AUKUS review may take months as critics take aim at Eldridge Colby

US Under Secretary of Defence for Policy Elbridge Colby. Picture: Bloomberg

You can now listen to The Australian's articles. Give us your feedback.

You can now listen to The Australian's articles.

The Pentagon review into AUKUS is just beginning and will likely take months to conclude, but the leader of the process – Elbridge Colby – is already drawing fire from nameless critics within the Washington establishment who claim he is overstepping his authority on key foreign policy issues.

Colby, the Under Secretary of Defence for Policy, is being attacked by anonymous sources in the US media who say that he has driven several decisions that have gone on to surprise the State Department, Congress, American allies and the White House itself.

The key moment this week came when Donald Trump revealed he had reversed a pause on defensive weapons deliveries to Ukraine, saying he was unsure who had halted the shipments in the first place.

US media reports are fingering Colby as the key man responsible, with his critics saying that the defence policy chief had got too far ahead of the administration on the Ukraine issue.

Politico quoted one source as saying that “he (Colby) is pissing off just about everyone I know inside the administration” and “they all view him as the guy who’s going to make the United States do less in the world in general”.

There are several relevant take-outs from this situation for Australia.

First, The Australian can reveal that the Pentagon’s AUKUS review is not imminent and will not be delivered within 30 days. In fact, it is only now just beginning and is expected to take some time.

This will most likely be months rather than weeks.

Second, this means that Colby’s experience with Ukraine could influence both how far the AUKUS review is prepared to go – in terms of recommending changes – and how seriously they are taken by the administration.

Having overruled Colby once – if the US reports are right – there is no reason why the President would not overrule him again if he disagreed with the review’s proposals on AUKUS. This is a reminder that it is Trump who will end up calling the shots and that reviews often end up gathering dust in backrooms.

“We are sending some defensive weapons to Ukraine,” the President said at his cabinet meeting on Tuesday (local time). “And I’ve approved that.”

Pressed on who made the call to pause the shipments last week, the President replied: “I don’t know. Why don’t you tell me?”

Third, Australia knows that Colby is the key intellectual force behind the direction of US defence policy. The recent wave of criticism that Colby has attracted shows he is prepared to test boundaries and push the envelope.

Charged with leading the development of the next US National Defence Strategy, Colby has been blamed for blindsiding the State Department and the White House on several issues – including the AUKUS review itself.

Fourth, that Colby’s past scepticism of AUKUS is the exception rather than the rule. The weight of support within the Trump administration runs heavily in favour of the agreement – from congress, to the State Department, and to the White House.

Australian ministers and officials remain fully engaged across the US system on the Colby Review and, so far, have been encouraged by the depth and breadth of support for the overall AUKUS enterprise.

Speaking at his confirmation hearing in March, Colby said that it was a “great idea” for Australia to have nuclear submarines. But he placed conditions on his support.

“There is a very real threat of a conflict in the coming years, God forbid,” he said.

“And our attack submarines … are absolutely essential for making the defence of Taiwan or otherwise a viable and practical option.

“So if we can produce the attack submarines in sufficient number and sufficient speed, then great. But if we can’t, that becomes a very difficult problem.”