|
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
|
|
|  | Sunday 19th December 2010 In my book, ‘Should meat be on the menu?’ I also devote an entire chapter – Chapter 20 Soil carbon versus geo sequestration, starting on page 113, to the subject. The conclusion of that chapter is that the geo sequestration option is a poor option. I stated in the chapter that it was so poor that was probably not even theoretically possible, considering the amount of extra fossil fuel energy it would require to carry out. I advanced the idea in the chapter that it just failed to stack up as an effective option when compared with the solar powered option of using the relationship between plants and animals to draw down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it in the soil profile as soil carbon. Well, now the theoretical shortcomings of the geo sequestration option – as well as its practical un-achievability – have come home to roost with an announcement that the program by the Queensland government is to be shelved. The full article from this morning’s HeraldSun Newspaper is pasted below. The effect of this must be to dramatically lift the soil carbon option in the consciousness of the politicians, policy makers, scientists, bureaucrats and public-at-large. And just to allow myself to lapse into a cynical mood for a moment - maybe the reason why Martin Ferguson expressed his disappointment was that Queensland has probably jumped the gun on what the federal government was going to do with its own CO2 Capture and Storage research unit in Melbourne. The article published in the HeraldSun 19 Dec 2010 The Bligh Government has abandoned its controversial ZeroGen project after taxpayers pumped $150 million into the initiative. In a major blow to the state's carbon reduction strategy, the Government will give away the state-owned company ZeroGen and scrap its planned $4.3 billion clean coal power station in central Queensland. As thousands of new jobs at the proposed plant go up in smoke, ownership of ZeroGen will be handed to an industry body, the Australian Coal Association, with state taxpayers' investment written off as a loss of almost $100 million. The Federal Government yesterday attacked the decision after confirming it had also invested $47.5 million towards a pre-feasibility study for the now-aborted plant. Premier Anna Bligh yesterday confirmed the state would veto the 530MW power station, a project lauded as a "world-first" in cutting emissions. Ms Bligh insisted the ZeroGen investment had "yielded a wealth of information" and a further $50 million would remain in the Clean Coal Fund. But Federal Resources Minister Martin Ferguson said he was "disappointed" the state was walking away from the project. "The Queensland Government cannot have its cake and eat it too, profiting from exports while being unwilling to invest in the R&D necessary to reduce emissions," he said. The plant, creating 2000 construction jobs, involved carbon-capture storage technology, taking CO2 emissions and burying them west of Rockhampton. A report by Auditor-General Glenn Poole in September issued a damning assessment of ZeroGen's future. Mr Poole wrote that its reliance on the state and ability to attract other funding was a concern beyond November 30 this year. "These conditions ….. indicate the existence of material uncertainty which may cast doubt about the company's ability to continue," he wrote. The Department of Economic Development wrote down $96.3 million of equity in ZeroGen as a loss in its recent annual report. Opposition Leader John-Paul Langbroek yesterday demanded an inquiry into the project. 28th November 2010 The following article published recently in the Guardian Newspaper in the United Kingdom shows that there are people, who, on environmental grounds, were previously strongly against meat eating but who are now prepared to agree that the case against livestock was very much overstated. One of these is the prominent journalist, George Monbiot, who recently published an article titled, ‘I was wrong about veganism. Let them eat meat – but farm it properly’. George leads his article with the startling comment, ‘The ethical case against eating animal produce once seemed clear. But a new book is an abattoir for dodgy arguments.’ This was a great start when I read it and great news for people who have been questioning the whole basis for the attack on livestock that has been taking place in recent years. George also gives an idea of how challenging it was to come to this reversal of opinion. He states, ‘This will not be an easy column to write. I am about to put down 1,200 words in support of a book that starts by attacking me and often returns to this sport. But it has persuaded me that I was wrong. More to the point, it has opened my eyes to some fascinating complexities in what seemed to be a black and white case.’ George had previously taken the view that veganism was ‘the only ethical response to what is arguably the world's most urgent social justice issue’. While George still believes the use of wide tracts of arable land to feeding grain to livestock is morally appalling he ‘no longer believes that the only ethical response is to stop eating meat.’ What changed his mind? It was a book, ‘Meat: A Benign Extravagance’, by Simon Fairlie. In the book Fairlie subjects the vegans’ case to a hard scientific investigation. Monbiot states, it was ‘the first treatment I've read that is both objective and forensic. His book is an abattoir for misleading claims and dodgy figures, on both sides of the argument. Monbiot states, ‘There's no doubt that the livestock system has gone horribly wrong. Fairlie describes the feedlot beef industry (in which animals are kept in pens) in the US as one of the biggest ecological cock-ups in modern history. It pumps grain and forage from irrigated pastures into the farm animal species least able to process them efficiently, to produce beef fatty enough for hamburger production. Cattle are excellent converters of grass but terrible converters of concentrated feed. The feed would have been much better used to make pork. Monbiot goes on, ‘Pigs, in the meantime, have been forbidden in many parts of the rich world from doing what they do best: converting waste into meat. Until the early 1990s, only 33% of compound pig feed in the UK consisted of grains fit for human consumption: the rest was made up of crop residues and food waste. Since then the proportion of sound grain in pig feed has doubled. There are several reasons: the rules set by supermarkets; the domination of the feed industry by large corporations, which can't handle waste from many different sources; but most important the panicked over-reaction to the BSE and foot-and-mouth crises. ‘Feeding meat and bone meal to cows was insane. Feeding it to pigs, whose natural diet incorporates a fair bit of meat, makes sense, as long as it is rendered properly. The same goes for swill. Giving sterilised scraps to pigs solves two problems at once: waste disposal and the diversion of grain. Instead we now dump or incinerate millions of tonnes of possible pig food and replace it with soya whose production trashes the Amazon. Waste food in the UK, Fairlie calculates, could make 800,000 tonnes of pork, or one sixth of our total meat consumption. ‘But these idiocies, Fairlie shows, are not arguments against all meat eating, but arguments against the current farming model. He demonstrates that we've been using the wrong comparison to judge the efficiency of meat production. Instead of citing a simple conversion rate of feed into meat, we should be comparing the amount of land required to grow meat with the land needed to grow plant products of the same nutritional value to humans. The results are radically different.’ Later in the article, Monbiot states, ‘He [Fairlie] goes on to butcher a herd of sacred cows. Like many greens I have thoughtlessly repeated the claim that it requires 100,000 litres of water to produce every kilogram of beef. Fairlie shows that this figure is wrong by around three orders of magnitude. It arose from the absurd assumption that every drop of water that falls on a pasture disappears into the animals that graze it, never to re-emerge. A ridiculous amount of fossil water is used to feed cattle on irrigated crops in California, but this is a stark exception. ‘Similarly daft assumptions underlie the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation's famous claim that livestock are responsible for 18% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, a higher proportion than transport. Fairlie shows that it made a number of basic mistakes. It attributes all deforestation that culminates in cattle ranching in the Amazon to cattle: in reality it is mostly driven by land speculation and logging. It muddles up one-off emissions from deforestation with ongoing pollution. It makes similar boobs in its nitrous oxide and methane accounts, confusing gross and net production. (Conversely, the organisation greatly underestimates fossil fuel consumption by intensive farming: its report seems to have been informed by a powerful bias against extensive livestock keeping.)’ George Monbiot cannot necessarily yet be described as a total convert to the case for farmers and their livestock to be the heroes of the environmental movement because, later in the article he signals his view that the case for soil carbon sequestration by livestock has also been overstated. Maybe this is an area where further information about what famous farmers in Australia are doing – like Col Seis of Gulgong, NSW. Maybe someone would like to pay for George Monbiot to come to Australia and go out on to a few farms to see what we are doing in the soil carbon sequestration space. Despite his reservations about the efficacy of soil carbon sequestration, the change of heart by George Monbiot on the environmental issue of ruminant livestock is great news for thos who have been so alarmed at the villification that livestock – and their owners – have been subject to over recent decades. A case involving the ABC Television program Foreign Correspondent which went to air last Tuesday, 27th July 2010, showed how Australia’s national broadcaster is not above engaging in a little misleading advertising from time to time. The case also shows that poor standards of journalism are not just confined to media outlets which might be regarded as second rate – they are alive and well at the prestigious ABC. As someone who is vitally interested in the important subject of energy security and, in particular, new sources of energy which are truly renewable and truly sustainable, I was attracted by the promotional advertisements run by the ABC in the days prior to last Tuesday’s airing of Foreign Correspondent. The ‘promo’s’ told be I was going to see a program about an important new source of renewable energy. In fact, this new source was potentially so vast that it might rival the Saudi oil deposits as an energy source. With this as the prospect, I was sitting attentively watching TV at the appointed time, on the appointed day and on the appointed channel – ABC Channel 2. My disappointment grew rapidly. I became angry about the misleading advertising the ABC had engaged in. It turns out that the program was about a high altitude salt lake in Bolivia which contained a vast deposit of lithium. This could be used in the manufacture of lithium batteries. The program made the further point that these lithium batteries could be used in the new generation of electric cars being built by industry on a world scale at the moment. Even during the program the voice-overs repeated the assertion that this lithium was, somehow, an energy source. The facts outlined in the program – and the facts about Lithium generally – are completely at odds, however, with what the program presented. Lithium itself is a metal. It is not a fuel. It is not a renewable fuel. It is simply a component in the manufacture of batteries. It may be true that lithium batteries are very efficient but, no matter how true this may be, it is still not an energy source. This is the basis upon which I assert that the ABC promo’s preceding the show were misleading and false. The statement of fact they contained was untrue. If a used car salesman or an insurance agent made statements which were just as inaccurate about his/her product, the poor salesman would be in front of some ‘truth in advertising’ body quick smart. But the ABC, trading on its reputation, avoids this. It’s really sad. Taking this further than just the problem of the ABC’s standards, the program seemed to based on the assumption that battery power is somehow ‘clean’ power. It did not show any recognition of the fact that a battery has to be charged from another source. An electric car, running on electricity from a battery, is a car that, in most instances in Australia, is actually running on coal. Some electric cars in Australia may be powered by solar or wind but most are powered – indirectly – by coal. In order to charge the batteries one has to connect the car to a source of electricity. And, in most cases in Australia, this electricity is supplied by a coal fired power station. This may change in the future but, for the time being, this is the reality. The ABC program completely failed to make this point or make this connection and this, I believe, was just poor journalism. The positive and truthful point that could have been made by the program could have been that battery powered cars – powered by coal – do not depend on oil in any form. Not generally in Australia at least. They do not burn petrol or diesel in an internal combustion engine. If the program had made this point it would have been a very worthwhile and truthful point to make. The most alarming situation with the world’s energy security is the situation with regard to oil. So, anything that can be done to remove our dependence on oil for transport is a worthwhile thing to do. Running electric cars on coal is at least preferable to running them on oil because it seems there are greater reserves of coal in the world. The development of electric cars is also a good thing because it is also adaptable to other energy sources such as nuclear energy and renewables such as solar and wind. However, the program did not say this and this is why the program was poor journalism in addition to being misleading in the way it was promoted. All in all the program demonstrated to me that some of the commentators on the energy debate at the moment are thinking on a very shallow level. Some of the commentators are more focused on spin and wishful thinking than they are on a hard headed examination of the facts. Some of the commentators are not presenting truthful messages about the state of play we have reached with our current technology and how this addresses – or fails to address – our future energy challenge.
Since reading the article by Cameron Stewart, associate editor of the Australian Newspaper on Tuesday, 19 January, 2010, page 11, I have been getting angrier and angrier about the credibility of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The article points out that the IPCC has now been forced to admit that its dire predictions about the retreat of the Himalayan glaciers was based on little more than speculation. The predictions were contained in its 2006 report and basically stated that the Himalayan glaciers were retreating so rapidly that it was possible they would completely disappear by 2035. The fact that the IPCC has now been forced to admit this major error in its science is now being referred to as ‘Glaciergate’. What makes me so angry is that, with the best will in the world, I and many other citizens have trusted the reports from the IPCC. No matter what our personal intuitive beliefs might have been about global warming, I and others have tended to take the attitude that, ‘Oh well! They are the experts, so what they are saying must be true’. But now the IPCC Chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, has been forced to admit that there was no scientific basis at all for making the glaciergate predictions. I believe that the average citizen has every right to now question closely every prediction the IPCC makes. One of the most alarming things I have found about this whole case is the reaction that Rajendra Pachauri adopted when the Indian government questioned the validity of the Glaciergate claims. For heaven’s sake, India is a country with many mountainous areas bordering the Himalayan Mountains. One would think that Indian scientists would validly have some reasonable understanding of the glacier activity in the Himalayas. And it was Indian scientists who began to raise some disquiet about the Glaciergate predictions. This was then taken up by the Indian Government which voiced doubts about what the IPCC had said. Being so closely associated with the Himalayas, and being a nation with a credible scientific community, the Indian government’s point of view should have been taken much more seriously by the IPCC scientists. Instead, the Australian Newspaper reports that Rajendra Pachauri reacted in a hostile fashion. He accused the Indian government of being involved with ‘voodoo science’. Instead of recognizing the credibility of the Indian scientists who questioned the glacier predictions he simply attacked them. You would have thought that any reasonable person in his position might have said, ‘Okay, I’ll go back and check my facts and my science and get back to you on that one.’ But Rajendra was not in any mind to do that. Now he has had to back down completely because it has been shown that the predictions are wildly erratic. It is not just the arrogance of the IPCC that annoys me about this particular case. It is also the fact that it casts a huge doubt on the proposition that everything the IPCC says about it’s predictions being based on bullet-proof science and being the opinion of the overwhelming majority of scientists. Most people, including myself, have usually found this argument about ‘overwhelming majority of scientists’ very persuasive. For me, however, the persuasion of that argument is decreasing rapidly. To have stated in the 2007 IPCC report that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 is a dramatic and alarming claim to have made about a major geographic region of the world. It cannot be passed off as a one-liner in an obscure paragraph which was missed in the editing process. To many it would almost be on the same level as making some other startling prediction such as claiming that the Amazon River was going to run dry. Neither the IPCC nor anybody else has actually claimed this but, if they did, it would be so dramatic that it would draw the attention of scientists from everywhere. The 2007 claim about the Himalayan glaciers was so dramatic that it should have drawn the attention of every IPCC scientist at the time. But it didn’t and this, for me, is ringing the alarm bells loud and clear. The question I asked myself is how much more poor science is included in the IPCC reports. I also ponder the question that, if Rajendra Pachauri is happy to bully the government of a sovereign nation, how much more likely is he to bully his subordinates in the IPCC who voice a dissenting view. It might be revealing to find people with whom he has worked in the past. It would be interesting to ask these people if Rajendra’s management style was one of a collegiate manner or one of an overbearing bully. On just one other matter about IPCC, and the claims that it makes, I just want to make one further comment which I refrained from making at the time of the Copenhagen conference. This is about the opening ceremony at Copenhagen where the whole question of sea level rises was raised and the plight of the Pacific islands of Tuvalu and Kiribati highlighted. I was alarmed to see the sensational way in which the fate of these islands was treated. I was also mystified as to why the IPCC should lead with such a doubtful proof of sea level rise. ‘Surely,’ I thought at the time, ‘with this conference being the main showcase for global warming, you should be able to give me better proofs than this’. I had understood, and I still understand, that due to the movement of tectonic plates in the Pacific it has long been understood that those islands are sinking and other islands are rising. The islands of Tuvalu and Kiribati are sinking because the ocean bed on which they have grown as coral reefs is in a subduction zone. That is, one tectonic plate is sliding under another and Tuvalu and Kiribati happen to be on the plate that is going under. On the other side of the subduction zone, that is, the western side, islands in the Pacific are rising out of the water. This can be proven by the fact that there are stranded coral reefs hundreds of feet above water level. The possibility that the ocean floor beneath Tuvalu might be sinking has been surmised since 1836 when the island was visited by Charles Darwin. The problem identified at that time was that Darwin found it impossible to drill through to the bedrock underneath the coral. Coral can only grow within a certain depth of the surface of the ocean and so, to be unable to find bedrock had to mean that the island was either sinking or the sea level was rising. If the coral island was still in existence above sea level it had to mean that the growth rate of the coral was matched to the relative movement in apparent sea level. Indeed, under the sea surface in parts of the Pacific are features known as coral domes. These are dead coral reef that have stopped growing. They lost the race between coral growth and the effects of subduction. The existence of the stranded coral reefs in other islands to the east, including Vanuatu and New Guinea, meant that some islands in some places must be rising and some islands in other places must be subsiding. At the time of the Copenhagen conference I had understood that this was pretty well accepted science. As for the opening ceremony I had expected that they would present us with cases of the absolutely irrefutable proof of global warming. Instead, the IPCC opted to go with the sea level rise story and Tuvalu and Kiribas. Not one of these cases is proof of sea level rise. I was really disappointed in the opening ceremony and thought, ‘Well, if that is the very best evidence they’ve got, then there can’t be a lot of really good evidence for their proposition.’ Another instance where a Pacific island is rising out of the water is in the case of Iwo Jima. Capt James Cook landed at Iwo Jima in 1779 and referred to it as Sulphur Island. The interesting fact is that the beaches where Captain Cook’s party landed are now around 40 m above sea level – that’s more than 130 feet! And if one wants to visit the battlefields of Iwo Jima to see where the US Marines landed in the closing days of the Second World War, one finds that the landing beaches are now inland from the sea. The fact that Iwo Jima is rising from the sea is explained by local circumstances and cannot be taken as proof that, globally, sea levels are falling. Similarly, the fact that Tuvalu and Kiribati are sinking into the sea is explained by local circumstances and cannot be taken as proof that, globally, sea levels are rising. In saying this I am not disputing the truth, or otherwise, about the whole theory of global warming. I am just saying that some of the proofs that are offered to us are just very weak indeed. Some of the IPCC scientists who have commented on the Glaciergate issue have made the point that this was only really one small fact that was incorrect in the report. I do not think this argument can seriously be mounted and I’m sure that, as the sceptics pour through the IPCC reports and other UN documents further, they will find more bad science in there. I think one good place to start looking for poor science is the United Nations report entitled, ‘Livestock’s long shadow’. ********* CO2 capture and storage shown to be a poor solution There was a fascinating TV show on the ABC Four Corners program on Monday night 7th Sept 2009 at 8.30 Australia Eastern Standard Time. It was a review of the current state of progress with the technology of carbon dioxide capture at the power stations and its storage by burial in deep geological formations. The program reviewed events in My interest in the subject of carbon sequestration is through my rural journalism work. There are immense opportunities for farmers and graziers to definitely be part of the solution with regard to atmospheric carbon dioxide rather than part of the problem. But it seems that people in the scientific, political and environmental communities are looking in the wrong directions to find the answer to the problem of CO2 build up in the atmosphere. There is a huge realisation in the rural community that sequential 'pulses' of cropping and intensive, but short term, grazing is a key to sequestering vast amounts of carbon in our farming soils. The potential volumes that can be sequestered in this way are so great that they can account for One of the frustrations for those advocating soil carbon sequestration is that governments seem to be seeking other solutions for carbon capture and sequestration in entirely unproven technologies. The search for the clean coal solution seems to be one of these other, unproven, solutions. As a society we are more ready to go off looking for a technology that does not yet exist than use the one we already know exists. I have also seen horrendous figures about aspects of the proposed clean coal technology. For example, one figure I saw was that, in order to capture the CO2 at the power station, we would have to burn about one-third more coal to do it! Talk about overkill! Better technologies exist at much lower energy costs. Better still, the better technology of soil carbon sequestration is carried out using direct solar energy. Having watched the program I think that the bagging the CO2 capture and sequestration technology got is probably a good thing. Hopefully this will help clear the air for the potential of solar-energy-based soil carbon sequestration to get better media.
Congratulations to Australian soil carbon advocates, Bruce Ward and Tony Lovell, in achieving second place in The Guardian Newspapers’ Manchester Report in The presentation prepared by Bruce and Tony was about building up soil carbon as a means of reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide. The Thorium nuclear reactor solution came first. While it is always preferable to come first than second, and being very much aware of the need to avoid appearing mealy-mouthed, it is worthwhile looking at coming second from a slightly different angle. I would assert that, from all the non-industrial entries, Bruce and Tony came first. When I say ‘Non-industrial’ I am referring to all the entries that did not require the construction of a factory or an installation as required in an industrial process. The soil carbon entry came first of all the entries that simply involved natural organic processes involving sunlight, water and natural processes like photosynthesis. Bruce and Tony also came first in all the entries that involved the production of food as a 'byproduct' of the need to draw down legacy loads of CO2 in the atmosphere. In other words they came first in the entries that directly helped improve world food security. Another area in which we came first was in all the entries that help restore land health and farming sustainability. Another important first was the fact that the soil carbon technology was the only one amongst the presentations that involved the ability to draw down the legacy loads of CO2 in the atmosphere built up as a consequence of fossil fuel burning. This is really significant because the winner – Thorium Nuclear Reactors – only offers to limit further CO2 emissions in the future. The other class in which Bruce and Tony came first is in those options where individuals can take hold and do something themselves. They don't have to wait for a government approval. Although I understand that Thorium reactors involve nothing like the same investment as do conventional nuclear reactors, and I understand that they can actually be ‘bolted on’ to a fossil fuel power station, they still require someone to amass a large lump of investment capital. .... and it's out of the hands of individuals. So, congratulations to Bruce Ward and Tony Lovell. …. and congratulations to the team which presented Thorium nuclear reactors. Bruce Ward is a director of The Farm Business Gym www.the-farm-business-gym.com and Tony Lovell is a director of Soil Carbon (
A gripe about career-safe attitudes reported to me within senior levels in the Australian Army As a former Army Officer who had a comparatively short and not very glorious career, I am sometimes contacted by people within the Defence Force about Defence related issues and topics. They approach me in my role as journalist. Recently I was told about a case where a relatively junior officer (a Lieutenant Colonel) had put forward a paper containing the identification of waste which had occurred and contained suggestions about where savings could be made. The waste had amounted to some hundreds of millions of dollars. The paper included some implied - and not so implied - criticism of more senior officers. The paper was submitted to an officer more senor than the Lieutenant Colonel but was intended for the eyes of even higher ranking officers. The part of the document containing criticism, however, was excised from the document before it was passed up the chain of command. The reason quite openly given was that to include the criticism would be a 'CLM' - a Career Limiting Move. In the days since I have heard about this I have become more and more angry about the concept of a CLM in the context of a career in the Defence Force. I have heard this term as a widespread and quite common throw away line. It is always advanced as a reasonable explanation for justifying one's actions. Okay, I'll accept that it is justifiable to use the term in some circumstances. These include cases where your own actions - such as, say, declining an important career posing - may subsequently inhibit the advancement of your own career. But it is totally morally bankrupt to use the term when you are hiding a unpalatable truth or opinion from a superior officer. What really upsets me is not just the fact that someone might secretly form an opinion that such-and-such a move might be a CLM and, consequently, choose not to do it. What upsets me is that someone senior in the rank structure should have the absolute gall to tell someone else that he would not carry forward the criticism because it would be a CLM. It's just outrageous because this person is putting their career before their "service" (I say again, their SERVICE!!!!). We, the tax paying public and the nation as a whole, are paying these career servants for their "service', not for their career security and promotion. The actions of this person show his attitude:- that a cover up of inefficiency and financial waste is okay if its purpose to protect your career. These people are not men at all, they are frightened little mice living in fear of what their next confidential report might contain and how that might affect their careers. It really infuriates me. It is truly disgusting that one senior officer should feel so confident about this behavior being the norm that he should give it as a reason to another, more junior officer, as a reason for sitting on his hands. Talk about being detached from reality!!! I despise the bastards who use this term! An opinion about the Federal Government's buy back of the water rights on Toorale Station on the RE TOORALE STATION. This whole issue of allowing Australian floodplains to recharge with subterranean water (as raised by Peter Andrews and the Natural Sequence Farming method) causes one to question the Australian Federal Government's reasoning for purchasing Toorale Station on the I understand that a previous owner of the property early in the 20th Century had constructed a series of banks to ensure that floodwaters were directed out on to the flood plain where they would soak in to the land. Isn't this what Peter Andrews is all about and isn't this what is needed to restore the health of floodplains and river systems in the Australian landscape? The action of the government, however, is misguided as it is based on the wrong paradigm of how a river should flow in the Australian landscape. Australian rivers do not operate like snow fed European streams - with a central 'stream' of water – flowing pleasantly downstream. Any move to attain this wrong concept is wrong itself. There is a real problem at the highest levels in An opinion about the over extension of Australian Defence Forces in a variety of deployments at the moment. This article is an opinion pievce originally published by The Canberra Times in July 2003 at the time of an Australian police deployment, including a military component, to the Solomon Islands. This was not, incidentally, the last deployment to the Solomons and another, larger, contingent was deployed to help deal with civil unrest and violence just this year. The big problem is that, with many small penny packets of forces deployed in many locations, the scene becomes set for one of these operations to go wrong in a big way. The Canberra Times article is presented for your consideration:- Reverse Domino TheoryBy David Mason-Jones The inclusion of a military component in Thinking back to the days of the The Reverse Domino Theory works back the other way. It may start with a low profile commitment to the stability of a state, in this case the Solomons, but lead on to future reversals and end with a foreign policy disaster. One unlikely contributor to a Reverse Domino effect is military success itself. Reverse Domino says that initial military success emboldens politicians, generals and the public at large. Each further successful use of force compounds the belief that military force is a great foreign policy tool. Subsequent actions go well until, one day, there is a show-stopper. 'A bridge too far' is a case which illustrates what happens when a series of military successes leads to over confidence. The allied breakout from The French disaster at Military history is full of similar examples. For a long time after the Vietnam War the Australian maintained a military force but was loathe to commit to military action. This has this attitude has changed in recent years because the repeated use of military force has been successful. Everything the Defence Force has done over the recent years has shown the competence, skill and professionalism of our defence forces. Successful use of force in Gulf War I, Success in the Solomons may lead to other successes and this sets the politicians, generals and public at large off on the road to the Reverse Domino Theory. Somewhere in this process the potential exists for an incident which will make the casualties at Long Tan look like child’s play. Worst case, which could well happen over a series of steps over a series of years, would be an involvement in PNG. This would be most dangerous even if was at the request of the PNG government. The possibility of West Papuan freedom militias using PNG as a safe haven must create tension with If Maybe the Solomons intervention is the right course of action for the time, place and circumstance. The objective certainly appears to be within our means. But politicians, generals and the public at large have to be aware of where it could lead if the nation at large becomes over confident.
This opinion was originally published in The Canberra Times, July 2003. This ideas in the piece are relevant to today's Australian led military involvement in Timor.
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
| Site Map |
