Australia is burning

You know it's hot when a Koala decides to crawl out of a Eucalyptus tree in favour of someone's out building.

Mind you any smart Koala would want to get clear of a tree which not only sucks up tremendous amounts of water but has been known to explode when the temperature gets too high. (On a hot day the blue Eucalyptus gas haze overcomes the Oz landscape).

You don't have to take my word for it. Ask Rex.

If you listen to him, this isn't happening because it snowed in Vancouver.

Where is the Quid Pro Quo?

The "Campaign Season" in Afghanistan is spreading. An Australian Special Air Service patrol was ambushed after a mission in Oruzgan province. While none of the Aussies were killed, one soldier is in critical condition and eight others were wounded, five of them seriously.

Before anyone shrugs their shoulders and moves off to refill the coffee cup, this report hit the Australian press on Thursday with a certain amount of alarm. This is the largest number of casualties the Australian task force in Afghanistan has taken in a single engagement since they initially deployed... and it immediately raised the ghost of another of Australia's wars.

AUSTRALIA has suffered one of its worst battlefield incidents since the Vietnam War, with one soldier left fighting for his life and eight others wounded in an ambush launched by Taliban forces in Afghanistan.

The lede in the Sydney Morning Herald was similar:

AN ambush of Australian troops in Afghanistan has left nine special forces soldiers injured - including one fighting for his life - in a battle that resulted in more casualties than any encounter since the Vietnam War.

Most other Australian media outlets used the same connection, referring to Australia's military involvement in Vietnam, with at least one giving a brief description of the 21 September, 1971, battle of Nui Le, a 14 hour engagement which left five Aussies dead and 24 wounded just six weeks before Australia ended its combat operations in Vietnam.

It was the reference to Vietnam which raised my curiosity. Not because I was suprised to see it, but because it was so prominent. The Australian involvement in Vietnam ran nearly as long as the United States, starting with the deployment of advisors and eventually reaching a peak of almost 7000 ground troops in 1967 which included a rifle company from New Zealand.

The Australian committment to Vietnam was less mysterious than one might think. Given Australia's proximity to Southeast Asia, weak and unstable governments immediately adjacent to them generate genuine concerns for the safety of their frontiers. Looking into it, I discovered this, sent to the prime minister of Australia from the Australian ambassador to the U.S.:

'Our objective should be ... to achieve such an habitual closeness of relations with the United States and sense of mutual alliance that in our time and need, after we have shown all reasonable restraint and good sense, the United States would have little option but to respond as we would want.'
'The problem of Vietnam is one, it seems, where we could ... pick up a lot of credit with the United States, for this problem is one to which the United States is deeply committed and in which it genuinely feels it is carrying too much of the load, not so much the physical load the bulk of which the United States is prepared to bear, as the moral load.'

So, the question of involvement in Vietnam had less to do with the unstable Diem government at the time and more to do with an opportunity to lever the United States into a position favourable to Australia in the future.

Countries do that. I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine when an itch develops. Mutual alliance.

Unfortunately, Australia's Vietnam history runs close to parallel with that the of U.S. in the same period, including resorting to conscription to fill army ranks and jailing protesters opposed to the war.

But it was the fact that Australia's primary reason for entry into Vietnam had little to do with Vietnam itself. It was to elicit a form of guarantee that Australia could demand U.S. military and political favour, quickly and without question, should the need ever arise. As ugly as it sounds, the Australian government was prepared to, and did, shed the blood of its own people in a conflict in which they had less than serious interest to enhance the relationship with the United States, gain a position under the U.S. military umbrella and develop a level of influence.

It struck me that perhaps a similarity exists now with Canada's involvement in Afghanistan. That Harper is trying to gain leverage with the Bush administration.

Except that Harper is accomplishing the opposite.

Harper is giving it away for free. He's not asking for anything. No ties have been strengthened and no influence has been gained.

Harper, like a six-year old looking for praise, is happy with a pat on the head. Far from attempting to establish a position of sovereign independence he's more than happy to truck anything the Bushies demand to anywhere the Bushies want. In return he is demanding, and getting, zip.

Even in Afghanistan the rotating command, which saw Canada in charge of operations in its AO every six out of eighteen months, is about to evaporate. Future U.S. plans include placing Canadian forces under U.S. or British command.

When Harper went with Bush to Bucharest whining for more troops from the NATO allies the response was predicatable. The long established European NATO members view every such U.S. plea with great skepticism. They know all too well that favours are seldom returned in such cases and particularly from the current U.S. administration. The NATO members that did offer to increase their committment were the newer ones. There is every reason to believe that the backroom session was not a negotiation but a reminder: We got you into this alliance, it's good for you and now you owe us. Cough up.

Harper's leverage wasn't there. His position on his beloved "world stage" was wholly dependent on the presence of his divine hero. If the Bush administration position had been different, Harper would have found himself several rows back in the audience, the major European allies being at odds with his demands.

Where the Australians were clearly looking for a way to enhance their national security and international influence by supporting the United States (Vietnam was a "fill-in-the-blank" conduit), Harper is out to stroke his own ego. Canada is little more than an instrument to sate his thirst for validation from something or someone he views as greater.

Harper is embarrassing this country.

It was difficult enough in the past to get the average European or Asian to believe there was a difference between the U.S. and Canada on any level. It took some convincing to get most to believe that Canada pursued an independent foreign policy and, aside from the well-known mutual defence alliances, cautiously engaged countries the United States shunned.

Since the arrival of Harper the independence of Canadian foreign policy has started to wither away. Where Canada once had international leverage it is now viewed as uncharacteristically tied to the U.S. The greatest evidence of this is Canada's apparent adhesion to U.S. positions taken at various United Nations conferences and on issues before the UN.

Harper hasn't earned Canada any new position on the "world stage" at all. We used to have a well-respected, albeit quiet, place all along. What Harper has gained is a place for himself among his American neo-con brethren on the "American stage" and given the degree to which the U.S. is now loathed internationally, it is not only the wrong place to be, it is, at absolute best, temporary.

What is even more incomprehensible is that Harper does not seem to understand that his position as a player on the American stage is so obviously insignificant. His ego won't allow him that self-examination or that self-awareness.

Australia, during Vietnam at least, expected something in return for their support of U.S. foreign policy. Whether that actually worked for them or not is open to considerable debate. Whether Harper's similar behaviour has resulted in anything but a pillaging of Canada's resources, the co-opting of our military and a loss of international favour, is not.

==============

Only slightly related to topic is this little piece from Australia. It seems the Australian army is also being scrutinized for their treatment of prisoners.

Australia joins the coalition of the disappearing

Kevin Rudd, Australia's new prime minister, doesn't appear to be wasting any time divesting his country of links to George W Bush's Iraq fiasco.

About 550 Australian combat troops in Iraq should be withdrawn by about the middle of next year, Prime Minister-elect Kevin Rudd said on Friday, setting a broad timetable for the soldiers to return home.

Australia has about 1,500 troops in and around Iraq, but Rudd won power at the Australia's national election on November 24 with a promise to bring frontline forces home.

"The combat force in Iraq we would have home by around the middle of next year," Rudd told Australian radio.

This is not a complete withdrawal however. What Rudd is talking about is pulling the Overwatch Battle Group (West) out of Tallil Airbase and removing the roughly 100 trainers out of various locations around Iraq.

What isn't mentioned is the Australian component of the Combined Explosives Exploitation Cell which works on countering improvised explosive devices along with US and British members.

It also looks like three C-130 Hercules transport planes and two P3 Orion maritime patrol aircraft will remain along with a permanently established frigate in the Persian Gulf.

It will be worth watching.

The Battle of Beersheba

Trench warfare was to become the icon of the Great War. Yet, far away from the mud of Belgium and France an army which relied on mobility and maneuver was about to make history.

On October 31st, 1917, ninety years ago, at the edge of the Negev desert in what was then Palestine, two nations emerged and committed themselves to the force of arms in an event which would put a seal on their unique status.

Where Canada makes claim to a right to speak on its own behalf after the Canadian led assault on Vimy Ridge, two other British dominions, fighting in the same war, also claim such a right for actions of their own.

Germany's eastern ally, Turkey, had fortified a line from Gaza to Beersheba. In early 1917 there were two attempts to break the Gaza-Beersheba line to no avail. By the autumn of 1917 British forces in Palestine had been reorganized, reinforced and provided with new leadership.

Leading the Desert Mounted Corps, comprised of the ANZAC Mounted Division (1st and 2nd Australian Light Horse Brigades and the New Zealand Mounted Rifle Brigade) and the Australian Mounted Division (3rd and 4th Austrlian Light Horse Brigades and the 5th (British) Yeomanry Brigade), was Australian General Henry Chauvel, the first Australian to command an Allied army corps.

Beersheba offered little. Sitting 30 miles inland from the Mediterranean shore, the wells of Beersheba were one of the few supplies of water along the Turkish line stretching south from Gaza. By fortifying Beersheba and increasing the defences closer to Gaza the Turks felt they could prevent Allied activity by denying them access to sufficient water. The British, realizing that Gaza would be too difficult to take, viewed Beersheba as critical to controlling that section of Palestine.

Given the direction of approach, the Turkish fortification of Tel el Saba, a mound which commanded a complete view of the surrounding plain and the Hebron road, would have to be taken first. Further, if Beersheba was not taken in one day, the Allied troops would have to withdraw in search of water.

The Australian Light Horse and the New Zealand Mounted Rifles were not really cavalry. Unlike the British 5th Yeomanry, they did not carry swords and were not expected to fight from horseback. They were actually mounted infantry - foot soldiers. The Australians and New Zealanders were expected to use their mounts to reach a predetermined destination and then advance from there on foot to their objective.

On the morning of 31 October 1917 British artillery began the assault. Using classic infantry tactics the British moved forward from the south and west of Beersheba, brought their artillery forward. At the same time the Turks were observed reinforcing Tel el Saba. Under cover of artillery, the 3rd Regiment Australian Light Horse and the New Zealand Auckland Regiment advanced on Tel el Saba. By 3 in the afternoon, the New Zealanders had fought their way into Tel el Saba, securing the Hebron road.

A great deal of time had been lost and by 4:30 in the afternoon the decision was taken to capture and occupy Beersheba immediately. Brigadier William Grant, commanding the 4th Australian Light Horse Brigade, (now with only two regiments), gave the order to advance at a trot in artillery order with 15 feet between the squadrons which made up the regiment.

The original plan had called for the lighthorsemen to advance on horseback, dismount and then make an infantry assault on foot. However, as the sun was waning, Chauvel ordered Grant to take Beersheba forthwith, remaining mounted during the assault.

Within minutes of stepping off, the two regiments of the 4th Brigade Australian Light Horse, lacking swords, drew bayonets and spurred their horses to a gallop. They had committed to a cavalry charge.

The Turkish defenders were caught unawares. Expecting the lighthorsemen to dismount and complete their attack on foot, the Turkish riflemen failed to adjust their sights quickly enough and found themselves firing over the heads of the charging Australians. The lighthorsemen jumped the trenches, dismounted and routed the Turks from behind their lines. The Turks, surprized by the charge and completely disorganized, were only too willing to surrender. As reinforcements charged into the town the Turks panicked and ran. By nightfall the Australians had secured Beersheba. In fact, the charge of the 4th Brigade had gone so fast that Chauvel was unaware of the success for almost an hour after the town had been taken.

The New Zealanders at Tel el Saba and the Australians at Beersheba had changed the course of their countries' futures. And the 4th Brigade Australian Light Horse performed the last organized and successful cavalry charge in the history of warfare.

On 31 October 2007, some of the descendants of that battle gathered in the town once known as Beersheba. They crossed the Negev and made the approach to the town on horseback in uniforms of the Australian Light Horsemen and New Zealand Mounted Rifles. This time there was no charge. They walked their horses into Beersheba. They carried wreaths and wore poppies, their bayonets remaining sheathed. They came to commemorate the dead on both sides of that battle 90 years ago.

And they brought a message. Pursue peace.

When folk music and political protest clash

Via Uncorrected Proofs, this protest song was deemed to be "too political" for an Australian Folk Festival.



Really... that was too political?

It's too bad the Ed Sullivan Show is gone. I mean, after all, that was the all time favourite variety program of the conservative right. Up until this happened...



Now that's political.