JavaScript disabled. Please enable JavaScript to use My News, My Clippings, My Comments and user settings.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

Does Australia even have a defence strategy?

Date

There is less to Australia’s withdrawal from Afghanistan than meets the eye. The West, the coalition, the US, whatever, got its arse handed to it, in a geostrategic kinda way, and we’re doing the smart thing. Getting out before tragedy becomes farce.

There’ll be a good 40 or 50 years to mull over how yet another primitive insurgency laid their smackdown on us, with revisionist war buffs eager to point out that we didn’t lose any actual battles, only one inconvenient war. The 'what ifs' will never go away. Principally, what if George Bush jnr and his two closest goons, Tony Blair and John Howard, had actually bothered to stick around and finish the job in Afghanistan before tearing off down the Silk Road towards their next excellent misadventure in Iraq.

In the end, though, we’re done. A week or two after Hamid Karzai gets strung up or blown up by the Taliban, they’ll take over again. Either openly, or via some franchise operation. (Chances are, if Mullah Omar was ever foolish enough to move back into the presidential palace, he could rightfully expect to catch a cruise missile up the date the first time he bent down to smooch the ol’ prayer rug.)

Of more than a passing interest, however, is what if anything remains of Australia’s strategic and defence policies for the next 20 or 30 years.

Here’s a quick, very dumbed down, somewhat gratuitous version of the tensions in Australian strategic thinking. We’re a small, rich, technologically advanced and culturally European country in a neighbourhood full of countries with which we have almost nothing in common. Our relative wealth and power are in decline. Our major ally, likewise. The two oceans which surround our continent will play host to a century of hyper-power rivalry, with the US, China and India all manoeuvring for dominance.

Traditionally our policy response to these challenges, and to the bipolar environment of the Cold War before them, tended to gravitate one way or another, either structuring the defence forces to venture from these shores as part of an allied expeditionary force to meet perceived threats as far away and as early as possible. Think Korea, Malaya, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. Or, alternately, to retreat behind the walls of Fortress Australia - don't laugh - structuring the ADF to be able to defeat a regional threat without needing to rely on the kindness of allies. This latter approach has really only been in vogue once, during the 1980s and early 90s. It came a cropper in East Timor when, after the unprecedented military build up overseen by Kim Beazley, Australia still found itself stretched to project its power just a short distance from home, with the passive if grudging acceptance of the country into which that power was being projected.

OK, history lesson over, and I apologise to genuine wonks for complete lack of depth and nuance.

Fast-forward to the present day and, after Iraq and Afghanistan, what we now seem to have instead of a defence policy, or even a debate over that policy, is an emerging consensus that no such policy even exists anymore. That decisions about the national blood and treasure are being made in the absence of any kind of guiding principle at all.

I’m gonna throw to experts at this point, because they do this for living.

Last week the Lowy Institute’s blog, The Interpreter, hosted a lively and widely unread exchange between civilian defence experts Rodger Shanahan and Hugh White, and retired Major General Jim Molan, my one-time boss when I was a baby research guy at Defence, but probably more famous for running the war in Iraq during one of its more successful periods.

Shanahan kicked off wondering about the math of defence equipment purchases. Why buy 100 Joint Strike Fighters, for instance? A suspiciously round number. Or 12 submarines, which, just as suspiciously, is exactly twice as many as we have now. The new subs will be much more capable than the already somewhat awesome Collins Class boats. (And yes, they are actually rather awesome, even if successive governments refuse to pay the real cost of staffing and maintaining them.) So why twice as many?

Hugh White replied that 100 of the F-35 stealth fighters matched the number you got if you added up all of our F1-11s and F-18s, at which point you begin to question the smarts of the people at the top of the defence policy food chain, who aren’t generals or admirals, but the politicians we elect over them.

White thinks the problem runs much deeper than numbers that seem to have been worked out on the back of a beer coaster.

“Here is Defence's deepest secret,” he wrote. “There is no plan. There is no plan for how the ADF will be used to achieve Australia's strategic objectives”.

Why? Because nobody we’ve elected to think about this stuff has any idea of “what our strategic objectives are”.

In other words, said White, we have NFI what the ADF is supposed to do. That’s why there’s no rhyme nor reason to the numbers of planes we buy or subs we build. “Even worse, it means there is no systematic way to decide what we need at all.”

(At this point I’m going to pointlessly divert and predict that at least some comments below will decry that there’s absolutely no need for any defence capacity beyond that needed for natural disaster relief. The money should instead be spent on health and welfare and edumucation. I’ll just point out that as big as the defence budget is, it’s dwarfed by the spend on those very, very worthy policy areas, not just collectively but individually. Defence gets $21 billion, which is admittedly a hefty chunk o’ change, but they are well shaded by education on just under $30 billion. They’re being laughed at by health on $60 billion. And welfare? They doesn’t even know Defence exists. They be stylin' it, dawg! Livin’ large on $122 billion per calendar goddamn year.)

As White points out, before we go spending those 20-plus bills on whizzbangs and killbots – Disclaimer: Hugh White may never once have actually used the terms whizzbang. Or killbot – “we must first decide quite clearly what we want the ADF to be able to do”.

And part of that is deciding whether we expect America to hang around. (Or China to get gnarly.)

Sweeping in at the death to throw even more cold water and gloom on the debate, Jim Molan peeled back the layers of White’s purely strategic concerns, to reveal the festering politics beneath them. He’s worth quoting a bit.

“We will not make real progress in defence policy until we recognise that governments (not the ADF, not funding, not the quality of the argument or the strategic situation) are the biggest problem in the security of Australia. This is because there is absolutely no incentive for governments to be any clearer on strategic issues than they are at the moment. The result is as Rodger pointed out: voters don't know why governments do things in defence so we cannot assess government performance and therefore cannot hold them accountable. Defence is so convoluted that very few understand it. Australian voters can readily see when things are wrong in health care because it affects them personally and they can vote accordingly. But because defence policy is so esoteric, the lag in cause and effect so long, and secrecy so often abused, Australians are forced to rely on the views of experts even more than in other areas. On the technical side, no government is expert to begin with. By the time ministers become expert, they also see the political benefit in not being open.”

Until governments are willing to be open about why they want to buy a hundred jet fighters or a dozen submarines, “we will never know if 100 fighters or 12 subs is sufficient,” said Molan, “because we don't know the answer to the basic question: 'Sufficient for what?'”

I agree with it all, but doubt that any government of any persuasion will ever play straight with these questions. Because the answers are too horrible to speak of publicly.

198 comments so far

  • That's all a bit serious and thinky. Defense of the realm and all that. I am a bit worried that some people will read 122 billion on welfare and imagine that's all for single moms living large on the susso.

    But I thought we won. Didn't someone report it as 'an honorable peace in Afghanistan"? or is that some other war I am thinking of? Are you implying that the political ones would lie?

    Is wrong that I want defense money spent to build Spartans like those in Halo?

    Commenter
    Barnesm
    Location
    Melbourne
    Date and time
    April 19, 2012, 7:13AM
    • Barnesm, Honorable peace? When America retreated from Vietnam they called it "Honorable Withdrawal" when in fact it was the Vietnamese who kicked them out.
      The same thing will happen in Afghanistan, but they havent worked out a plausible name for it yet. Karzai (the Mayor of Kabul) had better be on the last helicopter out, for his own wellbeing. Australia would do well to stop following the USA (next stop Iran?), who are over $15Trillion in debt, and rising fast. What's that saying? Stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again, and hoping for a different result.

      Commenter
      Brian Harry
      Location
      Tweed Heads NSW
      Date and time
      April 19, 2012, 8:35AM
    • Actually Brian Harry I think the quote refences Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, but I take your point.

      Commenter
      Barnesm
      Location
      Melbourne
      Date and time
      April 19, 2012, 9:43AM
    • Brian Harry Location Tweed Heads

      The US is in about $50 trillion debt - something like

      $17 t - federal
      $16 t - state and local
      $17 t - business and private

      Whilst some business debt is good (remembering 50% of businesses fail in the first 5 years) federal and state is mostly junk. And most private debt, particularly in the US, is complete rubbish. Thus US Tbonds could be considered junk too. The US is something like 300% of GDP in the debt but the winner is the UK which is 500% of GDP in the debt.

      Commenter
      kepler-22b
      Date and time
      April 19, 2012, 10:06AM
    • Kepler22b, Cripes! it's worse than I thought. I think the USA is doomed.

      Commenter
      Brian Harry
      Location
      Tweed Heads NSW
      Date and time
      April 19, 2012, 11:31AM
    • This might sound a tad odd but I reckon Romney as Pres is going to consider hot-seating on a global scale.

      So at the moment hot-seating is just training Aussie soldiers to drive Abrams tanks and if conflict occurs, Aus troops can jump into U.S. Abrams in the M.E. at the drop of a hat. The same is true of Israel sitting on a huge war-ready fleet of vehicles. U.S. troops could fly to Israel and hot seat into Israeli tanks and armored vehicles in a few days if needs be.

      I foresee Romney mothballing U.S. ships and leasing these to allies under refined terms of globalized hot- seating. I see him downsizing fleet capacity and upping naval reserve strength.
      The goal is to cost save- able to lease out ships/tanks/aircraft as opposed to continually having to pay for them while they do nothing.

      It's the next logical next step as it will save the U.S. hundreds of billions.

      Commenter
      Alex
      Location
      Finley
      Date and time
      April 19, 2012, 2:37PM
    • "Defense of the realm and all that."

      It's "defence", not "defense". If you're not prepared to spell correctly, go and live in America.

      Commenter
      Greg Platt
      Location
      Brunswick
      Date and time
      April 19, 2012, 5:32PM
    • Thanks Greg,

      I was about to say how do you know I don't live in America and then remembered I put Melbourne on my posts.

      Commenter
      barnesm
      Location
      Melbourne(or perhaps really America)
      Date and time
      April 19, 2012, 9:19PM
    • Those with the most to lose tend to pay the least amount of taxes that are paying for the defense of their wealth and property. Another argument for a bigger mining taxes, inheritance taxes and heftier taxes for the wealthy?

      He who controls the flow of information may control the hearts and minds of the masses. Only through the internet has the flow of information becomes less restrictive and manipulated to some degree; thus, we have access to alternative viewpoints and leaks that might critique the ruling elite propaganda and expose illegal activities of governments that are tucked away in their secret files. Sun Tzu knew the value of information when it came to developing strategies for winning any war.

      The true enemy of the State are the people who abuse their power at the expense of their citizens, disregard the values of their imagined community (read: nation-state) and betray confidences when they provide information to foreign powers for personal gain. Too often we vote them into positions of power only to find them busy backstabbing the voters.

      Commenter
      Fortune cookie
      Date and time
      April 19, 2012, 9:26PM
    • Barnesm, Melbourne Florida it is - unusual for Greg to get verbally pedantic, but problem solved.

      Commenter
      Christopher
      Date and time
      April 20, 2012, 12:47PM

More comments

Make a comment

You are logged in as [Logout]

All information entered below may be published.

Error: Please enter your screen name.

Error: Your Screen Name must be less than 255 characters.

Error: Your Location must be less than 255 characters.

Error: Please enter your comment.

Error: Your Message must be less than 300 words.

Post to

You need to have read and accepted the Conditions of Use.

Thank you

Your comment has been submitted for approval.

Comments are moderated and are generally published if they are on-topic and not abusive.

Featured advertisers