Is persistence really the answer? What if it’s not having an impact?

Is it too much to expect that more than 100 published letters would make a difference?  Maybe it’s time to give up.  Then again, maybe it’s time to try harder and be more incisive!

Supporting comments like those below, are particularly encouraging:

“So inept to remove a brilliant Regiment from service to have it become a non-entity without understanding the gained experience that 1st Armoured Regiment has. This is wasting years of know-how and delivering no beneficial result.”

“Shredding an operational combat unit to do experimentation work is Defence done by an accountant. Most certainly, NOT Defence done by anyone with any combat training or experience.”

They show that some people, at least, understand the frustration that accompanies the blatant denial of military fundamentals.  Of course, it’s the ‘silent majority’, who are probably to blame … of whom, paradoxically, 1st Armoured Regiment are most responsible.

The ban put in place by the Commanding Officer, 1 Armd Regt, on providing comments to CONTACT is his right (though it would make an interesting test case with respect to freedom of the press). One wonders what the punishment might be for anyone who had the temerity to offer a comment.  

The debate which could be sparked by those who might challenge the CO’s ban would be very informative indeed.  Imagine, if everyone in 1 Armd Regt who had an opinion (good or bad), was free to express it in CONTACT.

Just possibly, however, everyone at 1 Armd Regt likes the positions they have and doesn’t want to put them at risk (i.e. as unlikely as it sounds, there’s no intimidation at all).  While this is a good thing for the unit, it leaves the Army as a whole in an untenable position.

The Australian Human Rights Commission states that “Every person has the right to hold an opinion without interference.  They also “have the right to freedom of expression”; a right which cannot be “subject to any exception or restriction”.

So how can the CO muzzle members of his unit and deny them the right to express their opinion?  It’s a moot point, as COs hold power over everybody and everything in their units.  Nevertheless, it’s a power that this CO seems to have assumed, without any real basis for doing so. 

Of course, it could be argued that the CO is simply following the example set by the former Chief of Army, i.e. if you want an experimentation unit, let nothing stand in your way … no matter whether it be unit heritage or anything else!

The in-coming CA will undoubtedly have an enormous range of issues on her plate.  Will one of these be the need to re-establish 3 Brigade as a full armoured brigade, i.e. with a new battle-group headquarters to command 1 Armd Regt, plus an additional tank squadron and cavalry squadron to make up the current shortfall?  (Not forgetting 3RAR with their mechanised infantry fighting vehicles, when delivered.) 

Will she re-establish dialogue with the Royal Australian Armoured Corps’ Representative Honorary Colonel, rather than maintaining the current position of no consultation?  Will she consider the advice of the RAAC hierarchy, or will it continue to be dismissed out of hand? 

Interestingly, the former CA believed that it was essential to establish trust with the Army’s stakeholders.  He was exactly right; yet he failed to do so!

Trust … the result of a working environment in which human values are paramount: the dignity of the individual is respected; undertakings are honoured; those in need are helped; and decisions are taken which result in just outcomes.

There is no field in which trust is more important, than that of the profession of arms.  

Unfortunately, it seems to have been misplaced as far as 1 Armd Regt is concerned.

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

.

.

ChatGPT image

.

.


.


.