Bruce, you are becoming more and more irrelevant with each article. Bruce the boats an global warming have stopped.

It was the boats, started by your poster boy Kevy, who used the navy as a taxi service, led to 100's of drownings and lowered morale and caused huge trauma for service people.

Nothing the fantastic Liberal Government rivals those disasters. I haven't heard of any stress among service people since the boats have stopped.

Htf are the military involved or connected to climate change?
You've only raised that in this article because you are fixated. It really is time you caught up with the current research and data in relation to climate change.

Our best two generals were civilian volunteers, or weekend warriors. A banana farmer and a railway engineer.
Arguably, because they hadn't had forgone their ability to think independently, by being put through the meat grinder, that allegedly produces leaders, or in some cases, puppets or order obeying robots.
The latter is also a feature of ordinary Aussie soldiers, who don't have their independent spirits trained/brainwashed out of them, and are still able to operate their own moral compass, even if that then means quite deliberately disobeying, so-called lawful orders?
As to the current crop of generals, I just don't know.
Perhaps if we're ever again, thrown in the deep end of a battle/war not of our making, one or two real not churned out by the system, leaders might again emerge? [Like those unsung heroes/forward observers who called down fire on their own positions and saved our bacon at the battle of long tan?]
Much to the chagrin of those who believe leaders can be manufactured like conformity observing sausages/manufactured meat?
Yes sir no sir three bags full sir!
Rhrosty.

Generals come and Generals go, it's the grunts and their cohorts who do the real 'heavy lifting' in any military conflict. Always will !

I gave up, the false analogies were too much. It was on a par with the evangelical religious rhetoric on late night TV. Who listens to that anyhow?

Having witnessed the achievements of Sir Peter John Cosgrove AK, MC for instance I am very proud that Australia's interests is being well served by our senior military leaders. As well, Sir Peter speaks simply, factually and frankly without resorting to tawdry rhetorical tricks like false comparisons.

O sung wo

Major General Sir John Monash.

*Entering armed into a country without its people's consent is invading it.
*Invading a country that is not invading anyone else is aggression.
*Aggression is a crime against international law, a war crime.
*Germany and Japan committed the crime of aggression.
*German and Jap officers obeyed the commands to commit aggression.
*It is a crime to obey a criminal order.
*The main German and Jap criminals rightly got their necks stretched for aggression.
*They were dishonourable and so were all who obeyed them.
*The first requirement for a serving officer is that the person be honourable.
*Officers who engage in aggression fail the first test.
True or false?

Good evening to you IMJULIANUTTER...

A great WW1 General to be sure, was Sir John Monash. Nevertheless, it's the grunts that 'went over the top' and who died by the hundreds, and hundreds. In that era, most of the British Generals were manifestly incompetent. Even the likes of Winston Churchill.

By his own hand, "Bruce Haigh is a conscripted member of the ADF." Utter bull!

Bruce Haigh is NOT a "conscripted member of the ADF" because there aren't any. There was once upon a time, but not any more. By including tripe like this and his heartstring-pulls with all his family's prior service is just so much rubbish.

He's a lefty, socialist whiner who knows nothing about the ADF and whether any general is up to scratch - even if he's met a few.

Well put Captain Col.

The fool can't distinguish a good prime minister from a no hoper, why would we believe he would be any better judge of generals.

I'm with you there o sung wu, Churchill & his Boys Own Book type daring do, killed a very large number of men who did not have to die.

Yet another "How can I twist a topic to make it relate to Australia's refusal to admit anybody who wants to come to Australia?" from Bruce Haigh.

Bruce submits the extraordinary position that unless Australia's military top brass commits mutiny and refuses to obey the democratically elected government of Australia on this issue, then they are morally bereft and therefore military incompetent. Yeah, sure Bruce.

I know that this is a bit hard for you to understand, but our military leaders just may consider the mass invasion of Australia by boat people from cultures and religions contrary and hostile to our own culture as exactly a job that the defence forces are designed for. You must live under a rock if you can't figure out that there is more than one way to invade and conquer another country. Ask the Ukrainians and Serbs about that.

How you ever got in into your head that anyone who wants to come to Australia should just get on a boat in Indonesia and we should not stop them is a mystery to me. Is it because you want to destroy your own culture? Do you want to send Australia broke importing people into a welfare state who have never paid a penny for it's upkeep? Or is it just personal vanity, where you want to think of yourself as ah, so ferking morally superior to the majority of Australia's population?

o sung wo,

Monash invented the rolling barrage in WWI. That saved the lives of a great many men. The Americans adopted his tactics and won that war with them.

He was seconded to the US forces and was revered in the US.

He had influence far greater than any other general of the 20th century.

The Germans in WWII studied his tactics and developed the Blitzkrieg from them.

We in Australia do not celebrate him as much as we should. He was not just a great officer. He was also a brilliant tactician.

Winston Churchill was never a General. He was First Lord of the Admiralty during WWI and WWII. He was a commander on the Western Front in WWI.

Opening a front in the Dardanelles against the Ottoman Empire was his suggestion. Had that been successful it would have shortened the War by years. The cause of it's failure has never been truly revealed. He was never in command of it's execution and was never blamed for it's failure. He was held responsible as it became regarded as a folly.

Churchill and Monash should not be included in your deprecating postings. Wars and battles are won by leadership, tactics, courage and luck not just by troops.

how the left hate to see what they sprouted could not be done now being done. It took a fair bit of what Bruce call 'moral courage'. The previous Government had no backbone and was a laughing stock of the world. I suggest Bruce understand if he is going to talk about morality that he realises how dumb and contradictory the moral relativism dogma is. I wonder from what 'moral ' base he draws his conclusions. His analogies are atrocious.

If I had to choose bewtween Sir Peter John Cosgrove AK, MC opinions and those of our Writer I would choose ... uummmm.. sorry , Bruce, you lose .

An unfair comparison, I know , similar to your comparison between our WW1 and 2 Generals and the present Border situation.

Hi (again) IMJULLIANUTTER...

I'll defer to your obvious superior knowledge of Sir John Monash, other than to agree that he was a superb leader, the specifics of which, I'm not personally aware. Apropos Sir Winston Churchill a brilliant war time PM (WW 11) however his accountability with respect to the events of the Dardanelles in 1915 will remain debatable, and to be quite honest I'm not in possession of all the facts in order to make an appropriate academic judgement.

Concerning leadership - I myself was a regular soldier and a veteran. It's the grunts, the junior and senior NCO's who prosecute a successful campaign. While it's also true there are many junior commissioned officers' who play a broad tactical and strategic role, however it's the Platoon Sergeant's and Section leaders (corporals) who do the real 'leading' in the field, you can believe me on that fact !

My friend, we could argue endlessly on this issue. I speak purely from a viewpoint, with what I saw and experienced, in Malaya, Borneo (1964/65 and South Vietnam (1968/69).

Who's side were you on in Malaya, Borneo and South Vietnam, O Sung Wu?

Good afternoon to you LEGO...

In answer to your question...The Mauritanians.

o sung wu

Sorry about my previous misspelling.

I am a pacifist, have never fought in a war and with age have learned knowledge (as opposed to experience) and the pen are far mightier than the sword.

I have read of the lives and tactics of the great leaders and generals such as Genghis Khan, Sun Tzu, Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Wellington, Nelson, Zhukov, MacArthur, Eisenhower etc.

I have come to a belief if the tactics and decisions of the leadership are wrong or ill considered there is little the 'grunts' can do that will change outcomes.

The west clearly won all of the military battles in Vietnam but lost that war due to poor tactics (failure to win hearts and minds) and bankrupt political leadership.

Yet in Malaysia in a similar campaign the west clearly won easily. Military tactics and leadership as well as political leadership were paramount.

cheers

Good afternoon to you IMJULIANUTTER...

I've thoroughly enjoyed our brief chat. Though it would seem prima facie, we're diametrically opposed to the question of 'leadership' per se. That said, I'd defer absolutely to you historical knowledge every time.

Something you did say apropos Vietnam, which I found quite refreshing ? Most people assert that we, the allies, or the US specifically, lost the war in Vietnam ? Nothing could be further from the truth. We lost the war on the streets of Sydney and Melbourne, on the campuses of most Oz Universities. In Washington DC, in Boston, New York and in Chicago etc. ?

It's awfully tough to successfully prosecute a war, when your own general population are manifestly against you, and what you're trying to achieve ? And that's not to mention the dreadful psychological effect, upon the tens of thousands of US troops, when it's made known that one of the most famous of all Hollywood Traitors, Ms JANE FONDA cavorts and romps around with smiling North Vietnam Generals in Hanoi ! All the while, just a few Kilometres away, her own citizens (captured US Soldiers) are held imprisoned in the most dreadful conditions, in the infamous 'Hanoi Hilton Hotel' prison !

Personally speaking, I sincerely hope this bitch dies slowly of some incurable disease. Does this make me a monster ? I don't know, that's for others to judge I suppose ? As a veteran though, I couldn't imagine just how bad it would've been, locked up in that 'hot' and 'sticky' hell hole ? I don't believe that I'd have either, the courage or strength, to survive under such conditions !

It was indeed nice speaking with you IMJULIANUTTER on this somewhat contentious and debatable matter.

Yes out exchange has been very civil.
I feel for your anger. I overcame mine recently and my whole world suddenly turned on it's head.
I became very gentle and forgiving. The benefits have been immense.

Go gently sun.

The Abbott government is successfully carrying out a policy which comprised part of the platform upon which it was elected. Good for Tony and for Scott Morrison!

Bruce has no status, and , being a lefty, has no sense, but resents that the mandate of the electorate is being carried out.
He suggests that the Defence Force should refuse to do their job. In this way, his muddle-headed and backward views would be put into operation, instead of the wishes of the Australian electorate.

While we have some very good articles on OLO, this one is the bottom of the barrel

How good are Australia's generals?

What an unexpected question.

I had always assumed that Australia's reputation as
a fighting force was first class. Our soldiers are
highly respected (as I understand it) globally -
and apparently are a force to be reckoned with -
especially in jungle-warfare. So certainly it would
go without saying that the generals in charge - are
first rate. I can't speak on behalf of every one of
them - but from what I've seen of our new Governor
General, and his past military performance (impeccable),
as well as the very sensible, diplomatic, current performance of
General Angus Houston - to me at least it would seem that
Australia has every right to be proud of its Defence Force
and her Generals. Where would we be without them?

Dear Imajulianutter,

Lovely post from you.

Made my day.

You're so right about finding peace - it's
a reward that keeps on giving.

Good afternoon to you LEO...

I've long given up on anything that's said by Bruce HAIGH, who states he was a military officer for a time. I have no reason to doubt his claim, rather I find anything he says is extraordinary, and seemingly quite a departure from the sort of thinking or philosophy I'd ever expect from a 'Returned Man' of any rank !

Whenever I see his name, ascribing his authorship of any article contained on OLO, I tend to shudder. Moreover, he claims to have held some overseas diplomatic posts too, which is a worry. I can but wonder what sort of impression he may have left with any of the host countries in which he may've served ?

Therefore given his political posture, it's little wonder we have to work tirelessly to even maintain sound diplomatic relations with those countries, Pakistan, Afghanistan and South Africa where Mr HAIGH was on the loose ? I suppose, there's always a position for him with the Greens, should he wish to have a greater exposure for his peculiar ideologies and tenets ?

o sung wu

Good post. I had many of those same thoughts myself about Bruce Haigh.

In my experience Australia's senior military officers are very good. I spent nine years working for military officers in the Department of Defence. I found them much better bosses than civilian senior public servants. This, I expect, is because military officers are trained to take advice from their staff and to delegate responsibility, as well as being trained in whatever their technical specialisation is.

To suggest, as Bruce Haigh does, that Australian generals lack courage, moral or otherwise, is insulting nonsense. In the Australian legal system, the military operate under orders issued by the civilian government. As with with the public service, the military provides advice to the elected minister responsible, but then is required to follow the orders issued, provided they are lawful. Members of the ADF do not have the option of refusing to carry out orders they find distasteful and have even less latitude to disagree publicly with government policy, than do public servants. If a member of the ADF has a deep moral objection to the orders issued, then they can seek to resign.

Of course, this not to say that behind the scenes there cannot be a "full and frank" exchange of views within government. Also military officers are well versed in the business of waging a bureaucratic campaigns against a policy they did not like. But for the military to publicly oppose government policy would be to undermine the democratic system.

ps: My family has served in uniform overseas for four generations, in five wars. As a civilian at the Defence Department, I only got to go on exercise in a borrowed uniform for a few day: http://www.tomw.net.au/nt/tt97.html ;-)

Good afternoon to you Tom...

I totally agree with everything you've said herein. I'm afraid Bruce HAIGH gets a little carried away with much of what he writes, I guess it's a case of his rapidly fading importance I suspect ?

That aside, I was very impressed with both your vocational background and your technical and academic attainments. The link you kindly shared with us all, was very interesting indeed, I must say. Accordingly, I hope to see you appear again very soon, under your epithet, Tom ?

Monash did not invent the creeping barrage; this was used as early as 1915 by the British and French long before Monash was in a position to use it. Most of Monash's ideas were adopted from the British General Plummer, probably the most effective general of the war on either side.
Plummer's ideas were developments of the efforts of the Russian General Brusilov; the German General, Bruchmuller, the best artillery general of the war, also used developments of Brusilov's tactics at Riga (1917) and in the March-April Offensives of 1918- both of which preceded Hamel.
Nor was Monash seconded to the Americans; elements of the AEF were assigned to Monash for the Hamel battle but immediately withdrawn on completion of the mini-offensive. Indeed, even in knowledgeable circles, Monash is not widely known in America.
It should also not be forgotten that the cream of the German army was long gone by the time of Hamel- the core of the Regular Army German officers were wiped out in 1914-15 and the NCOs in 1916-17. What remained of either was effectively destroyed by the German offensives of 1918

There is a tradition in British & Commonwealth armies for officers not to speak out about government policy they are to implement. This has applied to both Labor and Coalition governments, eg strategic directives (Fortress Australia vs Forward Defense), funding levels and operational deployments.
Haigh charges that the generals have a moral obligation to speak against the use of the ADF in border protection. The logical extension of this argument is that, if the government remains intractable in the use of the ADF for this purpose, and persists in using elements of the ADF to enforce its policies, the general staff would have a moral obligation to remove said government, by force if necessary.
Which is precisely why the tradition of not speaking out on policy exists; it is not the place of soldiers to determine the morality of a democratically elected government. If Haigh and his cohort manage to convince the Australian people that these policies are wrong, it is the place of the voter to remove the government that has instituted these policies.
What I find objectionable about Haigh's article is his projected morality; the automatic assumption that his moral judgements are superior and shared by those who consider themselves moral. This automatically means that those who do not share his range of beliefs are therefore immoral and should not be in the public service.
For the enlightenment of Haigh, Australia's generals (and Navy and Air Force Commanders) are second only to the Americans in conceptualising modern war-figting techniques, commonly but inaccurately referred to as Networked Warfare. In achieving this pre-eminence, they have overcome stingy budgets and a recent government with a conceptualisation of war as being an extension of the ANZACS and Gallipoli (The TV series and Movie, not the actual battles). It may also interest Haigh to know that the recent focus of the ADF, the army in particular, to improving its diversity credentials stems from this process- a smarter army is needed in the future and bastardisation is counter-productive in attracting the sorts of recruits required to operate within the framework of the future ADF.