Quality versus quantity

Micheal Duffy thinks there are not nearly enough Australian forces in Iraq doing not nearly enough:

At the peak of their commitments to Iraq, Britain had 45,000 people there and the US about 150,000. Relative to population sizes, to match this Australia should have had between 10,000 and 15,000 people in the Middle East at some point. In fact we peaked at just 2000. There are now fewer than 600 Australians serving there, to be joined next month by another 450.

Some of these figures are approximate, as countries use different definitions to reach them. But I doubt this would affect the conclusion that Australia has relatively contributed about one-fifth of the effort that was put into freeing Iraq by Britain and America. Says Aldo Borgu, military analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, "There's no doubt our action on the ground doesn't match the Government's rhetoric."

It's an imbalance I've never seen referred to, but it ought to concern both the Government's supporters and its opponents. One would expect conservatives to be worried about the questions of honour and integrity raised by fighting war on the cheap. And those opposed to the war might ask themselves whether John Howard would have gone in if he'd had to pay the full price, not just in numbers but in putting Australian forces into situations of danger, which ... we have generally avoided so far.

I'm not privy to Australia's operational plans so I'm not about to comment. Lack of knowledge doesn't stop Duffy, however:

On May 19, 2004 at the CD Kemp Dinner in Melbourne, Mr Howard repeated his belief that "we should not leave it to the United States to do all the heavy lifting" and said: "To view the ADF presence as symbolic is not only factually inaccurate - it is plainly insulting." On February 22 this year he assured Lateline we are doing our fair share in a great cause.

But the figures given earlier suggest Australia has indeed allowed the Americans and British to do the heavy lifting. Michael O'Connor, former executive director of the Australian Defence Association, agrees: "To consider ours a militarily significant commitment is just ludicrous. We're not pulling our weight."

Jeez, for all Duffy knows, Australian forces are in the thick of things. They are meant to be very well trained. Duffy trudges on:

America's acceptance of the gap between Australian rhetoric and participation is interesting. It's as if there was a deal, whereby President George Bush had accepted token military effort as long as it was preceded by prompt and unstinted diplomatic support.

When Bush called Howard a "man of steel" who was "steady under fire" you wonder if it was the experience of cutting such a deal he was recalling. Or maybe the deal was never spelt out, and the President, who has a well-developed sense of honour, was simply being ironic about Australia's martial valour.

Token effort? Will it still be a token effort if a plane load of Diggers crashes somewhere in Iraq, shot down or not? Arsehole.