Quote:

Australia needs to bolster its military muscle with defence diplomacy and embrace its middle power status in the region. With Australia's security commitments in Afghanistan winding down and a new Defence white paper in the pipelines, now is the time to reflect on the future role of the Australian Defence Force (ADF). In particular, Defence's main priority should be establishing Australia as a confident and able middle power in the region by enhancing our defence diplomacy. And it's through 'boats' that we can build bridges. Since the mid-1970s, successive Defence white papers have varied little from the standard formula of maintaining around 10 warships, a handful of submarines, 100 fighter aircraft and three land combat brigades with special forces. This formula reflects a consensus which remains largely unaltered, with the exception of the new Air Warfare Destroyers (AWDs) and amphibious Landing Helicopter Dock ships (LHDs). While the threat of near-term conflict in the Indo-Pacific is greater than for many years, there also remain significant prospects of environmental catastrophe requiring military intervention. The ADF must prepare for short-notice humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HADR) related tasks. For such tasks LHDs will provide an excellent platform enabling rapid response with medical, engineering, logistic and other support as required. The American experience on this is instructive. US Navy-Marine amphibious groups routinely conduct humanitarian assistance operations globally. These operations are best described as 'military diplomacy'. The introduction into service of the LHDs will be a game-changer for Australia, particularly in the Pacific. The opportunity will enable the LHDs to emulate the US Navy-Marine approach to military diplomacy with a combined embarked Australian Navy- Army-Air Force team. Such a team can generate goodwill and enhance regional security and stability as well as confidence in Australia as a reliable and well-intentioned middle power. With the prospect of cyclones, floods, sea level rise, earthquakes and tsunamis, the ADF can hone many war fighting skills as a joint team while also making tangible and practical contributions to meet immediate needs across the South Pacific and Southeast Asia. Indeed the swift response to such crises may well contribute to a sense of confidence and mutual trust that conceivably may reduce the prospect of conflict as well. Australia's neighbours need to be closely engaged through defence diplomacy as well, including Papua New Guinea, East Timor and the Pacific Island states. In Southeast Asia, engagement should capitalise on established links through the Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA) with Malaysia and Singapore, as well as New Zealand and Britain. Thailand and the Philippines also should be included, aligned with scheduled FPDA events. Myanmar should also be engaged to encourage consolidation and extension of reform initiatives and to bolster ASEAN's role. Much of this could be done alongside Australia's principal ally, the United States. But the most important country for Australia to engage with in Southeast Asia is unquestionably Indonesia. Australia's security is intimately linked with that of Indonesia, so the relationship needs careful management, attuned to the different cultural predispositions and respectful of their mores and their proud and independent heritage. The ADF needs to enhance its level of cultural awareness and regional language skills. With modern technology and methods, much of this can be done economically on a distributed basis. A sober reflection on the geostrategic realities should be the main determinant for funding. With so many contingencies to be prepared for, Australia still needs to maintain a balanced joint force adaptable to a wide range of possible eventualities, with sufficient air, sea and ground forces to respond to the challenges of modern conflict. The budget decline needs to be reversed to capitalise on these new capabilities and to best position the ADF for foreseeable regional challenges. A visionary, comprehensive and coordinated regional engagement plan is needed to mitigate some of the security and environmental concerns now faced. With so many challenges, Australia, as a middle power, must rise above its small power pretensions. http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4667114.html

Should our Defence's main priority help establish Australia as a confident and able middle power in the region by enhancing our defence diplomacy.

Please Ahovking - not so much highlight -
it burns my eyes out.

I wonder if Tony Abbott will cancel any of the defense contracts?

No doubt he will, if his razor needs to cut as deeply as I suspect it does.

As to our "small power pretensions", we've never had any.  We have always been recognised, both by our selves and the rest of the world as a "middle ranking power".  Indeed, because of the GFC, economically we have been steadily creeping up the world rankings of "powers" - more because the rest of the world has been in a deep hole than necessarily we've done anything special.   Militarily we are recognised as a middle-ranking power, one which because of it's relative richness often brings force multipliers to any regional alliances or conflicts.

I do wish you'd stop making ridiculous claims Ahovking about things you appear to know little.  I second Bobby's point, stop with the crayon.  Your posts look increasingly like Yaddas and seem nearly as foolish.     ::)

Bobby. wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 7:59pm:

Please Ahovking - not so much highlight - it burns my eyes out. I wonder if Tony Abbott will cancel any of the defense contracts?

Get your eyes checked out if it burns them... or a better computer ;)

Ill, cut it back. Sorry


Brian Ross wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 8:06pm:

No doubt he will, if his razor needs to cut as deeply as I suspect it does. As to our "small power pretensions", we've never had any.  We have always been recognised, both by our selves and the rest of the world as a "middle ranking power".  Indeed, because of the GFC, economically we have been steadily creeping up the world rankings of "powers" - more because the rest of the world has been in a deep hole than necessarily we've done anything special.   Militarily we are recognised as a middle-ranking power, one which because of it's relative richness often brings force multipliers to any regional alliances or conflicts. I do wish you'd stop making ridiculous claims Ahovking about things you appear to know little.  I second Bobby's point, stop with the crayon.  Your posts look increasingly like Yaddas and seem nearly as foolish.     ::)

I do believe i have made no 'ridiculous claims' instead asked a question from the article which you have answered.

Australia isn't a middle power, we aren't even a small power. I just hope our aspirations are never tested.

Winston Smith wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 10:15pm:

Australia isn't a middle power, we aren't even a small power. I just hope our aspirations are never tested.

I believe we are a middle power, In terms of soft power we are 100% a middle power however due to our habits of not take defence seriously enough, we often don't have military capability/might to back our words up, in terms of hard power we aren't even a small power.

Pantheon wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 11:17pm:

Winston Smith wrote on Sep 24th, 2013 at 10:15pm: Australia isn't a middle power, we aren't even a small power. I just hope our aspirations are never tested. I believe we are a middle power, In terms of soft power we are 100% a middle power however due to our habits of not take defence seriously enough, we often don't have military capability/might to back our words up, in terms of hard power we aren't even a small power.

Considering that our nearest neighbor has 470,000 men at arms
we are only a minor power.

Pantheon wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 11:17pm:

Winston Smith wrote on Sep 24th, 2013 at 10:15pm: Australia isn't a middle power, we aren't even a small power. I just hope our aspirations are never tested. I believe we are a middle power, In terms of soft power we are 100% a middle power however due to our habits of not take defence seriously enough, we often don't have military capability/might to back our words up, in terms of hard power we aren't even a small power.

Just going to add:


Quote:

Australia no longer a middle power Tonight's budget is going to have to slash away at government programs across the board if it's going to meet Wayne Swan's objective of returning to surplus. When every other department is undergoing cuts, it's difficult to explain why the military should be sheltered. Obviously defence must take its share of the pain. But what's caused startled gasps this time is exactly where the cuts have been targeted: submarines and strike-aircraft. The point is that these weapons systems are absolutely critical to Kevin Rudd's vision of Australia as an 'independent middle-power'. That idea's now been jettisoned. He'd implied that we could walk a middle course between China's rise and America's declining hegemony, but this cost money. The desire to share the table with the grown-ups didn't come cheap. We had to accept a concomitant requirement to possess forces that demonstrate we actually could act independently, if we chose to do so. Instead, Julia Gillard's re-framed the issue. She understood that we don't want to put up the ante to play in the big league. And that's what inviting US Marines to Darwin is all about. We've accepted we're a minor player. What makes Gillard's choice surprising is that the move is fundamentally at odds with everything Labor has stood for over the past half-century; ever since Gough Whitlam went to Beijing while the Vietnam War was continuing. Nevertheless, this shift is sensible and will be welcomed by many people. Those on the left will have more money for social programs, those on the right will be happy about our re-alignment with Washington. Continues at: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/australia-no-longer-a-middle-power-20120507-1y8xq.html

Bobby. wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 11:21pm:

Considering that our nearest neighbor has 470,000 men at arms we are only a minor power.

1. Of those supposed 470,000 men, the overwhelming majority are tied to territorial defence and internal security duties.  That number includes all air and naval personnel as well.  Of that total, the is approximately only 30-40,000 which are available or are ready for deployment outside of the Indonesian archipelago.

2. Indonesia completely lacks the means to actually move most of that manpower, so it cannot represent much of a credible threat.

3. Numbers aren't everything.  The lowliest Australian digger is better trained than most of their forces.  The Australian Defence Force has better equipment, better training and better motivation than the ABRI.

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 12:02am:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 24th, 2013 at 11:21pm: Considering that our nearest neighbor has 470,000 men at arms we are only a minor power. 1. Of those supposed 470,000 men, the overwhelming majority are tied to territorial defence and internal security duties.  That number includes all air and naval personnel as well.  Of that total, the is approximately only 30-40,000 which are available or are ready for deployment outside of the Indonesian archipelago. 2. Indonesia completely lacks the means to actually move most of that manpower, so it cannot represent much of a credible threat. 3. Numbers aren't everything.  The lowliest Australian digger is better trained than most of their forces.  The Australian Defence Force has better equipment, better training and better motivation than the ABRI.

1. Agreed

2. Agreed (however its important to remember that just because its not a threat today doesn't mean it wont be tomorrow)

3. Agreed, Numbers aren't everything.

Pantheon wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 12:07am:

1. Agreed 2. Agreed (however its important to remember that just because its not a threat today doesn't mean it wont be tomorrow) 3. Agreed, Numbers aren't everything.

[/quote]

As I've said, it is OK to be suspicious but one shouldn't necessarily be alarmed and take it to the level of paranoia which many, mainly right-wing Australians do.

Here's a question for you.  What scenario could you envision where Indonesia would profit from becoming involved in a conflict with Australia?

They lack sufficient naval or air power to present a threat and will not develop those capabilities for at least the next 10-15 years.

They have no motivation to attack Australia.  What ever natural resources we have, they have, so they don't need to invade Australia for them.   We would be more than happy to sell them anything they desire and them buying it would be cheaper and easier than attempting to seize it.

They are well aware that seizing territory for it's own sake, "lebensraum" is pointless.  They have large areas of their own country which are still under developed and their own transmigration programme has not been exactly as great success.

Rationally, it is I believe, safe to conclude that major conflict is unlikely and that they represent no threat, now or for the foreseeable future.  A point I keep making but which seems to be ignored by those who prefer to display their paranoia. 

Quote:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 12:19am: Pantheon wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 12:07am: 1. Agreed 2. Agreed (however its important to remember that just because its not a threat today doesn't mean it wont be tomorrow) 3. Agreed, Numbers aren't everything. As I've said, it is OK to be suspicious but one shouldn't necessarily be alarmed and take it to the level of paranoia which many, mainly right-wing Australians do. Here's a question for you.  What scenario could you envision where Indonesia would profit from becoming involved in a conflict with Australia? They lack sufficient naval or air power to present a threat and will not develop those capabilities for at least the next 10-15 years. They have no motivation to attack Australia.  What ever natural resources we have, they have, so they don't need to invade Australia for them.   We would be more than happy to sell them anything they desire and them buying it would be cheaper and easier than attempting to seize it. They are well aware that seizing territory for it's own sake, "lebensraum" is pointless.  They have large areas of their own country which are still under developed and their own transmigration programme has not been exactly as great success. Rationally, it is I believe, safe to conclude that major conflict is unlikely and that they represent no threat, now or for the foreseeable future.  A point I keep making but which seems to be ignored by those who prefer to display their paranoia.

First scenario: Indonesia is embargoed by a great power or by mutable nations, facing increasing Civil Unrest it strikes out at its resource rich (gold, oil, pasture etc.) Australia with little to none military. (this scenario would have to happen sometime into the future)

Second scenario: Civil Unrest due to political or economical instability causes chaos with Indonesia which threats to spread to other counties.

Its not just Indonesia but globally, if a nation falls apart for example like syria and thing begin to get out of hand we need to be able to respond along aside our allies and not be the last on to the party piggybacking due to being ill prepared. Just because you are unable to see a future conflict or crisis developing doesn't mean it wont happen.

Also by keeping up a large modern force we again experience and we can play a more important and main role military exercises once again helping us developed our experience.

Pantheon wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 12:45am:

First scenario: Indonesia is embargoed by a great power or by mutable nations, facing increasing Civil Unrest it strikes out at its resource rich (gold, oil, pasture etc.) Australia with little to none military. (this scenario would have to happen sometime into the future)

Why would it be embargoed?  Come now, you need to create a realistic, detailed scenario.  What nation is sufficiently powerful enough to force an economic embargo on Indonesia that it would become desperate enough and irrational enough to attack Australia?

Why would it strike out at "its resource rich (gold, oil, pasture etc.) Australia"?  Indonesia is already resource rich. It has some of the largest gold reserves in the world in West New Guinea.   What does it hope to achieve by "striking out" at us?


Quote:

Second scenario: Civil Unrest due to political or economical instability causes chaos with Indonesia which threats to spread to other counties.

Nations which succumb to civil unrest or instability don't suddenly decided to attack other nations.  They are invaribly fighting one another on the streets or in civil wars.   Undertaking a massive military operation to distract the civilian population from it's troubles is what caused the overthrow of Sukarno (and Peron and Galtarie in Argentina).   ::)


Quote:

Its not just Indonesia but globally, if a nation falls apart for example like syria and thing begin to get out of hand we need to be able to respond along aside our allies and not be the last on to the party piggybacking due to being ill prepared. Just because you are unable to see a future conflict or crisis developing doesn't mean it wont happen.

Syria falls apart, it's a problem for it's neighbours and last time I checked, Syria is not one of ours'.   Failed states can represent a problem, we've seen it in the Solomons and nearly in Nauru and PNG but they are our neighbours.  They have required stabilisation but they have neither had the means or the will to attack Australia.


Quote:

Also by keeping up a large modern force we again experience and we can play a more important and main role military exercises once again helping us developed our experience.

We have a large modern force.  We do experience and play an important and even a main role in military exercises with our allies.

The present size of the ADF is IMHO quite adequate.  What is needed is more attention to retention and above all, training and equipment.   We can presently sustain the size ADF we have.  We cannot sustain a substantially larger force, nor do we need a substantially larger force, I would suggest.

Im getting the feeling im going to have to spell everything out very..very slowly


Brian Ross wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 7:37pm:

Why would it be embargoed?  Come now, you need to create a realistic, detailed scenario.  What nation is sufficiently powerful enough to force an economic embargo on Indonesia that it would become desperate enough and irrational enough to attack Australia? Why would it strike out at "its resource rich (gold, oil, pasture etc.) Australia"?  Indonesia is already resource rich. It has some of the largest gold reserves in the world in West New Guinea.   What does it hope to achieve by "striking out" at us?

Why would it be embargoed? who knows, it may not happen maybe guinea wants independent and a massacre unfolds Or a extremist leader is elected who leads the counties now a dark path and the result is an embargo.

Many questions you asked, you can answer your self, don't dumb yourself down.



Brian Ross wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 7:37pm:

Nations which succumb to civil unrest or instability don't suddenly decided to attack other nations.  They are invaribly fighting one another on the streets or in civil wars.   Undertaking a massive military operation to distract the civilian population from it's troubles is what caused the overthrow of Sukarno (and Peron and Galtarie in Argentina).

.....WoW, uh ok civil unrest or instability in a counties could spread to other nations which is within itself a threat, however if the civil unrest continues long enough it could also become a Humanitarian crisis. Which with a larger military we could help out more and more effectively.


Brian Ross wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 7:37pm:

Syria falls apart, it's a problem for it's neighbours and last time I checked, Syria is not one of ours'.   Failed states can represent a problem, we've seen it in the Solomons and nearly in Nauru and PNG but they are our neighbours.  They have required stabilisation but they have neither had the means or the will to attack Australia.

Syria falls apart neighbours begin to fall apart world oil supply becomes under threat. i don't know about you but thats seem like a threat to me.



Brian Ross wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 7:37pm:

We have a large modern force.  We do experience and play an important and even a main role in military exercises with our allies. The present size of the ADF is IMHO quite adequate.  What is needed is more attention to retention and above all, training and equipment.   We can presently sustain the size ADF we have.  We cannot sustain a substantially larger force, nor do we need a substantially larger force, I would suggest.

LOL, a 'large modern force', we has a very small force. We have experience and the equipment thanks to the last 10 years (we spent some 20 years of reducing 'toys', and funding because of our lack of foresight. Which resulted in a close run in East timor).

And yes we can afford a larger military..

it would cost between 3 and 4% of GDP. For the last 20 years, we have spent an average of about 2% of GDP on defence, so that means a steep increase. But to put it in historical perspective, during the 1950s and ’60s we spent an average of 3.3% of GDP, so this would take us back to what we spent before the great strategic changes of the early 1970s allowed us, for a time, to ignore the possibility of conflict with great powers.

Australia could afford this level of defence spending. It would mean higher taxes, but our tax levels are still quite low compared to those of other countries.

As far as i see it, there is no point building a great nation if you can defend it.

Quote:

As far as i see it, there is no point building a great nation if you can defend it.

But New Zealand is a great nation yet it's military is non-existent -
they don't even have one fighter jet.

Should we follow NZ?

Bobby. wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 4:11pm:

Quote: As far as i see it, there is no point building a great nation if you can defend it. But New Zealand is a great nation yet it's military is non-existent - they don't even have one fighter jet. Should we follow NZ?

NZ is relying on Australia to provide the bulk of its defence and expects us to pick up their slack, they are the couch surfing freeloading mate of the south pacific. Not something we should aspire to.

New Zealand is also in a unique position.  It is so far from anywhere else, attacking it is extremely difficult.  As there is little of strategic value there, unless you're planning to use it as a base to invade Antarctica, they can afford to maintain only a minimal defence force.

Oh, and we should never forget, they have Elves, Orcs, Hobbits, etc. to defend themselves with.   ;D

Australian society wouldn't survive a serious global catastrophe/conflagration. Between the ethnic gangs and looting, we would become a 3rd world country overnight. The only alternative would be some kind of military dictatorship, but that still leaves thugs in charge. Just think of the rape and murder of 'Australian working families' in those conditions? :)