- The Strategist - https://www.aspistrategist.org.au -
Vale, Mike Clifford
Posted By Peter Jennings on November 8, 2017 @ 14:30
Let’s not speak of them when accountability or lack of it is everywhere else, but where the Westminster system suggests it should be! The First Principles Review (FPR) is another review which heralds ‘transformational change’ and points the finger at the Australian Defence Organisation as the primary culprit of the current malaise … But let’s try and get the back story clear before we start making judgements about the most recent in a long line of defence reviews.
Firstly governments and ministers are not blameless. Significant defence reform is almost always initiated by governments and implementation plans then approved by the Minister or Cabinet or both. The growth in top-line staff numbers, much trumpeted in the media as proof of uncontrolled inefficiencies, has in all cases been agreed by Government to meet operational needs or been a response to recommendations from Government-initiated reviews. Nevertheless Defence, like all large organisations, needs a good pruning from time to time.
Let me state up front: the heavy/light and high-intensity/low-intensity debate is complete rot! Disconnected from strategic guidance? Again rot! I for one am more concerned with saving lives and giving the government of the day the best options available when it looks to use and deploy ground forces. Have we all been asleep over the last decade as Australian lives have been saved by armour?
Any uncertainty around the rationale for Australia’s commitment is a concern and demands clarification—particularly as the government made clear when the ADF deployed to the Middle East in response to ISIS that it was doing so within a US-led strategy. However … the fight against Islamic State is still a campaign without a strategy. The concern is if we’re waiting for the US administration to point the way, it’ll be a long wait.
In any Defence endeavour, lessons need to be learned. But the learning process needs to be based on the real events rather than a growing folklore or revisionist capability aspirations. Nevertheless there’s no argument that the capability potential offered by HMAS Canberra and NUSHIP Adelaide is significant. The challenge for policymakers is to understand how to get the most from the ships—in particular, how they might use the new capability to further Australia’s national interests. This is certainly not limiting tasks to the left of the conflict spectrum—that was never the intent. But if it involves expanding the capability to be a ‘full spectrum’ amphibious assault capability, so be it.
Article printed from The Strategist: https://www.aspistrategist.org.au
URL to article: https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/vale-mike-clifford/
[1] assessment of the role of defence ministers: https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/defence-reform-lets-address-the-minister-in-the-room/
[2] passionately held view: https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/army-and-armour-moving-the-debate-forward/
[3] anti-ISIS military operations in the Middle East: https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/cats-clutter-and-uncertainty/
[4] challenges of building an amphibious capability: https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/the-adfs-amphibious-capability-some-additional-thoughts/