The army is not over-stretched. Well, maybe a little...

[weemadando]

Govt knocks back UN request for Darfur help

The Federal Government has rejected a United Nations request for Australia to contribute troops to the war torn Sudanese region of Darfur.

Defence Minister Dr Brendan Nelson says no Australian soldiers will be sent to the area but his spokesman would not detail why the request was knocked back.

Prime Minister John Howard says Australia would have had to pull troops out of other trouble spots if it agreed to send soldiers.

Mr Howard says the Australian military already has heavy international commitments.

"In order to meet a commitment, a sizeable commitment in Darfur, we would have to pull forces out of other parts of the world to send them there," he said.

"We have commitments there and once you make commitments you have obligations not to arbitrarily terminate them."

This week, Sudan agreed to a plan for a combined UN and African Union peacekeeping force to be sent to the region.

Australia has about 15 troops in southern Sudan as part of a separate UN mission.

Now, I'm trying to figure this out - for months (nay - years) we are told that the military is fine and can support all ongoing commitments etc, and now - we are told that there is nothing available (shock. horror.)?

Now, officially tell us another thing we "didn't know".

[Sidewinder]

I thought the article was on some idiot US government official claiming the US Army is not overstretched due to its commitment in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's sad to see we're not the only people with a government that treats its soldiers like toilet paper.

[The_Saint]

If he wasn't so much a lapdog of Bush then we wouldn't be overstretched...

And if the government didn't have it's head up its arse then it'd realise that even East Timor was stretching things too far for us... the Australian Defence Force simply lacks the forces and funds to project anything more than a single major operation over seas...