Loyalty, Duty, Integrity, Honour and Courage

Deals have been done and now the mess that’s been left behind … has to be cleaned up!

When the infantry became responsible for mechanised infantry fighting vehicles, the RAAC manpower entitlement was reduced from three ARA units, to two.

Seniority of regiments should’ve made the decision a straightforward one: 1st Armoured Regiment to provide close fire support for infantry; and 2nd Cavalry Regiment to provide the reconnaissance capability.  Both to be based in Townsville.

BUT nothing is ever as easy as it should be.  It was surprising for some of us to learn, retrospectively, that deals had been made between the factions behind the different units involved.

One of these ‘deals’, saw 1st Armoured Regiment thrown to the wolves as an experimentation unit.  It no longer has even an RAAC role.

2/14 LHR (QMI) remained a recon regiment, based in Brisbane; and 2 Cav Regt became a four-squadron dual-role unit (incompatible close fire support and intelligence gathering) based in Townsville.

Despite the fact that 1 Armd Regt had a 75-year heritage, it meant absolutely nothing in the overall scheme of things.  

2 Cav Regt supposedly got the best of the deal, with one of the unit COs boasting about the enormous firepower capability that that unit had gained.

Exactly what happened behind the scenes?  How did one lobby group gain ascendency over another? What tipped the balance against 1 Armd Regt?

Is it acceptable that any form of influence peddling should have taken place?  Unit rivalries are one thing, but changes that affect the heritage of the Corps go beyond this. 

It seems to this writer, that the RAAC has been prostituted to meet the unreasonable needs of the former Chief of Army.

Is the RAAC not an institution based on loyalty?  We could go further and add: duty; integrity; honour; and courage.   

These are the qualities we expect of members of RAAC units; should these not also apply equally to those who wield influence in RAAC matters? 

Who was it that brought the pressure to bear that would ultimately decide the future of 1 Armd Regt?  Was there a casting vote?  If so, who held it?

Those who know, are keeping their powder (and suspicions) dry.  

Why?

Surely, it’s best for all matters related to the management of the RAAC, to be in the open; allowing all decision makers to be trusted.  

If the reasoning behind decisions can’t be made known, what is there that has to be kept secret?  

Who is it that’s pulling the strings?

Those who know, obviously don’t have the guts to come ‘clean’ and explain what happened.

Will the RAAC always have to live under this shadow?  It’s enough to make me want to hand back my Military Cross.

Lieutenant Colonel Bruce Cameron, MC, RAAC (Ret’d)

.

.

ChatGPT image

.

.


.


.