minders’ carefully thought out views of Defense. Now I have understood why this is relevant to Langmore’s hypothesis. But, I was under the impression it was academic process to agree/disagree with the initial writer, before branching off with one’s own opinions. Perhaps we went to different unis.
I know not why you are saying there’s no crime to be ambitious, etc. Of course I approve of these qualities. Any writer who fails the passion test should take up a different career. Reading my words you should realize I too care, passionately, about Australia’s future, and feel dismayed at what I believe is a tragic waste of effort by our soldiers. If wanting a modern guerilla army. An army of fighting men-mainly- who can reject this American inspired, pale carbon-copies of the US marines. I plead guilty:. If wanting an army of deadly and efficient fighters is a crime; I plead guilty. If resenting the undue influence of the RSL on Australian defense policies, not to mention politics, is a crime. I plead guilty. If I am showing undue paranoia. I plead guilty. If wanting an Australian fighting force, trained to think for Australia’s interests. Instead of blindly accepting foreign opinions, based on foreign weather, terrain and geographical knowledge. Is a crime: I plead guilty.
Now, here you assume I can only accept the news as reported by the ABC and SBS. Not so! I merely read, vociferously, as much information, from all different
sources. New York Times, Huffington Post, Times Online, Pravda, Granma of Cuba, and so one, Crikey, is another favourite source. Then I attempt to nut out the problems, based on these sources. Yes you do have a hidden agenda. All writers have to have this, in order to attempt to give one’s writing meaning. Think of the Spanish Civil War. How would Hemmingway’s writing read if he had been on the side of Generalissimo Franco? There should be no such thing as writers who are not passionate about what they write. If we continue to be vacuous clods who believe the cliché ridden trash that the commercial channels put out, we are doomed to be the drones our governments pray for.(after all they only have to look terrific once in every 4 years).
Thanks to the advertising fraternity everything has to appeal to an audience whose ideal mental age is fifteen years old.wants ‘Human Stories’. "Distraught widow of Sargent Max Steiner, who was killed by treading on a landmine, wonders how to feed her 15 children. Ms Steiner refutes the rumours that her husband and corporal Cooper were more than just good friends. You know the crap, Sasha, which is put out by Ch9, 7 and 10. Reporters in droves, armed with legal documents saying ‘sign here’. We will pay you, Ms Steiner, $50,000 for putting your story in print.This story would be the leasd one in all the Oz papers I can think of. Not the financial ones. Even though another story ‘Rock slide in Afghanistan reveals Osmar Bin Laden’s escape route’. is given second billing.
I’ve written too much; all on an empty stomach, and I’m v. tired.
Thanks for your last post.
Cheers
(The Monster!), Venise
Ciao, ciao