[Legbreaker]

I'm completely with Stainless on this. While we need the capacity to conduct limited amphibious operations, this in reality amounts to little more than what the Commandos were already doing back 20 years ago - raids on fairly soft targets over virtually undefended beaches, along with logistical support for troops already on the ground. An amphibious assault force just plain doesn't make any real sense in more than a flag waving way.

Australia simply doesn't have the population or military base to support this. The resources would be better spent on aircraft and patrol boats to patrol the coastline along with something like a long range patrol force (expansion of Norforce?).

As for sending troops overseas on peace keeping missions and the like, did the politicians actually talk to the military before deciding on this course of action, or is it just an attempt to make us into a "mini me" of the US?

It's all well and good to want to help out militarily on the world stage, but Australia in the grand scheme of things is tiny. I recall back in 1991 the military were so short on manpower that if another hundred soldiers were sent overseas, reservists were slated to be called up for active duty - I don't think this even happened during Vietnam even though we had conscription (plenty of reservists volunteered for full time duty though).

Now though you can see reservists serving overseas on a regular basis just to fill the numbers. An amphibious assault group in the current environment just plain doesn't seem like a smart idea, even if the resources are already existing and simply being drawn from other units.

As for East Timor, I don't recall the US being involved there at all, at least not in the first twelve months. Australia pretty much went it alone and did very well.