Australia vs indonesia, in their own cartoon row

Originally posted by edgewaters yet, their ambition is quite high. they are having disputes with china over the islands in the south china sea. i wonder what it would be like if a military conflict broke out between them. Sort of like a sumo wrestler attacking a housecat, I think.

Have you ever tried to fight a cat? I think the cat has a good chance in that fight.

let's post some naval ships:

CHINA:

INDONESIA:

couldn't find more for indonesia, but it looks not so good to me.

AUSTRALIA:

Edited by Sino Defender

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Irian Jaya was conqured by the Dutch, along with the rest of Indonesia. It was given independence along with the rest of Indonesia. It is as much a part of Indonesia as sumartra or java. The Irian Jayans I will remind everyone have a lot more in common with the javanese than they do with australians.

Well what do you know about Papua? First thing its now called Papua not Irian Jaya. Papua was given its own indepndance by the dutch and this brief independance (around 1 year) was taken away with an illegal invasion by the javanese. They were not originally a part of indonesia, nor did they vote or choose to be a part of it.

Melanesian Papuans  have as much to do with malay speaking javanese as they do with new zealanders. .

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim I think they have an excellent point. Australia will refuse refugees from Afghanistan, deport men who have lived in australia since they were two to serbia. Throw mentally disabled people into immigration detention centers, hold refugees for years in places like Naru. But are quite happy to give political asylum to Irian Jayans after only a short while? That stinks of a double standard.

I agree that our immigration system is flawed but since when is that answerable to jakarta? Our politicians answer to the people that elect them and to no one else. Should we redefine the meaning soveriegnty to cater for you?

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Originally posted by Leonardis Its a pity they cant see most Papuans resent indonesia and this isnt just a foriegn backed evil. Prove it! And excuse me if I don't believe SBS.

Um should we start with the 42 souls? didnt you see the footage last week? Four/five security officers were killed around the freeport mine, actaully stabbed, bludgeoned and burnt

BBC

more pictures

SMH

if i show you links to more BBC stories, will you just conveniently dismiss it as propaganda? there is at least a dozen that go way back from this site alone
two examples
Riots in 7/12/2000
28/08/2001

"Indonesian President Abdurrahman Wahid, has apologised to the people of the eastern province of Irian Jaya for human rights abuses committed against them by Indonesian troops." 1 /1/ 2000  BBC

Look at the turn out when a very influential leader was mudered by the military in 2001

"More than 5,000 mourners in the Indonesian province of Irian Jaya have been taking part in a procession for the pro-independence leader, Theys Eluay, who was found dead on Sunday.

Mr Eluay's body was found inside his crushed car at the bottom of a ravine, hours after he was abducted. An autopsy revealed he had been asphyxiated." BBC

Omar do not dismiss our military so easily, we can carve them up and they know it.

It is inacurate to say we depend on our equipment, infact we are very very well trained. Only now is our defence budget large, making up for years of neglect. We had always relied on our trianing/personel not just our equipment. Vietnam only reafirmed our skills at fighting in the jungle, in counter geurilla warfare. The USA forces have that repudiation ur talking about, but only when our boys talk about them.

For example, I once knew a Aus navy diver, who apperantly did the job of three different US divers. We simply dont have the numbers or the luxary of having three different type of divers, just one person trained to do three things.

Anyway the indonesians threaten our forces before they went into East Timor, they tried to intimidate our boys and what did they do? They ran when they heard us coming, didnt even fight..

edgewaters and Constantine XI know what they are talking about.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim And America beat Iraq in a month, and all you need to do to beat russia is to take Moscow. I think you are seriously misjudging the Indonesian military.

Sorry, but, Indonesia is not Iraq. It is an archipelago. Once naval and air superiority was lost, it would have zero capability to wage war. There wouldn't even be a need to fight it after that .... one could just wait for it to knuckle under. Sooner or later, its forces would start to run out of supplies and would have no combat ability to speak of. In Iraq it is different, because the borders could never be secured and it had to be occupied. In Indonesia, you would only need to occupy the sea.

As well, war against Iraq was never supported very strongly by the American public nor by its allies. The left rejected it entirely, and large segments of the right thought it unwise. Indonesia is different - the left across the whole of the Western world condemns Indonesia as being nothing more than a brutal corporate puppet dictatorship, and the right sees an Islamic threat in Indonesia. Any action against Indonesia - especially on behalf of people like the Papuans - would be supported well by all segments of the political spectrum. If things got fierce it is almost certain all the Anglo nations would arrive in short order, including the US. It would boost the domestic popularity of any administration to do so.

Irian Jaya was incorperated into indonesia. The whole of the Dutch east indies was given independence as a new country Indonesia.

First, this is factually incorrect. At independence, Irian Jaya was not in fact part of Indonesia. It was annexed in 1969 by Indonesia.

Second, if you do accept your own argument, then you relinquish all claim to the eastern half of the island, since Papua was not Dutch at the time of independance.

Finally, the Dutch only claimed Indonesia. They had hardly even visited most of it. Even in the early twentieth century, there were whole regions that had never seen a white man or a metal tool. Any claim to rule over these people based on Dutch colonialism is highly dubious.

We are unpopular because we have acted like a right bully to them since independence. Refusing to give Timor a share in the Timor Seas oil.

I think they probably didn't prefer being butchered in the thousands, *and* having their oil stolen.

Our army cannot be 300,000 strong. That would be 1.5% of our population under arms.

It's 50 or 60 thousand last I heard. That's standing forces. The Indonesian military is around 300k, but only about 10% of that is both available and suitable for any kind of military operations. The rest is a glorified police force.

As far as total manpower, Australia has around 4 million men fit for service if need be. Indonesia may have more, but could never equip them and even if it did, huge segments would likely turn on it the moment they were put in the field.

And Germans eat Belgium babies. We are meddling in affairs that don't concern us and it is wrong.

Indonesia's recent history of butchery and oppression cannot be dismissed so easily.

Edited by edgewaters

Originally posted by Maju Originally posted by Sino Defender it is actually ranked the 10th, but it is, however, not a major military power. For a small country of 20 million people, of the size of Yemen of Rumania, it's a huge military budget.

It is a massive investment, combined with the close sharing of technology and training with the US and UK it ensures that state of the art equipment is invested in. Unlike the US, which still clings to a conventional vision of warfare which it sees itself most likely fighting (i.e. the type that was fought in WWII against a large regular army of Russians or Germans), Australia realigned its military to fight unconventional and irregular warfare. This form of warfare is the one which is increasingly threatening and difficult to deal with in today's world.

I think comparing the US and Australia is flawed, the two militaries operate on very different lines. America uses its military budget for one thing, Australia for entirely another. Only compare Australian to US behaviour in Vietnam and you get some idea of how the two allies are designed to fight two very different types of conflicts.

What I meant was that the US is still geared to defeat a large, regular armed force if needed. Us foreign policy requires that such large standing armies of enemy nations can be defeated, such as taking down the military of Iraq in only a month.

Australia really isn't as since WWII she realised that as long as she achieves naval and aerial superiority in her region she has no need to. In Australia's case she only needs to maintain the technological superiority and invest the rest in special ops and tactical forces.

I think Illuminti summed up very nicely the US strategy which she recently employed to win the war in Iraq. Shock and Awe was the self avowed US way of defeating enemies.

If we take Iraq as an experiment, we see clearly that it backs up my previous point. Shock and Awe worked beautifully in smashing Saddam's army, the regular forces of Iraq were utterly defeated in a month. However, the irregular and guerilla forces are still not subdued and have inflicted vastly more damage and casualties on US forces than Saddam's regulars even came close to doing.

Australian aims are merely sufficient to defeat any enemy within her region at bay, she needs not develop a wider reach because her interests do not extend outside her region. For Australia, merely defeating local enemies (without needing to occupy territory) is entirely sufficient for security concerns. The US needs a global reach because she has to defend her interests in a range of regions right around the globe. The US must undertake actual occupations of territory from time to time, which we must cynically observe as requiring grunts who act as cannon fodder against inevitable local resistance. The two different compositions of military forces, and policies on military strategem, therefore reflect the different military needs of the two nations.

Originally posted by Illuminati I don't agree quite wtih that. This has nothign to do with Iraq. There is no guarantee that AUstralia will be able to win in a potential conflict either. You may be able to deploy fast, and defeat an organized army (as the US did in Iraq), but that doesn't mean you will win in the long run.

please read most post more carefully your repeating my logic back to me

Originally posted by Leonidas Deploying faster doesnt make you very good at fighting irregular forces alone, it just makes you move faster. Nor is this comparison necessary, the Aussie's mean to be a regional power only.

Originally posted by Illuminati  Your comparison with Iraq is rather weak. You're referring to an occupation battle coupled with being able to win hearts and minds, which isn't all about combat tactics, but more of public relations and politics. There's a reason why IED's are being used in Iraq. It's because the insurgents know that they cannot win face to face with US troops.

No its not just tactics but your actaully agreeing with me that your not effective in Iraq. Can i remind you that IED's and the type of warfare we are in, is irregular. Soo.....

Originally posted by Leonidas Illuminati your talking on a theoritical level, the USA is less effective in unconventianal warfare and judging from Iraq, still is.

Originally posted by Illuminati In terms of elite training, the US still has more special forces than Australia, and the US has better regular soldiers right now.

Who was talking numbers here, we all know the USA is the biggest and most-est.
Regular soldiers are better? how?
Armed / supported yes, but trained .....

Originally posted by Illuminati A regular aussie soldier is trained at an elite level by US standards, there is no comparison even at this level. In terms of elite training, the US still has more special forces than Australia, and the US has better regular soldiers right now. Aussies do train their soldiers harder than US Army grunts, Arguable whether they train them harder than Marines. But none of that really matters. Don't forget, training is no match for real combat experience, something that Australian soldiers are lacking. You may train your grunts harder, but US grunts have combat experience, which is more valuable than your training.

So you agree with the training bit but your saying they are better because of experiance.

Since it obvoius that the USA cannot effectively fight in a enviroment of irregular warfare, how is this experance your barking on about of any value if you dont learn from it and improve your technique?

Do you have to be better than every country in every way? Its natural (almost common sense) for a smaller country without the raw strength to.. "concetrate on fighting technique and tactics instead."

Originally posted by Illuminati Special forces are hard to compare, because of the secrecy of what they do, but US special forces are at a stop-loss status, which means every SF soldier is getting more combat experience than they were meant to get, and are being forced to stay on active-duty longer.

Point taken we dont know what they train or do, i get to hear my bit from army or navy members when they come my way. Ive twice come close to those elite units and they really keep their mouth shut. I wouldnt have it any other way.

Originally posted by Illuminati So, once again, from a combat experience perspetive, no one has more experience than US special forces soldiers. Experience trumps training any day.

We all know america's 'experiance', no need to make this a USA centric thread. Do you know what experaince we have or anything about the fights our boys have got in? I would make an educated guess and judging from your attitude, not much. Can you really say how much experinace any countries Sp-Ops soldeirs have? remember that point you made above, ive taken it and i think you should to

Combat expeirance of australia is good enough, with our SAS and commando's doing more than their fair share (infact every event listed they played a role, most they played big roles)

Post WW2
Malayan Emergency 1955
Korean war
Konfronatasi 1965(borneo)
Vietnam
Gulf war
we sent 300 SAS to afghanistan
our divers, comando's and SAS were in the lead when Iraq was attcked in 2003

Notable Peace keeping missions in
East Timor
Solomons
read more about these things at wiki and google more afterwards if you want

Originally posted by Illuminati The air force situation in Afghanistan is not based on nationality. Any NATO group can call in air support. They may get US planes responding, they may get UK planes responding, or some other NATO plane. Australian soldiers call for air support just as much as anyone else would in a given situation. Australian soldiers don't fight any differently than any other NATO soldier does in Afghanistan. They haven't shown that they can, because they have equal access to support as any other NATO soldiers does, and they use it.

Our spec opps (not the regulars) are in afghanistan and i already conceded that we both dont really know of their mission or tactics. But since you already have our equal and more of them, you can at least stop requesting that they keep coming back there when they finish their tours.

Originally posted by Illuminati and what about the situation in Somalia in 1993. About one hundred US army rangers were surrounded by thousands of militia. They didn't have armored vehicles, they didn;t have aritllery, and they only had limited support from small and vulnerable little-bird attack helicopters whose abilty was limited because of the urban setting, and who did not have aerial bombs. Only 19 US troops died, while managing to kill over 2,000 armed militia, and hold out for an entire night. That doesn't fit at all with your claim that US troops are reliant on air and vehicle support.

Did the USA complete its mission in Somalia? did those rangers catch that warlord (Aideed i think his name was) ? No.

Careful with those numbers, other US Sp Ops forces dont get their casulties published, and how can you really quallify 2,000 militia dead. Did you recover that many armed bodies or did the militia's tell you themselves. I would settle for 'loose' estimate figures, or around 2,000 'but we really dont know'

It was a cocked up mission, and the rangers had no choice but to fight the way they did. No one here is challenging USA bravery and fighting prowess so calm down there is plenty examples of USA fighting well and  fighting badly.

Originally posted by Illuminati There really is no better example of how well trained soldiers are in ground and urban tactics than this.

The chechens in their first defence of Grozny.

 Sorry what unique 'urban tactics' did the rangers use that makes them so  special apart from being well armed and a good shot?

Originally posted by Illuminati The majority fo the rangers had no combat experience before this. Only a few older rangers and delta force operators had had any prior experience.

But you goin on and on about your experaince and now because of 1 failed mission your rangers are all of a sudden experanced ....

Originally posted by Illuminati I'm waiting to see examples of Australian soldiers that can trump the example I just posted.

Um Sp Ops are all about not being detected, so if you want to use examples of your Sp Ops successes, pick one when you go in do your stuff get out and no one knows until afterwards. Somalia is a bad example.

BTW the battle of Long Tan (6 to 1), go and read about it. Are you comparing badly excuted missions or bravery?  Either way your on the wrong thread

Originally posted by Illuminati I also don't think you know what current US training is like. THe US military is going all out when it comes to urban tactics. You can't really call in an air-strike when you're in the middle of a city like Baghdad. US soldiers have been and are still being trained to be able to deal with not having air-support.

So you have secured Iraq, news to me and who's talking about airstikes?  yes we all know you guys love using them (when you can) but why are you so defensive? I was thinking of our regular soldeirs application of small silent formations and tactics reserved mainly for elite units. This generally helps when fighting geurrilla's urban or not, thats how we fought vietnam and most post ww2 combats.

Originally posted by Illuminati Your statements directly go against how teh US is training it's soldiers. It was recognized a long time ago, that urban settings were going to be the new battlefields.

'Urban' warfare is a relative new focus point, a post cold war reaction, influnced from such failures like..Somalia. Only the Isrealis can boast what your boasting

Originally posted by Illuminati I remember this US focus on global logistcs was more of a reaction to how long it took the US to prepare for Gulfwar 1 not irregualr warfare. Either way if your lesson is learnt, it takes longer than a few years to change something as big as the US forces. Its all about spec ops and HUMINT, you dont need big planes and ships for any of this. Spec ops is what we do well, HUMINT was never replaced with ELINT/SIGINTin the same way as the US (but we got those to) . We are simply better prepared and skilled than the USA for this type of enviroment thats a terrible example. The Gulf War was not about intelligence and special forces. It was about conventional warfare. Iraq had thousands of armored vehicles and hundreds of tanks, and the fifth largest army in the world at the time. The gulf war was won by NATO armor units and air-power, not special forces using unconventional warfare. I think you're putting too much stock in special forces. The deployment to the Gulf was long because entire armored divisions had to be moved in. You can't just fly tanks over in a cargo plane.

Yes, i think everyone agrees you can fight in this enviroment very well, but if it makes you feel better

Originally posted by Illuminati If you want an example of a war won by special forces, then take Afghanistan. NATO forces didn't even arrive until after US special forces already ripped through the Taliban lines and helped take Kabul. There were USAF commandos on the ground in Afghanistan less than 24 hrs after 9/11.

Our Sp ops forces are highly mobile when required, who's isnt?  No doubt Afghanistan was one of the better examples the USA can be proud of. howver do not forget the bulk of the fighting was done by the Northern Aliiance and the US airforce, the Sp Ops forces acted in support like targeting, leading/co-ordinating all the stuff they are ment to do.

here an example of our SAS and comando's in Iraq 2003, Pg 21 onwards talks our operations in westren Iraq and the eventaul capture of Al Assad AB (and 50 planes) 200km west of *Edit:Baghdad*

"The Australian SAS patrols were the closest Coalition ground elements to Baghdad for several days. Their difficult task involved observing key roads and military facilities while remaining undetected. With great skill and stealth they remained deep in enemy territory, undetected by the nomadic Bedouin or enemy patrols around them. They later played a signifi cant part in neutralising enemy resistance. "pg22

"Lesson Learned
Training: Superior training and skilful use of modern weapons was an essential component in the ADF�s successful engagement of Iraqi forces. Defence will continue to invest in best-practice training, and in equipping soldiers with the weapons and resources required for success."pg22
consistant theme amongst our forces..........

Originally posted by Illuminati You're talking on a hypothetical level. The Australian military is widely inexperienced, and you don't really have any examples with which to show that Australians are better at unconventional warfare. I'm not trying to dog on the Australian military or anything, but US troops do conduct that kind of warfare more often than Australian soldiers do, especially post-9/11. It is true that major US infantry units depend more on support, but US special forces are 100% unconventional warfare. You don't get air support when your conducting covert operations.

Im talking from conversations ive had with Aussies training with americans.
 The word i got is, that your forces have a broad range of talent, that is you have some ultra pro's (never said you didnt BTW) and some very poor members. We cant afford to have those poor quality boys but in a force your size it almost doesnt matter. And yes there are plenty of examples of Aussies fighting well, spec opps and regulars, you just havent read about it.





Edited by Leonidas

Well, possibly it was independent for a year, but it doesn't matter. A year is too short a time to be important.

Good job - you've just dismissed Palestinian independance, since they've never even had a year.

Do not underestimate ethnic groups with primitive weapons. The soviets failed to supress the Afghans, the Americans failed to supress the vietnamese and are failing again in Iraq. Supressing ethnic groups is actually quite hard.

Well, Indonesia is pretty good at it, but if it's so hard, maybe they should stay out of Irian Jaya.

Aside from that, it is only difficult if you intend to occupy their homeland and conquer them. Booting their army out of some place it doesn't belong is much easier, especially when they are a vulnerable archipelago and that army can be cut off easily by vastly superior naval forces.

That doesn't mean that the first white man they do see should be an Australian solider.

Why not? They're less likely to be chased around and butchered in the thousands if it is.

Edited by edgewaters