Download - Royal Australian Navy

294 AUSTRALIAN MARITIME ISSUES 2006: SPC-A ANNUAL
Most definitions of terrorism agree with Clive Williams’ definition that it is ‘politically
(including ideologically, religiously or socially — but not criminally) motivated violence,
directed generally against non-combatants, intended to shock and terrify, to achieve a
strategic outcome’. 7 This essay will adopt Clive Williams’ definition with two caveats:
first, terrorism will be attributed only to stateless organisations; and second, attacks
against military targets will not be considered true acts of terrorism. This essay will
focus on the value and effectiveness of conventional maritime forces in defeating
terrorism directed against civilians, not military targets.
Asymmetric threats are really threats that a conventional force was not designed or
prepared to combat. A century ago submarines were considered asymmetric threats, 8
however, today they are very much conventional weapons. For the purpose of this essay,
asymmetric threats will be defined as those presented by nations, or organisations,
possessing weak conventional forces, utilising non-military or unsophisticated military
equipment to achieve a military goal, as opposed to a political goal.
Analysis of the Eight Characteristics of Maritime Power
The navy, like the air force and the army, has distinct characteristics or attributes that
can be utilised by governments. 9 Australian Maritime Doctrine lists eight characteristics
that are displayed more predominantly in the RAN than in the other two branches
of the Australian Defence Force. 10 These characteristics are Mobility of Mass, Reach,
Access, Adaptability, Flexibility, Poise and Persistence, and Resilience and Readiness.
Conventional maritime forces possess all of these characteristics. Hence, assessing
the importance of each characteristic in combating terrorism and other asymmetric
threats makes it possible to assess the overall effectiveness of a conventional maritime
force.
Mobility of Mass
The ability to easily transport large amounts of men, material and ‘combat power’ 11 has
been a much valued attribute of conventional maritime forces. How relevant is this
attribute in combating terrorism? Currently, the Persian Gulf contains an enormous
number of warships, many directly supporting troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet
terrorists, insurgents or patriotic fighters (depending on the point of view) still appear
capable of conducting large scale attacks on the civilian populations of those countries.
While mobility of mass was crucial in overthrowing the governments of those countries,
it appears ineffective when the enemy does not provide static targets to attack. Mobility
alone appears more important 12 in current operations against terrorism. Accepting that
terrorists will avoid fighting with a stronger conventional maritime force, concentrating
such a force loses its appeal.