He states many things that are not logical. He brings up the Defence-must-be-2pc-of-GDP without mentioning that it is a bad idea. It will never happen in an entitlement society deep in federal debt.
He states that so many things in Defence will go unfunded; that there isn't enough money for Defence projects.
Good.
Many Defence projects are based on bad requirements; are poorly executed; defective; and contribute no value to our national defence posture.
For example, Australia doesn't need "Air Warfare Destroyers". Especially ones with obsolete radar systems.
Australia does not need Canberra-class LHDs--including the wet-dream-fantasy of the unmentioned option of STOVL F-35Bs (that is why the ski-jump is on the front of the ship). Navy's strategy is to just not mention it and hope for glory later (along with a pre-2007 view on available federal funds).
Australia does not need defective F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. For any number of reasons including the fact that the Australian people were lied to about this project.
And what about the submarine replacement program? What can be said that has not been already?
Professor Dupont should consider taking a closer look at the festering sore that is the DMO.
What should the next Defence white paper contain?
Rebuilding and reformation only. That is, lay out a plan for professional military education that sticks. Punish those that break the law. Regain a true military ethos that concentrates on war-fighting and service-before-self.
Not the current method of self-before-service by many in leadership positions.
The next defence white paper should mention little about hardware and a majority in regard to the professional military person. Without this, any shopping list of hardware is useless.
The professor then states this:
"Logic and history suggest that Australia must be capable of deploying and sustaining a credible force anywhere in the world, not just in our immediate neighbourhood."
I suspect that depends on your definition of "logic" and "history". At least Korea and Vietnam were in the Pacific Rim.
But let us look at Afghanistan. The initial U.S. response to 9/11 was this:
“The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.”
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
“I want justice…There’s an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive,’”
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI
No mention of nonsense nation building in a tribal culture with no practical use. But that is what happened.
The original reason for U.S. involvement in that region was to get Osama. Not nation building. Once Bush and Congress helped out all of their war-profiteer friends (that also contribute big dollars to election campaigns), this is what happened:
“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
“I am truly not that concerned about him.”
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden’s whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
Yup. That is where Australia gets its inspiration to go off and fight Operation: USELESS DIRT.
I would suggest that Australia has no business doing defence work outside of the Pacific Rim or close Indian Ocean region.
The ADF will never be big enough to support allies that run off on dumb wars with no real objective. The ADF however should always be, the go-to nation for its allies when needs of regional defence security and humanitarian response required in the ADF's backyard.
Australia can have that capability and have a cap on annual military spending of $20B per year.
With good leadership, maybe even a few billion less.
Australia does not need rent-seekers and foreign-owned companies urging the public to fund gold plated weapons programs that have nothing to do with a sensible national security posture.
Especially with such deskilled ADF senior leadership.
---
-New Defence White Paper fails to address Australia's core security needs
-2009 Defence White Paper Fantasy
-Analysing "The ADF Air Combat Capability- On the Record"
-Find out who is responsible for the Air Warfare Destroyer mess
-Analysis of Defence Materiel Organisation Major Projects Management and What Needs to be Fixed
-New DMO Boss warns the staff that business as usual is over
-How dangerous is the Defence Material Organisation to our Defence Industry?
-Australia's Failing Defence Structure and Management Methodology
-More on the dud-jamming gear Defence wants to buy
-ADF cost per flying hour
-I will wipe out bullying vows new Defence chief (Houston 2005)
-Vacancy
-Put Vol 2 Report of DLA Piper Review into the light of day
-Rory and Jim
-Parasitism as an Abstraction for Organizational Dysfunctions
-Hobart-class "Air Warfare Destroyer" to be fielded with obsolete radar guidance technology
-The Decay Of Critical Military Thinking And Writing-With Particular Reference To The RAAF
-Newspaper guy gets it right about sub project.... big time
-The great M-1 tank myth
---
No comments:
Post a Comment