SA's military proves resilience despite the odds
It was either American novelist Mark Twain or British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli who famously wrote that there are three kinds of lies; lies, damned lies and statistics, which proves just how difficult it is to get to the truth.
It is easy to twist facts to fit convenient narratives, but for the truth to emerge, it is vital for these narratives to be tested against other truths.
In the war for survival, the South African National Defence Force's (SANDF) greatest foe is disinformation in the battle for hearts and minds, not enemy soldiers taking aim at our members.
There is no doubt that the majority of our key equipment is on average 40 years old, nor that our air force is struggling to maintain serviceable fighter capacity, nor that our navy has maintenance challenges.
But what this narrative does not include is the fact that the threat that our country faces is of a very different profile from the insurgency war of liberation that ended 40 years ago and, indeed, of the conventional wars of invasion and attrition in the Middle East and Eastern Europe.
This narrative also forgets that our prime mission equipment is very well maintained despite its age and budgetary constraints, as evidenced every year during our live fire all arms brigade-strength exercises at the Army Combat Training Centre in Lohatla in the Northern Cape.
The doomsayers' narrative also ignores the fact that while the median age of all serving members might be as high as 40, the average age of those in our special forces and airborne is well within international norms and that these members conduct themselves in an exemplary fashion across Africa, winning the respect of other militaries.
ALSO READ: From tiger to a pouncing police cat? Ramaphosa is remixing the 'corrupt' until a new caretaker arrives
As for our navy, we have budgetary challenges with the mid-term refits for our frigates and submarines, but we have also made great strides through the construction and acquisition of our littoral multimission in-shore patrol vessels and the building and acquiring of SAS Nelson Mandela, the navy's new hydrographic vessel.
Our air force remains a concern.
We have severe constraints with our transport fleet while our Gripen fighter squadrons have well documented woes, because of a lack of budget.
This is perhaps the crux of the matter. As successive ministers of defence and the chiefs of the various arms of service and the chief of the SANDF have said time and again over the past seven years, the SANDF is woefully underfunded by international norms.
Prior to the ongoing conflicts in Eastern Europe which have pushed defence spend beyond 5% of GDP among Nato countries, the average norm was 2%.
In South Africa, it's traditionally 1% or less and currently below 0.7% of GDP is budgeted for our defence needs.
The biggest question that has to be asked before anyone starts any debate is simple: what kind of defence force should South Africa have? The second question is just as important: how much is SA prepared to pay for the defence force it thinks it wants?
ALSO READ: 'A coup is not discussed on social media': Holomisa says no need to press panic buttons
The fact that we have a functioning people's defence force that has smashed glass ceilings, created opportunities and does more and more with less is a story that should be told.
It is easy to fixate on vehicle parks of redundant and superannuated equipment, but ignore the work being done every day inside our borders on humanitarian missions and beyond on peacekeeping missions, where there are no media or influencers to tell that story.
For an organisation that works cheek by jowl with danger, deploying into perilous situations, our members execute their tasks commendably and most return safely afterwards.
Critics would have you believe the SANDF is a shambles, wholly unfit for purpose and a waste of taxpayers' funds.
Nothing could be further from the truth – and our proud record since our founding more than 30 years ago is stark testimony to precisely that.
The SANDF and the department of defence do have problems.
In typical age-old South African style, we have made a plan and it has got us this far. All we ask is that the critics take that into account when they step into glasshouses and pick up stones to lob.
NOW READ: NPA to appeal bail ruling in case of 12 SANDF soldiers accused of killing Hawks investigator
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
4 hours ago
- IOL News
The Rotten Core of a Manufactured Scandal
Did President Obama play a role in fabricating the Russia collusion narrative? Former Representative Tulsi Gabbard claims he did, suggesting a treasonous conspiracy that weaponised the intelligence community. Image: IOL / Ron AI Did President Barack Obama play a role in the fabrication of the Russia collusion narrative? According to former Representative Tulsi Gabbard—once a rising star within the Democratic Party and now a gadfly for political truth—the answer is unequivocally yes. More than that, Gabbard suggests the Obama administration orchestrated a 'treasonous conspiracy' in 2016, one that weaponised the intelligence community and buried exculpatory findings that contradicted their desired political outcome. Let us not pretend this charge is light. A 'treasonous conspiracy' suggests not merely malfeasance but a betrayal of the public trust at the highest levels of government. If these allegations are true—and the declassified documents and testimonies increasingly suggest they are—then we are dealing with one of the most corrosive abuses of power in American history. And yet, predictably, the usual suspects in the Democratic Party and their allies in corporate media have denounced these revelations not with evidence, but with noise. Men like Adam Schiff, the architect and chief propagandist of the Russia hoax, have long enjoyed the luxury of consequence-free deception. Schiff assured the nation, repeatedly and confidently, that he had 'direct evidence' of collusion between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin's government. No such evidence ever materialised. None. Instead, what we received was a years-long investigation—one that disrupted a presidency, undermined international credibility, and cost the American taxpayers tens of millions—only to conclude there was no collusion. The Mueller Report confirmed it. The Durham investigation exposed the rot. And yet, the architects of the lie remain untouched, their reputations defended by a press that long ago abandoned its role as watchdog in favour of partisan priesthood. What Gabbard alleges, however, takes this abuse of power a step further. According to her review of intelligence findings—now echoed by former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe—the original assessments from our intelligence community clearly stated that Russia's efforts had no material effect on the outcome of the 2016 election. In other words, while Russia may have engaged in cyber-meddling and online influence operations (as every major power does), it had no decisive impact on voting outcomes. That should have been the headline. Instead, it was buried. Why? Because truth was inconvenient to power. Because the narrative of Russian interference served a political end: to delegitimise Trump's presidency before it even began. What followed was not a sober investigation into foreign threats, but a coordinated disinformation campaign by our own intelligence apparatus at the urging of political elites. It was, as Former US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia might argue, an affront not merely to the legal process but to the very idea of republican government. In Morrison v. Olson, Justice Scalia famously dissented alone, warning against the creation of a fourth branch of government—unaccountable bureaucracies with the power to influence political outcomes. 'A government of laws, and not of men,' he wrote, 'means that our rulers are bound by the law, just as the governed are.' Yet here we are, in 2024, looking back at a moment when our rulers were the law—when intelligence agencies were pressured into revising their own conclusions to align with political imperatives. This is not a conspiracy theory. This is the documented history of the modern American state. It is what happens when ideology becomes the lens through which evidence is interpreted, and when political expediency outweighs constitutional restraint. And now, with Trump poised for a potential return to the White House, the fear among Democrats is palpable. Not because of what Trump might do in the future, but because of what he might uncover from the past. This is the nightmare scenario for the left—not a second Trump term, but a reckoning with the truth. The emails, the memos, the redacted reports—they may not remain buried for much longer. Gabbard is right to call it treasonous. Whether that charge meets the legal standard or not is almost beside the point. What matters is that Americans were lied to by their own government—systematically, persistently, and with great sophistication. As Thomas Sowell has often warned: 'It is hard to imagine a more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.' The question now is whether anyone will be held accountable. Or whether, once again, we will look the other way while the powerful write a different version of history—one where the truth is not merely inconvenient, but disposable. Did President Obama play a role in fabricating the Russia collusion narrative? Former Representative Tulsi Gabbard claims he did, suggesting a treasonous conspiracy that weaponised the intelligence community. Image: IOL * Armstrong Williams ( @arightside) is a political analyst, syndicated columnist and owner of the broadcasting company, Howard Stirk Holdings. He is also part owner of The Baltimore Sun. ** The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of Independent Media or IOL.
Daily Maverick
5 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Russia and Ukraine to hold first peace talks in seven weeks
By Dmitry Antonov and Mark Trevelyan Russia played down expectations of any breakthrough at the meeting, which Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said this week should focus in part on preparing a summit between himself and President Vladimir Putin. 'Naturally, no one expects an easy road. Naturally, this will be a very difficult conversation. The projects (of the two sides) are diametrically opposed,' Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters. Previous talks in Istanbul on May 16 and June 2 led to the exchange of thousands of prisoners of war and the remains of dead soldiers. But those meetings lasted less than three hours in total and made no breakthrough towards a ceasefire or a settlement to end almost three and a half years of war. U.S. President Donald Trump last week threatened heavy new sanctions on Russia and countries that buy its exports unless a peace deal was reached within 50 days. But three sources close to the Kremlin told Reuters that Putin, unfazed by Trump's ultimatum, would keep on fighting in Ukraine until the West engaged on his terms for peace, and that his territorial demands may widen as Russian forces advance. On Wednesday, Russia said its forces had captured the settlement of Varachyne in Ukraine's Sumy region, where Putin has ordered his troops to create a buffer zone after Ukraine mounted a shock incursion into Russia last year and held onto a chunk of its territory for months. Reuters could not independently confirm the battlefield report. In recent weeks, Russian forces have launched some of their heaviest air attacks of the war, focusing especially on the Ukrainian capital Kyiv. Ukraine has hit back with attacks of its own, and last month inflicted serious damage on Russia's nuclear-capable strategic bomber fleet by smuggling drones close to air bases deep inside the country. CONFLICTING DEMANDS Zelenskiy said earlier this week that the agenda for talks was clear: the return of prisoners of war and of children abducted by Russia, and the preparation of a meeting between himself and Putin. Putin turned down a previous challenge from Zelenskiy to meet him in person and has said he does not see him as a legitimate leader because Ukraine, which is under martial law, did not hold new elections when Zelenskiy's five-year mandate expired last year. Russia also denies abducting children. The Kremlin said this week it was unrealistic to expect 'miracles' from the talks. At the last meeting on June 2, Russia handed Ukraine a memorandum setting out its key demands, including: full withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from four regions of the country that Russia has claimed as its own; limits on the size of Ukraine's military; enhanced rights for Russian-speakers in Ukraine; and acceptance by Kyiv of neutral status, outside NATO or any other alliance. Ukraine sees those terms as tantamount to surrender, and Zelenskiy described the Russian stance as an ultimatum.
The Citizen
13 hours ago
- The Citizen
SA's military proves resilience despite the odds
Despite budget cuts and ageing equipment, the SANDF continues to perform with dedication and distinction at home and abroad. It was either American novelist Mark Twain or British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli who famously wrote that there are three kinds of lies; lies, damned lies and statistics, which proves just how difficult it is to get to the truth. It is easy to twist facts to fit convenient narratives, but for the truth to emerge, it is vital for these narratives to be tested against other truths. In the war for survival, the South African National Defence Force's (SANDF) greatest foe is disinformation in the battle for hearts and minds, not enemy soldiers taking aim at our members. There is no doubt that the majority of our key equipment is on average 40 years old, nor that our air force is struggling to maintain serviceable fighter capacity, nor that our navy has maintenance challenges. But what this narrative does not include is the fact that the threat that our country faces is of a very different profile from the insurgency war of liberation that ended 40 years ago and, indeed, of the conventional wars of invasion and attrition in the Middle East and Eastern Europe. This narrative also forgets that our prime mission equipment is very well maintained despite its age and budgetary constraints, as evidenced every year during our live fire all arms brigade-strength exercises at the Army Combat Training Centre in Lohatla in the Northern Cape. The doomsayers' narrative also ignores the fact that while the median age of all serving members might be as high as 40, the average age of those in our special forces and airborne is well within international norms and that these members conduct themselves in an exemplary fashion across Africa, winning the respect of other militaries. ALSO READ: From tiger to a pouncing police cat? Ramaphosa is remixing the 'corrupt' until a new caretaker arrives As for our navy, we have budgetary challenges with the mid-term refits for our frigates and submarines, but we have also made great strides through the construction and acquisition of our littoral multimission in-shore patrol vessels and the building and acquiring of SAS Nelson Mandela, the navy's new hydrographic vessel. Our air force remains a concern. We have severe constraints with our transport fleet while our Gripen fighter squadrons have well documented woes, because of a lack of budget. This is perhaps the crux of the matter. As successive ministers of defence and the chiefs of the various arms of service and the chief of the SANDF have said time and again over the past seven years, the SANDF is woefully underfunded by international norms. Prior to the ongoing conflicts in Eastern Europe which have pushed defence spend beyond 5% of GDP among Nato countries, the average norm was 2%. In South Africa, it's traditionally 1% or less and currently below 0.7% of GDP is budgeted for our defence needs. The biggest question that has to be asked before anyone starts any debate is simple: what kind of defence force should South Africa have? The second question is just as important: how much is SA prepared to pay for the defence force it thinks it wants? ALSO READ: 'A coup is not discussed on social media': Holomisa says no need to press panic buttons The fact that we have a functioning people's defence force that has smashed glass ceilings, created opportunities and does more and more with less is a story that should be told. It is easy to fixate on vehicle parks of redundant and superannuated equipment, but ignore the work being done every day inside our borders on humanitarian missions and beyond on peacekeeping missions, where there are no media or influencers to tell that story. For an organisation that works cheek by jowl with danger, deploying into perilous situations, our members execute their tasks commendably and most return safely afterwards. Critics would have you believe the SANDF is a shambles, wholly unfit for purpose and a waste of taxpayers' funds. Nothing could be further from the truth – and our proud record since our founding more than 30 years ago is stark testimony to precisely that. The SANDF and the department of defence do have problems. In typical age-old South African style, we have made a plan and it has got us this far. All we ask is that the critics take that into account when they step into glasshouses and pick up stones to lob. NOW READ: NPA to appeal bail ruling in case of 12 SANDF soldiers accused of killing Hawks investigator
