Defence Budget Boom

One of the chief issues haunting the majority of the Western world's minds at the moment is, no doubt, defence. Despite almost 6 years having passed since the out break of America's "War on Terror", there seems to be little resolution, either in capturing the primary culprit, Mr. Osama Bin Laden, or in reducing terrorism cases worldwide. in fact, if anything, terrorism has increased, mainly due to the huge publicity which any act of terrorism is now awarded. Throughout all of this, defence now becomes an issue, and hits ever closer to the Australian home, with events such as the Bali bombing, continuous threats from various groups and the ongoing faux pas with David Hicks - although, that event might finally be resolving itself.


But still, this is only an introduction. The Australian government has announced a new $22 billion budget for the Defence Force this year, which is in fact the largest build-up in Australian military spending since Vietnam. So far the Defence Forces shopping list is as follows:

• Increase Army size to 30,000 troops by 2016 - $10 billion
• 24 Super Hornet fighters for the RAAF - $6.6 billion
• Military Aviation - $1+ billion
• Troop lift helicopters - $430 million
• C-17 heavy airlift transports - $240 million

Also on the books for production are three new air warfare destroyers, which are hoped to enter service in 2013.

Out of the $22 billion committed to this budget, $14 billion of has been taxpayers' money.

Now don't get me wrong, I am not against the federal budget in supporting the Defence Force. I am in fact very supportive - I just have to ask, is the Government spending this money for the right reasons? Indeed Australia has one of the smallest armed forces in the world, and the current skills shortage in the civilian job stream isn't making recruiting any easier. Unfortunately, throwing money at the ADF will not make more people jump at the chance to become a soldier, seaman or pilot. Nor will it cause more people to want to enter the ADF as an urgently needed tradesperson. Australia does need a Defence Force - and so far, it has almost been living up to its name. However, the argument that Australia is defending its own interests by involving itself in other countries' affairs is beginning to wear thin, especially with the unresolved Iraq war. Fair enough, when Saddam Hussein was in power he could have been perceived as a threat to the Western world, which does include Australia, but my question is what are we still doing there? The despot is dead and buried, with the full story about how he managed to procure these Weapons of Mass Destruction still being kept behind closed doors - in fact, where were the weapons anyway? Have they even found them yet?

I am not saying we should pull out of Iraq... yet. I just want to know why we are still involved. Why, despite the fact that Australia's security (from Iraq, at least) has been assured, we are still fighting what began as, and always will be, an American conflict? Is there some unknown reason? Some hidden glory? The argument has been put that the ADF needs to 'make a name for itself'. Well I think that point has been made - the Australian SAS is arguably one of the top three Special Forces in the world, and considering the other two are the British SAS and the Israeli Mossad, that is quite an achievement.

But returning to the budget - high-tech weaponry can only do so much. Sure, dropping one precision weapon that can level a palace is cool, but the fact is any army will always need soldiers on the ground. There is only so much that unmanned surveillance can tell the command group, and even now we can't guarantee that what it does tell the commanders is entirely accurate. Add to that the fact that a home-made explosive cost a few hundred dollars at most can be used to write-off a $4.3 million tank, and it becomes fairly clear that technology does not have all the answers. This is even seen within the ADF, as Special Forces, although supplied with the best weapons available, often use far more primitive tools to carry out their missions - and one squad of SAS troopers can often accomplish what an entire battalion of infantry could not.

So maybe the emphasis should be better training and facilities for our troops and the expansion of our elite soldiers, instead of buying lots of new shiny things that the ADF can play with and show off.

~Coops

Edit: for those of you who argue that the British SBS is in the Top 3, bite me. The British SBS is pretty much the SAS with emphasis on boating as opposed to airbourne training. For those of you who argue that a US "Special Forces" group is in the Top 3, grow up.