|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 8, 2015 14:02:54 GMT 12
One thing I have noticed though is that Ron Mark seems to be taking on the role as Defence spokesman, or attack dog, for the opposition. I would much rather he did it than any of the numpties from Labour or the Greens when they try to talk about the NZDF. |
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Jun 8, 2015 14:18:13 GMT 12
Exactly. That is possibly another reason to be cautious. With no-one else about with the foggiest idea then you could possibly fall into the trap
of over-stating something knowing that you may not get pulled up for it.
I have been on the periphery of many wars, most in Africa naturally. I also had some training in the NZ and UK military's.
The IRA activity was at a zenith as the hunger strikers were popping off at the time. They were not 'conventional' battles.
The RAF went onto heightened alert and for all that the threat was pretty well contained. We couldn't travel in marked RAF buses though and vehicles were checked for bombs often. There were other security measures but the threat was all on Homeland.
I don't see New Zealand as having ever gone to that level before. I now see potential for it in both here and Australia. You could argue that the Aussies are ahead as they may have experienced attacks or arrested 'suspects' already.
ISIS is going to be difficult to stop. Maybe we can't but I don't see Skyhawks or even F-16's being the answer. The brand new Tornado's didn't stop the bombings in the UK either.
The VC soon had the measure of the yanks and for similar reasons.
The SAS may be the boots on the ground in this new war against ISIS but that won't be the end of it.
I see intelligence, software, monitoring, border controls all being paramount in this one. Much more-so than any of war we have gone into previously.
Unfortunately much of this will be coming from the Defence budget and I suspect is going to have more of an impact on all NZ'ers, civillians and servicemen alike.
The media will have a role to play. That is the part that may be disturbing me most at this stage.
|
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Jun 8, 2015 16:30:14 GMT 12
www.nzdf.mil.nz/operations/egypt/default.htmThere must be someone here that did a Sinai tour. I know many of the 3 Squadron guys did a tour during the mid 1980's and I assumed they were there in support of an Army unit of some sort. This article makes out that the Army has a transport role, operating and teaching driving of vehicles. This has naturally got me thinking. There has been mention of Ron running a vehicle workshop during his tour over there. Call me cynical but a guy joins as a MT mechanic (equiv) and then gets a Commission after 7 years. After 4 years as a Junior Officer he is posted to a position in the Sinai MFO. This man is a transport Officer and has a few years experience in the job. Now the SAS version of this would be. A vehicle mechanic with few years experience is Commissioned. After 4 years as a Junior Transport Officer he is selected to be a SAS Officer. Within months he is posted to a SAS position in the Middle East. After reading this I really am having doubts. Surely if the Army happened to have a overseas posting available for someone in the MFO then you would expect that Officer to have some experience in the role, or at least a background. No mention of SAS in the reading I have done so far on the NZCMFO, just an Army Transport unit and possibly a RNZAF rotary element. I cannot for the life of me see how a Transport Officer can be Commissioned and then after just 4 years gain a remuster to SAS and almost immediately gain an overseas posting. I can certainly see why the Army types are doing some head scratching. Did the Army run a Transport section as part of their MFO effort in 1982 and 1983 ? Selected, trained, posted and completed two tours all within two years. I am calling a Tui on that one ! I could believe he did his time there as a Transport Officer. So what then of his SAS soldiering ?
|
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Jun 8, 2015 19:25:24 GMT 12
Although I can recall Ministers of Defence from the past (when I was young) who had military backgrounds. It would be preferable if the Minster of Defence had served in the NZDF. A level of understanding of geopolitics or even what you might call military theory is required. In short this translates to making sound decisions on the basis of NZ defence needs and not warped left wing views or purely cost cutting measures. |
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Jun 8, 2015 19:33:53 GMT 12
Baronbeeza I kind of disagree with you for different reasons. Air Power alone isn't going to defeat Isis or the Iranian backed forces in Yemen. From memory American Air Power played a big role in defeating the North Vietnamese offensive. The Army of South Vietnam was institutionally so useless that they weren't able to take advantage of the enemy logistical problems or the damage B-52 strikes had inflicted upon on them.
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Jun 8, 2015 20:01:47 GMT 12
Baronbeeza I kind of disagree with you for different reasons. Air Power alone isn't going to defeat Isis or the Iranian backed forces in Yemen. From memory American Air Power played a big role in defeating the North Vietnamese offensive. The Army of South Vietnam was institutionally so useless that they weren't able to take advantage of the enemy logistical problems or the damage B-52 strikes had inflicted upon on them. Actually, I reckon American air power (shock & awe) had a lot to do with creating the conditions which have allowed the rise of ISIS. Remember George W Bush's “We Won” show on the US Navy aircraft carrier? Did they win? Recent events in the Middle East make one wonder just who really did win. Remember Saddam? In spite of the fact he was a brutal dictator who had no truck with human rights, he kept the lid firmly on the religious nutters who made up Al Qaeda, and now ISIS. When he was overthrown, it created a power vacuum in the area which allowed the likes of ISIS to thrive. Coupled with that, the destabilisation of another brutal despot regime in the area (in Syria), and ISIS is the result which has moved right on in to fill that vacuum. Plus you have the next generation of disaffected muslim youths in that region who saw fathers, uncles, and others killed by the “coalition of the willing” in Iraq (or the aftermath) and who are now after revenge, and ISIS is the means by which they flock to carry out that revenge. The religious fanatics are taking advantage of those disaffected. Sometimes, leaving the brutal dictator in place is probably the best option, because they can be keeping the lid on something considerably worse. Unfortunately, the genie is now out of the bottle and is going to prove extremely difficult to put back. |
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Jun 8, 2015 20:06:39 GMT 12
While I see our neighbours in Asia as our region of interest and we must be involved there I think we have to be open to other threats.
I was in Europe at the height of the cold war. We were told that the NATO thinking was that if the balloon went up there would be some nations, such as Hungary and Poland, that may not necessarily be a major part of the threat.
I found it difficult to believe with my knowledge of the situation.
I was really worried about the IRA bombing campaign, we were definitely a soft target there and it was very much a happening thing.
People were dying about us and at that stage I doubt the intelligence was good enough to keep on top of the bombers.
The Falklands was basically sprung on the Poms at the same time, and very much out of left field.
Conventional thinking at the time was divided with the nuclear deterrent and tactical forces basically opposing.
We had no idea whatsoever that the Berlin Wall would be history in less than 8 years.
I would have thought that the funds previously set aside for the strategic defence is more likely being used for terrorist style activities these days.
In my time in the military I had very little appreciation of the modern style warfare. I have been to Vietnam several times and seen how difficult it must have been there also. Once again the technology of the period would just not be capable of providing safeguards and threat elimination.
Sabotage is easy and effective. I know first hand of the Zimbabwe attack and the damage generated there. It effectively took Mugabe out as being any kind of regional threat.
Modern, conventional aircraft completely neutered by a handful of saboteurs (terrorists).
The Government may not be letting on but I bet threat analysis of 2015 is going to be largely revolving around surveillance and intelligence information/activities.
Many here would be close to the Bali bombings, more recently we have the attacks on Aussie soil.
We have a whole group of enemies that are making no secret of their aims and goals.
Many may not appreciate it but we are certainly under attack and the SAS deployment is just part of our response. Well that is the way I am viewing things.
One thing is for sure, Hulun got it all wrong with her peaceful backwater comments.
I hate to say it but I fear it is just a matter of time. I have worked and lived in many of these dodgy countries and you are very much aware of your personal safety. Now think back to April 25th.
|
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Jun 8, 2015 20:26:24 GMT 12
Baronbeeza would you mind if I Private Messaged you about what said about Poland and Hungry as I don't want to take the threat off topic?
|
|
|
|
Post by isc on Jun 8, 2015 23:27:45 GMT 12
Many of the ministers in years gone by had military service, Muldoon studied Law while on service in North Africa, or was it Italy, one of the other future ministers tutored him. many of the true leaders didn't come home.
Since Korea the Americans haven't managed to finish anything they'v got into. isc
|
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Jun 9, 2015 0:13:27 GMT 12
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_of_Defence_%28New_Zealand%29By the 1980's some of older wartime guys were possibly getting a bit beyond it. I can remember being on a F-27 one night and the Minister at the time was Frank O'Flynn. He may not have realised what fleet the RNZAF had but he was talking about the Andovers so we all assumed that is what he believed he was flying in. It would have been about the same period that he upset a Wing Commander in the bar. It would have been about midnight or later and I had been called in to do the bar. I have no idea what set the guys off but I was sober and completely taken by surprise at the flare-up. I have no doubt that if the minister is struggling then somewhere there will be a devil-may-care senior officer quite prepared to put him right. There will be Officers that are smart, been there done that, and possibly are not prepared to tolerate fools. It must be a tough job being any sort of Cabinet Minister, I could imagine the Police and Defence portfolios being very challenging though. The staff would be a handful if you upset them or couldn't keep them on side. That takes us back to the topic of the thread. Any spokesman wouldn't want to get too far off-side with the troops if he was hoping for loyalty and honest feedback. That would go for Gerry Brownlee, Ron and whoever the Labour spokesman is. ***EDIT*** I had to look it up. Completely different background to Ron.
|
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Jun 9, 2015 13:05:29 GMT 12
Well I did receive a polite and reasonably lengthy reply from Ron.
I don't want to post it all here but basically he is blaming the journo's. I suspect the NZ First webpage may have been the heart of the issue all the same.
He goes on to say that he was effectively blocked from having a chance to go on to complete the cycle by a number of senior officers about him at the time.
He doesn't say it but morale in the Forces was at a low point after the 1984 elections and I can see why he says he had reasons for quitting in 1985.
It may well be a case of the journalist trying to make the news, or indeed make themselves the news.
I put no value into the newspaper article or whatever it was. I just don't believe what is in the papers these days.
Reading the headline was enough for this kid.
Footnote.
Let's not forget that all those GD Trainees, Pilots and Navigators, that got chopped all made the grade and were selected as Officers in the RNZAF. The majority would have passed Initial Officer Training.
For every GD that has served in the past 40 years there will be another one, possibly two, that got chopped.
I have to acknowledge and thank Ron for taking time to reply. We are indeed fortunate to live in a democratic and transparent environment.
|
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Jun 9, 2015 16:32:44 GMT 12
Mapp was ex-Army, and his Associate was in the TF until getting her ministerial warrant.
|
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Jun 9, 2015 17:16:43 GMT 12
There will be Officers that are smart, been there done that, and possibly are not prepared to tolerate fools. Isn't the root of the problem when the government appoints yes men to the senior NZDF leadership positions? Yes men seem to have been around when Helen Clark and her cronies were taking their wreck ball to the NZDF. |
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Jun 9, 2015 18:27:00 GMT 12
He goes on to say that he was effectively blocked from having a chance to go on to complete the cycle by a number of senior officers about him at the time. So basically he passed the very initial phase ('selection') and didn't complete any of the subsequent training. Everyone that has ever been binned on cycle says they were blocked by someone. Substitute 'officer' with 'NCO' and it would be almost universal. I know a couple of guys from that era. They're both very humble. Ron Mark manifestly isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by morrienz on Jun 9, 2015 18:30:32 GMT 12
... I am not aware of anyone else in Parliament with a military background so he may be in a unique situation there. For everyone's information, regarding current New Zealand MPs with military service as well as Ron Mark. National MP Andrew Bayly was a NZ Army territorial officer and also an officer in the UK's 4 Para, the territorial (now called Army Reserve) Bn of the Parachute Regt. NZ First's Darroch Ball was a NZ Regular Army logistics officer for seven years. There may be others as well, but those are the two that I know of. Cheers, Chris M |
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Jun 9, 2015 23:59:09 GMT 12
Thanks for those names Chris. At least there are three in the house that we know of now. On a slightly political tangent, we have been noticed having this discussion. It would appear others have been asking similar questions. www.whaleoil.co.nz/2015/06/whaleoil-challenge-to-ron-mark-show-us-your-tan-beret-ron/Plenty of comments there and not at all sure how close they are to the mark  Ex-soldier seems a pretty good and safe bet. Hopefully any further defence related reporting can be presented in some form of reasonable manner. What are the chances ? |
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Jun 10, 2015 0:40:50 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Jun 10, 2015 0:44:44 GMT 12
That bunch of RETARDS? I go to WhaleOil about once every three months to have a good laugh at the rabid idiots who infest the place. |
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Jun 10, 2015 1:13:14 GMT 12
haha, it is your comments that has their attention. Along with a screenshot of your post, you even got some 'Likes'.
Actually for all Cameron Slater's reputation he seems to have written a pretty fair article.
He even said he would apologise..... well if necessary.
They seem just as confused as the rest of us.
One of the last comments from Grunta may be close to what Ron says in his email.
'He passed selection but his CO wouldn't let him leave his unit so he Left the nzdf'
With a name like Grunta he may well have been about at the time... possibly even in the SAS.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 10, 2015 10:14:38 GMT 12
haha, it is your comments that has their attention. Along with a screenshot of your post, you even got some 'Likes'. This is why we need to keep politics off this forum. In this case, being related to NZDF, it has been allowed under our rules till now, however this whole side-topic of Marks' service was never my intention when I started this thread and frankly I find it pretty annoying that comments made on this forum are being quoted as evidence to stir political intrigue on a fervently political website. Therefore I am going to shut down this thread because the original topic has been largely ignored anyway and we do not need any further political crap here, or being taken elsewhere. |
|
