East Timor: Don't let success blind you to the gaps

by Albert Palazzo - 13 November 2012 11:57AM

Dr Albert Palazzo is a Senior Research Fellow at the Land Warfare Studies Centre. These views are his own and do not reflect those of the Department of Defence or the Australian Government.

 

I disagree with Hugh White's response to my Interpreter post: East Timor is exactly the historical precedent that illustrates the risks of Defence's current budget trajectory. A non-war-fighting mission should not test the ADF's capabilities, as it was on the eve of the intervention. Such tasks should not require maximum effort in order to succeed. As austerity bites, the ADF may soon find itself in a similar state of unpreparedness and it will not take very long to get there.

Hugh is correct in saying a political fix was in place before the ADF left Australia's shores. The Indonesian Government and military (TNI) had agreed to the intervention and it is doubtful the Howard Government would have given the go-ahead if this was not the case.

But while a political fix may be comforting for those observing from the safety of Canberra, it does little for the troops who have to carry out the mission. In military affairs, allowance should always be made for friction; the best laid plans can be ruined by poor decisions, either deliberate or accidental. There were plenty of opportunities for a shooting war to break out, which both the TNI and the ADF had to work hard to avoid.

In the afterglow of success it is all too easy to forget the difficulties the ADF experienced in the lead-up to the intervention, particularly in the area of logistics. Could the intervention have taken place without the hire of HMAS Jervis Bay? Or the hasty remediation of all manner of deficiencies, including basic kit such as flak jackets that the ADF borrowed from the US? Once the operation commenced it was the quiet support of the US that held the operation together with critical communications and lift support.

As I've detailed elsewhere (in Anzac's Dirty Dozen), the operation's logistics were barely sustainable for a non-warfighting operation and stretched Army logistic troops to breaking point. The operation would have collapsed completely if the supply chain had needed to bring forward ammunition replenishment or treat large numbers of wounded.

Why does this matter? Why is it important that we remember that East Timor was a 'near run thing'? Because it is very likely that operations of a similar nature will occur again, namely peacekeeping/stabilisation in the region in the shadow of possible war. I would prefer to have an ADF that is ready for both.

 Photo LAC Oliver Carter/ADF.

Lowy Institute for International Policy
Australia in the Asian Century

An Interpreter feature which ran from March to September of 2012, published to debate the Gillard Government's 'Australia in the Asian Century' White Paper, then in its research and consultation phase. Click here to see every post published in this series.

For commentary on the published White Paper, click here.

Australia's Defence Challenges

An Interpreter feature exploring Australia's defence challenges as the 2013 Defence White Paper planning process begins. Click here to see every post published in this series.

Selected Interpreter posts also appear in:

 
Business Spectator Caing online The Diplomat
 

Keep up-to-date with The Interpreter through:

iPhone App   iPhone App

RSS Feed   The Interpreter RSS Feed

Email Digest  

To receive a digest of posts from The Interpreter via email, enter your email address:

Receive a daily digest ->
Receive a weekly digest ->

Preview   |   Powered by FeedBlitz

Interpreting the Aid Review

This is the archive of a Lowy Institute blog which ran from January to April of 2011. It was published to debate the Gillard Government's independent aid review, which was then in its research and consultation phase. We offer this archive as a service to researchers and the general public.