The SAAF Forum

Discussion on the SAAF and other southern African air forces.
It is currently 04 May 2024, 04:30

All times are UTC + 2 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 66 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2014, 15:15 
Offline

Joined: 12 Sep 2011, 08:11
Posts: 60
Heitman puts forward a very clear case in yesterday's Cape Argus
(and attracts flak from the usual know-it-all online comment trolls :evil: )

http://www.iol.co.za/capeargus/what-is-sa-s-military-role-in-africa-1.1629239

Quote:
What is SA's military role in Africa?January 7 2014 at 12:23pm
By Helmoed Römer Heitman

It is past time for South Africa to decide on its role in Africa; it is also well past time to accept that we are currently overreaching ourselves, and that this will damage the Defence Force. Regardless of what our long-term aim may turn out to be, we need to now focus on what is critical to us.

The Army has two battalions committed to long-term peace support operations in Africa and there is ominous talk of a third. It is also expected to maintain a contingency force to respond to sudden crises, and to patrol our land border of 4 862km, some of it running through very rough terrain.

At the maximum safe rotation rate of 1 in 4 for foreign deployments (to allow proper individual and unit training and family lives for the soldiers), and assuming battalions permanently assigned to border sectors, that requires an Army of about 16 infantry battalions depending on how the border patrol system is designed.

Add at least two battalions as follow-on forces for a crisis intervention, and we need 18 regular Army infantry battalions, not counting the paratroops who are supposed to be the immediate crisis response force.

But the Army only has 13 battalions (not counting the paratroops) and not all of those soldiers are deployable.

We also lack air-transportable armoured cars to provide some punch to deal with the ever better armed “technicals” used by most irregular forces. And we do not have the airlift to reinforce or extract our troops should a sudden escalation occur, or the tanker aircraft to make a quick air strike by our Gripen fighter jets possible – remember Bangui?.

All of these shortcomings – and quite a few others – can be addressed with a defence budget hovering around 2 percent of GDP, with the bulk of the money spent in South Africa on salaries and local products. But while that means a 2 percent budget is a practical target, it will take time to address those shortfalls. For now, there is a clear need to refocus our efforts.

The collapse of the Central African Republic (CAR) and the threatening civil war in South Sudan present a very real and urgent security challenge to the DRC and thus to the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and South Africa.

We have invested much political capital in the DRC and not a little in South Sudan, and we have spent some lives in efforts to stabilise the east of the DRC and also in the CAR.

Can we really afford to sit by and let the CAR settle into failed state status or watch South Sudan disintegrate? Consider the security impact on the Equateur province of the DRC.

There are already reports from Uganda of guerrillas of the Lord’s Resistance Army and the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF) moving and being supplied through Equateur, and of fighters from Libya and from the Somali al-Shabaab jihadist group joining the ADF.

If that continues, Uganda will step up its covert operations in the northeast of the DRC, and that will undo much of the little that has been achieved in the Great Lakes region since 2001.

That is not something South Africa should sit back and contemplate with equanimity: The DRC is important to SADC and to South Africa, both as a market and as a source of natural resources and energy (Grand Inga).

That does not necessarily mean we should deploy troops to join the AU force Misca in the CAR. Misca is a reinforced version of the central African regional force Fomac, which in March simply stepped aside and let our small contingent take the punch of the Seleka attack without even bothering to alert our troops.

Nor would I be keen to trust the AU, given its failure to respond in Mali and the way it rolled over before Seleka like a puppy in March, instead of kicking them back out. After all, then CAR president Francois Bozize had more or less met the terms of the ceasefire that the AU negotiated; it was Seleka that simply broke it from March 12 onwards.

Nor does this necessarily mean deploying South African forces into South Sudan to stand between the warring factions, and probably being attacked and vilified by both.

But perhaps we should think very seriously about deploying a joint task force to the DRC’s Equateur province to at least reduce the flow of bandits, smugglers, guerrillas, terrorists and their supplies into and through the DRC.

That would require at least a battalion group with air support – helicopters, surveillance aircraft or UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles – or drones), light transports – and probably elements of the Navy’s small craft unit for river patrols. That might make a major difference to the future of the DRC and of SADC.

Where would we find those troops, given that the Army is already over-stretched?

The only answer to that in the short/medium-term would be to withdraw from the UN peacekeeping mission in Darfur, Unamid.

Not that the efforts to try and bring peace and stability to the people of Darfur are not worthwhile; they most definitely are. But the stability of the DRC is vastly more important to South Africa and to SADC.

Withdrawing from Darfur and expanding the use of reservists for border patrol work would free the troops required for at least a basic stabilisation/border security operation in Equateur, although we would have to deploy helicopters and light aircraft for it to have any chance of success.

Whether we did this as part of the UN peacekeeping mission in the DRC, Monusco, is not a thought that fills me with enthusiasm, or in terms of a bilateral agreement, is something to consider.

But stabilising the north of the DRC before it unravels and becomes like the east of the DRC, is imperative. Prevention is better than cure, and even containing and limiting the problem will be better than waiting for things to slide out of control. -The Argus

Helmoed Römer Heitman is an independent defence analyst and is the South African correspondent for Jane’s Defence Weekly and several other periodicals.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2014, 17:04 
Offline

Joined: 30 Dec 2013, 19:46
Posts: 168
VERY interesting article, clear, concise and rather well written......

Seems like this writer has a pretty good grasp on "reality vs. fantasy"...

WHY would this article have caused "Flack".....because it advocates uping the Military numbers and spending?...or because of proposed increase in deployments?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2014, 17:24 
Offline

Joined: 12 Sep 2011, 08:11
Posts: 60
Quote:
WHY would this article have caused "Flack".....because it advocates uping the Military numbers and spending?...or because of proposed increase in deployments?


I wish the online comments were from those with real opinions in the areas you highlight. That would lead to constructive debate. Unfortunately the general online comments quickly seep to the usual racist drivel, and on military issues illinformed accusations on how we used to be able to conquer the world and post democracy our military is useless and only serves the personal interests politicians, we should be isolationist regarding African affairs etc. The lack of any real proactive PR effort from the SANDF (other than the personal good work of Dean, Heitman and others) does not help the case either.


p.s. I see they the comments section of this Argus article has just been taken down or is off-line.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2014, 17:35 
Offline

Joined: 08 Mar 2009, 05:05
Posts: 3549
Location: Canada
Quote:
But the Army only has 13 battalions (not counting the paratroops) and not all of those soldiers are deployable.

Can someone explain "not all of these soldiers are deployable".
I know I have seen some that would struggle to get threw my front door, thanks to the abundance of food.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2014, 17:59 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2011, 23:59
Posts: 4268
Location: 34º 05' 54" S 18º 22' 49"E
Lucky wrote:
we should be isolationist regarding African affairs etc.


I personally feel the SANDF should not deploy in any country that does not have a freely and fairly elected multiparty government. Why should our tax go to support and prop up dictatorships?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2014, 19:14 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2013, 19:31
Posts: 66
Location: Western cape
The flak is the typical negative comments usually in the line of them being fat and lazy.
Even after the soldiers did a great job under circumstances in the CAR.
This is a sickness in our country.
It's a ugly attitude that remains after almost 20 years of democracy.
Anything related to the military or the police is attacked.
I understand that the people are tired of the corruption but this is the politicians not the military.
You will even find it on this forum.
There are even people that want to get rid of the military.
It's a pity that we cannot embrace and support our military and police.
I sometimes watch the dragsters in the US on TV and it makes me sad to see that
some of the cars are sponsored by the US military.
If this would happen in SA the people will have a field day.
We must become proud of our military again.
But that's just my opinion.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2014, 19:32 
Offline

Joined: 25 Mar 2010, 23:01
Posts: 2290
jfh, I agree 100% with you, it's time people became more patriotic and positive instead of always being negative.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2014, 20:35 
Offline

Joined: 23 Dec 2006, 06:12
Posts: 765
Location: Gauteng, South Africa
Balerit wrote:
jfh, I agree 100% with you, it's time people became more patriotic and positive instead of always being negative.


Patriotism is good but if it is sustained by blind faith instead of being tempered by a healthy dose of common sense and awareness of what is going on in one's society and internationally, a whole nation can tragically be led into self-destruction and abhorrent excesses. I'm sure I don't have to site evidence to proof my point.

_________________
Stay foolish; stay hungry


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2014, 20:50 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2011, 23:59
Posts: 4268
Location: 34º 05' 54" S 18º 22' 49"E
koffiepit wrote:
Balerit wrote:
jfh, I agree 100% with you, it's time people became more patriotic and positive instead of always being negative.


Patriotism is good but if it is sustained by blind faith instead of being tempered by a healthy dose of common sense and awareness of what is going on in one's society and internationally, a whole nation can tragically be led into self-destruction and abhorrent excesses. I'm sure I don't have to site evidence to proof my point.


Well said. There is probably nothing more dangerous than blind patriotism - be it to a political, philosophical or religious system. Brought more suffering to humankind than any other single factor.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 09 Jan 2014, 07:27 
Offline

Joined: 25 Mar 2010, 23:01
Posts: 2290
Who's talking about blind patriotism, what you are referring to is a fanatic/fanaticism.

Search Results

pa·tri·ot·ic
ˌpātrēˈätik/
adjective
adjective: patriotic
1.
having or expressing devotion to and vigorous support for one's country.
"today's game will be played before a fiercely patriotic crowd"
synonyms: nationalist, nationalistic, loyalist, loyal; More

fa·nat·ic
fəˈnatik/
noun
noun: fanatic; plural noun: fanatics

1.
a person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal, esp. for an extreme religious or political cause.
synonyms: zealot, extremist, militant, dogmatist, devotee, adherent; More


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 09 Jan 2014, 08:23 
Offline

Joined: 12 Sep 2011, 08:11
Posts: 60
Quote:
I personally feel the SANDF should not deploy in any country that does not have a freely and fairly elected multiparty government. Why should our tax go to support and prop up dictatorships?


I agree that we shouldn't be propping up dictatorships, but think that the above test is too "perfect world". If I had been born in Darfur, Eastern DRC (and before in Burundi) (none of which have/had democratic governments) I would be extremely glad that the SANDF and UN were there, not because they are without fault, but at least some value was being put on my life and future. Similarly in CAR if our focus/mandate was less political (protect a despot and mines) and more humanitarian we would probably had had more support in SA and elsewhere. This isn't just bleeding heart stuff, but a stable Africa, especially SADC, is good for SA business. If we are going ensure stability at home, we need to grow our economy, and a key driver of growth is African business (and with all things this comes at a price, and investment in military capacity is part of that cost).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 09 Jan 2014, 09:20 
Offline

Joined: 07 Apr 2008, 11:50
Posts: 4253
The article is simply a summary of various parts of the 2012 Defence Review, which most of us commenting here should have at least skimmed through. I wonder why the DR is still in limbo waiting to be submitted to the Portfolio Committee on Defence?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 09 Jan 2014, 09:47 
Offline

Joined: 23 Dec 2006, 06:12
Posts: 765
Location: Gauteng, South Africa
Lucky wrote:
Quote:
I personally feel the SANDF should not deploy in any country that does not have a freely and fairly elected multiparty government. Why should our tax go to support and prop up dictatorships?


I agree that we shouldn't be propping up dictatorships, but think that the above test is too "perfect world". If I had been born in Darfur, Eastern DRC (and before in Burundi) (none of which have/had democratic governments) I would be extremely glad that the SANDF and UN were there, not because they are without fault, but at least some value was being put on my life and future. Similarly in CAR if our focus/mandate was less political (protect a despot and mines) and more humanitarian we would probably had had more support in SA and elsewhere. This isn't just bleeding heart stuff, but a stable Africa, especially SADC, is good for SA business. If we are going ensure stability at home, we need to grow our economy, and a key driver of growth is African business (and with all things this comes at a price, and investment in military capacity is part of that cost).


That is a good idea. The flip side of the coin is that the RSA soldiers' lives are at stake. Those lives must be treated with respect. That means that it is irresponsible to just send them into any local brawl between power/money hungry warlords, even those posing as heads of governments that came into power by dubious means. They must only be used when there is a clear and workable plan to rectify the political situation to the extend that a legitimate, democratically elected government will be put into power. That means that South Africa's military assistance is largely dependent on the efforts of widely recognised organisations like the UN and AU.

_________________
Stay foolish; stay hungry


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 09 Jan 2014, 10:00 
Offline

Joined: 23 Dec 2006, 06:12
Posts: 765
Location: Gauteng, South Africa
Balerit wrote:
Who's talking about blind patriotism, what you are referring to is a fanatic/fanaticism.

Search Results

pa·tri·ot·ic
ˌpātrēˈätik/
adjective
adjective: patriotic
1.
having or expressing devotion to and vigorous support for one's country.
"today's game will be played before a fiercely patriotic crowd"
synonyms: nationalist, nationalistic, loyalist, loyal; More

fa·nat·ic
fəˈnatik/
noun
noun: fanatic; plural noun: fanatics

1.
a person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal, esp. for an extreme religious or political cause.
synonyms: zealot, extremist, militant, dogmatist, devotee, adherent; More


That means that criticism should be welcomed then instead of vilified as always being negative. As was mentioned elsewhere on this forum, the SANDF is not doing a great PR job at the moment. The public learns about deployment of troops somewhere in Africa and some of those deployments have widely been linked to propping up dubious heads of state for reasons that has less to do with national interest than the personal interest of political leaders. The public's criticism is quite understandable.

The lack of the public's criticism against the SAN for the sterling job done by the Isandlwana over the weekend for instance illustrates that the public does not criticise willy-nilly and are not just negative and unpatriotic. They actually show signs of criticising areas that they perceive as incompetent or the perceived mismanagement of the SANDF. To what extend has the SANDF gone out of its way to fully inform the public of its involvement in the past weekend's rescue efforts instead of relying on news reporters reporting on a newsworthy event where the SAN incidentally played a role?

It is high time that the defence review of 2012 is taken seriously by the government to the extend that money, policy and time frames are being committed to its implementation. It is also about time that the SANDF and government takes the RSA public into its confidence and keep them informed of deployments together with legit reasons for those deployments and the successes they have in terms of execution of their mandates.

_________________
Stay foolish; stay hungry


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 09 Jan 2014, 10:21 
Offline

Joined: 07 Apr 2008, 11:50
Posts: 4253
The SA media should also take some of the blame. There are exactly ZERO South African journalists deployed in any of the places where the SANDF has troops deployed. Our press rely on syndicated sources such as AFP who write for a global audience and thus only briefly mention SA when they do something particularly notable.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 66 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC + 2 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group