$10 Billion is an awful lot of money, a bit beyond the comprehension of most of us. We need a different way of expressing the value of such expenditures.

Allowing for inflation, let's grant our nurses and policemen say, $50,000 per annum. Now we have a new yardstick expressed in nurse/policemen-years.

So $10 Billion = 200,000 nurse/policemen-years. That could equal 2000 nurses and policemen employed for a span of 100 years, or if you like 10,000 nurses and policemen employed for 20 years. Cut the cake any way you like, it's a lot of value up in smoke.

What do we get in return for this?

We get sophisticated ways of killing people in other countries, whose governments have seen fit to make similar economies.

Let's up the ante a little and add some escalation into the equation. For this we will need to invent a mythical country to the north. Let's call it Smithonesia, because it is full of people who all look the same to yer average Aussie consumer.

The government of Smithonesia feels the need to meet this threat, but being a poor country, has to sacrifice the equivalent of 30,000 nurses for 25 years and perhaps 10,000 teachers for 10 years and a hospital or ten.

Vindicated by this military activity to the north, the Australian government, always mindful of security, throws in the remainder of the dental health scheme, a chunk of the education system and the bulk of the mental health services on the purchase of killing machines.

Such behaviour in the individual would be classified as certifiable insanity, but we swallow this twaddle because it is delivered to us by our high priests. It is 5000 years since the pyramids were built, but upon reflection I think we have lost a fair bit of ground.

The next time you see your Minister for Defense smirking on the TV, remember that he is in on the joke.

G'day Chris,

You are right on the ball, as usual.

Our foreign policy is a grossly neglected subject in the media, why is it no one mentions the figures you just mentioned?
Because then Australians might get a little upset and decide they would much prefer the Nurses/policeman/teachers.

The govt. loves to get on their high horse about their
adventures in the Solomon’s. Of course no one cares to mention that the PM in the Solomons requested Aussie assistance in 2000, but we ignored him, only when production at the Gold Ridge Mine stopped did we start to give a toss.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for helping the good people of the Solomon’s, but we should be made aware of the real cost and the real motivations.

Yeah, I agree that labelling nations 'failed states' is probably going to be detrimental not only to these countries, but also Australia's relationship with them.

At the same time, we need to bear in mind that we don't want to go overboard, and refuse to accurately label these scenarios. There is a great deal of tact required, but now and then you do have to lay your cards on the table.

Though this is hardly the first time our ministers have made detrimental comments. How bone-headed was the prime minister's 'deputy sheriff' comment a while back. That one was just plain painful.

Ultimately, we have a government that is much better at appeasing western powers than those closer to home.

I can't help but feel the Australian approach to politics in the south-asian region is flawed. Our government doesn't appear to know when to give ground, and when to remain steadfast in its decisions. These comments also indicate that on top of that, a number of senior ministers need to learn when to keep their collective gob shut.

States have descended into anarchy, mass killing and a host of all the other crimes associated with riotous behaviour, including rape, looting etc. And troops have, and will continue to bring those situations to order to the overwhelming relief of the majority of citizens. And here we have poor Harry with the vexed issue, "But is the label “failing” or “failed” likely to make these countries more comfortable and friendly or more depressed and resentful?"

That really depends on whether it was your house or shop that was burned down or your wife, daughter or mother that was raped, Harry.

Would you have us excuse this sort of breakdown as some sort of cultural practice to be repected for "diplomatic" niceties? Like explaining away the machine gunning of a funeral in Dilli as some sort of quaint old Javanese custom to be respected by culturally sensitive metro elites.

Yes labelling is detrimental to the labelled.
The UN is the place to address such questions before labelling.
Although much white anted by various self serving countries, continued support, including giving it a permanent force, soldiers to nurses accountants to lawyers, to enforce recommendations is worth while.
Okay sure some countries not wanting to meld national sovereignty with international law and force, whilst still as needed trotting out the value of international peace, will try to sabotage this.
Our Foreign Minister has expressed severe reservation about how the UN is functioning, though little in the way of constructive suggestion and our prime minister prefers the rule of those with might as having a probably effective stake in the outcome.
Being cynical might this be reason for labelling and building forces to cope?
We can, in a small pool be a big fish!
Naturally any outcome would depend on labelling just as the label WMD served those desirous of war. The intelligence says they were there? Downing Street Memo says they were not a big threat but useful for propaganda, and so it was!
(The memo is the record of a UK cabinet meeting, July 2002, discussing going to war leaked May 2005.)

Yes the labelling is counter productive and so is the expenditure on arms - but if Peter Costello feels comfortable advising the Islamic world to follow in the footsteps of Ataturk then Johnny and Lexy sure as hell are relaxed about labelling any one they see fit as a failed state.

At a time when the world spend on armaments has topped 1.4 trillion the highest since the peak of the cold war when we were at some risk the question has to be asked is it worth it.

The answer clearly is no

There have been credible studies conducted that show that the bigger the gap between rich and poor, then the greater will be the level of instability and violence.

Spending more on weapons is only seeking to treat a symptom instead of addressing the cause.

With lots of money being spent on weapons around the world we need to ask, cui bono?

I think you guys are being incredibly naive.

Australia has one of the smallest per capita military budgets in the civilised world. You want peace? As history proves again and again,(eg France 1940) the best way to ensure peace is to prepare for war.

As it stands we are extremely dependant on the US for our defence needs. Given that most of you lot (based on your many previous postings) would like to see Australia less beholden to the US, you ought to be in favour of us being less dependant on them. Only when our leaders really believe we can look after ourselves can you lot really expect our leadership (labour or liberal) to take foreign policy positions which are not strongly influenced by the interests and preferences of our US ally.

Our long term survival depends on either a strong military or a strong alliance with the US.

Peace, man