Bullseye or bulldust? Our experts’ verdicts on the Defence Strategic Review
The Albanese government’s review warns our strategic circumstances have ‘radically’ worsened. But what do the experts make of the blueprint to bring Australia’s military into the missile age?
The Albanese government’s Defence Strategic Review, released on Monday, warns Australia’s strategic circumstances have “radically” worsened, to the point that “we now face as a nation the prospect of major conflict in the region that directly threatens our national interest”. It says the ADF, designed to deter low-level threats, is “no longer fit for purpose” in a more dangerous era when the US is no longer the region’s only major power. But what do the experts make of the report’s military blueprint to bring Australia into “the missile age”?
GREG SHERIDAN: ‘A victory for the self-satisfied, unhurried Defence establishment’
The Albanese government has got the direction and rhetoric of defence reform right in the Defence Strategic Review.
However, there is also a great deal to be disappointed about in the DSR and the government’s response, at least so far. It’s possible there’s a lot more stuff in the classified version. One of the strangest decisions is to announce a new review – yes that’s right, yet another review – into the shape of Australia’s naval surface fleet. After countless billions of dollars and more reviews than hot meals, our navy has just three modern surface warships, the air warfare destroyers.
Greg Sheridan is The Australian’s foreign editor.
PAUL DIBB: ‘Thorough appraisal recognises the dangers’
My first impressions with the government’s just released Defence Strategic Review are that it is a thoroughly professional piece of work. At last, we have a document that stresses that time is not on our side and that we may have little or no warning of a serious military challenge involving high-intensity conflict.
That is the good news. Less impressive is allocating to army the role of amphibious capable “littoral manoeuvre”.
Paul Dibb’s Review of Australia’s Defence Capabilities was published in 1986.
CAMERON STEWART: ‘Strategy is sound but far from complete’
The key aim of the nation’s new defence policy is very simple: to change the calculus of China’s thinking so the risk of war outweighs the benefits. It foreshadows a futuristic world where Australian warships, nuclear submarines, planes and army vehicles bristle with enough long-range missiles to give pause to any aggressive intent in Beijing.
At its heart, the review is an admission of failure about the inability of defence planners to react more quickly to these changing circumstances which have been obvious for years.It goes so far as to admit that the Australian Defence Force is not “fit for purpose” for the tasks required of it.
The document is not nearly as sweeping in scope as the government claims. It still lacks crucial detail about what Australia’s future defence force will look like and how we will pay for it.
Cameron Stewart is the Chief International Correspondent at The Australian.
ALAN DUPONT: ‘Bold changes send clear message to potential enemies’
Shrewdly timed to coincide with Anzac Day commemorations, the Albanese government has taken a major step forward in delivering on its promise to make the ADF a more “impactful” force, with the much-anticipated release of its response to the Defence Strategic Review. This sends an unambiguous signal to potential adversaries that while Australia is committed to preserving the peace, we won’t be a pushover if it comes to a fight.
The ADF is now set on a path of transformation – from a boutique force with niche capabilities but little punch to a harder, more lethal, self-reliant military that is also more interoperable with allies and friends.
Alan Dupont is a Nonresident Fellow at the Lowy Institute for International Policy, and a professor of International Security at the University of New South Wales. He has worked on Australian defence and Asian security issues for more than thirty years as a strategist, diplomat, policy analyst and scholar.
SIMON BENSON: ‘A cynical exercise in political posturing’
Anthony Albanese’s long-awaited Defence Strategic Review confirms Labor’s commitment to a continuity of Australia’s strategic doctrine and defence capability. It sends a reassuring message to the nation and the region that the new federal government has no plan to deviate from the broader mission. Labor won’t go soft on China.
But the review could equally be regarded as an exercise in futility – political time-wasting when strategic urgency is paramount.
Simon Benson is The Australian’s Political Editor.
JOHN LEE: ‘Failure to deliver will come at a high price’
The evolving reactions to AUKUS indicates how most Southeast Asian nations are likely to eventually react to the strategic review. Across the next few days, there is likely to be similar immediate public reactions to the review, with states calling for de-escalation and the avoidance of an arms race. But what really matters is concrete results.
John Lee is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. From 2016 to 2018 he was senior adviser to the Australian foreign minister. He served as the principal governmental adviser on the 2017 foreign policy white paper.
PETER JENNINGS: ‘Without money and clarity it’s business as usual’
There is much to like in the Defence Strategic Review. The emphasis on missiles, on longer range, on the need for urgent action are all desperately necessary. The classified version is hopefully sharper in identifying the source of the threat.
Labor’s job now is implementation. I see five main challenges.
Peter Jennings is a senior fellow at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
MICHAEL GREEN: ‘Greater clarity than the Biden administration has mustered’
I have led similar strategic reviews myself in the US – in the White House and for the congress – and have been a student of other countries’ national strategies. This one ranks among the clearest I have seen anywhere in terms of defining the problem and then putting forward new concepts to defend the nation. When historians look back on this period, they will focus on Shinzo Abe’s 2013 National Security Strategy of Japan and the Albanese governments 2023 DSR as the bookends that defined how American allies prepared for a world of declining relative American power and unwelcomed Chinese hegemonic ambitions.
Dr Michael Green is chief executive of the US Studies Centre and a former White House National Security Council special assistant to the president.
THE AUSTRALIAN’S VIEW: ‘Bluntly, this must not be kicked down the road’
The review does the nation a vital service scrapping the longstanding assumption that Australia would have a 10-year warning time to prepare for conflict. Instead, it identifies three periods for defence planning. They are the three years from 2023 to 2025 for matters that must be prioritised and addressed urgently; the five years from 2026 to 2030, and the period 2031 and beyond.
Those time frames make sense. What does not is the government’s decision not to reallocate extra funding for a defence reboot across the forward estimates.
Read all of The Australian’s daily editorials here.