{"id":3507,"date":"2013-01-21T13:50:35","date_gmt":"2013-01-21T03:50:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=3507"},"modified":"2013-01-22T07:58:53","modified_gmt":"2013-01-21T21:58:53","slug":"no-need-for-a-need","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/no-need-for-a-need\/","title":{"rendered":"No need for a Need"},"content":{"rendered":"
Being an editor of this blog, I try to avoid jumping into a stoush with our much valued contributors because it looks a bit uneven. But Jim Molan is big enough and tough enough for me to make an exception. I won\u2019t dwell on the Reserves aspect of his response<\/a> to Nic Stuart\u2019s piece<\/a>\u2014Kath Zeising is taking that flank. And, as it happens, my thoughts on making better use of the Reserve<\/a> are already on the record.<\/p>\n Instead, I\u2019m going to take Jim to task on the notion of Australia\u2019s strategic \u2018Need\u2019. The way it\u2019s presented, it sounds like there\u2019s some kind of Platonic Ideal strategy out there in the ether waiting to be summoned, if only we can think hard enough about it for long enough\u2014of course with government, bureaucrats, think tanks and commentators keeping quiet for long enough. Once we have the \u2018one true strategy\u2019, then government either has to fund it, or explain to the Australian people why it is going to eschew such a noble pursuit.<\/p>\n Of course, the world doesn\u2019t work that way. Even if there was some kind of Ideal Strategy from which we could deduce our Need, the resulting investment required to implement it necessarily comes with an opportunity cost. Ignoring that cost makes no sense in a planning framework. Like every other area of public policy and budgeting, the funding of defence is an exercise in balancing costs and benefits.<\/p>\n What we really need to accept is that there is no one true path to security. For a given level of expenditure we can provide ourselves with certain options. If we spend more then, generally speaking, we\u2019ll be able to do more and be more flexible in our responses. If we spend less, then we\u2019ll be able to do less. No level of spending will be ideal\u2014ask our American friends if their $700 billion a year has bought them the perfect force structure for all of their problems. The world is such an unpredictable place that there is no level of spending that will cover every contingency. So there\u2019s an inherent degree of arbitrariness in where you decide to draw the line. One planner\u2019s Need could be a woefully inadequate capability in the eyes of someone less sanguine about the future.<\/p>\n