you can tell the quality of leaders in civil society or business by their treatment of people lower down the pecking order. sure defence personnel ought to be tough enough to cop a bit of surliness, but kevin rudd has a rep for tearing strips off people extremely unpleasantly, so someone who is essentially a waitress rather than a grunt on the battle line could be excused for being a tad upset by exposure to a classic rudd rant

[Reply]

Not sure what barrow Michael Hewitt-Gleeson is trying to push here but there are two issues with his comments.

1. Clearly Kevin Rudd conversation with the flight attendant was more than ‘demanding that an order be carried out professionally’. For him to reduce her to tear suggests abuse rather than a polite request.

2. The flight attendant was probably not the person who received the request (assuming a request was actually made). As such, K Rudd was shooting the messenger rather than identifying the actual culprit.

[Reply]

That “waitress” is also trained to handle and use weaponry and expected to use it if ever required (unlikely as that may be).

I left the military when the touchy feely downslide started and this is just another example to prove I made the right decision.

Sure the Prime Minister may have behaved poorly (he should talk to Flinders Uni about sleep deprivation/overwork and decision making), however a member of the Defence Forces crying??? Especially since they would be the elite in their areas of expertise specially chosen to fly the nations leader and represent our country overseas.

[Reply]

This is just a further example of the bullying culture in the ALP whether it be Marri Rose and pat Purcell in Queensland Belinda Neil in NSW or the Prime Minister himself it appears that abuse is the watchword for the ALP.

[Reply]

You don’t get to be the leader of the Labor party without being a headkicker.

Methinks our Prime Minister was using his Caucus room communication skills rather than his public persona communication skills.

Anyway, there’s two sides to any conversation and we’ll never get a balanced accounting of what actually transpired.

[Reply]

I wouldnt be embarrassed by this without first having personally spoken to the Defense Force person in question to determine what exactly it was that caused the tears… Army personnel are humans too, and they are under a great deal of pressure from their work in addition to the rest of the BS that life dishes out to people… i dont think this event should be cause for any reaction either way, it is simply interesting, and without further investigation remains just that, interesting.

who is to say what made the person cry… was it 20 years of family pressure, and some recent personal events along with work pressure culminating with being told off by the PM for something insignificant that ended up being the “straw that broke the camel’s back” ??

and furthermore, to suggest that this should make us worried about the competence of the ADF is a load of bollocks… in order to make that comment you have to first LEAP TO THE ASSUMPTION that this person would breakdown under a more serious situation… and i fail to see where the evidence of this is… the FACT is that if this person was noted as breaking down under pressure on a constant basis over insignificant events within their role in the ADF, then they would have been out of there a long time ago… perhaps you could credit this person with at least having enough good sense to only break down in tears when it doesnt really matter (EG – a visit from the PM)… after all, there is a lot less “life & death” on the line when the PM visits, than when u are in combat… and i would personally much rather know that ADF staff chose that particular moment to break down, rather than when things are actually serious.

i dont think this is an embarrassing situation for anyone other than that particular member of staff, and ONLY on the basis that they now have to deal with all the comments from every sticky beak & know it all in the country who are going to make comments about it (such as this article) without ANY of them taking any time at all to actually talk to the person involved, and without leaping to conclusions.

i would be far more embarrassed if i had WRITTEN an article stating how embarrassing this incident is supposed to be… what a load of bollocks. I would like to see half the people from the “business world” cope with a high pressure military job & no where near the luxurious life that some of them lead without having some tears now & then. it just sounds to me like someone got caught out being HUMAN.

ALSO can you credit the ADF with at least being efficient enough & serious enough about what they do that if this particular officer WAS known to break down in tears on a regular basis over nothing that they WOULD HAVE done something about it a long time ago?? …at least that would be a reasonable assumption to make if you are going to make assumptions.

[Reply]

A few random thoughts on Mr Hewitt-Gleeson’s effort:

If Rudd hadn’t behaved badly, he wouldn’t have had to apologise. It’s so simple only a PhD in lateral thinking can miss it!

Rudd has no more right than I do to scream abuse at a stewardess. In fact he has less, because at least I will have paid for my ticket. She’s not his employee, in an important way, he is hers!

Is drawing a ridiculously long bow to come up with a “refreshingly” contrarian viewpoint an exemplar of “lateral thinking”? One low ranking employee gets it wrong so the WHOLE organisation is screwed! National Security at risk! Thank goodness Messrs Rudd and Hewitt-Gleeson uncovered this awful problem. Let’s have a summit to come up with ideas to solve it, laterally.

As for the poignancy of Anzac Day coming up, which must be “cause for reflection” – this is just the kind of high-minded, disingenuous, pious, humbug we get from our dear leader on a regular basis.

[Reply]

NOBLESSE OBLIGE

For 30 years I’ve joked that one should never trust a person with a double-barreled name. And along comes Dr Hewitt-Gleeson to prove my point.

As a young airman, I had the privilege to serve the royal family during their tour in 1970. No one on the planet has to put up with acting dignified no matter what the circumstances more than they do. I traveled with them for three days. There were moments that would drive any normal person to distraction, but even the kids (Charlie and Anne) behaved like the classy people that they are. That is what we expect from our leaders.

Now for young Kev: He displayed a complete lack of good manners. No excuses.

And if he had a problem, there is a chain of command. Why was he abusing a young person. He is in a position of authority. It is harassment. By any measure it is unacceptable.

If an employer abused a young staff member he would risk a serious claim for abuse. But we are talking here about the most powerful government leader in the nation. I used to believe that Kev was a good guy. Now we see him for the meglomaniac that he is: a classless, manipulative, dishonest politician. Just like most of the others on the hill.

Would Kev have the guts to attack the Chief of the Defence Force in that way? I think not.

Dr Hewitt-Gleeson, I held a permanent commission in the RAAF. The fact that you were a weekend warrior adds no weight to your argument. You seem to have learnt nothing about the concept of NOBLESSE OBLIGE.

If you really think it is OK to abuse junior staff, God help any poor bastard that has to work for you.

[Reply]

Michael Hewitt-Gleeson Reply:
April 7th, 2009 at 2:41 pm

Dear Rob,

You have gone to a lot of trouble to avoid the point of my discussion.

I used this incident (as it was reported) to raise two relevant and strategic questions relating to the condition of Australia’s defence preparedness. If we are asked by our main ally to send a competent fighting force to Afganhistan:
1. Can we do it?
2. Can we win?

As an Elector, one is entitled to ask these things.

All your chat about you being ‘permanent’ and me being ‘reserve’ is hardly a shining example of nobless oblige but reeks of the very bad manners you eschew. As am ex-army Vietnam veteran it’s true that I have some additional interest in the ADF beyond my rights as an Elector.

[Reply]

I fail to see how you can reasonably extropolate Kevin Rudd’s meal being incorrectly provided to a commentary on our ability to send a competent fighting force to Afganhistan.

This whole incident is more of a reflection on Kevin Rudd than the ADF…

[Reply]

Michael Hewitt-Gleeson Reply:
April 7th, 2009 at 3:20 pm

Or, it may simple be, as you say, a failure of your imagination.

My view is that extrapolation and interpretation based on your own experience is exactly what is required when I read the media, otherwise one must take what one reads on face value which I’m not willing to do.

My concerns about these issues are also shared by many ADF career officers and reasonably so. If they don’t care about it then who will?

[Reply]

aramari Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 1:45 am

I could observe the patently unsound and flaky argument you make and extrapolate that into a spurious concern over the quality of the RAAF reserve in the early 1970s. Equally valid – ie. not at all!

There are undoubtedly issues within the ADF, but scribbling a couple of lazy thoughts down and pretending it’s a coherent and serious argument conveys no insight – except, perhaps, into a somewhat disorganised mind.

I guess I’m surprised that the co-founder of the “School of Thinking” can be so prone to faulty thinking and sloppy logic.

[Reply]

H-G

I hope you don’t mind me calling you that. It seems like we are getting to know one another quite well through this channel.

So you speak for many ADF career officers, do you? All the members I know well ranging from my son, based in an operational squadron to a Director General within the Defence Department may not be happy to learn that you have become their spokesman.

Just recently, one of our namby pamby SAS boys was awarded the Victoria Cross for valor. Then there was the guy (wounded) who tied himself on the bull bar of a vehicle so he wouldn’t fall off, then went on engaging the enemy. Of course, they were only having to deal with some pussies in the Taliban. I wonder if they would have fared so well if they’d come up against the PM!

H-G. I didn’t address your original premise because I, like most of the other readers who have commented on your original article, feel your premise is stupid, petty and ignorant.

Now, if you would like to get into a debate about the quality of our service personnel, I would have to say that the armed services are better run than it was in my time, some 25 years ago. My son recently completed his training at the Australian Defence Force Academy, a far cry from my training as a RAAF engineer.

The esprit de corps is much stronger. The focus on joint service operations creates a much clearer sense of how each member and each branch of the service fits into the overall organisation. Civilians in Defence with whom I have come in contact display a real sense of purpose.

Sure, it is true that in every large organisation there are people who are an impediment to progress; but over all, I believe that we should be genuinely proud of the people who defend this nation.

What we don’t need is an armchair warrior taking potshots about something so inane as the fact that one woman couldn’t handle the bad manners of the person sitting in the role of this country’s top job.

But thank you for giving me and others the opportunity to express our disapproval of your article and Kevin’s behaviour, and our support for Australia’s armed service men and women.

And as for by bad manners, isn’t that what you are supporting? If it is ok for the PM to attack a defenceless servicewoman (and considering what the PM can do to destroy her career), what is wrong with a little attack at your expense? If you don’t like the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Cheers!

[Reply]

aramari Reply:
April 8th, 2009 at 1:58 am

Great post Rob. Would it be too crass to say that you “shot him down”?

[Reply]

Well said Rob…

…and as a civvy who considered joining the ADF but decided not to, let me just add this to the debate so that HG and others in similar positions of authority can consider the significance of it.

THE REASON that i didnt go ahead with my application to join the ADF as a career path, was SOLEY because i have NO FAITH AT ALL in the foresight, wisdom, ethics, and judgment of the politicians of Australia (and those in industry who enjoy warmongering for whatever reason) to be the people who would wield absolute control about where, when, how & why i would have to go fight, and who i would be fighting… i simply cannot trust ANY of you to make that call.

For that reason, i owe a huge debt of gratitude to those who do join & serve in the ADF for fighting on my behalf where necessary… and i think people like HG should really listen a bit more & try for once in their life to have the humility to accept that maybe they just might be FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG about a whole lot of stuff that they believe so religiously & ram down the rest of our throats.

one of the things i have always loved about the ADF is when you see them come out after some kind of national disaster to help people… its great to see these highly trained people with smiles on their faces helping Australians get back on their feet & contributing to much to making this country great… and by complete contrast its sad to see them overseas fighting, EVEN when & if there is any justification for it.

PS – i didnt think you were rude at all Rob… i thought you were being EXTREMELY diplomatic… if i was in your shoes i dont know if i could have restricted my name calling to “arm chair warrior”

[Reply]

I used this incident (as it was reported) to raise two relevant and strategic questions relating to the condition of Australia’s defence preparedness. If we are asked by our main ally to send a competent battle group to Afganhistan:
1. Can we do it? Do we have the equipment? Do we have the personnel?
2. Can we win? Or, are we just there for ‘political show’ to the US.

For those interested in exploring this strategic issue here are some informed references:
• Cameron Stewart in The Australian (31/03)”Our Defenceless Force”:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25264936-28737,00.html
and
• ”Military not ready for war as fighter jets, choppers and submarines unfit for frontline”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,24897,25267127-601,00.html
and
Defence Industry Daily: “ADF: An “Aren’t Deployable” Force?”
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ADF-An-Arent-Deployable-Force-05362/
and
“Thousands more soldiers needed for Afghan war”, Maj-Gen Jim Molan, former Chief of Operations in Iraq.
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2525349.htm

[Reply]

there is a massive disparity between what politicians & the general public feel is a valid reason to go to war… which is of course why we get lied to.

If there was a genuine threat to Australia, i think you would find even pacifists would be signing up to join the ADF.

If you want a real solution to ADF recruitment, try this:

GIVE THE ADF THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SOME DEPLOYMENT COMMANDS BY THE GOVERNMENT.

…because then the career path can be judged on the merits of the ADF without reference to politicians, and people can feel safe that the NEXT George Bush who comes along wont be able to send us off to war just because his best new friend is our PM.

…lets face it, there is a lot of stuff about the last 10 years that have been VERY DODGEY in every aspect of our world… not just the actions of industry leaders ripping off the companies they work for, doing an absolutely RUBBISH job, and then paying themselves bonuses (bigger than what most 100 people you can find will earn collectively in a decade) as a reward for such epic failure… but also the fact that they mostly get away with it… where the hell is the lynch mob chasing down the bankers & stripping their assets???

If you want people to join the military, they already know that its a dangerous profession… what they DONT want to know on top of that, is that they will be put in harms way to benefit the top end of town who already get WAY too much out of this world compared to everyone else.

If you seriously think your article was relevant, then i seriously doubt your competence. There are a hell of a lot of things you can say about how Australia runs its miliary operations, but i hardly think that the blame lies within the ADF… the fact is that they have to manage a task which is just unbelievably difficult compared to what everyone else has to do… so much so, that it must be hard for them to even put it in words some days.

Perhaps another way to put it is this: we are inspired by the ADF & the individuals in it, but NOT by the career path of being IN it… because we keep on hearing about Australians being deployed to dodgey situations & the stories of lack of funding for military pensions & after service care persist.

Dont you think people might want to know of a 100 year history where that never happened ONCE, and the one time it ALMOST happened it was fixed with a minimum of fuss & extremely quickly?? …maybe then people might feel more confident to sign up to the military… but the truth is, that no matter what the ads on tv, we know there is a chance we will die or get screwed over if we do join. Why dont you write an article to fix that rather than having a go at someone who came to tears? I am 6’4″ and I dare say that I would be in tears on occasion if i was in the military, and probably not just once either!

The blame lies with (and i will put this as diplomatically as possible), “brain functionality challenged” individuals like Brendan Nelson who having been raised with a silver spoon up is unmentionable place, makes decisions on behalf of the ADF (particularly procurement contracts) which were so obviously the result of the indoctrination of the same utterly dodgey theories used in the rest of the business world (such as “last minute supply”)… and which should NEVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES (WHATSOEVER & WITHOUT EXCEPTION) ever be applied to the ADF… AND WHICH, if these theories of economics & business had ever ONCE had to undergo the same level of scrutiny applied to ALL AREAS OF SCIENCE (the scientific method & peer review), they would have been shot down in flames for being the load of absolute bollocks that they are… in fact to call those theories & practices bollocks is an insult to bollocks.

Why would people feel confident to join the military if such obviously rubbish decisions like that are made about its equipment..? not to mention the fiasco with the joint strike fighter & several other large contracts including helicopters & ships (boats / frigates).

What i would like to see now is some bloody honesty… and yes it might mean offending some people & it might also mean scaring the general public… but at least it would be over something real for a change.

We all see The Matrix, and i dont know about you, but i choose the Red Pill (thanks Wachowski brothers)

[Reply]