{"id":23392,"date":"2015-11-13T13:29:27","date_gmt":"2015-11-13T02:29:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=23392"},"modified":"2015-11-13T15:05:02","modified_gmt":"2015-11-13T04:05:02","slug":"back-to-the-future-for-the-armys-force-structure-debate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/back-to-the-future-for-the-armys-force-structure-debate\/","title":{"rendered":"Back to the future for the Army\u2019s force structure debate?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"An<\/a><\/p>\n

I read with great interest a recent article<\/a> by Paul Dibb titled \u2018How to plan for [an] ADF without [a] territorial threat\u2019. I am of the 1986 Dibb Report<\/a> and subsequent Beazley<\/a> White Paper generation. At Staff College in the early 90\u2019s we pawed over every comma and full stop in those documents looking for some divine guidance. And of course I served in an Army that was very much shaped by those policy tablets.<\/p>\n

Professor Dibb\u2019s judgment about Army is dismissively short\u2014just one sentence: \u2018<\/em>it (a maritime strategy) demands a change to Army, with more focus on our Region of direct strategic concern.\u2019 I would have hoped for something better, even allowing for the demands of newspaper editors.<\/p>\n

However, it seems in 2015 we are back to the future. Does one conclude from that single sentence that there\u2019s a need for a policy shift or does it suggest that Army\u2019s force structure has been in some way warped by the last 15 years of operations and as a consequence of this apparent retro shift to a maritime strategy needs an urgent re-shape? If so\u2014what?<\/p>\n

I thought most defence thinkers in Australia have been talking about a maritime strategy since the early 90\u2019s. Or does it mean that a recalcitrant Army has again failed to digest the critical elements of a maritime strategy and continued to pursue, as I have previously written<\/a>, some heretical \u2018heavy\u2019 armoured force.<\/p>\n

Army\u2019s thinking demonstrated in its writing and rhetoric over the last 20 years has been framed around a maritime strategy. What, for heaven\u2019s sake, are the Canberra<\/em>-class LHD ships about if not to operate within and support a maritime strategy?<\/p>\n

I fear that Professor Dibb\u2019s article may echo the thoughts of the writers of the White Paper. If that\u2019s so\u2014sadly those who have drafted the policy advice to Government and recommended the consequential force structure priorities have not learned a thing from the last decade or so.<\/p>\n

One hopes that the Minister\u2019s recent comments<\/a> which seem to reinforce a \u2018steady as we go\u2019 approach to defence policy isn\u2019t the end of the intellectual investment by the new ministers.<\/p>\n

The fundamental question above all is: does the Army\u2019s force structure resulting from the White Paper process align with the Government\u2019s intent and vision for Australia and its role in the world? If the continuous shipbuilding strategy results in an uncritical bias in defence spending which over the forward estimates creates an inherent imbalance in the ADF\u2019s force structure the forthcoming White Paper like the last two should be condemned.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s worth repeating<\/a> that a balanced force should be a ruler against which policy and capability decisions can be tested.\u00a0The current air package deployed to the Middle East is a wonderful example. It\u2019s self-reliant, balanced and capable\u2014and importantly, of a scale that meets Australia\u2019s means. Self-reliant because it can see, sustain itself, and shoot. Balanced because it has the force elements necessary to prosecute the tasks given to it by government\u2014and not limited just to either seeing, or sustaining or shooting.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s capable because as a package it\u2019s not a liability to others in the coalition but gives government a range of policy options over time based on policy grounds not capability deficiencies.<\/p>\n

Those investment decisions aren\u2019t easy, but let\u2019s be clear: the Army has really lived off the operational funding it has received over the last decade or so to put the real edge on its current capability. A capability that has delivered much for successive governments both close to home (Professor Dibb\u2019s region of direct strategic concern) or further afield. That edge isn\u2019t funded and will therefore decay quickly.<\/p>\n

Yes, there\u2019s been some spending on new capabilities, but this in overall terms has been a replacement strategy which has held the army steady in relative capability terms. The underlying force structure remains fundamentally a \u2018fitted for but not with\u2019 force. That\u2019s like an Air Force without EW self-protection for its aircraft! \u00a0If Army\u2019s \u00a0capability enhancements are being progressively pushed further and further beyond the current forward estimate period the capability gap created will be increasingly more difficult to close. The gap must be \u00a0recognised and explicitly acknowledged by Government and then closely managed.<\/p>\n

As I have asked before<\/a>, why do we continue to have these type of discussions around Army\u2019s force structure?<\/p>\n

The explanation lies in the policy tension that still exists between Australia\u2019s role as a \u2018middle power\u2019 and our national security . Simply put, the policy schools of thought are either a set of priorities based on a more global role for the country in world affairs, or the more traditional thinking which says we need to return to a narrower set of priorities closer to home.<\/p>\n

Why does that matter to Army? Because the potential force structure options are different in some policymakers eyes. Closer to home is perceived as \u2018lower risk\u2019 and as a consequence later phases of LAND 400 can be shifted further right and the number and type of vehicles can be open to semantic debate. Army\u2019s size and its harder edge can also be \u2018worked\u2019 to create the fiscal head room for other capabilities and expenditure priorities.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s where the new White Paper needs to be crystal clear. A retro maritime strategy isn\u2019t about an ADF with a land force as a one line afterthought.<\/p>\n

The last decade or so has demonstrated the nature of the tasks that are likely to arise for the Army over the coming decades. If the Government now sees this period as an exception then it needs to clearly articulate why this is the case and not just echo the views put forward by its policy advisors.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I read with great interest a recent article by Paul Dibb titled \u2018How to plan for [an] ADF without [a] territorial threat\u2019. I am of the 1986 Dibb Report and subsequent Beazley White Paper generation. …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":274,"featured_media":23393,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[44,488,606,279,422],"class_list":["post-23392","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-general","tag-australian-defence-force","tag-australian-army","tag-defence-white-paper","tag-force-structure","tag-maritime-strategy"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nBack to the future for the Army\u2019s force structure debate? | The Strategist<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/back-to-the-future-for-the-armys-force-structure-debate\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Back to the future for the Army\u2019s force structure debate? | The Strategist\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"I read with great interest a recent article by Paul Dibb titled \u2018How to plan for [an] ADF without [a] territorial threat\u2019. I am of the 1986 Dibb Report and subsequent Beazley White Paper generation. ...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/back-to-the-future-for-the-armys-force-structure-debate\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"The Strategist\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/ASPI.org\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2015-11-13T02:29:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-13T04:05:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/20130720adf8518511_046.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"800\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"521\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Michael Clifford\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@ASPI_org\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@ASPI_org\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Michael Clifford\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/\",\"name\":\"The Strategist\",\"description\":\"ASPI's analysis and commentary site\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-AU\"},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-AU\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/back-to-the-future-for-the-armys-force-structure-debate\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/20130720adf8518511_046.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/20130720adf8518511_046.jpg\",\"width\":800,\"height\":521,\"caption\":\"An Australian Army vehicle lays a protective mat over the beach at Sabina Point prior to other vehicles coming ashore from HMAS Choules in Shoalwater Bay, Queensland, as part of Exercise Talisman Saber 2013.\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/back-to-the-future-for-the-armys-force-structure-debate\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/back-to-the-future-for-the-armys-force-structure-debate\/\",\"name\":\"Back to the future for the Army\u2019s force structure debate? | The Strategist\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/back-to-the-future-for-the-armys-force-structure-debate\/#primaryimage\"},\"datePublished\":\"2015-11-13T02:29:27+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-13T04:05:02+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#\/schema\/person\/bb5d666c22ddd18638a78c3b7db103ff\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/back-to-the-future-for-the-armys-force-structure-debate\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-AU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/back-to-the-future-for-the-armys-force-structure-debate\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/back-to-the-future-for-the-armys-force-structure-debate\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Back to the future for the Army\u2019s force structure debate?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#\/schema\/person\/bb5d666c22ddd18638a78c3b7db103ff\",\"name\":\"Michael Clifford\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-AU\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/24e6c3bb5625a889c0a0fe5df86f771c?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/24e6c3bb5625a889c0a0fe5df86f771c?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Michael Clifford\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/author\/michael-clifford\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Back to the future for the Army\u2019s force structure debate? | The Strategist","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/back-to-the-future-for-the-armys-force-structure-debate\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Back to the future for the Army\u2019s force structure debate? | The Strategist","og_description":"I read with great interest a recent article by Paul Dibb titled \u2018How to plan for [an] ADF without [a] territorial threat\u2019. I am of the 1986 Dibb Report and subsequent Beazley White Paper generation. ...","og_url":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/back-to-the-future-for-the-armys-force-structure-debate\/","og_site_name":"The Strategist","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/ASPI.org","article_published_time":"2015-11-13T02:29:27+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-13T04:05:02+00:00","og_image":[{"width":800,"height":521,"url":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/20130720adf8518511_046.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Michael Clifford","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@ASPI_org","twitter_site":"@ASPI_org","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Michael Clifford","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/","name":"The Strategist","description":"ASPI's analysis and commentary site","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-AU"},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-AU","@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/back-to-the-future-for-the-armys-force-structure-debate\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/20130720adf8518511_046.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/20130720adf8518511_046.jpg","width":800,"height":521,"caption":"An Australian Army vehicle lays a protective mat over the beach at Sabina Point prior to other vehicles coming ashore from HMAS Choules in Shoalwater Bay, Queensland, as part of Exercise Talisman Saber 2013."},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/back-to-the-future-for-the-armys-force-structure-debate\/","url":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/back-to-the-future-for-the-armys-force-structure-debate\/","name":"Back to the future for the Army\u2019s force structure debate? | The Strategist","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/back-to-the-future-for-the-armys-force-structure-debate\/#primaryimage"},"datePublished":"2015-11-13T02:29:27+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-13T04:05:02+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#\/schema\/person\/bb5d666c22ddd18638a78c3b7db103ff"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/back-to-the-future-for-the-armys-force-structure-debate\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-AU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/back-to-the-future-for-the-armys-force-structure-debate\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/back-to-the-future-for-the-armys-force-structure-debate\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Back to the future for the Army\u2019s force structure debate?"}]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#\/schema\/person\/bb5d666c22ddd18638a78c3b7db103ff","name":"Michael Clifford","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-AU","@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/24e6c3bb5625a889c0a0fe5df86f771c?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/24e6c3bb5625a889c0a0fe5df86f771c?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Michael Clifford"},"url":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/author\/michael-clifford\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23392"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/274"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23392"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23392\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23401,"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23392\/revisions\/23401"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/23393"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23392"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23392"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23392"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}