Graphic source: REUTERS/Mohammed Jalil/Pool An Australian solider guards an area during a joint street patrol with Iraqi security forces in Sammawa, south of Baghdad June 22, 2006.
You have to hand it to the Australian troops. There they are, in the midst of a regional conflict in which their nation's interests are at stake, and yet, they are restrained from engaging in real action in Iraq. As the U.S. is turning the tide in Iraq, and other nations, mostly Europeans, have failed to follow-up on obligations, the Australians want to be in the thick of it.
According to Major Jim Hammett, in an article entitled "We Were Soldiers Once," in the Australian Army Journal, the good soldier stated that some infantry soldiers were ashamed of wearing the Australian uniform.
Hammett notes that the troops are restricted in their ability to engage although they wanted more action.
In a subsequent article in the journal, Captain Greg Colton, second-in-command of Sydney's 3rd battalion, agreed but further stated said troops were kept from frontlines like "downtown Baghdad, Basra and Helmand province."
Australia has long supported U.S. policies but it placed only special forces on the ground, not infantry, as well as supplying support forces, ships, and aircraft.
Australia has almost 4,000 troops but it only has a nominal number, 500 troops, in frontline action.
Hammett asks a pointed question:
"Why, in an era of global operations and unity of purpose against common enemies, are Australian infantrymen conspicuously absent from the fighting, whilst our allies are engaging in sustained combat operations?"
He has a valid point. Australia has a direct stake in the regional future of Iraq and this ally has proved its committment to a global problem. Why are they being restrained and who is preventing them from taking a leading role?
Posts
