Murray Scott writes: We have seen in recent years ill-advised and disastrous military actions by Australia, invariably at the request of traditional allies (“Defence says the Parliament should have no say on whether Australia goes to war”). The outcome of such overseas actions, including casualties and ignominy in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, has eroded Australians’ trust in the decisions to engage based on military discretion.
If Australia was under attack there would be no hesitation in approval by Parliament of an appropriate response. We cannot, however, allow our forces to be drawn into conflict by the murky politics of other nations, notably the United States of America.
Garth Nicholson writes: Such a decision must come from the people and their representatives in Parliament and should require at least a 70% majority vote.
James Cowley writes: It seems totally logical that Parliament, which represents the communities of Australia, should be always able to vote on whether the Australian Defence Force should be involved in any war, or go to war against another country. The idea that our sons and daughters, grandsons and granddaughters can be sent to fight in someone else’s war seems totally out of date with modern society.
The ADF, politicians and other influencers can put their evidence and views but these must be subject to a decision by the Parliament. If war is declared against us or we are invaded, this requirement could be bypassed if time prevents such.
We respect the ADF, its members and the work done to safeguard our society. But on an issue so serious as being involved in a war we need a fully democratic process. This is a really important issue for the current government to address.
Jules Pennell writes: There should be a free vote of all members of Parliament (lower and upper houses) but that should exclude any members who stand to profit from the war.
If the majority decides to go to war, those members who voted for war must be sent to the front without rank for the duration of that war, unless too old (e.g. older than 70) or physically incapacitated, in which case their closest blood relative must take their place.
If you’re pleased, peed off or piqued, tell us about it by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
Historically, Australian prime ministers are prepared to commit to war when brown-nosing US presidents. The Australian populace is less keen. Hence, PMs can make skewed decisions.
The ADF needs wars to justify their budgets… if not their existence. With such vested interests it is vital they are excluded from making the ultimate call.
I have always been wary of organisations and institutions who have a tendency to the right as well as a raft of hidden agenda. That includes both the military and political parties. All of them tend to do what benefits themselves rather than the country as a whole. We need to start thinking about defence only. This submarine argy bargy is rediculus for instance. Billions of dollars for a single sub. If we are ever attacked the attacker will throw everything at it until its sunk. Then what happens? The Ukraine war has shown us the real future is in drones, not capital ships. We should be thinking defence with massive drone swarms.
Whatever drones we could put up, China will put up a 1000 for each one we launch. Their manufacturing capacity is on a scale unimaginable to most Australians as well already being the world leaders in drone technology. All a moot point anyway because Uncle Sam will have the final say if we go to war or not no matter our preparedness. Best to craft an independent foreign policy thats seeks peaceful coexistence.
yes the whole AUKUS thing a waste of money. You are right that of course the defence organisations want to keep their nice little earners going. Pity that Albo is now talking about ramping up defence spending . . .
Going to war is a political, not a military, decision and must require a decision of parliament. I disagree with Jules Pennell’s condition of an exemption from voting by MPs who’d profit from it: such people should be required to vote bearing in mind the accompanying provision that they go on the frontline if the yes vote wins.
A country goes to war – not the armed services or individual politicians .
the parliament may be imperfect but so is the community which elected it but that’s no reason to suppose that a decision to go to war should not be the decision of the parliament notwithstanding its faults.
Howard & Morrison gave us cogent reason to take the power away from any individual.