The Defence Minister and others want you to think that they can map out a Defence strategy. Their kind have not been successful so far because they refuse to address serious Defence dysfunction in any useful manner. The good news is that this is being brought out into the open; credit to Mr. Smith and friends for that anyway. What are the defence goals of Australia?
If the same crew that brought us the worthless Defence White Paper of 2009 puts too much thinking into this effort, don’t expect much value.
Here are some of the problems.
1.In order to improve the strategic thinking in Defence one must take almost all of the Defence White Paper of 2009 and heap all the scorn on it that it deserves. DWP 2009 is a sick joke.
2.Protect fossil fuel resources? Defence threw away a long range strike platform; the F-111; a platform that could in-turn carry stand-off weapons. This was done on a lie. This capability has not been replaced by the Super Hornet.
3.The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is not a credible need for the RAAF. It cannot take on growing anti-access threats in the region and is too faulty and expensive to use for anything else. As an aside, the Super Hornet’s now owned by the RAAF, make a fine 2-seat tactical support aircraft for the Army; in some situations. Neither are capable of maintaining “regional air superiority” that is so often mentioned as a Defence goal.
4.The answer to our submarine problem that has been run into the ditch is not an automatic knee-jerk reaction to build new ones at home. We have not proven the ability to build much less complex surface warships.
5.Involving the failed experiment known as the Defence Material Organisation (DMO) to guard billions in taxpayer dollars is a lost cause. A new house needs a solid foundation. The DMO is an anchor around the neck of soldiers, sailors and airman.
6.Resources wasted on the no-win war known as Afghanistan contributes nothing to the defence of Australia. Platitudes from politicians who have never carried a pack and rifle lack any credibility on this topic.
So, if Australia is not up to addressing the core issues of what ails Defence, you can expect no useful result from this latest announcement on mapping strategic Defence goals.
Where to start? Mr. Smith should involve Air Power Australia to help craft any instrument that is to map out Australia’s strategic defence direction. I don’t think he or Australia would be disappointed. By doing so, he would gain solid thinking that could help to reduce the cancerous behaviour from the existing Defence groupthink cabal.
3 comments:
Eric; full credit to MinDef Stephen Smith for initiating a review of defence strategy because he is up against former PM Rudd in the Federal Cabinet who instituted the flawed DWP 2009 for political motives.
The start point should be an urgent update of the strategic scenario by national intelligence agencies. Unfortunately, much of what they do is presently influenced by Rudd.
A preferred next step would be to assign development of a draft defence strategy, based on the intelligence agencies assessments, to an external agency like the Lowy Institute, whose personnel resources embrace a wide range of expert staff and contributors from relevant fields. It would be folly to again involve the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, which is patronised by DoD and major arms conglomerates 'corporate partners'.
A draft document from this process should then be published inviting public input which would reflect the views of the people how they wish defence capabilities to be structured, within affordability constraints.
The intended review by 2 former Secretaries of Defence is unlikely to remediate the serious failings of ongoing defence capabilities planning, as the DoD and military hierarchy will stoutly defend their flawed decisions, preferring not to suspend the ongoing Defence Capability Plan.
I just saw this story over on Air-Attack.com about the new streamlined UK MoD. A lot of what is in the key points makes sense, particularly about accountability to the chiefs, streamlining decision making and making better use of people by filling posts with the right person and keeping them longer. Also a greater focus on affordability is welcome news. This plan needs to be dropped on the top of the pile of papers on Steven Smiths desk so he can see how the UK is dealing with the problem.
Seems there are a few rays of sunshine that have come out of the slaughterhouse of the UK armed services.
http://air-attack.com/news/article/4515/06-27-2011-UK-Defence-Secretary-unveils-blueprint-for-Defence-Reform.html
Perhaps Eric you may want to add it to your links of interest?
Nahh,... This would make to much sense for Australian Government. Far better to create another layer of bureaucracy to paper over the crack for a few more years. Than actually allow the ADF the freedom and accountability to stand on it's own two feet.
Post a Comment