• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Matthew Fisher: Lessons on national defence from Down Under - National Post

dimsum

Army.ca Myth
Mentor
Reaction score
12,844
Points
1,260
Australians figured out decades ago that national defence was too important to be left to the whims of competing political parties and their leaders.

What has evolved Down Under is an all-party consensus that robustly defending Australia is a top-level national interest. Decisions on strategic policy, defence budgets and procurement policies reflect that. A common vision on security supercedes everything.

There is a strong public expectation political parties and their leaders will set aside their differences and work together.

No matter which party is in power in Canberra, major defence policies have remained the same. There was been little parliamentary squabbling or controversy over such issues as the deployment of Royal Australian Air Force F-18 Hornets and Super Hornets to bomb the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, while training more Iraqi security forces than Canada has done or is proposing to do.

Nor do opposition parties seek election in Australia by campaigning to undo many of the outgoing government’s defence policies. Continuity in security strategy and philosophy are considered far too important. Even the media and defense analyst tend to be agreed on this. So debates on national defence often end up being about different shades of grey....

While I don't think that there are no political considerations for the ADF (ship and sub-building are but two of the higher profile ones), I did find that defence procurement and deployment are generally not used as "political footballs" as mentioned in the article. 

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/matthew-fisher-lessons-on-national-defence-from-down-under
 
Back
Top