Australia — Minister for Defence interview with Ashleigh Gillon, Sky Lunchtime Agenda

GILLON: Min­is­ter, thank you for your time.
SMITH: Plea­sure.
GILLON: Free­dom of infor­ma­tion requests have found that equip­ment and extra sup­port mea­sures promised to our troops by your Gov­ern­ment have encoun­tered prob­lems, or are yet to be devel­oped. Does that mean that our troops don’t have what they need, and are they at greater risk because of it?

SMITH: I think there are a cou­ple of gen­er­al points I need to make first. First­ly, as a result of a Free­dom of Infor­ma­tion request, yes­ter­day the Depart­ment of Defence made avail­able to a num­ber of jour­nal­ists what’s called a redact­ed ver­sion of the incom­ing Gov­ern­ment brief. That means things have been removed from it for nation­al secu­ri­ty or oper­a­tional rea­sons. That redact­ed ver­sion con­tained a sched­ule of addi­tion­al force pro­tec­tion mea­sures that the Gov­ern­ment wants to put in place to pro­tect our troops in Afghanistan.

In the Bud­get of this year, May of this year, we announced, effec­tive­ly, a $1.6 bil­lion pro­gram to imple­ment 48 mea­sures over the peri­od from, effec­tive­ly, 2009/10 through to 2012/13. So there was no expec­ta­tion that these would occur overnight.

Since the incom­ing Gov­ern­ment brief advice, the advice from the Depart­ment of Defence is of the 48 mea­sures or projects, 36 have either been com­plet­ed or are on track. There are 12 where there are issues or con­cerns, two of which relate to time delays, the oth­ers are sci­en­tif­ic or tech­ni­cal or engi­neer­ing.

But we embarked upon a very ambi­tious sched­ule to get these things in place as quick­ly as we could because we want­ed to pro­tect our troops. But of the 48 mea­sures, 36 in place or on track and of the 12 where there are issues, two go to delay.

So the impor­tant thing is that we are con­stant­ly mon­i­tor­ing the imple­men­ta­tion of these addi­tion­al mea­sures to pro­tect our troops in Afghanistan.

GILLON: So back to my orig­i­nal ques­tion, I think this is the crux of these sto­ries is the ques­tion of whether or not our troops because of those extra mea­sures you just went through, those out­stand­ing ones, cause they don’t have them in place now, are they at an extra risk right now cause they aren’t under­way yet?

SMITH: You can look at this as half glass full or half glass emp­ty. I look at it this way, my pre­de­ces­sor Sen­a­tor Faulkn­er in 2009 asked for a review to be done of the so called force pro­tec­tion mea­sures — could we do more to pro­tect our troops? And the 48 rec­om­men­da­tions we accept­ed in the Bud­get to be imple­ment­ed over, in a finan­cial sense, over the peri­od I’ve referred to go to any­thing from mea­sures against the impro­vised explo­sive devices, essen­tial­ly the road­side bombs, addi­tion­al pro­tec­tion in terms of counter rock­ets or mor­tars and the things that we have imple­ment­ed to date go to mine clear­ance, to hel­mets, body armour, more effec­tive mea­sures against the boo­by traps or the road­side bombs.

What we’re try­ing to do, and where there are either sci­en­tif­ic or engi­neer­ing dif­fi­cul­ties is to be at the cut­ting edge of pro­tec­tion of our troops, par­tic­u­lar­ly in the counter impro­vised elec­tron­ic device area.

The two areas where there looks like there could be some delay are the most recent devel­op­ments against trig­ger­ing road­side bombs elec­tron­i­cal­ly and also strength­en­ing or hard­en­ing some of the facil­i­ties in which our troops live and work.

Any Gov­ern­ment would want these mea­sures intro­duced imme­di­ate­ly or overnight but you have to be real­is­tic about it. And as I say, the Bud­get mea­sures show the finan­cial imple­men­ta­tion from 2009/10 through to 2012/13 and we want to get these mea­sures in place as quick­ly as we can, but we also want to make sure that they work.

GILLON: But the point remains the pro­tec­tion mea­sure you would like our troops to have are not cur­rent­ly there.

SMITH: Well no. There’s 48 mea­sures that we want­ed to imple­ment.

GILLON: I under­stand that, but the extra ones that have not been imple­ment­ed yet, because they’re not in place yet it means the troops don’t have that full pro­tec­tion you’d like them to have in the future.

SMITH: No one ever envis­aged – not the Gov­ern­ment, not the troops on the ground, not the Defence Force, not the Chief of the Defence Force – envis­aged that these would be imple­ment­ed overnight.

GILLON: But there are delays on some of those pro­grams?

SMITH: There are time delays on two. We’ve got 48 mea­sures, 36 in place or on track through the range of mea­sures I’ve referred to – mine clear­ance, night weapons, body armour and the like, also aer­i­al sur­veil­lance, unmanned aer­i­al sur­veil­lance. We’ve got 12 mea­sures where we’ve got con­cerns. Of those mea­sures, two relate to delays in time – one on cut­ting edge counter elec­tron­ic impro­vised explo­sive devices, the oth­ers on hard­en­ing or rein­forc­ing some of the build­ings that we occu­py.

The hard­en­ing and rein­forc­ing the build­ings is the result of the dif­fi­cul­ty in get­ting the mate­ri­als in place in the cli­mate of war. The sec­ond one is as a result of try­ing to be at the cut­ting edge of these tech­nolo­gies.

There are some issues that I can’t refer to because I don’t want to dis­close pub­licly the addi­tion­al mea­sures we’re tak­ing to try to fur­ther pro­tect our troops.

GILLON: I do under­stand that, but can you sit here and say to the fam­i­ly mem­bers of these troops who have opened up the paper today and seen the sug­ges­tion that their loved ones are not being ful­ly pro­tect­ed, can you say to them that to the best of the Government’s capac­i­ty you are look­ing after the pro­tec­tion of our troops?

SMITH: What we can say and what the Chief of the Defence Force would also say is that it is the Government’s and Defence Force’s high­est pri­or­i­ty to make sure our troops on the ground are pro­tect­ed to the max­i­mum extent pos­si­ble. That’s the first thing. Every­thing that can be done is being done to bring these mea­sures to a suc­cess­ful con­clu­sion. Some of them face sci­en­tif­ic or tech­no­log­i­cal dif­fi­cul­ties because we are try­ing to be at the cut­ting edge but in the six months since we announced the adop­tion of these mea­sures, we have either imple­ment­ed or have on track for imple­men­ta­tion 36 out of 48.

GILLON: The major­i­ty of those. Are you expect­ing cost blowouts as a result of the prob­lems that you’ve men­tioned? Will that have an impact on the Budget’s bot­tom line?

SMITH: Most of the con­cern goes to get­ting the sci­ence and the tech­nol­o­gy and the engi­neer­ing right. I’m cur­rent­ly not con­cerned about cost. There always, in the Defence space, are cost issues. But that is cur­rent­ly not my pri­ma­ry con­cern or moti­va­tion.

The dif­fi­cul­ty for the 10 or so mea­sures where there have been expres­sions of con­cern about imple­men­ta­tion real­ly go to get­ting it right. And there’s also, in this area, always the pos­si­bil­i­ty and some­times the expec­ta­tion that some­thing that the Gov­ern­ment or the Defence Force com­mit­ted itself to just doesn’t work, it doesn’t oper­ate, it doesn’t achieve the pur­pose that was orig­i­nal­ly envis­aged. And that’s always a pos­si­bil­i­ty in these cir­cum­stances.

GILLON: I do want to ask you about the annu­al AUSMIN talks that are going to get under­way – I think it’s next week you’ll be meet­ing with Robert Gates, Hilary Clin­ton from the Oba­ma Admin­is­tra­tion? What’s at the top of the agen­da for these talks and do you expect a request for more troops to go to Afghanistan to be part of that?

SMITH: It’ll be in Mel­bourne on Mon­day the 8th of Novem­ber. It’s the 25th annu­al AUSMIN – Aus­tralia US Min­is­te­r­i­al Meet­ing. It’s the, if you like, the Min­is­te­r­i­al clear­ing house of the Alliance. Sec­re­tary of State Clin­ton and Sec­re­tary of Defense Gates will be there. The Aus­tralian del­e­ga­tion will be led by the For­eign Min­is­ter, Mr Rudd, and by me. The Prime Min­is­ter will also obvi­ous­ly see Sec­re­tary Clin­ton and Sec­re­tary Gates.

We will tra­verse all of the strate­gic issues going to our rela­tion­ship, but we’re cer­tain­ly not expect­ing any request by the Unit­ed States for addi­tion­al resources into Afghanistan. Some time ago we increased our com­ple­ment by 40 per cent. Recent­ly we have respond­ed pos­i­tive­ly to a request from Gen­er­al Patraeus to see whether we could fur­ther assist on artillery train­ing, which we’ve been able to do with­in the cur­rent com­ple­ment. But the Unit­ed States always tell us pub­licly and pri­vate­ly that they very much appre­ci­ate the con­tri­bu­tion that we’re mak­ing.

GILLON: How does Barack Obama’s plan to start with­draw­ing troops from Afghanistan by the mid­dle of next year fit in with what we’re doing? Why can’t some of our troops start to be with­drawn at the mid­dle of next year as well?

SMITH: Pres­i­dent Obama’s approach is exact­ly the same as the Inter­na­tion­al Secu­ri­ty Assis­tance Force, exact­ly the same as ours, which is, we want to tran­si­tion to Afghan secu­ri­ty forces…

GILLON: There’s no plan for our troops to come back in the mid­dle of next year, not even…

SMITH: Nor is there a Unit­ed States plan for a with­draw­al date. The Unit­ed States plan is exact­ly the same as NATO’s, the Inter­na­tion­al Secu­ri­ty Assis­tance Force’s, which is exact­ly the same as ours, which is we don’t want to…

GILLON: Pres­i­dent Oba­ma made clear that he wants troops to start com­ing back.

SMITH: Yes, he said that he would like to see a draw­down or a with­draw­al start­ing from that point in time but that has always been, to use the mil­i­tary jar­gon, con­di­tions-based. In oth­er words, no on e should expect a large num­ber of US troops to with­draw on that date.

GILLON: Do you think it’s real­is­tic then, Pres­i­dent Obama’s plan?

SMITH: The inter­na­tion­al com­mu­ni­ty, Aus­tralia includ­ed, have com­mit­ted our­selves to a tran­si­tion to Afghan secu­ri­ty forces by 2014. In Uruz­gan we’re on track for that. We believe that we can train the Afghan Nation­al Army in the next two to four years…

GILLON: So it’s too ambi­tious to look at the mid­dle of next year? That’s only sev­en or eight months away?

SMITH: The ambi­tion is to get it right, the ambi­tion is to put the Afghan secu­ri­ty forces in a posi­tion of tak­ing respon­si­bil­i­ty for secu­ri­ty mea­sures. That’s the objec­tive that Pres­i­dent Oba­ma has on behalf of the Unit­ed States, it’s the objec­tive that the Inter­na­tion­al Secu­ri­ty Assis­tance Force, of which Gen­er­al Patraeus is the lead Com­man­der.

Pres­i­dent Oba­ma has indi­cat­ed he would like to see a draw­down of his troops start from that date, but he’s also cer­tain­ly made it clear, as Sec­re­tary of Defense Gates made it clear to me when I met him in Hanoi, they con­tin­ue to see the mis­sion, the task as a train­ing one. They’re not expect­ing to see a great num­ber of troops with­drawn from July of next year because we’re all pro­ceed­ing on the basis that none of us want to be there for­ev­er, we know we can’t with­draw tomor­row for all of the rea­sons the Gov­ern­ment has expressed in the Par­lia­men­tary debate. But we have to effect the train­ing and the tran­si­tion to the Afghan secu­ri­ty forces. And we all believe we’re on track to effect that over the next two to four years.

GILLON: So is that call for them to start being with­drawn from the mid­dle of next year, do you think polit­i­cal moti­va­tions are behind that instead of a reflec­tion of what’s hap­pen­ing on the ground?

SMITH: The two aren’t incon­sis­tent. We know, for exam­ple, that there’s been on the ground improve­ment in the capac­i­ty of the Afghan Nation­al Army.

For exam­ple, in the recent Par­lia­men­tary elec­tions the Afghan Nation­al Army and Police – the secu­ri­ty forces – took respon­si­bil­i­ty for secu­ri­ty arrange­ments for that elec­tion. We know the Tal­iban sought to and tried to dis­rupt it.

ISAF forces, includ­ing Aus­tralia, were held in reserve to assist, they weren’t called upon. So there has been improve­ment in the capac­i­ty of the Afghan forces but we need to effect greater improve­ment.

At the Afghanistan Con­fer­ence in Kab­ul ear­li­er this year, the inter­na­tion­al com­mu­ni­ty essen­tial­ly set 2014 as the tran­si­tion date, as the objec­tive for tran­si­tion­ing to Afghan respon­si­bil­i­ty. It won’t be an even thing, it will occur at dif­fer­ent times in dif­fer­ent places. We think in Uruz­gan we’re on track, over the next two to four years, to effect it. But we’ve also made clear, as the Prime Min­is­ter did, as I have, that once the train­ing mis­sion is com­plete we expect that there will still be things for us to do in Afghanistan for a peri­od of time. It might be con­tin­u­ing with so called embed­ded offi­cers in the Inter­na­tion­al Secu­ri­ty Assis­tance Force Head­quar­ters and we also envis­age poten­tial­ly an ongo­ing train­ing role in an insti­tu­tion­al sense in Kab­ul and there will be for the inter­na­tion­al com­mu­ni­ty I think a long peri­od of devel­op­ment assis­tance and civil­ian capac­i­ty build­ing con­tri­bu­tion.

GILLON: Mr Smith, thanks for your time.

SMITH: Thank you.

Press release
Min­is­te­r­i­al Sup­port and Pub­lic Affairs,
Depart­ment of Defence,
Can­ber­ra, Aus­tralia

More news and arti­cles can be found on Face­book and Twit­ter.

Fol­low GlobalDefence.net on Face­book and/or on Twit­ter

Team GlobDef

Team GlobDef

Seit 2001 ist GlobalDefence.net im Internet unterwegs, um mit eigenen Analysen, interessanten Kooperationen und umfassenden Informationen für einen spannenden Überblick der Weltlage zu sorgen. GlobalDefenc.net war dabei die erste deutschsprachige Internetseite, die mit dem Schwerpunkt Sicherheitspolitik außerhalb von Hochschulen oder Instituten aufgetreten ist.

Alle Beiträge ansehen von Team GlobDef →