Small Wars Journal

Afghanistan: Kilcullen on Rising Australian Casualty Rate (Updated)

  1. Blog
Fri, 08/27/2010 - 9:56am
Kilcullen on Rising Australian Casualty Rate - Australian Broadcasting Corporation interview with Dr. David Kilcullen by Tony Jones. Counterinsurgency expert David Kilcullen says many factors, including a changing role, are behind higher Australian losses in Afghanistan.

Update

Commentators Decry Afghan Debate - Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Australia Needs Honest Debate on Afghan War - Sydney Morning Herald

We Will Stay in Afghanistan Beyond 2014 - Hearld Sun

Aussie Troops Stay Put in Afghanistan - Sydney Morning Herald

Diggers Treading a Trigger Wire - The Australian

Comments

Part of the problem with the debate down here in Australia is that our political leaders continue to look at Afghanistan from one dimension.

They also continue referring to the conflict in conventional terms. Most of Australia's troops killed in action or wounded were the result of IEDs not direct engagement.

Jim Molan, Prof Hugh White and myself have been trying to up the ante on the Government to properly explain the situation in Afghanistan so the public has a better understanding.

The Government has not even explained whether Australia's responsibilities have changed since the departure of the Dutch.

The debate is also based around pull out or increase troops. Personally, I would like Australia to have more troops and resources to support them on the ground. But again nothing else is mentioned about how the confluence of other factors that limit the effectiveness of our current role.

Attached is a link to a panel we were on yesterday.

AHoward (not verified)

Fri, 08/27/2010 - 1:34am

Permalink

Though not raised in this interview, I think it was worth noting that 2 of the recent Australian deaths were caused by an IED while the men were in a Bushmaster vehicle. These vehicles, from wjat I can gather, have been responsible for reducing and preventing casualties due to their design. Was this a lucky strike, something purley circumstantial or a sign of more sophisticated bomb making and planting?

Thanks for the feedback concerning Australian casualties in AF and, BTW, nice blog. Added to our roll.

SJPONeill

Thu, 08/26/2010 - 8:11pm

Permalink

We were discussing the Australian casualty rate yesterday as part of a semi-regular discussion on contemporary issues...one of the questions raised related to the types of issues that occur when one nation inherits an AO from another. The change in ownership presents many opportunities for an adversary to exploit as the new force settles in but if the operating style of the new force is markedly different from that of the previous owners, then there is greater potential for contact as part of that settling in process - possibly even more so, if that new owners might have a more aggressive/proactive outlook than the previous force...

I haven't had a chance to look up Jim Molan's comments on the contact that are referred to in the interview but I think that it is a fair statement that the QRF philosophy is not as well embedded in Commonwealth land forces as it is in those of the US. Maybe this is a critical mass/resource issue where smaller forces might struggle to keep that QRF/reserve element free to deploy and free from other commitments that might divert it from its QRF main effort.