Departing chief flags bigger army
Patrick Walters, National security editor | July 05, 2008
THE army may have to increase in size beyond its planned 30,000 ceiling in the face of a more volatile global security environment.
Lieutenant-General Peter Leahy, who retired on Thursday after serving six years as army chief, said the army was more likely to be called on to meet the challenges thrown up by a "fractured and troubled planet" as more and more deployments were likely to be "land-centric".
"If this volatility is sustained ... in the next five to 10 years, there could be an argument for a larger army," General Leahy told The Weekend Australian in a farewell interview.
He said he could also see the possible deployment of the army's Abrams tanks as well as heavy artillery to Oruzgan province in Afghanistan in the event that existing capabilities provided by the Dutch were withdrawn.
"I think that is one of the potential deployments for not only the Abrams but artillery. Currently in the south of Afghanistan the Canadians have Leopard tanks.
"We routinely use Dutch attack helicopters and Dutch self-propelled artillery. If the Dutch were not to have those there, or they would be unavailable, I think we would have to consider very seriously the provision of our own fire support of that nature."
General Leahy said he believed Afghanistan was "winnable" but would require a sustained effort for five or more years, which had to go well beyond the military deployment. "We can only do so much and then you need people to help with education, roads and the economy, and everything else that needs to be done."
But he stressed NATO countries should commit more military resources to the counter-insurgency struggle before Australia increased its military contribution.
General Leahy rejected arguments by some middle-ranking officers that the special forces were enjoying preferment over the regular infantry battalions when it came to war-fighting, with the infantry restricted to protection and stabilisation tasks.
"But I have the confidence that when we need them to get involved in a real stoush, they will be able to do that," he said. "I am very comfortable with the tasking we have given the special forces - strategic reconnaissance and disruption roles - they are the best people to be doing that.
Army recruitment rates were the best in years despite the skills shortage with retention rates now averaging just over 10 per cent. "I keep hearing about Generation Y, the short attention spans, wanting more. We are getting Generation Y but they are not the ones I see described in the literature.
"These are people who are making a commitment and are proud to do the traditional things and are prepared to go overseas and accept the difficulties and the dangers ... I think Australia should be very proud of them."
If Australia does need to increase its army past 30,000 what shape would that increase come in?
Rounding out the existing 3 brigades to each have 4 battalions (ie delinking the 8/9 RAR in 7bde and adding an additional brigades. How many would we add, if we added 3, it would effectively allow the government to deploy 2 brigade sized forces simultaneously over long peiods?
Regardless of the size of the increase, it would require plenty of cap spend by the army, not just in vehicles but bases, artillery, helicopters and possibly expanding the air lift capabilities of the RAAF.
Would we also look at increasing the size of the reserves?
All of this would be difficult/impossible with the current budget constraints. The 2008/09 budget has putaway $3b for running the existing 3 brigades and aviation, that plus cap spend, additional support elements and recruiting/retention issues would require a significant mindshift.
