Why don’t the Honorary Colonels respond?

An Open Letter was recently written to the RAAC Representative Honorary Colonel, the RAAC Head of Corps, and the 1st Armoured Regiment Honorary Colonel.  It was published in CONTACT and has been widely read (more than 200 views at the time this letter was published).

The fact that there have been no responses from the Hon Cols and HOC is unsurprising.  

Why?

There is a common view that it is always best if senior officers simply ignore such letters and let them die a natural death, rather than responding and draw attention to a matter.

Even though the issue is central to the responsibilities of the HOC and each of the Hon Cols involved … the attitude taken by them is to simply ignore it.  The premise being that the writer will eventually give up and the matter will be forgotten.

But what happens if the writer doesn’t give up (as this writer certainly hasn’t)?

Over a hundred letters have so far been published on the subject of the abysmal treatment meted out to 1st Armoured Regiment; particularly the fact that after 75 years of being the nation’s leading exponent of armoured warfare, it was suddenly made a non-combatant (without even having an RAAC role).  

The unit’s once proud heritage has been completely lost; not only that … it was all kept ‘under wraps’, until the moment the announcement was made.  

Letters have been written to the Chief of the Defence Force and the Minister.  Their responses, however, were meaningless (the sort of replies written by staff officers allowed to get away with not saying anything at all). 

Bringing attention to this appalling situation has been made possible through the good offices of CONTACT magazine, and their support is greatly appreciated. 

This ‘coalition of the willing’ is not about to give up.  It will keep going until the Hon Cols and HOC, explain what happened; i.e. explain why 1 Armd Regt, being the senior regiment in the RAAC, was allowed to be nominated as the one to be stripped of its tanks and made a non-combatant.  

The fact that this might’ve been the cheapest option, given the need for savings re AUKUS, makes a mockery of regimental heritage and RAAC tradition.  

It has been suggested that ‘deals’ might have been done, between various unit ‘factions’, to achieve the outcome.  Could this really be the case?

The Hon Cols and HOC must accept that the reputation of the RAAC has been sullied ‘on their watch’.  

They can restore it by being honest and explaining (albeit not a first-hand account) how the Corps has ended up in this situation.  

Will they do so, or will they just keep on ignoring the request for an explanation?

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

.

.

ChatGPT image

.

.


.


.