The Australian Population Research Institute (TAPRI) released a report in October titled A Big Australia: why it may all be over. Authored by Dr Katharine Betts and Dr Bob Birrell a summary may be as follows:
Even before the COVID-19 pandemic anti-immigration sentiment was spiking. The authors start by saying.
Prior to Covid-19 population growth in Australia had been around 1.5 per cent a year, of which net overseas migration (NOM) comprised about one percentage point. By contrast, NOM is currently adding 0.3 percent a year to the population of the US, and 0.4 percent a year in the UK.
Australia appears to be an outlier. In the UK and the US, previous government commitments to a similar globalising, high immigration agenda have been successfully challenged by protest movements, represented by Brexit in the UK and Trump’s presidential victory in the US.
The story we tell in this report is that Australia, too, is vulnerable to a similar reaction.
Survey data collected by TAPRI and other pollsters, show that at least half the Australian electorate want a reduction in immigration and this will likely increase in the. Drs Betts and Birrell go on to say.
Most Australian commentators think that the immigration component of a Big Australia is impregnable. First, it has the bipartisan support of the major parties. Second, it has accumulated a swag of vested interests in the city building and service industries supplying Australia’s rapidly growing population. These include the construction and property industries and the
state governments who see their economies as tied to population growth…………….
Supporters of a Big Australia think that Australia’s relatively stable record of economic growth has limited the number of voters who have been ‘left behind’ in an economic sense. Thus there is little fuel to feed the fire of insurrection. Moreover, Australia has not experienced the challenges Europe has endured — one and a half million undocumented migrants in 2015 alone, added to the long and severe repercussions of the global financial crisis. These differences, they believe, mean that any voter concern about immigration in Australia will be muted compared to events overseas.
They go on further to say.
We disagree with the claim that Australia is indeed an outlier. A Big Australia is vulnerable for the same reasons as high immigration was in the UK and the US. There is a large disaffected voter base in Australia, just as there is in these two countries. The difference is that there has been no open fissuring within Australian conservative leadership ranks such as occurred in the UK and the US. There, political dissidents from within conservative or right-leaning parties have mobilised voters’ concerns on immigration.
Most Australian commentators think no fissuring on this scale is likely in Australia. We argue that there have been similar stress lines here. They were an important part of the challenge to Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership in August 2018.
As to the post COVID situation.
The immigration issue was already volatile when the pandemic hit. It has become more so as public concerns have mounted about job losses and migrant competition for available work, and about the risks to health if immigration should be revived. Australians have been asked to sacrifice their freedoms in order to quell the virus, and many have suffered severe personal and financial losses. The evidence currently available shows that they are hostile to any resuscitation of a Big Australia. Such a move would amount to telling voters that their sacrifices had counted for nothing.
Given that unemployment is already over a million, this would be not merely politically unsalable, it would be electoral suicide.
All in all this is an excellent paper and well worth reading.
If it has any shortcomings it doesn’t take into account the potential One Nation factor. In fact One Nation is only mentioned a couple of times and in passing. I find this somewhat strange.
Today’s One Nation is far removed from the amateur rabble of the 1998 train wreck. They are way smarter, more cohesive and sophisticated. They are much more picky about candidates than back then. As former Senator Brian Burston said “They ran dopes, unemployed, inexperienced, not all that intellectual …”. They are stricter about vetting prospective candidates now, though as the example of Fraser Anning shows, there is still considerable room for improvement in this area.
At this writing it is predicted that it will be nearly another twelve months before Australia’s international border will be fully reopened – which is about the time the next Federal Election is likely to be held. With the demise of the Group Ticket Voting system in the Senate, One Nation will be in a better position to gain more Senate seats. In the 1998 Federal Election, One Nation’s lead Senate candidate for New South Wales, David Oldfield managed to get 0.8 or four fifths of a quota after preferences, but what with the other parties ganging up to direct Group Ticket Voting preferences away from One Nation, he would have needed four fifths of a quota on the primary vote alone to have had a chance of getting elected.
By the time of the next election immigration will have been at a standstill for over a year and the voters will notice the difference and likely as not, many will like what they see. If it it looks like there is a chance of One Nation getting more Senators elected, I would not be surprised if its opponents launch a massive newspaper and television campaign urging voters to fully fill out their Senate ballot papers either above the line or below the line and put One Nation last. As to how successful it would be likely to be, I cannot say, as this would be first time to my knowledge, anything like this has been tried.
I am inclined to believe there is another factor in the equation. It may well be that as even George W Bush, arguably one of the least intelligent U.S. Presidents in living memory couldn’t miss that “If people aren’t happy with the status quo and they’ve got access to a ballot box – they’ll let you know about it” but by the same token people may be unhappy with the status quo but they accept it, having been gulled into believing that the alternative would be far worse, and it is these voters who will count. They were unhappy with the consequences of high immigration, but accepted it believing the alternative would have been worse. A year from now with there having been no immigration to speak of for about 18 months, and seeing that the sky hasn’t fallen in, they will realise they have been deceived and will be quietly, very very angry. What is more unemployment will still be high, probably still seven figures.
It is these voters the election who could well decide the outcome of the next election. Scott Morrison and Anthony Albanese ignore them at their peril.
Of Parliamentary Apportionment and TAI
In my post of September 21st 2018 I went into how to strengthen Australia by a more efficient and less costly system of government, involving abolishing State Governments. In it I went into the size of a post Federal Parliament and determining how many electors per MP. To revisit from what I wrote:
“It goes without saying that with the end of State Parliaments, the new Single National Parliament in Canberra would need to be considerably larger than the the present Federal Parliament. Fortunately for determining the number of electors per MP in the House of Representatives there is already a ready made yardstick available in the form of Tasmania. By reason of a quirk in the 1901 Constitution, Tasmania is very overrepresented in the House of Representatives, having at this writing, an average of 76281 electors per MP as opposed to an average of 108653 for the mainland States and Territories.”
Well as it turns out I am not the only one with that view. A week or so ago I stumbled across a discussion paper put out by The Australia Institute (TAI) think tank. The context of this paper is somewhat different. It is a submission supporting the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Ensuring Fair Representation of the Northern Territory) Bill 2020 in consequence of the Northern Territory being set to lose one of its two House of Representatives seats in a redistribution.
The paper advocates using the Tasmania quotient, to set the number of electors per MP across the country as a whole. This would mean increasing the House of Representatives to 223 members, up from the present 150 and a commensurate increase in the size of the Senate. The paper describes the proposal as an Australian equivalent of the “Wyoming Rule”, which would set the quotient for a US House of Representatives seat at the population of the state with the smallest population, currently Wyoming. Fixing the badly malapportioned US House of Representatives, would go a long way toward addressing the dysfunctional state of US politics at the moment.
While TAI is rather too leftwing for my liking, there are some things that can cut across differences in political outlook and this is one of them. They correctly point out in this paper, that our Federal MP’s are stretched and thinly spread as never before.
As much as I agree with them on this issue, unless it involved abolishing State Governments, there is little chance of this idea getting up. The best that could hoped for in the short term, would be a change to the Electoral Act capping the number of electors per MP at 100 000. This would at least alleviate the difficulties many Federal MP’s face in trying to manage their electorates and would make for a somewhat deeper talent pool from which to draw ministers.
I will close this post with a friendly word of advice to the abolish State Governments brigade, namely that for the time being, they would do best to redirect their efforts toward achieving Constitutional recognition of local government, which is an essential first step to achieving their main goal.
An Anniversary Australia Should Observe
Today is the European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism. It is an international day of remembrance for victims of totalitarian regimes, coinciding with the anniversary of the signing of the infamous Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. Today’s commemorations will be observed not only in Europe, but in the United Kingdom, United States and Canada as well. On account of the COVID-19 pandemic, commemoration events will be comparatively small scale and more low key, than is usually the case.
For some time I have felt Australia should get in on the act. Australia per capita took in more Holocaust survivors than any other country except Israel, and also took in hundreds of thousands of other people fleeing from Nazi and Soviet Communist tyranny, who in their time, made significant contributions to help build the Australia of today. As is well known, many worked on the Snowy Mountains Scheme.
The crimes and horrors of the Nazi regime are well known and so they should be. But 30 years after the fall of the totalitarian Communist regimes, knowledge among Australians of the totalitarian regimes, which terrorized their fellow citizens for more than 40 years and deprived the vast majority of the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe of their basic human rights and dignity separating them from the democratic world by means of the Iron Curtain and the Berlin Wall, is still alarmingly superficial and inadequate.
Given all the above, it is hard to understand why Australia has not joined in. After giving the matter some considerable thought I have a theory as to why this might be so. I must emphasize it is off the top of my head and could well be way off the mark.
I suspect the reason why Australia has not formally adopted the International Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism, is because of behind the scenes pressure from two groups. The first one would be authoritarians of both right and left, as well as those without precisely defined social doctrines; they would not want their advocacy of similar ideas hindered by remembrance. The second would be the Old Left who came out of the 1930’s and the Great Depression or rather their spiritual heirs.
The first are beneath contempt, the second can be understood even if one does not agree with them. If one is honest about it, Communism, as horrible as it turned out in practise, started off at least in the abstract with good intentions. One cannot say the same of Nazism. As novelist Frederick Forsyth writing in his autobiography The Outsider put it better than I can ‘in all the history of the human race there has never been so foul a creed….appealing only to the nastiest corners of the human soul.’
On the other side of the coin, some would look favourably on the idea of Australia formally adopting the International Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism, because they would view it as providing an alternative focus of remembrance to the ‘militaristic’ ANZAC Day and Remembrance Day. I must respectfully beg to differ with them. I view it not as an alternative to, but as complimenting ANZAC Day and Remembrance Day. On the 25th of April and the 11th of November we commemorate those who fought and died. The 23rd of August would be (at the risk of seriously oversimplifying the issues) about commemorating why.
With World War II little more than a decade from being on the edge of living memory, and a whole generation having been born and grown up since the end of the Cold War, commemoration and remembrance are more important than ever. Since September 11th 2001 we have been engaged in a struggle with an ideology, that if not Nazism reincarnate, is not far off it. Not only that, but we have such enemies of liberty and democracy as Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping to contend with.
As former U.S.President, Ronald Reagan warned ‘freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction’. It is important to remind ourselves of the havoc and bloodshed that can be wrought by extreme political systems; when those who govern are not accountable to the governed. Every victim of any totalitarian regime has the same human dignity and deserves justice, remembrance and recognition, in efforts to ensure such crimes and events are never repeated. It would be well to conclude with closing words of one of the worlds classic orations, the Gettysburg Address – spoken just over a century and a half ago by one of America’s greatest Presidents, Abraham Lincoln, who guided his country through the greatest and most traumatic upheaval in its history. There is much in it that is equally relevant today, none more so than its closing line “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
A Seachange On Defence
How to Defend Australia author Professor Hugh White must be feeling vindicated. Prime Minister, Scott Morrison has announced a major boost in defence spending warning the post COVID-19 world would be “poorer, more dangerous and more disorderly”. He said:
“We have moved into a new and less benign strategic area, one in which the institutions and patterns of cooperation that have benefited our prosperity and security for decades are now under increasing, and I would suggest, almost-irreversible strain,” and went on to say “We have not seen the conflation of global economic and strategic uncertainty now being experienced here in Australia, in our region, since the existential threat we faced when the global and regional order collapsed in the 1930s and 1940s,”. While comparisons with the 1930’s and 1940’s might be an exaggeration,there can be no doubt we will be entering a different world on the other side of the pandemic which will more uncertain.
In keeping with Professor White’s recommendations the first item on the new defence agenda will be airborne and land based anti-ship missiles. Given that these can be procured and deployed at comparatively low cost and relatively quickly, this is eminently sensible. Other items such as submarines and the trouble plagued F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will take longer.
While all this will be costly, the virtual cessation of immigration on account of the COVID-19 pandemic will save tens of billions of dollars on infrastructure this financial year and will save even more if the borders remain closed, which they may well do until as late as early 2022, when we will be less than five months out from the next Federal Election. (My research tells me that the latest possible date for a simultaneous half-Senate and House of Representatives election is 21st May 2022 and it could well be held earlier than this.)
On an encouraging note, there are clear indications of support from the Labor Opposition for the Morrison Government’s change of direction on defence. With America bought to its knees by the COVID-19 pandemic, it seems to have finally dawned on both sides of politics that we cannot rely on the U.S. for our security; we have to be materially prepared to look after ourselves.
Action On Fuel Security-At Last
The Morrison Government is taking advantage of the collapse in oil prices occasioned by the COVID-19 pandemic to start laying in a strategic fuel reserve. As I write this Regular Unleaded (to earlier generations, Standard) petrol is retailing for under one dollar a litre for the first time in nearly two decades. Initially it (the crude oil) will be stored in the United States but hopefully only as a stopgap measure.
This is all well and very good. but it needs to go further. We need to look at boosting domestic fuel production, increasing oil exploration particularly (and preferably) onshore. While there is no need for us to do so now, I must repeat the call I made in the first post on this issue for the drawing up of contingency plans, for the production of synthetic fuel from our abundant resources of coal and natural gas.
A saying variously attributed to Churchill and Machiavelli goes, never waste a crisis. Hopefully Morrison will exploit this one to maximum effect with usually noisy minorities and vested interests effectively sidelined and silent.
A Silver Lining To The Dark COVID-19 Cloud
Coming hard on the heels of the devastation wrought by the bushfires, the COVID-19 Coronavirus could hardly have come at a worse time. There are already predictions of a recession, and the airline and the hospitality industry sectors to name just two have taken a heavy hit.
With any luck, economically we may come out of this better than many feared. Hopefully lessons have been learned from the Global Financial Crisis of 2008. As I write this, I have just learned the Australian Banking Association has announced a six-month loan repayment pause for small businesses, in effect a voluntary moratorium by another name. Soon after the announcement, National Australia Bank said home loan customers could pause repayments for up to six months and has also cut its fixed-rate home loans, and the other banks will no doubt follow suit
But one really good thing may come out of this; namely the long overdue cessation of immigration. As it is immigration would be at a standstill at the time of writing. There will almost certainly be a recession; with the double whammy of the bushfires and the Coronavirus it could hardly be otherwise. Hopefully it will not as long or severe as “the recession we had to have”, but certainly there will be an increase in unemployment and probably a substantial one.
Under such circumstances cutting immigration would the only responsible course of action for any government. Right now with immigration at a standstill, we have a historic opportunity to reset immigration policy.
About somewhere from twelve to eighteen months ago if I remember correctly, I was listening to ABC Radio National and I heard this immigration advocate whose name escapes me unfortunately, make the fatuous claim that “No government that wants to get re-elected is going to go cutting immigration”. I was frankly taken aback at the time, but on reflection I realised that he had not cited any studies or surveys to back up his implied claim, that there was a level of support for immigration as strong as that.
I don’t think this fellow can draw much comfort from the most recent polls. In 2018, the annual Lowy poll showed for the first time more than 50% of Australians preferred a lower annual immigration intake. The result was a 14-point rise from 2017’s 40%. 2019. After a sharp spike in 2018, fewer than half of Australians this year (47%, down seven points) say that the total number of migrants coming to Australia each year is ‘too high’. Even if the 2019 poll is five points out ,this still means 42% of respondents a not insubstantial plurality favoured a lower intake. A YouGov/Galaxy poll in 2018 showed that a large plurality (46%) in higher income postcodes and a clear majority (57%) in lower income postcodes favour cutting immigration. These are only two examples.
I think that this pandemic will have two effects. Firstly it will dispel the ‘myth’ for want of a better term that not a few people seem to believe, that immigration will inevitably continue, that ‘there is nothing we can do’, that it is ‘out of our hands’, that the decisions are made by some mysterious unelected power, for which Parliament, Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Governor-General (or if Australia was to become a republic, the President) are mere rubber stamps. Well, Prime Minister Morrison, was able to close the borders and bring immigration to a standstill; one would think he would have been vetoed by the supposed mysterious unelected power.
The second thing is, that a protracted period of no or virtually no immigration would change peoples outlook in many ways. For a start housing prices could be expected to fall substantially and people would quickly connect the dots. Secondly immigration would have to be kept well down, under 100 000 until the post pandemic recovery was well and truly underway. By this time public opinion might well have hardened against a return to high immigration.
The upshot could be that come the next election if Labor and the Coalition run on the ‘unity ticket’ on immigration that they have in the past, then whichever wins could find they have at three, possibly four or five One Nation Senators to deal with, instead of the present two. This would not be a prospect either of them would welcome. To add to their woes, the demise of the Group Ticket Voting system makes it much more difficult to keep One Nation out of Parliament. Along with many others, they have ample reason to curse the name of Glenn Druery.
It may well be that the COVID-19 virus achieves what all the efforts of One Nation and the (now defunct) Australians Against Further Immigration (AAFI) party could not. To have any chance of achieving its aim AAFI would have not only had to have one or more Senators sharing the balance of power in the Senate, they would probably also would have had to have the balance of power in a hung House of Representatives, and the odds of that happening were minimal to say the least. I remember hearing one smug immigrationist saying that “I believe it (immigration) is set to continue, the efforts of those who would have it otherwise not withstanding”. However he never heard of COVID-19.
If it does albeit indirectly, bring about the permanent cessation of mass immigration, then this is a definitely a silver lining to this very black cloud.
Australia Day-Aboriginal Sensitivities, Immigration and all the Rest
Today’s date is a contentious one, particularly so in few more places than Moree. It happens to be the anniversary of the Waterloo Creek Massacre in 1838 when several hundred indigenous Gamilaraay were slaughtered. The Australia Day celebrations in Moree will be held this morning and in the afternoon there will be a commemoration ceremony in which a memorial to the massacre will be unveiled. I can’t help thinking that they are doing this back to front.
The Aboriginal issue is not one I am highly exercised over. To be sure, I share the sense of profound regret, abhorrence and revulsion felt by all right thinking people with a shred of decency, at the cruelties, injustices and general mistreatment inflicted on indigenous Australians, but I do not see that it has anything to do with me personally. I was not there when it happened, neither were my parents, and so far as I have been able to ascertain none of my lineal forbears were involved. The present generation of Australians are no more guilty, than the present generation of Germans are for the Holocaust or the present generation of Japanese are for the Rape of Nanjing and divers other atrocities perpetrated by the Imperial Japanese Army, before and during World War II. The last word here I will leave to 18th century British statesman and philosopher Edmund Burke: “I do not know the means of drawing up the indictment of an entire nation”.
All that said, there is something to be said for ‘Changing the Date’. The problem is what date? If there was a date on which a broad consensus could be achieved, then Australia Day proper could be moved to that date with the 26th of January redesignated as ‘First Fleet Day’. But so far no such consensus has been achieved nor does it look like it will be any time soon, so for the forseeable future we are stuck with the 26th of January.
Why I would favour changing the date is for an altogether different reason.
Immigration is something that played an important role in modern Australia in its early days and in the making of our nation generally, but I hold that it is a concept whose time has now passed. High immigration rates have been a pet peeve of mine for the last two decades and more. It’s economic benefits are overrated and outweighed by its downsides particularly its pressures on infrastructure such as roads, schools and hospitals, telecommunications networks, electricity and water supply systems and sewerage networks which become overburdened, and require expensive new infrastructure to be built. Other downsides include downward pressure on wages because of increased competition for jobs and upward pressure on housing costs. At the end of the day it is the socially disadvantaged and vulnerable (among whom indigenous Australians are disproportionately represented) who suffer most in consequence.
All this not withstanding there are influential elements who would see immigration continue. The 26th of January marks the beginning of the formation of modern Australia, of which immigration was an integral part. A National Day detached from this would not be so easy for the immigrationists to hitch to their chariot to, and neither would the 26th of January rebadged as First Fleet Day.
I will finish, with an offering of a slightly reworked second verse of Advance Australia Fair I came across. While acknowledging and honouring the contribution immigrants have made to this country it does so clearly and properly in the past tense. For what it’s worth here it is.
“Beneath our radiant Southern Cross
We’ll toil with heart and hands
To make this Commonwealth of ours
Renowned of all the lands
With those who came across the seas
Our destiny to share
With courage let us all combine
To Advance Australia Fair”
Mounted Infantry In The Second Reserve Force Context
Preamble
In the paper entitled A Second Reserve Force the writer briefly touched on the subject of mounted infantry in an appendix of two paragraphs. There is however room for further amplification on this subject and it is worth a paper on its own.
Keeping in mind the necessarily limited role of the horse soldier in the 21st century all in all there is only a comparatively limited amount that can be said, but what there is, is worth saying.
Mounted Infantry In And From World War II Onward
World War II is often thought of as the war of massed armoured divisions, blitzkrieg and airpower. What is not generally known is that horses played a far larger role than is generally realised. For example in 1939 the German Wehrmacht, on paper the worlds most modern force still possessed a considerable number of horse drawn vehicles.
Away from the areas of high intensity war, the Axis Powers had to conduct several counter-insurgency campaigns. The most notable with regard to the use of horses was the German counter-insurgency campaign in Yugoslavia from 1943 -1945. A major element of the German forces involved in operations against Tito’s Communist partisans was a Cossack division. It was recruited from Soviet Prisoners-of-War and Russian emigres living in Yugoslavia and Germany.
With the exception of one brigade, the Cossacks were commanded by German officers and maneuver units were augmented with German combat/service support troops.
The types of missions assigned were:
- Security of lines communication, specifically of railways telephone and telegraph lines
- Deep penetration raids into partisan strong-hold areas
They were successful at both missions and gave Tito’s partisans a severe hammering.
On the Allied side of the lines the Army Ground Forces Board, Mediterranean Theater of Operations, US Army surveyed several US corps and division commanders about the suitability of horse cavalry employment in Italy. All voiced their opinion that horse cavalry could have been well employed and with one exception, were enthusiastic.
These were regular Army officers who had seen the battlefield evolve from Pershing’s pursuit of Pancho Villa in 1916 through First World War France to the North African-Sicilian-Italian campaigns and therefore had an experiential basis for their professional opinions.
Two opinions quoted below are:
Major General Willis D. Crittenberger, Commanding General IV Corps:
“Italy, as many other countries in the temperate zone, is well suited for the use of horse cavalry to exist on the country. In the rapid advance of the IV Corps from Rome to the Arno River, horse cavalry could have been used to great advantage. Three or four squadrons would have been very helpful in a pursuit role using secondary routes and trails to cut off elements of the withdrawing German Army. At the present time there is none available. In the ten months campaigning north of Rome, there had never been a time when I would not have welcomed some good horse cavalry.”
Similarly, Major General Geoffrey Keyes, Commanding General, II Corps opined:
“The terrain of Italy is much more suitable for the use of horse cavalry than for mechanized cavalry.
It is rough and mountainous with limited plain or valley areas, and many sections are inaccessible to vehicular traffic, even the 1/4 ton truck. “Jeep trails” are constructed as far as possible into these areas and then the pack mules take over. In general, only the main and secondary highways are suitable for vehicular traffic; almost all the local roads and trails are built for animal traffic only.
It is believed that horse cavalry could operate advantageously in this theater under either of two conditions, both of which have been present from time to time throughout the Italian campaign.
The first condition is that the enemy withdraw at a rate of two or more miles per day. The second condition is that the enemy lines be thinly manned.
Under the first condition, horse cavalry can be used:
To move across country to cut off delaying forces, and/or operate in rear of covering forces to harass enemy columns or raid newly set up positions; as covering forces for infantry elements moving on foot, to quickly outflank enemy delaying positions and/or develop new defensive positions; as flank guards to cover gaps in our lines and maintain contact with adjacent units.
Under the second condition, horse cavalry can be used as reconnaissance patrols, or with Partisan guides, as raiding parties in rear of enemy lines.
Finally, under any condition horse cavalry can operate as foot soldiers in the same manner as regular infantry. In this connection it may be pointed out that horse cavalry units have a larger proportion of fighting strength than have the mechanized cavalry units.”
In fact, a provisional horse-mounted reconnaissance squadron was formed in the 3rd Infantry Division in Sicily in July 1943. The unit conducted combat reconnaissance operations for the
Division in Italy and was very successful. Typical missions were:
- Reconnaissance to the flanks and to the rear of enemy positions.
- Reconnaissance and counter-reconnaissance screen .
- Flank contact with neighboring units in the mountains.
These operations were conducted in coordination with mechanized reconnaissance elements of the Division. The unit used captured German horses and equipment and ultimately had to be disbanded in December 1943 because the US Army could not provide replacement personnel, horses and equipment. This example demonstrates that horse-mounted troops could effectively operate in mountainous terrain while engaged on the “modern battlefield” of the Second World War.
Post World War II
The most notable employment of mounted infantry in this period, occurred in Africa, where during the 1960s-1980s, the Portuguese, Rhodesians and South Africans used horse-mounted troops successfully in the prosecution of counterinsurgency operations. The first example to be dealt with is the Portuguese in Angola.
The war in Angola began in 1961. There had been revolutionary activity prior to that and two insurgent groups had evolved: the Frente Nacional De Libertacao De Angola (FNLA) and the Movimento Popular De Libertacao De Angola (MPLA). In 1966, the MPLA splintered and a third group, Uniao Nacional Para a Indepencia Total De Angola (UNITA) was formed.
All of these groups were Communist-oriented and received support from either the Soviets or Chinese. The support varied in degree amongst the groups as they were all in competition against each other as well as against the Portuguese.
In fact, they spent more time fighting each other than fighting the Portuguese and this was taken maximum advantage of by the Portuguese.
As the main threat to Portuguese interests came from Zambian based MPLA and UNITA, most counter-insurgency operations were oriented in the Eastern and Central areas of Angola.
The first experimental horse-mounted platoon was organized at Silva Porta in 1966 and was so successful that by 1968 it had grown into the 1st Cavalry Group (Grupo De Cavalaria No.1) consisting of three company-sized squadrons.
Unofficially, the mounted troops were called dragoons (Dragoe) because they functioned as mounted infantry.
The two missions assigned to the dragoons were long-range patrolling and providing flank security for the movement of conventional troops, particularly in-country where the nature of the terrain confined motorized movement to roads. The dragoons were recruited locally from amongst Portuguese colonists in Angola.
They were highly effective in the high grass region of the Eastern Angola, were less vulnerable to landmines and had the advantage of being able to control the area around them, with a clear view over the grass (which foot troops did not have). Moreover, they had a substantial psychological impact over the enemy, who were not accustomed to dealing with horse troops and had no kind of training or strategy with which to face them.
Another advantage they had, was surprise effect. The relative silence of horses and the ability to suddenly “appear” on the battlefield made them superior to helicopter borne troops when conducting raids.
A similar type of unit was in the process of being raised in Mozambique, when the war there ended in 1974.
Rhodesia: Grey’s Scouts
The Rhodesian Bush War started in 1966 and pitted the government of Rhodesian Prime Minister Ian Smith against the guerrilla forces of the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU) and the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU).
One of the greatest problems that beset the Rhodesian Security Forces was the alarming attrition rate among soft-skinned vehicles. Not only had large numbers been destroyed by land-mines, but many more were simply incapable of surviving the gruelling conditions. The problem was further exacerbated by the fact that strategically, Rhodesia was almost completely isolated, having become a “pariah” state on the world scene, making the procurement of replacements difficult.
Tough, cross-country mine-proof vehicles, such as the ‘Hyena’ and ‘Rhino’, existed, but were not large enough to be used as personnel or supply carriers.
Another pressing problem lay in the difficulty of applying adequate ground coverage when man-power resources were limited and already over-stretched. Of course, a few troops could patrol and establish a presence over an extensive area if they were mobile – but, vehicles had tactical disadvantages in the bush. They invariably became bogged down in the rains, while, in the dry season they advertised their approach with long columns of dust; at night, their lights could be seen for great distances, often for miles – and nothing could be done about the noise.
Undoubtedly noting the success of the Portuguese in Angola, in 1975 the Rhodesian Army raised an experimental troop sized Mounted Infantry Unit. Initial trials in the Eastern Highlands with that first troop worked out well and further ‘bush-trips’ of trial troops in the East and South-East of Rhodesia ironed out most of the teething troubles, and convincingly demonstrated the value of mounted infantry in counter-insurgency operations. The experience gained by these trial troops revealed hitherto unexpected advantages to patrolling on horseback. It was found that, when mounted, a man could track not only faster, but more accurately, than on foot. Line of spoor could be followed more easily, and unexpectedly large areas could be covered. Generally, a normal day’s patrol would cover about 40 kilometers.
In 1976 the Mounted Infantry Unit was expanded to a full regiment named Grey’s Scouts after a mounted infantry unit that had seen service in the 1896 Matabele Rebellion. It consisted of a headquarters and three squadrons plus a support squadron. Each of the three ‘sabre’ squadrons was divided into three troops plus headquarters. Interestingly the strength of each troop not counting the command element was 32 – the same as a World War I Light Horse troop, the only difference being that instead of the troop consisting of eight 4-man sections, it was subdivided into four 8-man sections [each broken down into two 4-man half sections]. Clearly the Rhodesians had studied the records of previous wars and had noted the span of control problems the old ‘octagonal’ structure would have presented.
The effectiveness of the Grey’s Scouts regiment was demonstrated the fact that there was only one unit feared more by the guerrillas of ZANU and ZAPU, namely the Rhodesian Light Infantry.
The following capabilities and advantages of Grey’s Scouts have been cited:
- A horse could carry a quarter of its weight (approximately 330 lbs) and were used to carry mortars, mines and explosives.
- Horses offered speed of reaction.
- Horses were quiet (As the Portuguese had discovered).
- Horses could extend the range of a ground patrol (average 40 kilometers/day).
Horses increase the rider’s field of visibility thus improving the rider’s ability to track.
In the same time period the South African Army employed mounted infantry to good effect in counterinsurgency operations in South West Africa (Present day Namibia).
The most notable recent use of horses is that of Operational Detachment Alpha 595, (ODA 595) part of the 5th Special Forces Group, United States Army, sent into Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington to assist the Northern Alliance who were fighting the Taliban. Once they arrived in-country, the Northern Alliance troops provided the US forces with horses, the only suitable transportation for the difficult mountainous terrain of Northern Afghanistan.
When details of their mission were declassified they were chronicled by author Doug Stanton in The Horse Soldiers (2009) which in turn was the basis for the movie 12 Strong (2018).
Second Reserve Force Mounted Infantry
Instructive as the above examples are though, it is important to take into account their contexts. The example of the U.S. 3rd Infantry Division in the Italian Campaign was in steeply mountainous terrain unlike any the Australian Army has operated in on a large scale, with the possible exception of Greece in 1941. The Angolan and Rhodesian examples were in the context of counter insurgency operations.
With Auxiliary/Territorial/Territorial Auxiliary Reserve mounted infantry units, while keeping in mind their primary mission in the context of a medium to high intensity conflict would be first and foremost reconnaissance, the experience of Angola and Rhodesia demonstrate they have at least three singular advantages here:
- Mobility: Horse-mounted troops can cover far more ground than infantry on foot. In Rhodesia a normal day’s patrol would cover about 40 kilometers. (25 miles)
- Stealth: Horse-mounted troops can not only cover more ground than infantry on foot; they can do so much more quietly than motor vehicle mounted troops can. Motorcycles in particular, are notoriously noisy.
- Security: Horses, like most animals, have much greater developed senses than man. Generally, horses have sensed the presence of hostile forces before the rider and have been able to alert the rider to that presence.
These advantages would apply even in a medium to high intensity conflict if the terrain in the area of operations was such as to be advantageous to the employment of mounted infantry in the medium to long range recon role.
Organization
Given mounted infantry’s limited and specialised role on the 21st century battlefield, organisation needs to be looked at.
While during World War I mounted troops both mounted infantry and cavalry proper, were deployed in brigade and division sized formations, regimental organisation seems to have been designed to allow for even parcelling out, if a regiment was attached to an infantry division; one squadron to each infantry brigade, one troop to each of the (as then) four battalions. Troop organisation of eight 4-man sections would seem to have been designed to suit the pre 1913 eight company battalion, allowing one 4-man section attached to each company as mounted forward scouts. The old eight company battalion, each company consisting of two half companies, each of two 20 man sections, dated to the Napoleonic era and earlier and was suited to the close order linear tactics of that time, but in the Boer War (1899-1902) had been found sadly wanting on the modern battlefield, and in 1913 was reorganised into four companies, each formed by merging two of the smaller companies and the half companies were reorganised into platoons of four ten man sections.
In the contemporary context, the old 32 man troop (counting the command element 36) would be larger than needed.
The current eight man 2×4 section organisation has its shortcomings for ‘leg’ infantry, but it is really the only feasible organisation for mounted infantry given that the necessity of one man in every four as a horse holder, dictates a four man basic element. There basically two options for troop organisation. One is a 16 man pure NCO led unit of two 2×4 sections, one led by a Sergeant and other by a Corporal, each consisting of besides the leader NCO, a Lance Corporal and six Troopers, the Lance Corporal leading one of the half sections. The other is a 20 man unit; two 2×4 sections each led by a Corporal plus a four man command section.
Recruitment And Training
This is where things could get problematic. The Australian Light Horse in World War I had the advantage of being in a time and place where horses and people who could ride them were commonplace. The standard of horsemanship high to begin with, rose even higher when it was discovered there was a surplus of mounted volunteers who could be used in the infantry or other mounted arms such as the artillery and accordingly the riding tests were made more difficult so that only the cream of the riders passed them.
A century later it would not be possible to be so fastidious. With the pool of potential recruits with any experience of horses shallow enough as it is, anyone who to use the colloquial knew one end of a horse from the other, would almost have to be accepted.
In the initial phase of the Auxiliary/Territorial/Territorial Auxiliary Reserve’s formation it might be better to concentrate on the development of a horse-mounted capability within the structure of the Second Reserve infantry battalions, with formation of actual horse-mounted units left until further down the track. This would make things easier when the time was right to start forming actual horse-mounted units. Identifying suitable soldiers could be done ‘surreptitously’ by formalising the recommended practise whereby Leaders of the 9 to11 man basic ‘Patrol’ light infantry unit are urged to find out what civilian acquired skills their men have that could be useful. This could be done by issuing a questionaire with a list of aforementioned civilian acquired skills and a tick box beside each and naturally the list would include “Handling and Riding Horses’ or words to that effect.
In the case of ODA 595 only two men in the whole 12 man unit had experience with horses and this points up another problem, namely aspiring potential recruits with no prior experience of horses, and given the limited pool of personnel available with any experience of horses it may be necessary to accept such recruits. Initial equitation training could be conducted on a civilian contract basis, but this could be problematic as it would increase the likelihood of the media picking up on it, given the potential for controversy using horses in any sort of military capacity would entail.
In the initial paper A Second Reserve Force the writer recommended that with the basic unit it would be better to start off with four or five men, six at most, train them up to a modicum of proficiency and then bring the unit up to full strength one or two recruits at a time. If need be a similiar approach could be adopted when forming mounted infantry units, though given their smaller size perhaps not to the same extent. With this sort of arrangement any initial equitation training needed could be done ‘in-house’ so to speak, thereby obviating the need for any outside involvement.
Most recruits would be drawn from Auxiliary Reserve infantry battalions; direct entry would be rare. While the Australian Army has no current mounted infantry manual, there is plenty of material available from other sources that could utilised.
* * *
The only issue remaining to be dealt with, is what to call them. As much as ‘Light Horse’ might appeal to the romantic traditionalists, given the potentially controversial nature of having horse-mounted troops in any way shape or form, something that did not mention horses would be preferable. Given that their primary mission would be reconnaissance, “Reconnaissance”, “Scout Reconnaissance” or similar would be an accurate description, one that would clearly describe their function without saying they were horse-mounted units.
Sources
Horse-Mounted Troops in Low Intensity Conflict by Lieutenant Colonel Peter Onoszko, U.S. Army
Further Reading
The Horse Soldiers by Doug Stanton
The Cavalry of World War II by Janusz Piekalkiewicz
The Equus Men: Rhodesia’s Mounted Infantry: The Grey’s Scouts 1896-1980 by Alexandre Binda
The Jihadi Threat Within
A new study released by the Lowy Institute titled Typology of Terror contains some disturbing revealations on the background of Austrlian Islamic extremists. The majority are second generation Australians; only six per cent of Australia’s jihadis are refugees or the children of refugees.
Though there is not sufficient data to produce a portrait of an ‘average’ Australian jihadi, if we were to construct one from the aggregated data, they would likely have many of the following characteristics:
- Male
- Mid 20s
- Lives in Sydney
- Is or has been married
- Born in Australia to overseas-born parents who are still married (with one or both from Lebanon)
- No prior criminal record
- Completed high school at a government school
- Employed in a blue-collar job
- No mental health issues
- Not contrite and judged to have relatively poor prospects of rehabilitation
90 per cent are from Sydney’s western suburbs and north Melbourne.Two thirds have no prior convictions. Discounting driving offences which in any case, are often dealt with administratively rather than through the courts, almost 80 per cent have not been in trouble with the authorities. Australian terrorists also include fewer Muslim converts. Just eight per cent of Australian jihadis are converts to Islam, compared to 20 per cent of US and European extremists.
All in all very disturbing findings. As to what to do, in my opinion everything that can be done within the letter of law to discourage Islamic immigration should be done. To those would scream ‘discrimination’ I say that we have every right to discriminate against the admission of people, whose presence would be prejudicial or potentially so, to the peace, order and good government of our country.
We Need a Proper Bill of Rights, Not Piecemeal Legislation
I have just watched again, a clip on ABC television featuring ABC chairwoman Ita Buttrose, calling for legislation to protect press freedom. While she has my full in principal agreement, legislating piecemeal on an ad hoc basis is not the best way to go about protecting rights. What we need as I called for in my previous post, is a comprehensive and and encompassing bill or charter of rights, like all other Western democracies have and Australia should have had a long time ago.
