Why Australia needs a much bigger army

The Age (Melbourne) ^ | 20th July 2005 | Hugh White

[naturalman1975]

Commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan leave us exposed at home, writes Hugh White.

So, after nearly four years, we are back where we started in the war on terror. By the end of this year the SAS will be hunting the Taliban again in the hills of Afghanistan, as they were doing in 2001. Howard's decision, announced last week, is the right thing to do, but it carries a gloomy message about our future commitments, and some important implications for our defence force.

The return of the SAS to Afghanistan marks the demise of John Howard's original strategic concept for fighting the war on terror. From the time of the first decision to deploy to Afghanistan in the weeks after 9/11, Howard had a clear idea of how he thought Australia should contribute militarily to the campaign against al-Qaeda. We would commit small detachments of high-quality, sharp-end forces to combat operations. We would go in early, gain credit for early successes, and then get out quickly and bring our forces home.

From the first, Howard said Australia would not provide forces for long-term peacekeeping, stabilisation and nation-building operations in Afghanistan, or in Iraq.

There were elements both of strategic and political calculation in this approach. Strategically, Howard has always been concerned to ensure that Australia's forces do not get bogged down on the other side of the world in case they are needed for emergencies closer to home. Howard has never forgotten his experience in East Timor and how important it is for Australia to be able to undertake major independent operations close to home at short notice.

Politically, Howard probably calculated that while the voters are happy enough to support short, successful, high-intensity operations that deliver quick results, their tolerance would be much lower for long, drawn-out, inconclusive and potentially unsuccessful counter-insurgency and peacekeeping tasks.

Of course, George Bush's ideas for fighting the war on terrorism were somewhat similar. He planned for US forces to do the heavy lifting and then leave the rest of the international community to tidy up afterwards.

As we all now know, that model has failed because the international community could not, and would not, pick up where the US wanted to leave off. Bush discovered that in the months after Saddam fell in Iraq. Now it has caught up with Howard. Once we got involved in Afghanistan and Iraq, there could be no quick victories, no limited commitments, no swift and easy exits.

Howard seems to have at last accepted this logic and where it leads. He was offered, but rejected, smaller options for renewed defence force deployments to Afghanistan. In choosing to send the SAS, he has chosen to put troops back in the front line of a growing conflict. This is not like Iraq, where Australian forces have relatively peaceful tasks. In Afghanistan, the SAS will be helping the US to hunt the Taliban.

Taliban forces and influence have been reviving in the provinces bordering Pakistan in Afghanistan's south and east. The US has been undertaking operations in recent weeks. They have taken casualties, including the loss of a Chinook helicopter. Their operations have reportedly delivered impressive body counts of suspected Taliban insurgents, but that will not be enough to stop the movement from growing again, especially as it seems to be getting a lot of support from within Pakistan. It will not be won when SAS forces come home after 12 months.

Nor will our commitment end then. Howard has foreshadowed they will be replaced by Provincial Reconstruction Teams that combine security and reconstruction efforts to try to spread the authority of the Kabul Government into the provinces. It's a thankless and, so far, not very successful task. You can see why Howard wanted to avoid all this. It's a dirty, messy, dangerous business fighting insurgencies in other people's countries. We cannot assume it will succeed; we can assume it will not succeed quickly.

So we need to settle in for the long haul. It is only sensible to plan that we will have significant forces deployed in both Iraq and Afghanistan for years to come. Howard said last week that we could manage new deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq because our commitments in East Timor and Solomon Islands had been reduced.

But urgent military tasks will appear unexpectedly in our neighbourhood again before our forces come home from Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to be able to sustain these distant deployments and at the same time look after our interests and responsibilities closer to home.

Now that the Government has recognised the nature, scale and duration of our military commitments in the war on terrorism, it should start to build the bigger army we need to cover both sets of tasks. Instead of buying tanks and elaborate amphibious capabilities, we should be expanding the army from six to nine battalions.

Hugh White is a visiting fellow at the Lowy Institute and professor of strategic studies at ANU.

[Army Air Corps]

Australia also needs an aircraft carrier again. Not necessarily a USN-style fleet carrier (a carrier like HMS Ark Royal would serve well), but a carrier none the less to help patrol the vast waters around Australia.

[naturalman1975]

As someone who joined the RAN planning to serve on carriers, and built his early career around that plan, let me say that I agree entirely.

The LSS concept is one I quite like - a ship with broad capabilities that can function as a kind of baby carrier.

[TMSuchman]

Why would any country need a military when WE [the US] is always areound to go around and make things right? If we are the only super power left in the world, then maybe we should start leveling terms to the rest of the world. /sarcasm off/

[Army Air Corps]

The LSS is a good concept. It seems as though the UK has decided to also boost its naval power; there is growing support to replace the existing small carriers with a small number of large carriers near the displacement of a USN carrier.

The sea remains a vital defense environment for Australia. Advance Australia Fair!

[tophat9000]

Australia to have a few light CV would be an excellent idea

The reality your in a hot and getting hotter area of the world what with China, India

[68skylark]

Howard has foreshadowed they will be replaced by Provincial Reconstruction Teams that combine security and reconstruction efforts to try to spread the authority of the Kabul Government into the provinces. It's a thankless and, so far, not very successful task.

My business right now is military Civil Affairs -- so I'd just like to gently disagree with the author's argument that this work is bleak and thankless.

Australians can take a lot of pride in helping with this task, if that's what they choose to do, and I'm sure they'll be very good at it.

[streetpreacher]

No mention of China here; they still don't get it...

[Doe Eyes]

To Australia's immediate north is Indonesia, an Islamic country with a population more that 10 times that of Australia.

That's what I would fear.

[naturalman1975]

Oh yes.

As I say, I like the LSS (Littoral Support Ship) option myself - three or four 30,000 tonne multipurpose vessels.

These would serve multiple purposes (troop transport, fleet oiler, support for landing craft), but ideally two of them would be specifically outfitted as small carriers, capable of operating approximately 30 aircraft (including the Joint Strike Fighter) off the decks.

One major advantage of the concept is that it's reasonably likely we'd get it - it's not pie in the sky.

The Multirole Auxiliary concept isn't too bad either - but it'd probably be limited to 12 VSTOL aircraft. Basically I could live with the MRA if we can't have the LSS - but I really do prefer the LSS.

[GOP_1900AD]

To defend against invaders from the North ... indeed, a much larger force is warranted.

[tophat9000]

probably be limited to 12 VSTOL aircraft.

A jump jet or two wearing the kangaroo roundels would be very appropriate

[tophat9000]