When Something Isn’t Right: What do You do?
The Chief of Army can’t explain why 1st Armoured Regiment had to be stripped of its tanks and made a non-combatant. Why? Because I’ve already had responses on the matter from the Chief of the Defence Force (CDF) and the Minister for Defence. In the CA’s view, the information they provided to me is “comprehensive and has [his] full support”. As a result, “the matter is closed”.
Apparently, the fact that these responses weren’t at all informative (which was the reason for writing to the CA) isn’t relevant.
The Minister, for example, stated that 1 Armd Regt has an important new role which involves “directly shaping how the Army fights”. What’s this mean? That’s exactly what a second letter to him asked; but there’s been no response. Maybe it’s beyond him as well.
The CDF stated that the Regiment was selected for its new role because of its “reputation as some of the Army’s foremost experts in manoeuvre warfare”. How does this make the unit the best suited, above all others, to evaluate new technology?
He also stated that “Armoured regiments have been on the forefront of military innovation for more than a century”. Another justification?? Whoever drafted the letter for the CDF wasn’t an historian, as evidenced by the drastic stalling of tank development, following the First World War. Armoured Fighting Vehicle (AFV) development is linked with advances in technology, some revolutionary, but most not. Military innovation certainly hasn’t followed on the coat tails of AFV design.
Another statement made by the CDF is that “Army’s Order of Battle is unchanged”. How can this be? A ‘line’ regiment has been stripped of its tanks and made a non-combatant. As a result, the disposition of troops ready for combat, is now completely different.
The CDF deserves some consideration; General Campbell was the CDF during the period that the 1 Armd Regt decision was made. Apparently, Gen Campbell, Lt Gen Stuart, and the Minister all discussed the issue: “it was one of a number of decisions made by the Army to meet the government’s direction”. Not THEIR responsibility, then; ‘they’ had no choice. It’s the government who’s to blame!
The CA is also of the view that “I exchanged in-depth communications” with the RAAC Head of Corps (HOC). Interestingly, as a colleague and I met personally with the HOC, there was no exchange of correspondence. The CA, therefore, can only have a limited idea as to what was discussed. Suffice to say that the HOC didn’t have answers to many of the questions raised by us during the meeting.
For example … the role of the RAAC is “to locate, identify, capture and destroy the enemy, by day or night, in combination with other arms, using fire and manoeuvre”. This means destroying the enemy, before they destroy you; and dominating the battlefield using all means available. This is what ‘arms’ units do. There’s been no suggestion of 1 Armd Regt not continuing to be an RAAC unit; how, then can it become a non-combatant, tasked with evaluating new technologies? The HOC couldn’t explain.
Given that there’s obviously something wrong with the system of representational government and open and transparent decision making … what do you do?
Nil desperandum! Illegitimi non carborundum!
Lieutenant Colonel Bruce Cameron, MC, RAAC (Ret’d)
FILE PHOTO: An Australian M1A2 Abrams SEP v3 fires sabot rounds during a live-fire to confirm the aiming system of the tank and to qualify crews on the new systems at the Puckapunyal Military Area, Victoria, November 2024. Photo by Corporal Michael Currie.
.
.
.
.
