Volume 16 Number 1

The Australian Army Journal is the Australian Army’s premier professional publication and a consistent presence informing the debate about the Army since the late 1940s. The topics of the journal have been ever-changing as authors reflect upon the issues affecting the Army of the day. The journal has given everyone from junior leaders to Chiefs of Army a venue to share ideas, discuss issues and do the most important thing that a leader can do: offer thoughts to prepare those who will inevitably follow them in the near and more distant future. The recent decision to situate the journal as a professional, and not primarily academic, publication is a sign of the strength of the discussion about the Army. The Australian Army Journal remains a critical part of the Army’s past, and it will be equally critical for the Army in the future.

The Army needs its best minds to write about its past, present and possible future. In the time since the last edition of the Journal was published, the Army distinguished itself on Operation BUSHFIRE ASSIST and has been committing all it can to supporting the national response to the coronavirus pandemic. The Army’s core philosophies, captured in a range of strategic documentation released since 2018, have been validated in this demanding time. That the future is uncertain and surprising is an understatement given these events. It demands us, as a professional military, to seek to understand our new circumstances, consider its challenges and position the Army to be what the nation demands of it.

Of course, the Army is only as strong as its partners. Professional writing is an important way to share with them the significant issues of our time. In this sharing of ideas we can build consensus on issues and demonstrate our willingness to accept the responsibility demanded by the time. The journal contributes to the rich discourse across the ADF and within the Department of Defence as decisions about the future of the ADF are made. But it also invites the community into our discussion, helping them become aware of why the Army should matter to them. More importantly, it can give the Australian community—its people, industry, academia and all other institutions—confidence that it has an able and intellectually prepared service ready to serve the nation.

In introducing this edition of the journal, I impress upon all readers to recognise how fundamentally different the world is from that which existed only months ago. The assumptions that form the basis of our thinking have been tested, trends have accelerated, expectations have changed and pressures are being felt all across Australian society. It is important that we challenge the assumptions in our own thinking so that the Army can be better for it. We all need to contribute, whether that be through writing a blog post or an article, making a professional video or photograph, presenting at a seminar or a ‘Cove talk’, or even simply reading widely and talking about today’s challenges in messes and soldiers’ clubs.

The journal is important not just because it is another forum for a professional military to discuss issues; its long history shows it to be an important record of what is happening now and how all of us have positioned the Army to be the best it can be for the future.

Colonel David Beaumont

Director, Australian Army Research Centre

In his foreword, the Director of the Australian Army Research Centre writes of an ‘uncertain and surprising future’. That theme echoes across the entire content of this edition of the Australian Army Journal. It is, however, a testament to our authors that they have not let that uncertainty overwhelm them; rather, they have made critical observations, analysed problems and suggested new ways of seeing, operating in and thinking about Army. Moreover, they have done this from an individual perspective which reflects their corps, unit and particular field of interest.

Leading this discussion is Colonel Martin White who observes that current Australian strategic commentary fails to acknowledge the nexus between Defence policy and sophisticated technology and that it insufficiently takes into account the threats or opportunities of autonomous systems and artificial intelligence. In his thoughtful critique, Colonel White describes the common response to an Indo-Pacific technology race as overly ‘contained’ by geography and ‘restrained’ by military hardware. Major Lee Hayward continues this strategic critique in her call for a clearer understanding of information warfare. The information environment, according to the author, is the least familiar fighting environment but the one with the greatest potential for targeting decision-making. In a world where ‘the absolutes of war and peace are outdated and irrelevant’, Major Hayward argues for an information warfare campaign plan that takes into account the human endeavour. Advancing the theme of the uncertain environment is a thought-provoking piece by Dr Joyo Sanyal on the security challenges of operating in the zone between peace and war, known as the ‘grey zone’.

If questioning absolutes is a common motif, then Lieutenant Colonel Will Viggers does this well in his examination of the levels of war. Lieutenant Colonel Viggers examines the opacity of the level known as ‘operational’ and argues that, through complex doctrinal definitions, the logic of the levels has been obscured. He instead proposes a simple structure in which the levels are clearly distinguished according to their functions, objectives, and characteristics, and which reminds us that the use of war is inherently political. Captain Nicholas Barber offers a panacea for the uncertainty of the battlespace through developing an effective intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capability. His article argues the case for an adaptive ISR capability, based on the characteristics of agility and resilience.

Two articles follow which focus on new technology. First, three officers from the 1st Combat Service Support Battalion combine their extensive experience to propose a new model for the future of Army supply chains and distribution. Second, Major Matthew Wood from the Directorate of Land Force Design puts forward a compelling case for the reintroduction of manufacturing—in particular, 3D printing—to enhance the supply chain and support frontline innovation. Both articles demonstrate creative ways to build resilience in the force while reducing the threat to soldiers.

The next group of articles offers four different perspectives on Army’s people. In a fascinating study, Captain Toni Pachernegg discusses the emerging use of the borrowed term ‘warfighter’, its misalignment with Army’s warfighting philosophy, and the implications for creating disharmony within the moral and intellectual components of fighting power. Major Nathan Bradney provides a useful discussion on the influence of culture, ethics and foreign competition on the development of a counterterrorism capability, and observes how counterterrorism skills have gradually transferred from the Special Forces to the conventional force. In a new empirical study the Director of Defence Force Recruiting, Colonel Philip Hoglin, provides a detailed evaluation of the ADF Gap Year—Army program from its first iteration in 2007 to 2012. Finally, Brigadier Douglas Laidlaw and Lieutenant Colonel Scott Denner call for the reintroduction of the rank of Second Lieutenant as a necessary development pathway for part-time officers in the future total force.

We review four excellent books that have been recently published: a collection of essays on 21st century combatants; an ethnographic cultural study of Norwegian special forces; an official history of Australian peacekeeping missions from 1947 to 2006; and a highly informative commentary on social media, hackers and fake news. Enough reading to keep you occupied until the next edition!

Finally, I would like to congratulate Captain James Lewis for his 2019 article ‘The Battle of Marawi: Lessons for Developing Urban Capabilities’, for which he has been awarded the Chauvel Prize. The Editorial Board considered Captain Lewis’ article ‘exceptionally important and topical’ and determined that, in an impressive year of written work, it contributed best to the debate on future land warfare. I look forward to that ongoing debate, and I commend this edition of the Australian Army Journal to you.