NZDF General discussion thread

[MrConservative]

Your right Norm per Technical v Javelin. That is why I found it an interesting comment from Buchannan. I am a little perplexed over this whole asymetrical v conventional capability debate at present. I though Buchannan would be able to distinguish that. There is a false view coming from the left wing political media that because asymmetrical warfare involves an enemy using low tech or ad-hoc weapons it therefore means an organisation like the NZDF only needs to have a comparatively unsophisticated capability as well. Per the Javelins are overkill mantra.

The lefts view is that the NZDF only needs to commit to Stability and Support Operations (SASO) operations with possibly the capability to assist in limited asymmetric warfare (And only in the South Pacific) and not have a conventional Small Scale Combat Contingency (SSCC) capability.

That is the whole nub of the issue at present regarding the 2008 Defence Force Report. We have lost a plausible SSCC capability.

 

[steve33]

I couldn,t agree more with Pat Buchannan about patriotism.

Since the Anzus split America has become the country to hate it seems almost cool these days to be anti american and along with that we have had Helen Clark leading the folly of war never again campaign going to every war memorial she can find and don,t get me wrong war is without doubt not fun and not something to do if you don,t have to but sometimes it has to be done.

It is not suprising to me that it is hard to find recruits.

As far as the javlin goes it is a great purchase you never know what you are going to come up against and it is better to have the tools and not need them than to need them and not have them.

I would love to have seen us purchase close support aircraft and some 2nd hand Harriers would be pretty handy and we could probably get them for a good price being realistic money will always be a big issue for the NZDF.

 

[steve33]

Your right Norm per Technical v Javelin. That is why I found it an interesting comment from Buchannan. I am a little perplexed over this whole asymetrical v conventional capability debate at present. I though Buchannan would be able to distinguish that. There is a false view coming from the left wing political media that because asymmetrical warfare involves an enemy using low tech or ad-hoc weapons it therefore means an organisation like the NZDF only needs to have a comparatively unsophisticated capability as well. Per the Javelins are overkill mantra.

The lefts view is that the NZDF only needs to commit to Stability and Support Operations (SASO) operations with possibly the capability to assist in limited asymmetric warfare (And only in the South Pacific) and not have a conventional Small Scale Combat Contingency (SSCC) capability.

That is the whole nub of the issue at present regarding the 2008 Defence Force Report. We have lost a plausible SSCC capability.

We need to be realistic about the type of capability our military is going to have under Helen Clark she is an anti Vietnam war protester and has no love for America and has very little stomach for military conflict and she has said the thought of armed conflict makes her sick i have heard her say it.

She was politically smart enough to know that regardless of her beliefs she couldn,t sit on the fence after sep11 she had to be seen as doing something so she did the minimum sending the SAS becasue they are out of site and out of mind with lower casulties than will be seen in an infantry battalion and she sent reconstruction teams to a quiet part of Afganistan where the risks are minimal.

We will not see our armed forces with any real offensive capability under The Labour party but the question is will we see it under National and sadly i think the answer is no.

America has been built up as the bad guy over the last 25 years with great pride taken in the anti nuke legislation more so in the fact that we defied America than the actual legislation it,s self so for New Zealand forces to take part in offensive military operations alongside America along with the casulties that will no doubt result would be nothing short of political suicide for a New Zealand government.

John Key and the Nats know this so don,t be suprised if as far as defence goes you just be more of the same.

 

[steve33]

Yeah Rob, sadly our people weren't looking at the big picture, or at the very least, didn't look too far on the horizon to see the possibilities. We have only ourselves to blame for our current predicament and I wish, truly wish that our public demanded some more credible defense procurement besides glorified speedboats (OPVs) and another ferry, none of which are credibly armed and could be mission killed by a few well placed 25mm shots. I won't go into the shenanigans about the loss of our ACW as it's been done all too often, but those F16s looked good. I guess we're stuck to bludging off our ANZAC brothers.
What's happening to all of those big juicy surpluses? If not used for defense or welfare (boo) I hope it's going towards paying down the national debt.

Sadly it is not the Labour government that is to blame for the state of our military but the people of New Zealand.

The average New Zealander has the attitude that well we can,t see any threats to our country so we don,t need to be able to defend ourselves,no body is going to mess with New Zealand we are so far away from the rest of the worldand that will keep us safe.

And last but not least Anti Americanism is alive and well in New Zealand most of the people i meet in the 18-30 age bracket hold this view and these people are the future of New Zealand so there is stuff all chance of seeing the New Zealand military with strong offensive capabilities and even less chance of seeing us fighting alongside the americans.

New Zealand has a left wing pacifist attitude to defence and this won,t be changing any time soon.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

We will not see our armed forces with any real offensive capability under The Labour party but the question is will we see it under National and sadly i think the answer is no.

America has been built up as the bad guy over the last 25 years with great pride taken in the anti nuke legislation more so in the fact that we defied America than the actual legislation it,s self so for New Zealand forces to take part in offensive military operations alongside America along with the casulties that will no doubt result would be nothing short of political suicide for a New Zealand government.

John Key and the Nats know this so don,t be suprised if as far as defence goes you just be more of the same.

Your right about National, broadly, although I suspect that they will tolerate an increase in spending if only to make the current problems less of an issue at elections. As to your comment about the US, I don't think that's overly accurate, although Labour plays on residual 60's-80's complaints, imo, for some of its core constituency (ageing hippies etc) most really don't care that much any more. The real issue is how New Zealanders see the world and New Zealand's place in it, and what effects NZ.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

And last but not least Anti Americanism is alive and well in New Zealand most of the people i meet in the 18-30 age bracket hold this view and these people are the future of New Zealand so there is stuff all chance of seeing the New Zealand military with strong offensive capabilities and even less chance of seeing us fighting alongside the americans.

Anti-Americanisim or anti American Foreign policy? I am not sure why you bring this up but perhaps US actions might have something to do with it? Moreover why would NZ or anyone else want to fight along side the US, or anyone, in anything? Nations fight alongside others that if they think its in their interest to do so, they don't do it to feel all warm and fuzzy.

New Zealand has a left wing pacifist attitude to defence and this won,t be changing any time soon.

I think general ignorance of the world is a better description. I have found that explaining to defence sceptics that NZ's way of life, standard of living and political independence are determined beyond the South Pacific, as has always been the case, does wonders for their attitude towards defence. Ignorance is only bliss for those who seek to manipulate the ignorant.

 

[steve33]

For sure people only fight if it is in there interest not to feel warm and fuzzy well i see Afganistan as being in our interest and the rest of the world but you don,t see much of the combat load being carried by anyone but the U.S,Britain,Canada,Dutch,Australia and the french have copped a few casulties.

The New Zealand government will say that they don,t have an infantry battalion to deploy and in 2001 said they couldn,t because troops had just done Timor but the facts is they won,t deploy one full stop because they know that when the casulties start coming home it will be portrayed that they are being suffered in a U.S war of aggression and if they don,t pull the troops out they will be committing political suicide.

I am glad we didn,t go into Iraq we had no business there but i believe in afganistan and the SAS and reconstruction teams have done well there but find it hard to believe that we can,t put together 2x rifle company group that could operate with the Australians.

I see the "war on terror" as being our war because we travel on the planes,trains,buses that Al Qaeda want to blow up and we frequent hotels and holidays resorts that they can target and i really believe in N ew Zealand putting in maximum effort in afganistan.

 

[steve33]

Your right about National, broadly, although I suspect that they will tolerate an increase in spending if only to make the current problems less of an issue at elections. As to your comment about the US, I don't think that's overly accurate, although Labour plays on residual 60's-80's complaints, imo, for some of its core constituency (ageing hippies etc) most really don't care that much any more. The real issue is how New Zealanders see the world and New Zealand's place in it, and what effects NZ.

Agreed,the major issue is trying to convince the average Kiwi that we need a capable defence force get them to understand that having that defence force doesn,t mean that we automatically start charging off to war when ever we are called.

People in New zealand do think that we are so far away from everything that that is all we need to protect us and it is so wrong but there is the battle trying to turn that around and i know you have commented on this forum before that we never seem to have a decent public debate about defence.

 

[MrConservative]

Your right about National, broadly, although I suspect that they will tolerate an increase in spending if only to make the current problems less of an issue at elections. As to your comment about the US, I don't think that's overly accurate, although Labour plays on residual 60's-80's complaints, imo, for some of its core constituency (ageing hippies etc) most really don't care that much any more. The real issue is how New Zealanders see the world and New Zealand's place in it, and what effects NZ.

After reading some of the comments posted in the NZ Herald following General Jerry's op-ed there are some very strange views out there in Kiwiland regarding Defence Stuart as you would probably know (I spotted your name on Farrah's site - good post). Simply many of them don't actually know how the world really works and NZ's role in it. A lot of what was posted was irrational extremist nonsense from both ends. It was both a frustrating and comical experience.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

For sure people only fight if it is in there interest not to feel warm and fuzzy well i see Afganistan as being in our interest and the rest of the world but you don,t see much of the combat load being carried by anyone but the U.S,Britain,Canada,Dutch,Australia and the french have copped a few casulties.

The New Zealand government will say that they don,t have an infantry battalion to deploy and in 2001 said they couldn,t because troops had just done Timor but the facts is they won,t deploy one full stop because they know that when the casulties start coming home it will be portrayed that they are being suffered in a U.S war of aggression and if they don,t pull the troops out they will be committing political suicide.

I am glad we didn,t go into Iraq we had no business there but i believe in afganistan and the SAS and reconstruction teams have done well there but find it hard to believe that we can,t put together 2x rifle company group that could operate with the Australians.

I see the "war on terror" as being our war because we travel on the planes,trains,buses that Al Qaeda want to blow up and we frequent hotels and holidays resorts that they can target and i really believe in N ew Zealand putting in maximum effort in afganistan.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I happen to agree with the operations in Afghanistan, but as usual we have the whole public ignorance thing. When it comes to what we could have sent to Afghanistan, well I think we are probably are doing all we can and that's because of the lack of personal and equipment (notice how the government defence spend conveniently prevents us from doing more? not that labour wouldn't love to do more)While we could put two companies into the Stan, we couldn't sustain them in combat, the latest Defence reports illustrates this, especially when we have no reserve stocks of equipment and two few people.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

After reading some of the comments posted in the NZ Herald following General Jerry's op-ed there are some very strange views out there in Kiwiland regarding Defence Stuart as you would probably know (I spotted your name on Farrah's site - good post).

I can only hope that most have enough intelligence to see the extremists for what they are, as they seem to be the only ones who generally send letters to the editor (as opposed to those who post on the internet ) And yes that was me on kiwiblog, I was surprised at the tone of Paul Buchanan's posts, I have to say.

Simply many of them don't actually know how the world really works and NZ's role in it. A lot of what was posted was irrational extremist nonsense from both ends. It was both a frustrating and comical experience.

Scares the crap out of me, to be honest. I blame the education system: not enough history or economics and that's going to have some nasty effects in the future.

 

[KiwiRob]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I happen to agree with the operations in Afghanistan, but as usual we have the whole public ignorance thing. When it comes to what we could have sent to Afghanistan, well I think we are probably are doing all we can and that's because of the lack of personal and equipment (notice how the government defence spend conveniently prevents us from doing more? not that labour wouldn't love to do more)While we could put two companies into the Stan, we couldn't sustain them in combat, the latest Defence reports illustrates this, especially when we have no reserve stocks of equipment and two few people.

Good points, I think it would be fairly easy to find the extra two people that are needed to allow us to pull our weight

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Good points, I think it would be fairly easy to find the extra two people that are needed to allow us to pull our weight

I cannot agree, in such circumstances that that two extra people obviously cannot be found to fulfil vital missions of national importance. there is a serious problem. This just goes to show the inadequacy of pay and opportunities within defence, and this situation is a disgrace.
I have said before that education may be at fault, national standards in economics, history and grammar must be lifted, we must know what we must defend and why, and be able to clearly communicate this vital need.

 

[Cadredave]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I happen to agree with the operations in Afghanistan, but as usual we have the whole public ignorance thing. When it comes to what we could have sent to Afghanistan, well I think we are probably are doing all we can and that's because of the lack of personal and equipment (notice how the government defence spend conveniently prevents us from doing more? not that labour wouldn't love to do more)While we could put two companies into the Stan, we couldn't sustain them in combat, the latest Defence reports illustrates this, especially when we have no reserve stocks of equipment and two few people.

I too would love to deploy with a Rifle Coy, but operating in an organisation that is stretched and wearing more than one hat daily does burn you out, currently Im fulfilling daily 3 different jobs none of which contribute to my core job as a Infantryman dont get me wrong I'm not complaning there was no way NZDF could remotely compete with the vast amounts of cash that was offered by DynoCorp and the rest (private security Coy in Astan & Iraq) for well trained Tier 1 & 3 soldiers in the NZ Army, nor can we compete with the job offers from closer to home (Western Australia) that is still stripping the current crop of the Army now. To be brutally honest deploying 2 x Rfn coy will destroy the Army we still have not regenerated from the first NZBATTs to Timor (1999 - 2004) due to the amount of operations happening at the moment, the CDF was telling it how he & the rest of us see it.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

I too would love to deploy with a Rifle Coy, but operating in an organisation that is stretched and wearing more than one hat daily does burn you out, currently Im fulfilling daily 3 different jobs none of which contribute to my core job as a Infantryman dont get me wrong I'm not complaning there was no way NZDF could remotely compete with the vast amounts of cash that was offered by DynoCorp and the rest (private security Coy in Astan & Iraq) for well trained Tier 1 & 3 soldiers in the NZ Army, nor can we compete with the job offers from closer to home (Western Australia) that is still stripping the current crop of the Army now. To be brutally honest deploying 2 x Rfn coy will destroy the Army we still have not regenerated from the first NZBATTs to Timor (1999 - 2004) due to the amount of operations happening at the moment, the CDF was telling it how he & the rest of us see it.

I know, but you will note that I did not reference the consequences of putting two companies out. Old story, pay, conditions and opportunities, and its a situation that will not markedly change while public defence thinking is the way it is.

 

[Cadredave]

Where your right Stuart from my point of view after 23 yrs of wearing green it is still the same old story different year different government, I see peoples views on wanting National but to be honest having served under both Parties since the 1980s there both the same, any way there are many ways to be a regional power & I believe that the NZ way of dealing with the Pacific is the right way (Soft power) it goes alot further in the Pacific than brute force, its a pity that we are trying to use it Globally.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Where your right Stuart from my point of view after 23 yrs of wearing green it is still the same old story different year different government, I see peoples views on wanting National but to be honest having served under both Parties since the 1980s there both the same, any way there are many ways to be a regional power & I believe that the NZ way of dealing with the Pacific is the right way (Soft power) it goes alot further in the Pacific than brute force, its a pity that we are trying to use it Globally.

Indeed, now if you where to look at government policy since 1945 I think you will find some further confirmation of your view..perhaps if one were to look at the 20's/30's one could argue that increases in spending and equipment in WW2 was a minor hiccup in a trend.

 

[steve33]

I too would love to deploy with a Rifle Coy, but operating in an organisation that is stretched and wearing more than one hat daily does burn you out, currently Im fulfilling daily 3 different jobs none of which contribute to my core job as a Infantryman dont get me wrong I'm not complaning there was no way NZDF could remotely compete with the vast amounts of cash that was offered by DynoCorp and the rest (private security Coy in Astan & Iraq) for well trained Tier 1 & 3 soldiers in the NZ Army, nor can we compete with the job offers from closer to home (Western Australia) that is still stripping the current crop of the Army now. To be brutally honest deploying 2 x Rfn coy will destroy the Army we still have not regenerated from the first NZBATTs to Timor (1999 - 2004) due to the amount of operations happening at the moment, the CDF was telling it how he & the rest of us see it.

It is so dissapointing to know that things are so bad,i heard the news that the government was spending all these billions of dollers on the military and they were putting up pay rates and then i heard the report the other day about the state of the military and was gutted.

We can,t support a two rifle company group, that is disgrace.

I suffered a back injury in a motorbike accident when i was seventeen and couldn,t serve in the military because of it but i never lost my intrest i love the New Zealand army and all i can say is how sad it makes me to see the state of things.

What do you think of a Ranger school for the New Zealand army to create a standard of soldiering between the standard infantryman and SAS.

Soldiers could go to the Ranger school and get there Ranger tab and go back to there battalion Ranger qualified a far better soldier,it would be great for anyone to do but even more so for section and platoon leaders and would also prepare people for the SAS if they could the chance to try out.

It is something i am a fan of to create some oppurtunity and excitement in the new Zealand army which is what it needs as well as more funding.

 

[steve33]

Indeed, now if you where to look at government policy since 1945 I think you will find some further confirmation of your view..perhaps if one were to look at the 20's/30's one could argue that increases in spending and equipment in WW2 was a minor hiccup in a trend.

Totally agree stuart we have forever underfunded our military and we will continue to do so because the attitude towards defending our country and interests which we have talked about a lot on this forum, this belief in New Zealand that our isolation protects us and whats going on in the rest of the world doesn,t effect us.

I have a book written by Glyn Harper called Howard Kippenberger an outstanding commander and he commments on the way in New Zealand we always celebrate battles that we lost because they fit in nicely with the folly of war never again campaign that has gone on for the last 20 years.

And i think it was Kippenberger in the book who also commented how tough it was to be a soldier in New Zealand in the 1930,s where they said no one was looked at with more scorn and contempt by the public than the New Zealand soldier which is so sad to hear.

We as a country have serious attitude problem when it comes to military matters and defending our nation and interests.

The fact is we have always produced outstanding soldiers and have won more battles than we lost earning big respect from our opponents and don,t get me wrong without doubt war is not fun and not something you do if you don,t have to but in a world like ours that runs on greed,self interest and might you simply can,t afford to leave yourself defenceless and say never again because you can find yourself in a fight where you have no say in the matter it is forced upon you.

The fact that we a country of 4.2 million people can,t deploy a two strong rifle company group is without doubt a sad state of affairs and a total disgrace that we have let it get to this.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

The fact that we a country of 4.2 million people can,t deploy a two strong rifle company group is without doubt a sad state of affairs and a total disgrace that we have let it get to this.

And one of the greatest problems, perversely, is those who support better equipped forces, because they have seldom done it properly, just look at how we lost the Air Force Strike Arm.