Ignorance Deserves An Ass Beating

I got this in an email a while ago and thought it was hilarious....

Dear Civilians...

"We know that the current state of affairs in our great
nation have many civilians up in arms and excited to join
the military. For those of you who can't join, you can
still lend a hand. Here are a few of the areas where we
would like your assistance:

(1) The next time you see an adult talking (or wearing a hat)
during the playing of the National Anthem---kick their ass.

(2) When you witness, firsthand, someone burning the American
Flag in protest---kick their ass.

(3) Regardless of the rank they held while they served, pay
the highest amount of respect to all veterans. If you see
anyone doing otherwise, quietly pull them aside and explain how
these veterans fought for the very freedom they bask in every
second. Enlighten them on the many sacrifices these veterans
made to make this Nation great. Then hold them down while a
disabled veteran kicks their ass.

(4) (GUYS) If you were never in the military, DO NOT pretend
that you were. Wearing battle dress uniforms (BDUs), telling
others that you used to be "Special Forces," and collecting
GI Joe memorabilia, might have been okay when you were seven
years old. Now, it will only make you look stupid and get your
ass kicked.

(5) Next time you come across an Air Force member, do not ask
them, "Do you fly a jet?" Not everyone in the Air Force is a
pilot. Such ignorance deserves an ass-kicking (children are
exempt).

(6) If you witness someone calling the US Coast Guard
'non-military', inform them of their mistake---and kick
their ass.

(7) Next time Old Glory (the US flag) prances by during a
parade, get on your damn feet and pay homage to her by
placing your hand over your heart. Quietly thank the military
member or veteran lucky enough to be carrying her---of course,
failure to do either of those could earn you a severe
ass-kicking.

(8) Don't try to discuss politics with a military member
or a veteran.. We are Americans, and we all bleed the same,
regardless of our party affiliation. Our Chain of Command
is to include our Commander-In-Chief (CinC). The President
(for those who didn't know) is our CinC regardless of
political party. We have no inside track on what happens
inside those big important buildings where all those
representatives meet. All we know is that when those
civilian representatives screw up the situation, they call
upon the military to go straighten it out. If you keep
asking us the same stupid questions repeatedly, you will get
your ass kicked!

(9) 'Your mama wears combat boots' never made sense to
me---stop saying it! If she did, she would most likely be a
vet and therefore, could kick your ass!

(10) Bin Laden and the Taliban are not Communists, so stop
saying 'Let's go kill those Commies!' And stop asking us
where he is! Crystal balls are not standard issue in the
military. That reminds me---if you see anyone calling those
damn psychic phone numbers, let me know, so I can go kick
their ass.

(11) 'Flyboy' (Air Force), 'Jarhead' (Marines), 'Grunt' (
Army), 'Squid'(Navy), 'Puddle Jumpers' (Coast Guard), etc.,
are terms of endearment we use describing each other.
Unless you are a service member or vet, you have not earned
the right to use them. That could get your ass kicked.

(12) Last, but not least, whether or not you become a member
of the military, support our troops and their families.
Every Thanksgiving and religious holiday that you enjoy with
family and friends, please remember that there are literally
thousands of sailors and troops far from home wishing they
could be with their families. Thank God for our military and
the sacrifices they make every day. Without them, our country
would get its ass kicked."

"It is the soldier, not the reporter who has given us the
freedom of the press.
"It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the
freedom of speech.
"It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us
the freedom to demonstrate.
"It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath
the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who
allows the protester to burn the flag."

(Please pass this on so I won't have to kick your ass!) :-)
"If you can read this, thank a teacher"
"If you are reading it in English, thank a veteran

I read this editorial today with some interest......

Editorial Darfur showdown Thursday, March 15, 2007 RWANDA, Kosovo and Cambodia were recent instances of genocidal slaughter that made an on-looking world promise never to allow a repeat. Yet, it is happening in the Darfur region of Sudan, where 200,000 have died and more than 2 million have been made refugees. Despite steady diplomacy, public rallies and worldwide pressure, the Sudanese government refuses to allow peacekeepers in or to call off its murderous militia in the province. A new U.N. report, one of the toughest ever by the world body, should break this stalemate. Intervention, sanctions and war-crimes prosecution are in order, the human-rights report says. Sudan's overseas funds, such as oil revenues, should be frozen, its leaders sould be barred from leaving the country and a beefed up military force should be sent in to restore peace, the panel added. It's a welcome, though overdue, plan. The real question is whether the United Nations will do anything, starting with its Human Rights Council, which ordered the study. The council was remade from the ashes of the prior and widely discredited commission, which included notable human-rights abusers such as Libya, Zimbabwe and Sudan. Since its creation last year, the new council has cited Israel as a human-rights violator and no other nation. Sudan -- rest assured -- will play the delay game, calling in favors from allies such as Russia and China, which have fended off calls for action. It's past time for talks and negotiations with a nation that kills its own people and menaces a region of northern Africa. The new U.N. Human Rights Council is due to take up the study this week, with the final stop being the Security Council. It's time for both bodies and the world community to end the killing in Darfur.

Darfur on Their Radar By Jackson Diehl Monday, April 2, 2007; Page A15 For months it's looked like the genocide in Darfur has fallen off the agenda of a White House desperately fighting fires in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. Yet last Monday President Bush's anger rocked the Oval Office when aides presented him with a plan for sanctions against the Sudanese government. Raising his voice, he demanded that his special envoy for Darfur, Andrew Natsios, and national security adviser Stephen Hadley come up with something stronger. Or so I'm told. The result, according to several sources, is that the United States and Britain may finally make an effort, beginning this month, to push for serious punishment of the regime of Omar Hassan al-Bashir at the U.N. Security Council -- and to shame the governments, such as China's, that have blocked multilateral action. Britain takes over Security Council chairmanship this week from South Africa, another resister of action on Darfur, while the United States' turn follows in May. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have been feeding each other's passion on Darfur. They've decided "to stop watering down U.N. resolutions before they are even introduced," one official said. "This time they will ask for what they want," including both economic and military sanctions. As for China, which buys Sudan's oil and invests in its industry while shielding the government from international pressure, the official predicted: "There will be an international campaign against countries that are obstructing action by the council." In the meantime, Bush is expected to approve more unilateral U.S. sanctions against Sudan, probably sometime after Easter. Among other steps, these will target assets of three Sudanese leaders and prohibit business in dollars with several dozen Sudanese companies, including an oil services firm. The United States could also help to rebuild former rebel forces in southern Sudan, which signed a peace deal with the government in 2005. Why the tough action now? In part, Bush is said to be out of patience with Bashir, who has refused to accept a U.N. plan to deploy peacekeepers in Darfur to help protect the hundreds of thousands of refugees bottled up in camps. Under pressure from Arab leaders at a summit in Riyadh late last week, Bashir hinted that he would reconsider parts of the plan -- but most likely he's stalling for time. Bush and Blair are also feeling the effects of an international campaign for action on Darfur that has ranged from appeals from Hollywood stars and European intellectuals to petition drives and newspaper ad campaigns. The two leaders have talked about Darfur several times in recent weeks; at a European summit a week ago Blair declared the situation "intolerable" and the actions of the Sudanese government "unacceptable." He said the imposition of a no-fly zone over Darfur should be reconsidered -- a step that could appear in the new Security Council resolution. Curiously, the resolve of the two leaders has hardened at a moment when the situation in Darfur may be softening. Attacks by the Sudanese military have fallen off during the past several months -- since Feb. 8 the United Nations has recorded only one, with no casualties. Assaults by government-backed janjaweed militias against civilians have also appeared to slacken. U.S. government and other Western analysts believe that Bashir has backed off from military operations, at least for now, because his army was unexpectedly bloodied by Darfur rebels in fighting in the fall. Outside experts, such as John Prendergast of the International Crisis Group, think Bashir has not changed his scorched-earth policy for Darfur, merely his tactics. In recent weeks inter-communal fighting has erupted around the province, sometimes between rival Arab clans; Prendergast thinks the government has encouraged it. Though the level of mass killing is down, refugees are still pouring into camps -- more than 80,000 since the beginning of this year, according to the United Nations. Meanwhile the government has been severely restricting the activity of aid organizations, a tactic it has used in the past to starve opponents into submission. Last week a new aid agreement was struck with international groups after the United Nations raised alarms; yet to be seen is whether Bashir will respect it. It's possible that Bashir perceives the possibility of concerted international sanctions that could harm Sudan's booming oil industry, or a Western military intervention imposing a no-fly zone, and is trying to head them off. His country is vulnerable to sanctions; their use forced the settlement of the earlier civil war in the south. A U.N. envoy will be in Khartoum this week to test, again, the government's willingness to accept the plan for U.N. peacekeepers. If there's no breakthrough, we'll see if Bush and Blair can translate their passion into serious action.

The authors of these editorials calls for an end to the killing in Darfur and asks what President Bush and Prime Minister Blair plan to do about it. So apparently, we can agree that something needs to be done right??

Is it just me, or is anyone else having flashbacks to the Saddam Regime?? Hundreds of thousands of people murdered or displaced, starving, being subjected to unjustifiable incarcerations and torture simply because of their religion, culture and ethnicity.

Reading about the situation in Sudan and particularly Darfur sickens me and I am the first to agree that something does need to be done. But I am forced to wonder if we are going to see a repeat of Iraq here. Are our countries Leaders going to face political backlash and persecution for supporting the victims of yet another tyrannical regime simply because it involves another oil rich country?? Are those who have grown weary of the War in Iraq (that would be the people sitting comfortably at home nowhere near the conflict) going to protest and actively engage in slander campaigns against our countries Leaders if they attempt to intervene in Darfur??

For those of us who live in the Western worlds the answers to these questions should be obvious. Those of us who are free to live where we chose, work to earn a living, eat the food of our choice and live in free and democratic societies should be outraged by the events in Darfur, in Iraq, in Afghanistan and every other country that struggles against tyranny and actively supporting our Leaders in their attempts to intervene. Yet we grow tired, we the people sitting at home watching the war on the 6pm news become 'battle weary'. What apathetic (or simply pathetic) people are we that we become bored with the suffering of others and wish to withdraw because their plight no longer holds our interest.

We need to make a choice and be prepared to stand by that choice til the end.... Do we want to help these people or do we simply want to stand by while these thugs and terrorists become empowered by their successes??

A_C

The Religion Of Hypocrisy

I have come to the conclusion that any religion that can be so easily misinterpreted to represent one sex is just that - a Religion of Hypocrisy. But after doing some reading I have found in many areas it really is little more than a joke. Islam is a religion that claims to sanctify life, yet it openly condones torture and death as a punishment for transgressions upon Sharia Law. Islam claims it's follower are the 'Faithful' ones, while other religions are full of liars and pretenders, yet it feels the need to have enforced and barbarous 'deterrents' and punishments for anyone who breaks their laws. I find it laughable that a religion that claims to be so peaceful is actually incredibly violent. The deliberate misinterpretaition of the word 'Jihad' is a classic example of this.

I read the following article this morning..

By ALFRED de MONTESQUIOU, Associated Press Writer 1 minute ago KALMA, Sudan - The seven women pooled money to rent a donkey and cart, then ventured out of the refugee camp to gather firewood, hoping to sell it for cash to feed their families. Instead, they say, in a wooded area just a few hours walk away, they were gang-raped, beaten and robbed. Naked and devastated, they fled back to Kalma. "All the time it lasted, I kept thinking: They're killing my baby, they're killing my baby," wailed Aisha, who was seven months pregnant at the time. The women have no doubt who attacked them. They say the men's camels and their uniforms marked them as janjaweed — the Arab militiamen accused of terrorizing the mostly black African villagers of Sudan's Darfur region. Their story, told to an Associated Press reporter and confirmed by other women and aid workers in the camp, provides a glimpse into the hell that Darfur has become as the Arab-dominated government battles a rebellion stoked by a history of discrimination and neglect. Now in its fourth year, the conflict has become the world's worst humanitarian crisis, and rape is its regular byproduct, U.N. and other human rights activists say. Sudan's government denies arming and unleashing the janjaweed, and bristles at the charges of rape, saying its conservative Islamic society would never tolerate it. Link to the rest of this story.

Rape a strategy of war?? In a country where the victim is protected, rape may be an unfortunate by product of war but it is certainly not a strategy. The Janjaweed and those like them, are only able to utilise rape as a tool of war because they are aware the consequences are falling squarely on the victims. After some reading I uncovered the following somewhat startling fact...

If a woman is raped, she runs a high risk of being charged with zina, particularly if she becomes pregnant. In order to prove an absence of consent, however, a woman is required to provide four witnesses to the rape, a near impossible task. Link

Now what do you think the repercussions would be for any person who came forward as a witness to incriminate a rapist??

According to Zina, two people looking into each others eyes can be considered an act of lust and therefore a transgression of this law. In a country where it is respectful to look into the eyes of another person I find this quite shocking. Is it possible an unplanned, harmless glance could be misinterpreted and lead to punishment under this law??

And then there was this....

Under the form of Sharia law that is practiced in Sudan, "the stones thrown during the execution should not be so large that the offender dies after a few strikes, nor so small as to fail to cause serious injury." A conviction normally requires a minimum of four witnesses who directly observed the sexual activity at the same time, or a freely-given confession by the defendant. However, as noted below, the former requirement is not always followed. If the woman is pregnant and either unmarried or divorced, she may be assumed to be guilty, if she is tried under the conservative Maliki Law School form of Sharia. 8 Under "an obscure tenet of Islamic law,...an embryo can 'sleep' for years before swelling a woman's belly." 9 Thus, it is believed that an interval of up to seven years can pass between conception and birth. This means that a woman who is pregnant and has been divorced for fewer than seven years can theoretically claim that the father of the fetus is her former husband. Problems sometimes arise when an unmarried or divorced woman becomes pregnant as a result of a rape. Some Sharia courts do not recognize DNA testing or the evaluation of possible paternity by other blood tests. The case often results in a "she-said, he said" situation. Sometimes, the alleged rapist is found not-guilty because his involvement cannot be proven. But if an unmarried woman becomes pregnant, she can be assumed to be guilty of extra-marital sexual activity and can be executed. If she claims that she was raped and is unable to prove her case, then she will probably receive severe punishment, because she would be assumed guilty of making a false accusation. Sharia law is only applicable to Muslims. Christians and other non-Muslims are supposed to be exempt from the provisions of the law -- a provision that is ignored in the Sudan. Link

So in other words, those responsible for the punishment take deliberate care to inflict as much pain and suffering as possible. This is particularly cruel when you consider that often the women involved are victims.

An embryo can sleep inside the womb for 7 years?? I know a little something that might dispute that claim....it's called Medical Science!! This is exactly where I have an issue with taking Sharia Law seriously. It isn't necessary to prove a woman is guilty before she is killed but she can claim an embryo slept inside her for 7 years before it developed and that's ok??

The victim of rape should always find comfort and support from their family and support services, not be made to feel like a criminal themselves. That women are being ostracised as a consequence of the actions of others is a reflection on the laws and beliefs that allow this.

I find it interesting that this is a religion that condemms the actions of the West snce the 9/11 attacks on America, yet it was these actions that highlighted the plight of the female victims of such laws. The Western Worlds War on Terrorism might just have a positive impact on the rights of women in countries where they previously had none.

A_C

Are We Ready To Listen Yet??

No palatable options left in Iraq: Downer Geoff Elliott, Washington correspondent May 26, 2007 THERE were no "palatable options" left in Iraq, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer admitted yesterday, acknowledging that al-Qa'ida was "politically astute" in influencing US public opinion. Mr Downer, speaking after touring Silicon Valley technology companies with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, was responding to comments from George W. Bush in which the US President warned of escalating violence in Iraq before a critical military report to Congress in September on progress in the country. "The President's argument is that particularly al-Qa'ida in Iraq may try to maximise disruption before the September report," Mr Downer said. "It's a point I often make to the Americans: it never ceases to amaze me how politically astute they (al-Qa'ida) are. They are completely tuned into what's happening in the United States." Mr Downer said spectacular terrorist attacks played into the US media "which in turn plays into the American political debate". He added coalition forces were not faced with easy choices in Iraq. "I think the least palatable of all of the options is just to get out of there, and leave ... The Baghdad area is bad enough as it is. You would leave the whole country a complete bloodbath." The Democratic-controlled Congress yesterday grudgingly approved new funding for the Iraq war, dropping a demand for a timeline for troop withdrawal. However, ongoing political support for the war remains shaky.

I wonder, are we ready to listen yet?? It has been reported often enough that Al Qaeda ARE watching our countries, they are well aware of what is happening politically and they realise that they are, in fact, winning the 'Propaganda War'.

This is exactly the reason why I can't understand the statement 'I support the Troops but not the war'. By not supporting the war you are simply adding your support to the Al Qaeda led 'Propaganda War'. If you wish to see into the future and look at the outcomes those people and those who blatantly support the Terrorists are influencing, start with a history lesson. Take yourself back to the Vietnam War. The war we WON for all intents and purposes, but were too busy fighting to be able to fight the 'Propaganda War' on the home front. Those who remained at home, unburdened by the war effort, were left to negate and destroy the efforts of those who fought. They then had the gall to disrespect and assault returned Soldiers who were forced to face 'defeat' on the homefront.

There is no room for middle ground when the Terrorist world is watching. It has been repeatedly acknowledged that they are well aware of which way our political winds are blowing and they actively seek to further inflame the anti government sentiment. And there are actually people out there stupid enough to buy the words of the monsters responsible for the deaths of so many innocent civillains and Soldiers.

It's time we fought back. It's time for people to recognise there is no middle ground. You cannot support the Soldiers without supporting the war. By negating the war you are negating their efforts. That is simply not support...

A_C

Black Hawk Down...

Over the years much has been made of Hollywoods 'Sensationalism' of true events that occurred in times of war. From movies such as Bridge Over The River Kwai, The Great Escape, Hamburger Hill and Platoon to Tears Of The Sun and Black Hawk Down, civillians have had what amounts to little more than a glimpse of life in a warzone. Personally, I know that watching these and similar movies motivated me to further research the events they were based on, which in turn, led to some pretty amazing history lessons.

While many condemm Hollywoods use of real life events to make movies, I believe that anything that encourages people to take a look at what is happening in the world, to look at their history and to acknowledge the acts of those brave Personnel who have, do or will fight for them is a positive thing. As long as Writers and Directors can stick to the story and base their movies on fact, this can be an important medium for educating people on current world events.

I have actually spoken to 2 Veterans who were present for the battle the Black Hawk Down movie was based on and both verified the accuracy of the movie.

Here are some facts about this mission...

The Battle of Mogadishu or for Somalis Ma-alinti Rangers (“The Day of the Rangers”) was a battle that was part of Operation Gothic Serpent that was fought on October 3 and 4, 1993, in Mogadishu, Somalia, by forces of the United States supported by UNOSOM II against Somali militia fighters loyal to warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid. The battle is also referred to as the First Battle of Mogadishu to distinguish it from the later Second Battle of Mogadishu. Task Force Ranger, which consisted of an assault force made up of Army Delta Force, 4 US Navy SEALs, and Ranger teams, an air element provided by the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, and members of the Air Force Pararescue/Air Force Combat Controllers, executed an operation which involved traveling from their compound on the outskirts of the city to capture leaders of Aidid's militia. The assault force was composed of nineteen aircraft, twelve vehicles and 160 men. During the operation, two U.S. MH-60 Black Hawk helicopters were shot down by rocket-propelled grenades, and three others were damaged. Some of the soldiers were able to evacuate wounded back to the compound, but others were trapped at the crash sites and cut off. An urban battle ensued throughout the night. Early the next morning, a joint task force was sent to rescue the trapped soldiers. It contained soldiers from Pakistan, Malaysia, and U.S. soldiers of the 10th Mountain Division. They assembled some 100 vehicles, including Pakistani tanks (American-made M48s) and Malaysian Condor armored personnel carriers, and were supported by U.S. A/MH-6 Little Bird, and MH-60 helicopters. This task force reached the first crash site and led the trapped soldiers out. The second crash site was overrun and pilot Mike Durant, the lone surviving American, was taken prisoner but later released. Somali casualty figures are unknown, but American estimates are that between 1,000 and 1,500 Somali militiamen and civilians lost their lives in the battle, with injuries to another 3,000-4,000. The book Black Hawk Down: A Story of Modern War estimates more than 700 Somali militiamen dead and more than 1,000 wounded. Eighteen American soldiers died and 73 were wounded (another American soldier, Delta team leader SFC Matt Rierson was killed in a mortar attack two days later). Among UN forces, 1 Malaysian soldier died and 7 were wounded, along with 2 Pakistanis. To read the links go Here

Mike Durant's helicopter Super Six-Four heading out over Mogadishu on 3 October 1993

Background to the battle In January 1991, the dictator of Somalia, Mohammed Siad Barre, was overthrown by a coalition of opposing clans, called the United Somalia Congress. After this revolution, the coalition divided into two groups. One was led by Ali Mahdi Muhammad, who became president; and the other, by Mohammed Farah Aidid. In total, there were four opposing groups: the United Somali Congress (USC), Somali Salvation Democratic Front (SSDF), Somali Patriotic Movement (SPM), and Somali Democratic Movement (SDM), which continued to fight over the domination of Somalia. In June 1991, a ceasefire was agreed to, but failed to hold. A fifth group, the Somali National Movement (SNM), had already seceded from the northwest portion of Somalia in June. The SNM renamed it the Somaliland Republic, with its leader Abdel-Rahman Ahmed Ali as president. To read all of this and follow the links go Here

Operation Gothic Serpent See Timeline of the Battle of Mogadishu for a detailed chronology from a U.S. Army perspective Map of key sites in Mogadishu during the battle Rangers under fire in a Somali street near Irene’s target building on October 3, 1993. This is the only known photograph taken by American forces from the ground during the battle. On October 3 1993, Task Force Ranger, a U.S. Special Operations Forces composed mainly of Rangers, Delta Force (1st SFOD-D) operators, and aviation support from the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne) (the Night Stalkers), attempted to capture Aidid's foreign minister, Omar Salad Elmi, and his top political advisor, Mohamed Hassan Awale[2]. The plan was to fast rope from hovering MH-60 Black Hawk helicopters, capture the targets, and load them onto a ground convoy for transport back to the U.S. compound. Four Ranger chalks, also inserted by helicopter, were to provide a secure square perimeter on the four corners of the operation's target building. Go Here to read more and follow links

Links with al-Qaeda There have been allegations that Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda movement was involved in training and funding of Aidid's men. In his 2001 book, Holy War, Inc., CNN reporter Peter Bergen interviewed Bin Laden who affirmed these allegations. According to Bergen, Bin Laden asserted that fighters affiliated with his group were involved in killing American troops in Somalia in 1993, a claim he had earlier made to the Arabic newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi. According to CNN, al-Qaeda claimed to have supplied a large number of Soviet-designed rocket-propelled grenade launchers (RPGs) to Aidid's fighters, and instructed them in ways to modify the RPGs to make them more effective against helicopters. Four and one half years after the Battle of Mogadishu, in an interview in May 1998 [2], bin Laden disparaged the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Somalia, after eighteen American soldiers were killed and two of them had their bodies dragged through the streets. Some interpret his statements[citation needed] to mean that these events inspired his elaboration of later large-scale terrorist actions such as the the bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Khobar Towers, USS Cole, and the 9/11 attack Go Here to follow links

United States Casualties

Name	Action	Medal
Delta Force
SFC Randy Shughart	killed defending the crew of Super Six 4 (Michael Durant)	Medal of Honor (posthumously) 1
MSG Gary Gordon	killed defending the crew of Super Six 4 (Michael Durant)	Medal of Honor (posthumously) 1
MSG Tim "Griz" Martin	killed on the Lost Convoy
SFC Earl Fillmore	killed moving to the first crash site
SSG Daniel Busch	crashed on Super Six 1 and was killed defending the downed crew	Silver Star
SFC Matt Rierson	killed on Oct. 6 by a mortar which landed just outside the hangar
160th SOAR (Nightstalkers)
CWO Raymond Frank	copilot of Super Six 4	Silver Star, Air Medal with Valor Device
SSG William Cleveland	crew chief on Super Six 4	Silver Star, Bronze Star, Air Medal with Valor Device
SSG Thomas Field	crew chief on Super Six 4	Silver Star, Bronze Star, Air Medal with Valor Device
CWO Clifton "Elvis" Wolcott	pilot of Super Six 1 and died in crash	Distinguished Flying Cross, Bronze Star, Air Medal with Valor Device
CWO Donovan Briley	copilot of Super Six 1 and died in crash	Distinguished Flying Cross, Bronze Star, Air Medal with Valor Device
75th Ranger Regiment
SGT Casey Joyce	killed on the Lost Convoy	Bronze Star with Valor Device
SPC James Cavaco	killed on the Lost Convoy	Bronze Star with Valor Device
CPL Jamie Smith	bled to death with the pinned-down force around crash site one	Bronze Star with Valor Device
SGT Dominick Pilla	killed on Struecker's convoy	Bronze Star with Valor Device
PFC Richard Kowalewski	killed on the Lost Convoy	Bronze Star with Valor Device
SGT Lorenzo Ruiz	killed on the Lost Convoy	Bronze Star with Valor Device
10th Mountain Division
SGT Cornell Houston	killed on the rescue convoy	Bronze Star with Valor Device, De Fleury medal
PFC James Martin	killed on the rescue convoy	Purple Heart

Link

While many would disagree, I believe there is a chance that these movies have the potential to provide an effective tool to assist in educating people to the hard work, sacrifice and dedication of our Military Personnel.

3 of my personal favourites are Gallipoli, The Lighthorseman and Kokoda, all based on the Australian forces in numerous battles. After much research inspired by watching these movies I learnt some incredible facts about my countries Military History.

So, while I don't necessarily agree with taking the movie as gospel, I do believe that if it encourages people to research facts, they can prove an effective tool. Often people don't know exactly what to research and these movies give enough detail to allow for searches.

A_C

Hicks Returns To Adelaide

The Newspapers have called it Hicks's 'Return home'. I wont call it that. I don't feel that someone who chose to join the enemies of Australia has the right to call this country home anymore.

However, here is an update for you all...

Hicks touches down in Australia May 20, 2007 AFTER five years in Guantanamo Bay, David Hicks has touched down at an Adelaide air base, and will be transferred shortly to a South Australia jail to serve the rest of his nine-month sentence. The confessed supporter of terrorists boarded a government-chartered Gulfstream G550 jet at the American base yesterday amid heavy security, sources said. Sky News reported that the chartered plane landed at the Edinburgh RAAF base, in South Australia, at 9.50am (Adelaide time). Also on board the plane were Hicks' lawyer, David McLeod, Australian Federal Police officers, Correctional Services officers and officials from the Attorney-General's department. The plane flew back to Australia via a long route becaue the US would not allow the Guantanamo Bay detainee Hicks to fly into its airspace. Hicks will now be transferred to the Yatala Labour Prison to complete his sentence for providing material support for terrorism. Link

And I added a few related stories for you..

No soft landing Facing a new prison regime when he comes home will be easy for David Hicks, compared to dealing with his infamy and his many detractors, write Jamie Walker and Verity Edwards May 18, 2007 TERRY Hicks says his son might yet salvage something from the five lost years he spent in Guantanamo Bay prison. He believes David is a very different person from the feckless young man who left Adelaide in search of excitement, who embraced Islamic extremism and ended up on the wrong side of the war on terror. He's resolved to rebuild the life he nearly squandered when he threw in his lot with al-Qa'ida and the Taliban in Afghanistan, his father says. Hicks is keen to complete the high school correspondence course he started while imprisoned by the Americans in their controversial Cuban terrorism jail and to qualify for university. He wants to revive his relationship with the two children he abandoned - teenagers now, who are estranged from his side of the family. Terry Hicks, perhaps daring to hope, says his boy seems determined to make a fresh start. "He just wants to get on with his life ... to get back here, live normally ... that's what he's really focused on now. It's the difference I see in David," he tells The Australian from his home in Adelaide's north. Link

One of the downsides to living in this country is we often appear all to happy to let bygones be bygones. Rarely do we hold a grudge even when it seems entirely appropriate. Well, in this case the government has barely let up with their obvious dislike for this would be Terrorist. While Terrry Hicks repeatedly calls for Australians to 'give David a chance' the politicians serve as a constant reminder for what this man stood for. He chose to fight alongside our countries enemies. Never should he call Australia home again. Though he may choose to reside here he has given up the right to consider it his home.

This part of that editorial really got to me..

If the AFP applies for a control order against Hicks it is likely to be under the category of "a person who has received training from a listed terrorist organisation", informed sources say. Terry says that would be the ultimate injustice for his son. After all that's happened, he still won't accept that Hicks did anything wrong when he teamed up with the Taliban. "David's got nothing to apologise for ... or to be remorseful about as far as I'm concerned," he says, speaking with a father's unqualified love. "He was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. It could happen to anybody."

When I was growing up my mother instilled in me and my brothers the importance of personal responsibility. Be big enough to admit your mistakes then try to rectify them. I think this is perhaps one of the greatest lessons she ever taught me. I learnt when to shut up and take the consequences to my actions, but also that when I was in the right I needed to defend my position.

What Terry Hicks seems unable to comprehend is that David's treatment is neither unfair nor unjust. It is the consequences to his actions.

Stop slurring my son: Hicks dad Jeremy Roberts and Mark Dodd May 14, 2007 TERRY Hicks has challenged the Rann Government to stop calling his son David a "convicted terrorist" ahead of his imminent transfer to a South Australian prison. "All the statements from the Rann Government show they haven't really looked at the charges," Mr Hicks said. "There's nothing in the charges that say he pled guilty or that he's a terrorist. There's nothing that says David tried to hurt anyone." In March, Hicks was sentenced to seven years' jail, with all but nine months suspended, after pleading guilty to a charge of providing material support for terrorism at a trial by a US military commission. The Adelaide-born Muslim convert, captured among Taliban forces in Afghanistan in December 2001, admitted having trained with the al-Qa'ida terrorist network. But the plea followed US military prosecutors dropping a charge of attempted murder. Link

Somehow it has just never seemed to have sunk in to Terry Hicks that his son is the enemy of this country. Anyone with any level of intelligence will simply not adopt a 'Live and let Live' attitude in this situation. This man was convicted of aiding our enemies. There are no slurs here, the politicians are simply calling it as they, and a rather large percentage of this country, see it.

Mr Hicks's challenge was in response to the latest attack on his son by the Rann Government. On Friday, Acting Premier and Treasurer Kevin Foley labelled him a "convicted and self-confessed terrorist". "He will be brought back to Adelaide, to Yatala labour prison, with thehighest possible security," Mr Foley said. "As (Premier Mike Rann) has said, we have serious and grave concerns about how the federal Government intends to monitor Mr Hicks when he leaves prison." Asked to clarify his statement on Hicks's record, he said: "Somebody who provides material support for a terrorist, in my book is a terrorist."

It would also appear, that the politicians will stand fast with their opinions and comments, as well they should. This is one of those rare occassions where they do actually speak for most Australians.

A_C

ADF - Current Operations and Deployments....

As of May 2007 approx 3850 ADF Personnel are deployed overseas...

AFGHANISTAN

Australian and Afghan soldiers prepare to depart on a joint patrol in September 2005.

Operation Slipper is the Australian Defence Force (ADF) contribution to the International Coalition against Terrorism. The operation commenced in late 2001 and is ongoing. ADF participation included two major activities centred on Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf. Go Here to see links

First phase A No. 33 Squadron B-707 refueling a US Navy F/A-18 in 2002. Australian participation in Afghanistan included a Special Forces Task group and two Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Boeing 707 air-to-air refuelling aircraft from No. 33 Squadron. These aircraft and associated support personnel operated from Manas Air Base in Kyrgyzstan and provided support to coalition aircraft operating in Afghan airspace. RAAF C-130 Hercules transport aircraft were also involved in providing logistic support for deployed forces. The initial ADF commitment in Afghanistan concluded in December 2002 when the Special Air Service Task Group was withdrawn. Following this date Australia’s total contribution to efforts in Afghanistan was a single officer attached to the Coalition’s mine clearing force. Australian SAS Squadron deployments Note: all dates are approximate 1 Squadron Group, SASR (October 2001-April 2002) 3 Squadron Group, SASR (April 2002-July/August 2002) 2 Squadron Group, SASR (July/August 2002-November 2002) A Troop from the Special Air Service of New Zealand was attached to each Australian SAS Squadron Group. It’s unclear whether the New Zealand SAS Troop was rotated at the same times as the Australian units. Go Here to read links

Second phase An Australian Surveillance Reconnaissance Vehicle (SRV) patrols outside the perimeter of a forward operating base in Afghanistan on September 17, 2005. An Australian Special Forces Task Group was re-deployed to Afghanistan in August or September 2005. This Task Group consisted of elements from the SASR, 4th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (Commando), the Incident Response Regiment and logistic support personnel. As well as heavily modified land rovers, the Special Forces Task Group was also equipped with some Bushmaster infantry mobility vehicles. A detachment of two CH-47 Chinook helicopters from the 5th Aviation Regiment was deployed to Afghanistan in March 2006 to support the Special Forces Task Group. The Australian Special Forces Task Group was withdrawn from Afghanistan in September 2006 and the helicopter detachment returned to Australia in April 2007. Go Here to read links

Third phase A Reconstruction Taskforce based around the 1st Combat Engineer Regiment with protective elements from the 5th/7th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, 6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment and 2nd Cavalry Regiment began arriving in Orūzgān Province in southern Afghanistan in early September 2006. The Australian Reconstruction Taskforce forms part of a Dutch-led Provincial Reconstruction Team. Prime Minister John Howard has announced plans to deploy 300 special forces to support the Reconstruction Taskforce. In addition to radar crews, logistics and intelligence officers, and security personnel, this will bring the number of Australian forces in Afghanistan up to about 950 in mid-2007 and 1000 by mid-2008.[1] Go Here to read Links

Now, quite a while ago (back in february) I had a little rant on Tanker Brothers. It was in retaliation to a Troll who, like all other Trolls, had all the 'Facts'. Ever wonder why we are in Afghanistan??

Well here are some facts for you....

Al-Qaeda or Al-Qaida or Al-Qa'ida (Arabic: القاعدة al-qāʕida, trans. 'the base') is the name given to an international alliance of militant Islamist organizations established in 1988 by Osama bin Laden. Al-Qaeda's ideology can be placed within the salafist strain of Sunni-Islam, but also has been heavily influenced by wahabism. Osama bin-Laden oversees al-Qaeda's finances and, with Ayman al-Zawahiri, provides ideological and strategic guidance. Al-Qaeda's objectives include the elimination of foreign influence in Muslim countries, eradication of those deemed to be "infidels", elimination of Israel, and the creation of a new Islamic caliphate.[1] Link

Ok, you DID read that right.

Al-Qaedas objectives:

• Elimination of foreign influence in Muslim Countries
• Eradication of those deemed to be infidels (that's us guys!!)
• Elimination of Israel
• The creation of a new Islamic Caliphate.

Al Qaeda Training Camps in Afghanistan and the Pakistani border regions are alleged to have trained militant Muslims from around the world. Despite the perception of some people, al-Qaeda members are ethnically diverse and connected by their radical version of Islam. An ever-expanding network of supporters thus enjoyed a safe haven in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan until the Taliban were defeated by a combination of local forces and United States air power in 2001

These would be the camps that David Hicks was found at.

In 1996, Osama bin Laden moved to Afghanistan from Sudan. When the Taliban came to power, bin Laden was able to forge an alliance between the Taliban and his Al-Qaeda organization. It is understood that al-Qaeda-trained fighters known as the 055 Brigade were integrated with the Taliban army between 1997 and 2001. The Taliban and bin Laden had very close connections, which were formalized by a marriage of one of bin Laden's sons to Omar's daughter. During Osama bin Laden's stay in Afghanistan, he had helped finance the Taliban.

Ok, no link between Al-Qaeda and the Taliban huh?? I beg to differ.

On September 20, 2001 after an investigation by the FBI the U.S. concluded that Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden were behind the September 11, 2001 attacks. The U.S. made a five point ultimatum to the Taliban: Deliver to the US all of the leaders of Al Qaeda; Release all imprisoned foreign nationals; Close immediately every terrorist training camp; Hand over every terrorist and their supporters to appropriate authorities; Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps for inspection.[17] The Taliban rejected this ultimatum on September 21, 2001, stating there was no evidence in their possession linking Bin Laden to the September 11 attacks.

So, the 'Religious Taliban Government', chose to protect Al-Qaeda, a recognised Terrorist Organisation as opposed to working in conjunction with the US to rid their country of this terrorist scourge.

In 1996, al-Qaeda announced its jihad to expel foreign troops and interests from what they felt were Islamic lands. Bin Laden issued a fatwa[39], which amounted to a public declaration of war against the United States and any of its allies, and began to focus al-Qaeda's resources towards attacking the United States and its interests. On February 23, 1998, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, a leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, along with three other Islamist leaders, co-signed and issued a fatwa (binding religious edict) under the banner of the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders (al-Jabhah al-Islamiyya al-'Alamiyya li-Qital al-Yahud wal-Salibiyyin) declaring: “ [t]he ruling to kill the Americans and their allies- civilians and military— is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque (in Jerusalem) and the holy mosque (in Makka) from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, 'and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,' and 'fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah'.[40] ” Neither bin Laden nor al-Zawahiri possessed the traditional Islamic scholarly qualifications to issue a fatwa of any kind; however, they rejected the authority of the contemporary ulema (seen as the paid servants of jahiliyya rulers) and took it upon themselves.[41] 1998 was also the year of the first major terrorist attack reliably attributed to al-Qaeda- the U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa, resulting in upward of 300 deaths. A barrage of missiles launched by the U.S. military in response devastated an al-Qaeda base in Khost, Afghanistan, but the network's capacity was unharmed.

Now, I understand that the TERRORISTS perception of what is fair and just in relation to Non Muslims occupying traditionally Muslim countries and areas is going to be different to that of a Westerner. However, the concept of a Caliphate Rule is not. The idea here is that these terrorist organisations, with the support of certain governments, such as the former Taliban government, will slowly take back control of all traditionally Muslim countries to start with. When they are strong and sufficiently backed financially, the plan is to unleash Jihad on the Western World. This is not a new concept, infact it has it's foundations in the very beginnings of civilisation. I also think it is important to remember that while the majority of the population of these countries is Muslim, not ALL the people are. However, if these terrorist organisations are successful, that will be a right these people will no longer retain. It will be convert or die.

This isn't about 'Westernising' the world. It is about world domination. The world under a Caliphate Rule. As terrorists groups become braver they are sending out both written and recorded messages warning of their intent to eradicate 'Western Dogs'.

On September 22, 2001, the United Arab Emirates and later Saudi Arabia withdrew their recognition of the Taliban as the legal government of Afghanistan, leaving neighboring Pakistan as the only remaining country with diplomatic ties. On October 4, 2001, it is believed that the Taliban covertly offered to turn bin Laden over to Pakistan for trial in an international tribunal that operated according to Islamic Sharia law.[23] Pakistan, recently recast as an ally of the west, is believed to have rejected the offer (even though they did still recognize Afghanistan). On October 7, 2001, before the onset of military operations, the Taliban made an open offer to try bin Laden in Afghanistan in an Islamic court.[24] This counter offer was immediately rejected by the U.S. as insufficient.

Ok, nobody formally printed invitations. When the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia withdrew their support of the Taliban Government in Afghanistan it paved the way for a Coalition enterance, with the support of local (non Taliban) government and the Northern Alliance.

Shortly afterward, on October 7, 2001, the United States, aided by the United Kingdom, Canada, and supported by a coalition of other countries including several from the NATO alliance, initiated military actions in Afghanistan, code named Operation Enduring Freedom, and bombed Taliban and Al Qaeda related camps.[25][26] The stated intent of military operations was to remove the Taliban from power because of the Taliban's refusal to hand over Osama bin Laden for his involvement in the September 11 attacks, and disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations.[27] On October 14 the Taliban openly counteroffered to hand bin Laden over to a third country for trial, but only if the Taliban were given evidence of bin Laden's involvement in 9/11.[28] The U.S. rejected this offer as an insufficient public relations ploy and continued military operations. The ground war was mainly fought by the Northern Alliance, the remaining elements of the anti-Taliban forces which the Taliban had routed over the previous years but had never been able to entirely destroy. Mazari Sharif fell to U.S.-Northern Alliance forces on November 9, leading to a cascade of provinces falling with minimal resistance, and many local forces switching loyalties from the Taliban to the Northern Alliance. On the night of November 12, the Taliban retreated south in an orderly fashion from Kabul. This was sufficiently orderly, that on November 15, they released eight Western aid workers after three months in captivity (see Attacks on humanitarian workers). By November 13 the Taliban had withdrawn from both Kabul and Jalalabad. Finally, in early December, the Taliban gave up their last city stronghold of Kandahar and retired to the hilly wilderness along the Afghanistan - Pakistan border, where they remain today as a guerrilla warfare operation, drawing new recruits and developing plans for a restoration of power.

So, it was not by the invitation of the Taliban (for obvious reasons) that the Coalition entered Afghanistan. However, neither does it equate to a US initiated 'Invasion'. The US had worked with the Northern Alliance to assist them in removing Al Qaeda networks and their support networks, including the Taliban from within Afghanistan.

As for the progress in Afghanistan try reading....

09 August 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER THE HON JOHN HOWARD MP STATEMENT TO PARLIAMENT ON THE AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE COMMITMENT TO AFGHANISTAN, PARLIAMENT HOUSE, CANBERRA E&OE… The purpose of this Statement is to inform the House of the Government’s decision to send to Afghanistan an additional 150 troops of the ADF to reinforce the Reconstruction Task Force and to provide enhanced force protection. The Statement will also provide the Parliament with the Government’s latest assessment of the security situation in Afghanistan and the challenges facing the Karzai Government and the Coalition. The Afghan people are working to achieve stability, peace and democracy, after many years of violence and extremism. For Afghanistan, the path to security will be long and hard, with many challenges lying ahead. But Afghanistan will not have to face these challenges alone. Australia, along with many others in the international community, is there to assist the Afghan people. We have already witnessed what happens when the global community turns its back on extremism. Afghanistan was neglected for too long, condemning the Afghan people to decades of war and poverty. But the world is now much more aware of the dangers of ignoring extremism and fundamentalism. The stability of Afghanistan has wider implications for global security and it is for this reason that the Australian Government is committed to ensuring that Afghanistan achieves long term peace. Afghanistan’s social indicators remain sobering. At 46 years, Afghan life expectancy is one of the world’s lowest, and at least 20 years lower than that of all Afghanistan’s neighbours. One in five children still die before the age of five, and the country has some of the world’s lowest literacy rates. In addition, 3.4 million Afghans remain outside their country and there is much room for improvement in the country’s human rights situation. Afghanistan is still one of the world’s poorest countries. Decades of war destroyed much of the country’s infrastructure and severely disrupted economic activity, including in agriculture. Criminal and terrorist activity continues to hamper economic growth, and the expansion of the drug trade remains of very deep concern. Sustained economic growth will be required to make a significant dent in the country’s chronic poverty. These problems are complex and will not be solved quickly. But Australia cannot and will not abandon Afghanistan. We need to remain committed to supporting this fledgling democracy. Through our aid programme we are working with Afghans, international organisations including the United Nations, and our other international partners to support Afghanistan’s transition from conflict to stability, peace and democracy. At the London Conference in January 2006 the Government committed $55 million in development assistance to Afghanistan through to 2007. This is part of a commitment of up to $150 million over the next five years. These funds will go towards improving security, rebuilding institutions, protecting human rights, especially for women and girls, and improving the delivery of essential services to ordinary Afghans. It builds on the $110 million we have disbursed since 2001 to assist in reconstruction and development. Our efforts, and those of our coalition partners, are bearing fruit. Afghans have embraced democracy and open, democratic institutions are developing. Afghanistan now has a democratic constitution and a democratically elected president and parliament. The country’s first parliamentary elections in 30 years were held in September 2005. 6.4 million Afghans, representing over 50 per cent of registered voters, turned out to elect representatives to the Lower House, and the 34 provincial councils. In an encouraging sign for the inclusiveness of Afghanistan’s burgeoning civil society, women featured prominently in these elections. 68 women were elected to the Lower House, taking 27 per cent of available seats. 121 women were elected to provincial councils, representing almost 30 per cent of available seats at this level. The Afghan Government has made education of women and girls a priority in an effort to overcome the legacy of the Taliban. With the entry of women into Afghanistan’s parliament and provincial councils, Afghans now have an additional opportunity to address the injustices of the past. Just as democracy is becoming more deeply rooted in Afghanistan, economic recovery is providing new economic opportunities. Real GDP is expected to grow by almost 12 per cent in 2006. This builds on strong growth rates over the past few years, even if from a low base. The ordinary people of Afghanistan are benefiting directly from these developments. Since the fall of the Taliban in 2001 a UNICEF immunisation programme has vaccinated over 2.3 million children under the age of five against polio, almost eradicating that disease. The indicators of progress in Afghanistan are promising, but significant challenges remain. Afghan society is still predominantly rural in character and the country’s democratic institutions, though developing, remain fragile. And the struggle against extremists continues. The level of violence has increased in Afghanistan in recent months as the Taliban and other terrorist groups, including Al Qaida, seek to chip away at the credibility of the Afghan government and prevent reconstruction taking place. Security beyond Kabul, particularly in the east and south, is the worst since the Taliban fell. Suicide bombings have increased. Australia, as the House will know, made a significant contribution to Coalition operations in Afghanistan following the terrorist attacks on New York in Washington in September 2001. With the completion of that particular task, our forces returned home, with the thanks of all Australians. It is worth noting in light of the negative and opportunistic comments now being made by some in the Opposition that at the time that decision was made the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Crean, warmly welcomed the Government’s decision, arguing that it was a vindication of his call for Australia to fight terrorism closer to home, in our region, in Australia. They were the words of the then Leader of the Opposition, welcoming the Government’s decision to bring home our forces then, and it gives the lie to the opportunistic comment emanating, as is apparent from his interjection, from the Member for Griffith at this time. Following a reassessment of the security situation in Afghanistan by the Coalition in 2005, the Government decided to again send troops to Afghanistan. We now have about 200 personnel serving in the Special Forces Task Group in Afghanistan. This Task Group is providing reconnaissance, surveillance and other specialised capabilities to the Coalition's operations against Al Qaida and the Taliban, who continue to threaten Afghanistan’s fragile stability. In dangerous circumstances, the Special Forces have, as always, done a magnificent job. Two ADF Chinook helicopters and about 110 personnel are also currently operating in Afghanistan. This capability provides aero-medical evacuation, air mobility and logistic support to Australian troops and Coalition partners. As I announced in May, the Chinooks will continue to operate in Afghanistan until April 2007 providing vital airlift support. But the struggle against the Taliban and its fundamentalist allies is far from over. The international community, including Australia, continues to have a crucial role to play in assisting the Afghan government meet its security challenges. The security challenge is twofold: first to provide a secure environment to allow Afghans to rebuild their society free from violence and extremism; and secondly to strengthen Afghanistan’s institutions so that they can provide a stronger framework for democratisation, religious tolerance and economic growth. Of course, the two elements are linked. Removal of the immediate dangers facing the Afghan people is essential, but so too is ensuring that Afghanistan has the infrastructure and institutions to support its democratically elected government and dealing with those who may attempt to threaten Afghanistan’s democracy and security in the future. It is because of this that the Australian Government has committed an ADF Reconstruction Task Force to support the Netherlands led Provincial Reconstruction Team. The ADF will work with the Netherlands as part of Phase III of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force expansion into southern Afghanistan. This Reconstruction Task Force will work in Oruzgan Province, in southern Afghanistan, on reconstruction and community based projects with the aim of building the long-term viability of Afghan communities. The Task Force will undertake construction projects, provide project management skills, and deliver trade training for the local population. These activities will ensure that the benefits of the deployment continue long after our personnel have returned. The Reconstruction Task Force will be in Afghanistan at the invitation of the Government of Afghanistan. It will work in Oruzgan for a period of two years. The Reconstruction Task Force will perform a vital role in what is a dangerous environment. The Government is aware of the risks faced by the Australian Defence Force in Afghanistan and is committed to ensuring that the Reconstruction Task Force is fully equipped and resourced to conduct this highly important task. After careful consideration, the Government has decided to increase the size of the Reconstruction Task Force from 240 personnel to 270. This will enhance the security, robustness and flexibility of the Task Force. The Government has also decided that the Reconstruction Task Force deployment will include an infantry company group of about 120 personnel to provide enhanced force protection. After six months, the security situation in Oruzgan will be reviewed and the Task Force structure will be reconsidered in the light of that review. The additional deployments will bring the total Reconstruction Task Force strength to approx 400. The Reconstruction Task Force will be made up of a number of elements - command, security and protection, engineering, administrative support and tactical intelligence services. The force will be equipped with a number of Bushmaster Infantry Mobility Vehicles and a number of Australian Light Armoured Vehicles (ASLAVs). The Reconstruction Task Force will be drawn primarily from the 1st Brigade in Darwin and will be under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Mick Ryan. The Australian Task Force will have its own headquarters and will operate under the national command of Australia’s Joint Task Force in the Middle East Area of Operations. ADF units and personnel deployed in Afghanistan remain under Australian national command. The Reconstruction Task Force will work closely with the Netherlands and other NATO partners. The Government is very pleased with Dutch planning and preparations and very impressed with the military capability of the Dutch forces that are being deployed to Afghanistan. We are very confident that we will be able to work closely with them. Advance elements of the Reconstruction Task Force will start to deploy into Afghanistan during this August to commence preparation of base facilities and logistic support infrastructure. These elements will be followed by the majority of the Reconstruction Task Force deploying in September with the final elements expected to deploy in November of this year. Afghanistan remains a dangerous place, and any military operation conducted there carries significant risks. The possibility of ADF casualties cannot be discounted. I ask all Australians to support the members of the Australian Defence Force who are serving their country by helping to create an environment of security and stability in Afghanistan. I understand that this is a difficult time for them and their families and I ask all of you to keep these brave and dedicated men and women in your thoughts and prayers.

Ok, so I know this was a long post, sorry bout that.

A_C