I feel the the alarm bells are increasingly ringing louder day by day, and in response we need to be very careful here.
Much commentary centres around insecurity centred around an unpredictable Trump, and how that effects our relationship with the US.
In listening to Elbridge Colby's recent testimony (on the assumption - big if) that it speaks for Trumps current and future agenda, their focus seems glued on contintinental defense (border control and Arctic) as well as the Pacific. Many in the Congress want the administration draged into confronting Iran, so I'm sure it and Gaza will continue to be a distraction but one of peripheral risk (more of a risk to Israel, SA etc).
I also see US foreign policy more centred around self interest and moving away from the global rules based order morality cop. I don't see the issue here. 99% of nations act on self interest so I don't see the issue here, and in being the global cop you disable others from actually protecting themselves, or making choices affecting their own soverignty. I also see an awareness that the US cannot fight on two fronts anymore (1 major, 1 minor), so they are fairly looking for help/ others taking greater responsibility for their own theatre security.
I also see Trump as a massive disruptor, deliberately in fact. In his outlandish positions he actually forces compromise (tariffs, Gaza riviera, Illegal migration) and change. It works for him and he's almost predictable in how he seeks to negotiate. Follow the hands, I'd say, not the bark.
My point is, we need to understand the why, and for me, I get why he is effecting so much change and have no issue with it (that's once I take a deep breathe after I hear the latest scandel etc).
As for the US/ AU, the runs are on the board on both sides. We both need each other equally therefore I don't see any real change to our relationship (bar more noise/ alarmist commentary when Trump barks his latest outlandish negotiation). We don't need to move away from the US as from their perspective IMO (how I read it) nothing has changed between us.
We need more cooler heads. Yes increased commitment is (should be) coming and I do agree at advancing the timetable (sorry Jim Charmers but you're already in deficit so whats another 2+ billion released now) to increase lethality, capability and sustainability now, but let's all take a step back from the noise and logically calculate what we need to do now, not react emotionally whilst we lose our minds in fear of abandonment.
Now to goto the timely Pezullo article, he recommends 10 board categories to be delivered in the next 2 years:
1. Enhance surveillance
2. Lift operational readiness
3. Acquire longer-range anti-surface warfare capabilities
4. Acquire longer-range air superiority capability
5. Remediate naval warfare capability
6. Ensure RAAF is battle ready
7. Push forward army’s maritime capability
8. Address capability gaps ... sum-purchase IAD ie THAAD
9. Negotiate PNG alliance
10. Develop a war book
For me, increasing tempo and readiness is a given, but there are some glaring issues here around manpower and sustainability.
Much of his 2 year plan has the word 'acquire' attached to it. Just because we snap our fingers, a magical squadron of B-1B's will not appear. How can 6 Collins be ready to deploy at once when 2 at best seems reasonable (esp considering future LOTE), GWEO needs a massive speed up- yes, but a text search tells me the word 'recruitment' is not mentioned once. Stategic fuel reserves also are ignored nor is supply/ logistics/ air lift, supply ships mentioned etc.
Overall, I like the sentiment and it serves it's purpose to make people think, but I would like to see to actual deliverables within his recommendations, focused on increased lethality, capability and sustainability that can be locked in, rather that pie in the sky stuff that just clouds the debate now (I deliberately won't go into the hint of acquiring nuclear weapons in the last paragraph).
Lastly, in a contingency I think we need to identify what force/ capability we will seek to forward deploy and what will stay continental based. The US will seek to use AU as a safe FOB, just like they did in WW2. I assume we will be responsible for the protection of that FOB from interference. When push comes to shove, what are we willing to forward deploy? Pezzulo's talk of forward deploying to PNG is interesting, until I read further:
" ... establishment of ADF bases in locations such as Manus, Rabaul and Lae to support the conduct of maritime surveillance, anti-surface, anti-submarine, and air superiority missions. For instance, a forward-deployed composite RAAF wing, consisting of F-35A Lightning fighters, B-1B Lancers armed with LRASM, F/A-18F Super Hornets armed with SM-6 missiles, and P-8 Poseidon maritime aircraft could operate from the Bismarck to the Celebes seas and beyond with the aim of denying access into our northern sea-air approaches. A similar alliance should be negotiated with The Philippines".
I'm going to ignore why you would forward deploy a strategic bomber as again there is not one available nor would you deploy it there, but I can't see how we would forward deploy without significant Indopacom support (particularly logistically) or more likely only in conjunction with their forces and commitment.
TBH, I'd like a resubmit Mike. I understand and value the sentiment, but let's be real here.
