Many people who are centre-left and beyond tend to ignore the issue of defense, I guess in part because their loathing of wars between nations is so intense that they simply have a visceral dislike of even looking at the issue.

The effect of this is of course is to leave the territory of defense policy uncontested which is why, of course, politically conservative forces are able to claim that they are better managers of this topic despite the disaster of their current track record.

Personally, I have an interest in defense strategy, military history and the technologies of war mainly on a similar visceral motivation; I hate war, but I also realise I must understand it. I have also been blessed by meeting a number of excellent people in the Australian Armed Forces who also seem to share this attitude.

These issues, especially "those bloody planes" and "those bloody tanks", - as one of such people put in it in even more colourful language - have caused enormous concern among those who have even some knowledge of military technology and national strategy. They are an incredible waste of scare finances whose only purpose, so it seems, is to ensure our future participation in cavalier military adventures dictated by a certain superpower and to pay for the privilege of doing so.

A timely, appropriate and accurate article.

Betrayal, clumsy, scary and embarrassing is my honest response to the Howard governments military spending spree in Defense.

I have not felt safe with Brendon Nelson. The hostilities, lack of transparencies, the hash ups in public debate over artillery hardware and design, and the usefulness of funds spent concerning the large ships and faulty helicopters. The lack of previsionary health funds and debacles on our soldiers returning. The horrifying treatment of female officers and the bullying generally within the forces. A shocking state of affairs.

The Dense force under Howard is a narrow approach. It lacks true vision as this was revealed in the gaff retrieved by Brendon Nelson recently, as he explained Australia's motive for going to war with Iraq was about oil.

I think it is important for a nation to have both leadership and a higher vision when it comes to Defense. A 'do by example' collective approach that reflects our valuable citizenship.

I think a Defense force motivated by fear (as it is present) is archaic and bound to be draconian. This character trait undermines the potential. The opportune moments to be greater, for all Australia.

Vision influences the style of spending and becomes critical in the way a nation buys or manufactures its hardware, needed by it's forces. The vision ought not be about more boys and their heavy toys!

Today, a progressive Defense Budget must reflect through development planning, many kinds of purposes. Consider the many roles that a force might, maybe or can be deployed.

I suspect what is missing in the Australian Defense at the moment is identity. Our Defense force needs a visionary multi-pronged dynamic approach toward multi-tasking in the future.

Technically it needs to be innovative, sound in purpose with a keen eye for what is possible and or expected or extended from a developed nation such as ours.

http://www.miacat.com
.

in a way, a good article. but who reads it? does the reader contribute to the decision-making process in oz?

ozzians could have defended themselves against the japanese, in much the same way switzerland defended themselves against the werhmacht: by saying "we'll make you wish you didn't invade", because the prize of victory would not be worth the cost. the japanese army high command understood this, just as the wehrmacht did.

they can use the same strategy now. but this not so much a matter of military strategy as it is political strategy. the masters of the usa and oz conspire together against the interests of their own electorates.

the oz libs get a vote winning slogan:"we're the party that provides american protection". the americans get a dumping ground for their unwanted military machinery

IT'S A COMPLEX SUBJECT, but as one who has dived into an air-raid shelter at Bowen and waited for the all clear when Townsville had bombs dropped on it by Jap planes, I would like to put my opinion in.I do remember my Dad and his fellow school-teacher mate, argueing about what to do if the Japs landed,Dad said he'd take Mum and his five kids in the Austin 7 take as much fuel and head as far west as he could.Ted, his mate said he'd take his 22rifle and go down and try and stop them!They were both in the V.D.C. and trained with broomsticks, no rifles were issued.When the Yanks moved in with the CATALINA BASE, we kids had a ball, give a Yank a ride on your pony and score a packed of LUCKY STIKE cigarettes.When a plane crash landed after a Bombing raid over the Solomans.We collected perspex to fashion broches from the wreck.I firmly believe the CORAL SEA BATTLE was a vital factor in our defence but the KOKODA TRAIL and CURTIN'S insistance that Churchill send home our troops, even though they were given no escort for their ship.HEY!We were bloody lucky!John HOWARD would be shot in WARTIME for his "Buying from the plan" of Aircraft to defend us.And where are our SHIPS to supply our defense troops.Oh they are in the GULF!maritime ships? we haven't got any! Such a small coastline could easily be defended..PIGS! There I've said it!

What a lot of ill-informed twaddle.

The 1986 Review of Australia’s Defence Capabilities by Professor Paul Dibb satisfied the Hawke government’s requirements to cut the size of the Defence Force by finding an economic solution to a strategic problem. The Army’s capabilities were whittled away and any capability that could conceivably be used for deployment was deemed irrelevant.

Our ships were ‘fitted for but not with’ weapon systems and the govenment became obsessed with ridding the force of 'British traditions' such as the Waterloo Dinner without even understanding that this began on the shores of Gallipoli to celebrate construction of the first ‘permanent’ pier by Australian engineers. The incompetence was staggering.

Fortunately, Kim Beazley came to the rescueand the purchase of Light Armoured Vehicles for the Army ‘was made counter to all well-established defence force equipment procurement procedures’, to use the authors own turn of phrase. Like the contentious, purchase of F-111 aircraft and Leopard tanks with a previously untried turret this was seen, in time, as a well conceived procurement.

The replacement combat system for the Collins submarine was a stroke of brilliance that will bring our conventional submarines into the 21st Century and undo the failure of this procurement which was a Labor initiative.

Under the tutelage of successive Labor Governments we gradually became a third-world defence force.

It was the Howard Government that recognised the decrepit and hollow state of our national defences and fast-tracked enhancements to allow Australian forces to deploy to East Timor.

The authors has got it wrong on defence lease-back and housing too. Privatisation of housing began in 1987. I remember soldiers had to live in houses that were not fit for dogs complete with rotting floorboards and stairs that collapsed like a deck of cards. Single soldiers sometimes got electric shocks through the showers because the rats had got into the wiring.

That’s enough …

Two aspects are missing.
Firstly how unsafe are we? And following on that who and how do they decide on our interests and perils, the likelihood limited wars, nuclear is out except for the maniacs, and the preparation needed. Gwynne Dyer in War argues a war with to-days weapons means all are gone rapidly and resupply b y building too late, based on the argument of production time, cost and lethality.
Second no mention is made of the UN, an attempt, flawed if you will, to police belligerency much as is done within a nation state.. Whatever causes war, a policing should do much to produce a diplomatic solution. Since this seems an attractive proposition given that taking resources is now probably more expensive than purchase.
In that vein I would just ask even if the Persian Gulf was denied and oil interdicted would the USA demise? Doubtful though greater thought and action might be made w toward reducing dependence on oil a proposal made as often at least as elections. But that is an aside though perhaps relevant for causes.
No the point not noted is that we have chosen, yes I know variously stated many most objected to an illegal war, to trash a foreign country for know good apparent reason. Goaded by misinformation lies propaganda and the media plus of course the Gov. own media controls a wave of fear perhaps prompted the agreement to the move. But the espouses are at least chargeable under our own Criminal Law based on the Rome Statute.
The relevance of course is that if this war was made for reasons of hubris, oil the New American Century, Israel or by a group of people who managed to inhabit the echelons of the Whitehouse limiting the ability (and reason) to wage war renders the choice of weaponry less fraught with immediacy provoked by panic or hubris