ISSUE 191 : Jul/Aug - 2013 - Australian Defence Force Journal

Army’ and improved through tactical employment of lesson collectors and analysts. 30 But the
gap lies in the long term. Army alone has, at the time of writing, 499 officers holding the
rank of Colonel and above. These officers have over 13,000 years of collective experience—
and undoubtedly hold a plethora of thoughts and visions about operational employment. Yet
Army struggles to disseminate them to the next generation (let alone the peer community), to
stimulate discussion in a visionary and creative way. But this is precisely what a profession does.
Let me offer an example. Recently, I was researching a paper on peace building and came
across an interesting article on British and American chaplaincy experiences in Afghanistan.
It came from a journal called Religion, State and Society, published by Routledge and readily
available online. Curious, I typed in a search within the back copies of this journal for ‘military
chaplains’ and got 62 articles. They were written by chaplains from Canada, Germany, South
Africa, Cuba, Russia, Britain and the US, from a wide variety of faiths and across a wide variety
of theatres.
I then typed in ‘Australian military chaplains’ and got one article by three US military chaplains
referring briefly to Australian military doctrine evolving to incorporate a religious liaison
role for chaplains in stability operations. I knew that Australian Army Chaplains had much to
contribute to the conversation, having recently held a chaplaincy conference in Canberra—and
having, seemingly, been one of the few voices on chaplaincy experiences in the Asia Pacific.
But where was their contribution to the global discussion
To find the voice of military professionals, we must first examine their place. Australian society
has always had a tolerant (albeit slightly suspicious) view of the professional military officer.
Military personnel hold rather private positions in the community and typically only play a
public role when civic assistance is needed during natural disaster. In fact, it is probably former
military officers who are more valued in positions of public office.
Within government, military professional engagement is already practised in a number
of organisations. The Centre for Defence Leadership and Ethics at the Australian Defence
College promotes examination of ethical questions and has links to such organisations as the
International Society for Military Ethics. The Australian Civil-Military Centre participates in
international conferences and promotes Australian Defence initiatives. The RAN’s Professional
Studies Program was established to serve as a bridge between the ADF and the corporate
sector. And the UN now provides a renewed forum to discuss regional security interests. 31
However, these assemblies do not include the majority of operationally-experienced ADF
members—and I suspect much unofficial engagement occurs elsewhere.
I suggest that the ADF can engage with society in a much broader and practical way, and some
simple examples follow. First, make ADF professional journals proper e-journals, rather than
a series of portable files to download. Having ‘live’ spaces for comment and discussion brings
ideas into a dynamic environment and develops them within a collegiate domain. In particular,
the sharing of information between practitioners and theorists of regional operations should
be encouraged. 32
Second, form professional relationships at unit level. Combine ideas in the local community
with business owners, engineers, magistrates, farmers, teachers, judges and journalists—not in
a social manner but as a group of professionals. Solve problems together. Learn their language.
23