{"id":13217,"date":"2014-04-07T06:00:59","date_gmt":"2014-04-06T19:00:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=13217"},"modified":"2014-04-08T10:11:36","modified_gmt":"2014-04-08T00:11:36","slug":"the-canberra-military-officer-2-the-old-and-new-testaments","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/the-canberra-military-officer-2-the-old-and-new-testaments\/","title":{"rendered":"The Canberra military officer (2): the Old and New Testaments"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/a><\/p>\n Here\u2019s one version of the creation story of Australia\u2019s defence organisation and civil\u2013military relations: God made heaven and earth, and on the sixth day, just before He rested, God made Arthur Tange.<\/p>\n No, wait, that\u2019s not right\u2014it puts all the emphasis on the last third of the 20th century. So let\u2019s try another story that can better encompass the century. In the Old Testament, you find the Book of Civ\u2013Mil and the Moses figure, Sir Frederick Shedden (Defence Secretary for nearly 19 years from 1937 to 1956). In the New Testament, there\u2019s Tange (Secretary of the External Affairs Department 1954\u20131965 and Defence Secretary 1970\u20131979).<\/p>\n This series is about the creation of the Canberra military officer. Thus, it must be about the workings of the Defence system and the military interaction with government and bureaucracy, covered by that ungainly term \u2018civ\u2013mil\u2019 (a hyphenated effort that seeks to both join and differentiate). In this effort, creation stories matter.<\/p>\n Shedden and Tange are proof that Australia can produce great Defence Secretaries as well as great military officers. In this creation story, though, the New Testament goes to war with the Old. Tange\u2019s purpose was to lay waste to much of what Shedden did.<\/p>\n To get a sense of Shedden\u2019s Old Testament, see David Horner\u2019s account<\/a>. While Shedden deserves to be on any extended list of the Seven Dwarfs (the great Canberra public service mandarins<\/a>), one of the key observations Horner reports is Robert Menzies\u2019\u2014that the problem with Defence was ‘the dead hand of Fred Shedden\u2019.<\/p>\n The Menzies view\u2014that changing the Secretary changes Defence\u2014has reverberated through a lot of governments that followed. Beheading Defence Secretaries has become quite the Canberra sport. The personality type of most government ministers (\u2018I am going to make things happen and I will determine what happens.\u2019) means they are naturally attracted to the idea that changing a key person will make all the difference; in this universe, structural\/institutional explanations for the intractable or the inscrutable tend to be seen as obfuscation or avoidance.<\/p>\n The institutional\/structural view of Defence always being Defence was given to me on a sunny day many seasons back, in the non-members bar of the Old Parliament. The explanation took less time than a single beer, but decades on some of the taste lingers: if the many parts of Defence prove to be as good at defeating Australia\u2019s enemies as they are at defeating their own leaders, then Australia has little to fear from a cruel world.<\/p>\n When I arrived in Canberra in the late 1970s and started reporting on Defence, Tange was coming to the end of his reign. But you\u2019d have to have been a most insensitive newby not to feel the Tange aura. This was a man who changed Defence using brains, bile, bluster and bullying. (See here<\/a>, here<\/a> and here<\/a>.) To see how elements of the Old Testament recurred in the making of the New Testament, note Horner\u2019s citation<\/a> of a quote on Shedden describing him as a powerful personality who was ruthless with those who crossed him, and devastating with those who couldn\u2019t rise to his exceptional standards of performance.<\/p>\n Tange shared those and other traits with Shedden (industrious administrator and skilled defender of turf), and perhaps that helped Tange as he dismantled the structure he\u2019d inherited. In relatively short order, Tange killed off four separate institutions, the Departments of Army, Navy, Air Force and Supply (each with a separate minister) and produced a single Defence Department; he brought forth the diarchy and resurrected\/fathered the term the Australian Defence Force.<\/p>\n As Tange explained: \u2018I took the opportunity to employ symbolism to reflect the concept that a common purpose must govern the activities of the three Services. I restored to usage the compendious title \u201cAustralian Defence Force\u201d which the 1915 Defence Act had declared to be composed of \u2018three arms\u2019… In due course (after my time) the commander had his title changed to the unambiguous \u2018Chief of the Defence Force.\u2019<\/p>\n These New Testament creations have forced the Oz military to reshape and reorientate rather than completely unmake the meaning and effect of Tange\u2019s revolution. For Tange\u2019s own account of his views and methods, download his personal memoir (a great read for Canberra tragics), \u2018Defence Policy-Making: A close-up view, 1950\u20131980<\/a>\u2019.<\/p>\n Tange\u2019s attack on the Old Testament was that it valued consistency above innovation, process above outcome: \u2018In my discussions with Shedden over the years, I heard few opinions on Australia\u2019s strategic interests or priorities. He was more interested, it seemed, in procedures and respect for the Defence Committee.\u2019 In attacking the three services, the word Tange used a couple of times was tribalism. That\u2019ll be the starting point for the next in this series: how the tribes in khaki, white and blue came together and found a new land they called\u2026<\/p>\n