Australia's strategic culture, defense reforms, and role in AirSea Battle.
- Thread starter woden
- Start date
Thanks mate it does and it will. If you don't mind I'll flick the link over to the NZDF forum because it will be of interest to a few of my fellow Kiwis and we have a few Aussies frequent it as well.
as soon as it quoted APA and the evolved F-111 it lost all credibility.
they are....
personally I found it a bit lightweight ...
The AirSeaBattle construct was misrepresented as well, although a bit better done....
Trouble is the author is supposed to be a Ph.D candidate and when he gets basic errors like the 18th Century history wrong
one starts to wonder what else is wrong about the work. IMHO this reduces the credibility of the work. I haven't finished ploughing my way through it yet, but I am already having doubts about it.
which is a pity as he obviously tried to take an alterative path - but when you get the basics wrong it blows you out of the water pretty quickly
using trevor thomas, cameron stuart and APA as sources did nothing to improve it
citing APA is akin to citing Harold Scruby and the Pedestrian Council of Australia as experts on bullbars and 4wd's (PCA sounds impressive, but its basically Harold working out of his backyard)
there's enough traffic on the open internet and the "closed shop" forums to show how credible APA are, so NFD needed....
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
My bad, missed it.
Might read through it over the next few days if i'm looking for a way to procrastinate. If I do I might as well work my way through it properly...
Wish me luck :hitwall
I got through the summary and did not bother further. It speaks about a very dated construct called the anglosphere. Sorry mate but, that is thinking pre 1950. It is a far wider conceptual construct at play than that - this century is fundamentally about the strategic anchoring of liberal democracies, whatever the linga franca or local cultural diversity. That said I do not question the growing inportance of Australia in the scheme of things related to the US role as the dominant liberal democratic state in the strategic sense. Without going into detail - it is my view that the critcal mass of liberal democracy is now globally embedded to such a point where by any single political entity wanting to impose an alternative, for example China in its current non liberal democratic political conception, will fail to achieve its ambitions. Such is the weight against it. Australia's growing strategic weight over the years ahead should not be seen in purely traditionally bulwark terms, but symbolically as a open, wealthy, successful and globablly influential liberal democratic regional power.
Nevertheless, if the application of the writers argument, however the sensible rationality of its central premise per the importance of Australia over this coming century, is off to such a flawed start then ....nah...
Nevertheless, if the application of the writers argument, however the sensible rationality of its central premise per the importance of Australia over this coming century, is off to such a flawed start then ....nah...
Yeah. And here I was thinking that Australia and Britain's history together began in 1770...APA arent listed in the references. Is the article worth reading?
Err....
What?
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #11
From what I gathered, he was trying to say that during the Seven Years War, Australia , which had already been mapped in part by the Dutch,was viewed as a possible base/trading entrepot, and that led to the English decision to settle it before the other Europeans.
Hence his quote of Lord Sydney afterwards.
But either it was ill phrased or badly edited and it seems as though he's saying it was used as a base as early as then. It should be changed as it is misleading.
Hence his quote of Lord Sydney afterwards.
But either it was ill phrased or badly edited and it seems as though he's saying it was used as a base as early as then. It should be changed as it is misleading.
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #12
Just sent off an email alerting them of the mistake/misperception, they said they are already aware of it and that it is getting modified. So I'm removing the version I orginally posted until they have the edited copy up.
It should have been sent for per review which isn't apparent here, which is a shame because peer review should have picked up the errors. However it will be interesting to see what changes are made to the MkII version. Whilst there are some criticisms of this particular paper, I do feel that it is important that such a paper is written by a third party because I feel it gives a difference of viewpoint because they are not part of the parties discussing the subject.