Customarily the release of the Autumn edition of the Australian Army Journal affords an appropriate opportunity to reflect on the significance of ANZAC Day, which falls on the eve of our publication date. This year is no exception. In recent years ANZAC Day has undergone both transformation and renewal. For a period in the 1960s and ‘70s its relevance and longevity appeared doubtful. That period witnessed enormous social change and a radical alteration of the relationship between the individual and the state.
Much of the impetus for such change was provided by the unpopular war in Vietnam. Anti-war sentiment easily conflated with anti-military sentiment. From the withdrawal from Vietnam until the deployment of INTERFET to East Timor in 1999, the Australian Army grappled with the legacy of the social revolution unleashed during the Vietnam era. For much of this period the Army did not enjoy the public esteem that it does today.
There is debate among scholars and social commentators as to the precise nature of the phenomena that led to a resurgence of interest in ANZAC Day. As the numbers of veterans dwindled and fewer Australians had experience of war or military service of any kind, public remembrance of war and sacrifice came to occupy a central place in our national life.
Much of this was attributable to interest in the exploits of ancestors and family members, but it also seemed to represent a search for deeper meaning in an age of materialism and moral relativity.
The result has been the elevation of the ANZAC story to the status of Australia’s foundation myth. Arguably, in this process ANZAC Day has come to eclipse Australia Day in the public imagination as the true national birthday. This is controversial, especially in some academic quarters.
The revival of interest in ANZAC Day has coincided with renewed public respect for the Australian Army. Ironically this has not been an unalloyed good. In some ways the ANZAC myth reinforces public complacency. At the core of the myth is the view that Australians are natural soldiers. This is a dangerous fallacy, which undermines serious discussion about the need for highly trained professional armies and the costs of raising and sustaining them.
Linked to this myth is a view that while our soldiers are invincible they only ever fight ‘other people’s wars’. The paradox of portraying our soldiers simultaneously as victims and supermen is lost on most popular historians and commentators. Moreover, this second myth also inhibits mature discussion about Australia’s engagement in the great ideological struggles of the twentieth century and the role of military power in statecraft.
However, the public image of the contemporary army as the custodian of ANZAC bestows many benefits on us. In particular, ANZAC is a celebration of the mass volunteer Army, it is accessible to a wide cross-section of the population and prevents the Army being seen as an aloof, remote martial caste. In a liberal democracy this is essential to the health of the Army and the democratic system.
The values celebrated through ANZAC are central to our identity as Australian soldiers. They are the source of the contemporary army values of Courage, Teamwork and Initiative. Whether in barracks or on operations or on active service, every Australian soldier is obliged to live according to those values. It is an onerous burden.
This ANZAC Day we pause to reflect on the sacrifice of all those who have died in the service of Australia. Such reflection is a poignant reminder of the unique nature of the military profession. The soldier enters a contract of unlimited liability with the nation. He—or she—may be required to die in the performance of their duty.
This sets us apart from our fellow citizens and explains in large measure their enormous respect for the Army and the wider Australian Defence Force. Conversely, when any soldier fails to live up to those values there will be a public backlash. The recent controversy involving the conduct of some Army cadets at the Australian Defence Force Academy is a case in point.
This episode raises some disturbing issues. As many of these are the subject of inquiries with the potential to lead to prosecutions, we cannot traverse these in any detail. As we reflect on the sacrifice of those who have served in Australia’s wars it is timely to also reflect on the extent to which each of us is worthy of the legacy they have bequeathed.
While this incident has generated a number of inquiries it may be timely to consider another one conducted by the Army itself. The United States Army is currently asking itself serious and probing questions about the nature of the profession of arms in the twenty-first century. That study on the nature of the profession of arms has been convened by the Chief of Staff of the United States Army and will report directly to him. Don Snyder, a retired US Army Officer, told a conference at Oxford University, partly sponsored by the Land Warfare Studies Centre, that after a decade at war the US Army was returning to first principles. Its most fundamental question is ‘What is the overarching moral narrative to justify the existence of the United States Army?’
Perhaps it is time that we asked ourselves the same questions. The recent scandal at ADFA and the controversy over prosecutions of soldiers for wrongful killing in Afghanistan have revealed a chasm between the Army and social norms. To some extent this is healthy. The nature of military service and the unlimited liability contract mentioned above demand this. Yet do we really understand the full implications of being a unique profession?
‘He died doing the job he loved.’ How often have we heard this remark at the funeral of one our soldiers in recent years? But does this adequately encapsulate the nature of military service? While some argue that we are living in a post-heroic era, where noble claims of patriotism and sacrifice are obsolete, we respectfully disagree.
The profession of arms is an ancient and honourable one. It demands unique sacrifices, offers unique rewards and inculcates distinctive values. We need to be better at understanding this and articulating in public. But of course our claims will be hollow if we are undermined by indefensible conduct that violates basic standards of human decency. This too is worthy of reflection this ANZAC Day.
Since the last edition of this Journal was published, Corporal Richard Atkinson and Sapper Jamie Larcombe were killed on active service in Afghanistan. We extend our profound regrets and respectful sympathy to their families and loved ones.
