REACHING THETOP WITH YOURMESSAGE?The advantages of advertising in the<strong>Australian</strong> <strong>Defence</strong> <strong>Force</strong> <strong>Journal</strong> are far reaching.Editorial EnquiriesPhone: +61 2 6265 1193Fax: +61 2 6265 6972E-mail: adfj@spirit.com.auInternet: www.adfa.oz.au/dod/dfj/Advertising EnquiriesPhone: +61 2 6290 1767or +61 2 6239 2287E-mail: ey.bis@actonline.com.au
3Letters to the EditorAirborne <strong>Force</strong>sDear Editor,Major Basan provided a cogent analysis on arelevant topic in his article “Airborne <strong>Force</strong>s: TheTwenty-First Century’s Rapid Dominance Solution”,(ADFJ Nov/Dec 1998).His thesis is well supported by contemporary trendsin warfare and the emerging strategic environment.Importantly, airborne operations have the potential to bedecisive for either strategic or tactical objectives.Furthermore, with imaginative planning and appropriatecapability sets, airborne forces are employable acrossthe spectrum of conventional to irregular warfare.A key force development issue arises if we acceptthe tenets of Major Basan’s article. Could thedevelopment of Australia’s airborne forces significantlyenhance our military options in the context of amaritime strategy? Airborne characteristics such asstrategic mobility, strike power and versatility should becarefully considered.However, airborne forces alone are not the solution.Ultimately, an effective maritime strategy will rely onbalanced capabilities to project air, naval and landpower. Perhaps further developing our airbornecapability is an opportunity to improve the balance.Certainly, responsive and lethal airborne forces wouldadd to the operational options for Australia’s emergingmaritime strategy.P.K. SinghLieutenant ColonelThe Knowledge EdgeDear Editor,I have just finished reading “The Relevance of theKnowledge Edge” by Professor Paul Dibb in theJan/Feb <strong>1999</strong> ADFJ and felt utterly depressed by thenegative attitude of the Canberra crowd who have suchinfluence on the decision making process in relation to<strong>Defence</strong> Policy. The article is littered with quotes suchas “Every <strong>Australian</strong> defence planner needs toremember that there are limits to Australia’s defencecapability”, “the realities of limited resources and thesmall size of the ADF will discipline those who dreamabout aircraft carriers and expeditionary forces for highlevel conflicts”, “For Australia, as a middle power withlimited defence capacity”, “this kind of adaptiveness inAustralia’s force planning will be far from easy giventhe limited financial resources that are likely to beavailable”.Isn’t it about time we took a more positive view ofdefence and decided that if Australia is worth defendingthen its about time Federal Governments made theresources available to do the job properly. What weneed is a large dose of the American “can do” attitudeinstead of the dreadful “can’t do” mentality thatpervades so much of <strong>Australian</strong> life.The fact is that the ADF’s present force structurewouldn’t, as Sir James Killen noted about twenty fiveyears ago, be capable of defending Bondi beach on aSunday afternoon. And yet we are fed a constant load ofrubbish by Government, Bureaucracy, and ServiceChiefs about our self reliance. Self reliance for what?If it had the will, Australia could and should becomea genuine middle ranking power that had a realinfluence on events in our region to an extent that hasnot been visible since World War 2.Our Foreign Affairs Department gives theimpression of being a toothless tiger staffed by peopleincapable of assessing events in our region and advisinga succession of Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministersswanning around the world gladhanding theircounterparts and achieving little.Bougainville is the classic example of a seriousdispute for which we had a prime responsibility, but didnothing for nine years until New Zealand took up thecudgells to try and broker a solution. Already the PrimeMinister and Foreign Minister are hedging their bets inrelation to Timor with Mr Downer making theunfortunate and stupid comment about not wanting<strong>Australian</strong>s coming back in body bags.Perhaps someone ought to tell someone in Canberrathat the armed forces do occasionally suffer casualtieswhen on operational duties. We can only be pleased thatno one these days has to make the kind of decisions thathad to be made during the two world wars.Paul Dibb observes “What will have to be avoided,however is any temptation for politicians to reach downinto military operational decisions”. God forbid thatever happening, but it could occur if our military leadersdon’t show more determination in protecting theintegrity of the ADF than they have in the recent past.There needs to be a serious commitment by FederalGovernments to provide the resources for the ADF totake an effective role in whatever troubles may occur inthe future, because its present structure to either defendAustralia against a hostile threat, which is unlikely in theforeseeable future, or participate in meaningful supportin regional trouble spots is totally inadequate.Peter Firkins
Change language