Home » International » Aussies Battle Over Army’s Soul; Huge Spending Decisions at Stake

Aussies Battle Over Army’s Soul; Huge Spending Decisions at Stake

By Colin Clark Saturday, December 27th, 2008 10:24 pm
Posted in International, Land, Policy

The battle is on for the military soul of what is arguably America’s closest ally, Australia.

The center of the fight is the role of the Aussie army, most famous for its elite SAS soldiers who have played such an important role in both Iraq and Afghanistan. While I was in Canberra just before Christmas, I heard that the troubled White Paper the government is trying to turn out will hinge on what role the Army is to have. And much of that will be driven by the debate over just what strategy Australia’s military should embrace.

Work on the White Paper — forecasting the country’s military needs for the next 20 years — began in February this year and has not progressed well, according to several Australian sources. Apparently there are several factors in play. Those leading the study cannot agree on the country’s strategic fundamentals. The services cannot agree on the fundamental roles they will play. The Air Force and Navy both want to be strategic forces, able to project power around much of the Pacific, raising basic questions about affordability and the division of spoils among the services. And there is a new Australian government in place, led by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. Joel Fitzgibbon is the new Labor Minister for Defense. On top of all this, of course, the global financial crisis will play its own role in helping determine how Australia changes how it spends its roughly $22 billion Australian annual budget for defense. The Australian budget gets done in May.

At stake in the White Paper are some fundamental capability choices. Should Australia buy 100 Joint Strike Fighters? I think this is a given, considering how well they suit Australia’s strategic needs and the extremely close relationships it would foster between the air forces and navies of Australia and the US. Should the country replace its six Collins Class subs that caused so much financial and political heartache? And how should the Navy modernize its surface fleet. But these choices will all, in the end, revolve around the role and design of the Aussie army, the heart of the country’s military.

In addition to the White Paper, the military is engaged in a force structure review to figure out just what size forces and types of capabilities the country needs, in addition to a number of studies on issues such as information and communications technology, industrial base, science and technology and logistics systems.

The traditional view of the Australian army — by far the largest service here with roughly 27,000 members — is that the country’s relatively uninhabited north is the fulcrum for the country’s defense. Any likely enemy force is likely to pour down on Darwin or Broome to the west or even via Cape York on the country’s eastern tip.

It’s certainly not a new discussion, as one of my sources noted. I first heard about the “northern strategy” when I interviewed the Chief of the Defense Force, Army Gen. John Baker, back in 1997. The debate surfaced again in earnest when Australia drafted its last major defense White Paper in 2000. An Australian Army major, Sean Ryan, produced a concise discussion of the issue in this paper produced while at the US Army Command and General Staff College when that debate was being hammered away at over middies of Coopers and Victoria Bitter in Canberra’s pubs.

“The northern approaches from Southeast Asia and the Southwest Pacific represent the most likely and dangerous approaches to Australia. Should an adversary cross these approaches it will encounter the harsh northern regions of Australia, regions that are limited in infrastructure and populations. The harshness of this region also acts as a double edged sword for military operations. The lack of infrastructure and support bases limits the ability of the ADF [Australian Defense Force] to repel an adversary quickly. It is because of this factor that the army must look carefully at what capabilities it will require. The geography will naturally force the army to look for a mobile force that can move quickly to counter the adversary.”

An Australian source pointed out that the larger military debate here about the size and capability of the force has three main streams. First, should Australia build a power projection force? That option can almost certainly be cast aside, though it is the favored view of the Air Force and Navy here. This requires a fleet of airborne tankers, a sizeable Navy and an enormous logistics capability. But Australia just can’t afford this, either in dollars or in manpower. Second, should Australia pour its resources into the snake eater community, also known as the SAS? Some in the Australian government would pursue this, pointing to the superb performance of the SAS in the varied terrains and missions of Afghanistan and Iraq. But special forces are, well, special. Australia has a shallow manpower pool which makes it difficult to find numbers of the smart, tough and flexible personalities required to build SAS teams. And special forces are fabulously expensive. They use ammunition with abandon when they pursue the incredibly rigorous live ammunition exercises they engage in. And they are provided with the best and latest communications gear, aviation and ground support and intelligence. All that gets very pricey. And the Australian regular forces are just as skeptical of their snake eaters as are the US services.

So that leaves the focus on the Aussie army, a highly capable force but one that is still uncertain of its larger role. Australia owns heavy battle tanks but will never be considered a major armored force in the world since it fields only one armored battalion. Australia deploys superb light infantry and this is the core of the force. There are three light infantry battalions. And there are the special forces troops, as well as helo pilots and recon troops. But the country does not field a true land division, an organic force that can deploy and fight as one, carrying all its essential parts and capabilities into battle.

The Rudd government committed in May to spending $650 million Australian for the “Enhanced Land Force,” which will mean a second mechanized battalion and the conversion of a parachute battalion for the third light infantry battalion.

What did our Aussie major recommend? Ryan said they should build “a full regular division with supporting troops and a more flexible army reserve force, develop a larger training force that can handle internal and external tasks, and maintenance of the existing sustaining force.”

But Australia has not fielded such a force really since World War II and my sources say it is extremely unlikely to ever do so. The key to all this palaver may be for Australia to figure out just how it will play in international coalitions, where it can really leverage its special skills and capabilities and maintain the focus on the good old “northern strategy.” After all, if world war breaks out Australia could then defend its territory and maintain its diplomatic and strategic role by contributing to whatever alliance power provided this enormous island continent with essential air and sea protection.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Join the Conversation

	Thomas Jefferson January 1st, 2009 at 9:41 am Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows the United Kingdom is still the United States closest ally. The Aussies are a distant second to the Palms. It is high time the US started being a good ally in return.
	Reader Bob January 1st, 2009 at 10:06 am To be a regional force that is recognized in today’s ever changing world, one country can not go it alone no matter how big or small. There must be partnerships formed that are lasting and rock solid. This will assure peace as you prepare for war. It will also give each country an unique opportunity to invest into each other with will strengthen the bond that makes peace achievable. The USA has several of these partnerships throughout the world and works to strengthen them at every opportunity. Part of what comes with these partnerships are the costs. These costs are found in materials, training, equipment, and sadly in lives. Each country would rather fight, if there must be a fight, in their adversary’s country and not in one of the partnerships. Such is the case with Australia. They are buying new modern American aircraft to arm themselves. They no doubt have and will continue to train with American military. They also have upheld their partnership by going into battle with America in Iraq and Afghanistan. This bond they share with America has only been strengthened and they know should they need help or assistance America is but a 911 call away. How Australia aligns its military and the role each of her services play is entirely up to Australia and will be respected accordingly.
	P Scott January 1st, 2009 at 10:17 am America’s closest ally? What about the UK?
	Rod January 1st, 2009 at 1:09 pm The article reads a little like the author is trying to suck up to the Aussie military. Lots of questionable praise. While I was there last year on business I was told that due to their goofy gun laws the military cannot train at home with ammo larger than 5.56. An incredible disadvantage when they have to use larger calibers to survive in the sandbox. People in government will tell you that their helicopters and submarines cannot be maintained and are less than marginal on today’s battlefield. A better, more hardworking people does not exist than the Aussies, and their military history is a source of great pride for them. Unfortunately, like the U.S., they are being led by politicians who are more interested in implementing their ideologies than in addressing real-world threats to a free society.
	3 War LTC January 1st, 2009 at 3:05 pm The Aussie dilemma is cost versus wants versus real needs. Add to this the problem of the world wide near depression and you have an internal politcal problem. Home land defense requires both power projection and the ability to drive an invading force back to the beach and into the water. SAS and SOF support are very costly. However SAS and SOF cannot repel a major invasion from the sea or by conventional airborne forces. A modern military for a nation the size of Australia may well be a down sized military given the hugh costs involved…especially during a near depression.
	Chris Yelpoc January 1st, 2009 at 10:52 pm Australia our closest ally? What absolute nonsense! The UK is — and always will be — our closest ally…bar none. Most folks here don’t know just how close we are with the “Brits”. There are Royal Navy Captains commanding US Naval ships and vice-versa, we have umpteen Marine Aviation units stationed on Royal Navy carriers, literally hundreds of US Army officers command British Army units — from Regimental and Battalion levels down to Infantry Companies and Armored Squadrons — with their British counterparts doing the same over here.…don’t even get me started on their superb Special Forces (such as the SAS and SBS) and, my very best experiences, being attached to the Royal Marines was the highlight of my service life!
	Colin Clark January 2nd, 2009 at 12:00 am No doubt the UK has a greater population and greater national wealth than does Australia. And they are America’s good friends. In fact, those of you who argue Britain may be America’s most important ally may be right. But I wanted to point out how intimate is our relationship with the Australians, which is why I said they are “arguably our closest ally”. An Australian by the name David Kilcullen is currently one of America’s top counter-insurgency advisors and has been granted clearances allowing him access to what may be an unprecedented array of classified information, according to intelligence sources I’ve spoken with. The strength of Australia’s relationship with America was greatly boosted under the previous Howard government and the current Labor government led by Rudd has fundamentally maintained that close relationship both in defense and national security terms. And Australia and Britain are the only countries for which the US has taken extraordinary steps to draft and eventually pass treaties allowing the powers much greater and simpler sharing of military technology and weapons. On top of all that, the Aussies play a key role working with us in Asia and the Pacific, places of great military interest for us these days.
	rbrenzelsr January 2nd, 2009 at 2:58 pm It is easy to over and understate relationships’ value to the US of many nations. Governments change. Ideology of those governments sometimes get in the way of common sense. I have trouble with the “other colonies” governments from time to time and their internal policies but I always harbor a belief that the English speaking nations will hold together when any are threatened or attacked by outside force. Diplomacy, ideology do not trump blood (Language being a metaphor). I have begun to wonder, if the recent side take by the White House in the self-declared independence of Kosovo will haunt us when its look alike, California inhabitants,seek independence?
	Dave R January 2nd, 2009 at 3:39 pm Its position in the southwest Pacific, where it accesses both the Indian Ocean oil lanes and those lanes leading north to China, Japan and Korea, make Australia an indispensable ally. Beside, I suggest there is a bond among English speaking peoples.
	S Caine January 2nd, 2009 at 7:48 pm Come on you lot — let’s not do a kids fight about whose friend is who. We are all allies and Australia is unique in many ways in that it shares a strategic region with the US along with many shared issues relating to this area. Overall, Britain doesn’t have a real strategic view in this region and hasn’t (in my view) since the fall of Singapore. As for the UK/US swap with military personnel — same happens here with the UK/US and NZ. As for the ADF, it is shackled by the politicians with the infantry battalions not deployed overseas on war-like operations — hence people are leaving flat out as they can’t get to do their jobs. Is it fair that Australia continually asks other nations to do the war-fighting while getting excited over “niche” capability like engineering tasks? As for Rod’s view on gun laws and not being able to train with a calibre higher that 5.56 — rubbish! Nothing to do with gun laws and I’ve never had that issue in training.
	Tordenskiold January 4th, 2009 at 3:26 pm A bit amazed by the fact that Australia still sees a land invasion from the north as a viable scenario to plan and prepare for. When that, which is so remote from the sort of missions that the Australian Army carries out from day to day is their structuring factor, of course they will end up in an imbalance!
	ELP January 8th, 2009 at 5:11 pm No known price, schedule or known capability other than what is hyped on the F-35. Before you can talk defence procurement, you have to know that the Australian Defence procurement system is broken. But yeah roll the dice on a jet with less than 2% of the flight testing complete.
	Steve Innes June 6th, 2009 at 12:09 am I agree with S.Caine. Aussie troops are leaving in droves — faster than they can be recruited, in fact. Why? they are not getting involved in the fight in Afghanstan, or anywhere else, as much as they would like and the majority of active operations are reserved for the SF teams there. This leaves experienced infantrymen, AFV and MBT crews, mortarmen, gunners MP’s and all the rest stuck at home twiddling thumbs or toiling in pointless civil unrest prevention tasks in Timor Leste or the Solomons. Iraq they missed out on entirely and the majority of them feel they will miss out in Afghanistan too, unless their government grows a set in short order. This is a source of embarrassment to them as well as frustration and at the end of the day it is not their fault but the government’s. The Aussies are itching to fight and the sooner it can happen the better for all concerned. I only hope, that with the appointment of a new gung-ho Defence Minister, replaced Joel Fitzgibbon only on Friday 5th June, that the ADF will now get the chance to rock.
	Stephen June 6th, 2009 at 10:13 am “arguably America’s closest ally, Australia.” I think AIPAC would take exception to that comment.
	GusP February 22nd, 2010 at 10:15 am “arguably America’s closest ally, Australia.” I think Australia fought along side the US in every major conflict from WW1 until now.Including 10 years in Vietnam I’ve never read anything about UK forces in Vietnam.