Time to move on in the defence policy debate

Abstract

Paul Dibb has been an important participant in the Australian defence policy debate. His ideas were influential in the 1987 Defence white paper, ‘The defence of Australia’ (DOD 1987). Whether you are a proponent or opponent, ‘The defence of Australia’ has long set the parameters for the defence policy debate in Australia. It institutionalised the concept of ‘strategic geography’ as the force structure determinant for the Australian Defence Force (ADF). However, it is time for the policy debate to move on and look beyond the primacy previously accorded to strategic geography. Put simply, the reality of today’s security environment no longer fits the theory that underpinned ‘The defence of Australia’. In his recent article, ‘Is strategic geography relevant to Australia’s current defence policy?’ (Dibb 2006), Dibb seeks to re-affirm the importance of strategic geography to the defence policy debate. Three key problems arise from this attempt. First, the article’s strong support for the re-establishment of the link between strategic geography and force structure ignores the reality of defence operational activity over the last two decades. Second, the article does not correctly situate the role of geography and the national interest in strategy formulation. Finally, the analysis of Australia’s involvement in past conflicts, the term ‘expeditionary’ war and the decision to update the Army’s tanks is flawed.