Australia sends a team to every Olympics, and a contingent to every serious American war. We've been doing that a long time, and we'll be doing it a while longer.
Consequently our military planners have gotten doing "token support" down to a fine art, providing assistance that is politically handy for the Americans, militarily useful, and safe, in the sense of there being few or no embarrassing screw-ups where the Australians are active, at minimum cost and minimum risk of casualties.
They've gotten it down to too fine an art now. It suits politicians if the army doesn't really fight, because there's no risk of politically embarrassing casualties, but it doesn't suit the soldiers, who signed up to fight, who are trained and able to fight, who regard the Americans as genuine comrades, and who are ashamed in front of their mates that the uniforms they wear practically announce them as non-fighters. (link)
"Australian Army chief Peter Leahy has moved to reassure infantry troops frustrated that they are not seeing enough combat."
"The exclusion of Australia's infantry troops from frontline conflicts, including in Iraq, has left many feeling "ashamed of wearing their Australian uniform", Army Major Jim Hammett has written."
"The infantry, which makes up about a third of the army's combat forces, had not been assigned offensive actions since the Vietnam War and the special forces were seeing all the combat, he wrote."
"In a separate article cited by Fairfax newspapers, Captain Greg Colton, second in command of the Sydney-based 3rd Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment, said infantry morale had deteriorated in the past 10 years as regular infantry units were given only "second-rate operational tasks"."
Lieutenant General Leahy responded by (in my opinion) talking down to the troops and about them, as though they were easily bored children wanting to play toy soldiers or go on an outing.
"This is no longer infantry wearing red jackets and white cross straps, taking on the army of another king."
"I know that the infantry have real basic skills, that they can do that traditional role of seek ... and kill and destroy."
"But we're not asking for that at the moment, that's not the environment we're in."
Why should we expect that troops educated to understand that they are not wanted as fighters, never have been since the Vietnam War, and not likely to be in their lifetimes are going to perform better, if they are put to the test, than the "frightened fifteen" selling their embarrassing stories to the British press?
It's easy to make light of this, but I think it's serious. Regardless of arms and technical proficiencies, fighting spirit is the difference between a tiger and a tiger-skin rug, and we are turning our tigers into rugs.
I don't think this is a purely Australian problem. I think it is likely to be a problem - not much spoken of - with all the countries that habitually provide token military efforts.
And I think it's symptomatic of the dangerously un-serious way we are approaching the jihad wars.
David Hackworth wrote in "About Face" at length about how in his opinion the Australian RAR had a much better grasp of how to fight the insurgent and that there was too much an "honor culture" among the officer corps in the U S Army to learn from their comrades from Down Under.
Australia was the only Western ally the U.S. had in Vietnam, and one that was putting its shoulder to the burden of fighting. If some Australians think you all are "coasting" through this one, this is something you will need to work out as Australians, but you shouldn't think every sacrifice you make has to be another Gallipoli. As a US citizen, I am most thoroughly grateful for anything and everything Australians, present and past, have done and are doing.
Welcome to the world of limited warfare. As technology increases and civilian tolerance for casualties decreases, expect to see this effect become even more exacerbated.
Whether the alternative is preferable should be the matter of serious debate; but I don't think anyone can deny the direction of the overall trend.
[Carl, you're welcome to contribute original content here, as long as it meets the comments policy.
However, posting (virtually) the same diatribe on multiple sites doesn't make the contribution substantive in our eyes. Google is a powerful tool for statistically unlikely phrases. How 'bout that.
Deleted. --NM]
30,000 Canadians also served in Vietnam, in US uniform, including a Medal of Honor winner: Sgt. Peter Lemon of the 1st Cavalry Division.
Most Western governments don't want soldiers any more, though they will contribute "peacekeeping" forces to projects more dubious than any war.
When these soldiers end up in harm's way, like the Belgian troops murdered in Rwanda, or the Canadians who wound up battling the Croat Army in the Balkans, or the Irish Battalion that was forced to surrender to a mercenary army in the Congo in 1961, it's all conscience-free. They don't wave the dead bodies in the face of the UN, or the governments that sent them. When it's for "peace" the body-count is a freebie, and the survivors get no glory.
You also might mention the the South Korea also had troops in Vietnam that fought with great valor.
New Zealand also sent some soldiers (3,500): very few in comparison with Australia but still this was a significant contribution from the Kiwi perspective, with long lasting repercussions.
An interesting link related to US's Vietnam allies
Mr. Blue:
I was always glad to see your Diggers out with us, whether they were involved in direct combat or not. We treasure your friendship and support; and I trust that, should you ever have need of us, we would some something of the loyalty that you have so often demonstrated to us.
That said, are you sure this is the reason your soldiers are ashamed of their uniforms? Have you seen the Australian Desert Camo uniform?
"Yellow and brown polka-dot pajamas" would be a reasonably kind description.
By all means, man, get them something a little better to wear. :)
Part of this reluctance to send troops into real combat where they will kill and be killed is the lunatic fantasy in the "End of History" and "the Last Man" apropos of Fukayama's full title: "The End of History and the Last Man."
Are not Western societies rich and powerful? Protected by oceans or vast distances from dangerous but poor people? Have not "violence" as means to "solve" disputes been ended by the march of history transforming human nature? Is not ever place and every man merely a more colorful version of suburban Adelaide or Simi Valley?
These are the natural outgrowths of a consumerist, materialist, profoundly status-driven society that is old and wealthy. Even Israel which has daily evidence this is not so (rocket attacks from Gaza) has fallen prey to this fantasy. ['Lets hug our enemies really hard and they'll love us, no fighting! Imagine by John Lennon.']
It is not, however, likely a permanent condition.
Australia is near Indonesia. Poor, Muslim, without the ability to create wealth for the masses, and with many a ruthless and ambitious man who knows killing (and the risk of being killed) very well. I am quite sure the far larger in population Indonesians would covet the land, wealth, and people of Australia. Why not?
Would Australians kill and be willing to be killed to preserve themselves? The answer many ruthless men in Indonesia are going to give themselves, eventually, is no. They will not.
It might not be tomorrow, or even ten years from now, but eventually the soldiers of Australia (and many else) will end up as people always do, having to fight to keep what they have from a great mass of poor people holding alien values and religions, a fanatic tribal identity as Lee Harris puts it, to simply take.
That has been the experience of human history. There has been no abolition of human nature, history, clash of tribalism vs. nationalism, or any shortage of ruthless alpha males wanting to rule all others. [The more thoughtful soldiers have a point -- given regional threats it is a very bad idea to let fear of casualties and fantasies about the end of history drive the Australian Army into irrelevancy or rustiness. The cost of that is likely to be high.]
Following on comments of #8 I seem to remember a British diplomat years ago as saying, "What is history
but the erasing of borders and the disappearance of peoples?"
[Spam, OT, deleted. Carl Gordon, you are now added to our ban list. Congratulations. And thanks to PD Shaw for his able assistance. --NM]