The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age have been having a whale of a time writing about a war between Australia and China, which is apparently coming within three years.
If you haven’t caught up with it, here’s the first paragraph from its special “Red Alert” series:
Within 72 hours of a conflict breaking out over Taiwan, Chinese missile bombardments and devastating cyberattacks would begin pummelling Australia. For the first time since World War II, the mainland would be under attack. Meanwhile, 150,000 American troops would descend on the Top End seeking refuge from the immediate conflict zone.
If a fantasy war is this dramatic, just imagine a real one.
Legacy types have got stuck into the Nine mastheads for this. Paul Keating said it was the most “egregious and provocative” reporting he’d seen in 50 years. Former SMH luminary Geoff Kitney called it “’alarmist, Murdoch-style, clickbait journalism” and said no editor he’d worked under in 40 years would have published it this way.
But this “Reds to the North” (rather than under the bed) series raises issues worth pondering. Call it the unintended consequences of exploring Australia’s war readiness.
In assembling a group of five experts who issue a “communique”, the Nine project is an attempt to break a taboo that apparently exists in Australia of publicly discussing the true threat posed by China.
What it has done instead is offer insight into the kind of pompous, khaki hyperbole that captures government after government and defence minister after defence minister, privy to grave security briefings that traverse matters beyond the ken of the common person.
The “Day 2” of the Age–SMH communique ends with this handy catch-all conclusion from the experts:
Australia must equip itself for the age of crisis. It should plan for war in the near, medium and long term, understanding that a stronger Australia would help deter conflict by raising the risks and costs of war for the CCP. The key to avoiding conflict is deterrence.
Quelle surprise. Let a life insurance salesperson into your home and it won’t be long before you’re insured to the eyeballs.
Defence spending needs examining
Most alarmingly, the experts paint a picture of an Australian military machine that is barely ready for conflict with Tonga. The Australian Defence Force (ADF) is said to lack the capacity to strike back if it comes under attack from a foreign power.
“I think the most depressing thing about the ADF now is that for $46-$47 billion a year, we get very little high explosive on target,” said Peter Jennings, a former deputy secretary for strategy in the Defence Department and retired head of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI).
ASPI recently reported the ADF “doesn’t have a strike system that can pose a credible deterrent” and that it “currently has no long-range land-strike capability”. Apparently, according to the experts, it was only the air force that was anywhere near up to scratch, with the navy and the army a kind of running joke.
If this is what the experts are telling us about the sorry state of our military after decades of billion-dollar spending, then it’s time for a royal commission into where all the money has gone.
We might want to ask some awkward questions about how decisions have been made, by whom exactly and what accountability there has been for what now looks like successive years of failure. One imagines that a royal commission into defence might make the robodebt royal commission look like a regional sideshow.
Heavens, we might also end up discovering uncomfortable truths about the rise and rise of some of our mighty former commanders, who inevitably enter the realm of the soldier-warrior-god with no questions asked.
Awkward on AUKUS
And then, of course, there is AUKUS.
Nine’s panel of experts has flat-out told us that if push comes to shove, it could be all over for Australia in 72 hours, with China crippling the nation’s electricity grid and generally paralysing everything we do before bombing the bejesus out of us. This could all happen in the time it takes for Joe Biden to remember that bloke from Down Under’s name.
If this is the case, then is it impolite to ask why Australia will spend well over $100 billion for nuclear-powered submarines — submarines that will be ready around 30 years from now? Just asking, because the experts raised a whole different war scenario that is over in a flash.
The decision to rev up AUKUS was apparently made by Scott Morrison who, all by his lonesome, suddenly came upon the idea one day, like Newton being hit on the head by an apple. We need to bear in mind that this was the product of the brain that also thought it was OK to secretly take on five government ministries.
Still, this is not being questioned in Nine’s journey into geopolitical statecraft, all under the baton of Peter Hartcher.
Gosh, is it really only a year ago that our man Hartcher brought us the inside story of how the magnificent, secret AUKUS deal was done, told with access to normally unreachable US security sources?
Did Nine’s series interest you, or was it just banging the war drum? Let us know 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.
Putting to one side the politics of the Nine material, if the expert panel are indeed experts, Australia’s wake up moment has arrived. You cannot continue to sit on the military side with the USA and chest beat, while on the trade and export side you sit with China and drink tea. Which is it? Well, a sobering fact – the 25m odd-Australian population can not build, sustain and deploy a force to combat a 1.4b odd-Chinese population in a ‘stand-up-knockem-down war’. The USA will use its might and capability to defend the USA. Always has, always will. Time to actively consider military neutrality and to preserve the country and its future. Does this mean capitulation? No. It means being prepared to defend your border and your land while others squabble over others. Not to embark off shore on no-win wars. Fight for home.
Well said.
Written by a true patriot, not the treasonous quislings currently governing our country, who are prepared to sacrifice our national interest to the interest of a foreign power (albeit one that mostly occupies us now anyway).
Written by a true patriot, not the quislings currently governing our country, who are prepared to sacrifice our national interest to the interest of a foreign power (albeit one that mostly occupies us now anyway).
Ho ho ho. The stupid Crikey bot objects to the ‘t’ word (for someone who sells out one’s own nation interest to that of another nation), but lets ‘quisling’ through.
It doesn’t understand English so the chances of it knowing Norwegian is slim as summer icicle, pining for the fords.
It also cannot cope with the word ‘reason’ following ‘T’.
Or the ‘N’ word for people who march under a crooked cross and give straight-arm salutes.
Sad to see once excellent newspapers descend so low. Nine Media are now challenging News Corp at the bottom of the media swamp. Always afraid this would happen after they bought out Fairfax.
Agree, also reflect badly on Australia and Australians’ propensity for creating fear or anxiety about the ‘other’?
Withstanding issues with China, many are substantive, but no other media ecosystem apart from Australia, globally, is so singularly obsessed about China, dog whistling and reviving the ‘yellow peril’?
Except of course US right wing cable media outlets and Koch’s own including Heritage Foundation media….
Our media is run by a Neoliberal rabble and in true bugger everyone else style the real defence of Australia just gets ignored.
If you asked anyone in the military what Australia needed to do to protect itself and not have to surrender in a serious war they would say we need a manufacturing base and we need our own storage and supply of energy.
It would take about one month before we could no longer work or get food or have transport our fuel supply will last 2 weeks and the rest is in sitting duck oil tankers.
If the country was preparing for war then we need the ability to supply ourselves and others independent of say China and the US war requires massive loans otherwise.
Ultimately war is one set of capitalists facing off against another they still need to have countries to sell to and buy from without supply chains and manufacturing you cannot win, we depend on China and China is far less but still partially dependent on us.
We have many years of building industries so that we can support ourselves independently, this latest scare campaign by Neoliberals and their military industrial connections is typical of an ideology that is devoid of any interest in anyone except the very wealthy.
I’m about to cancel my SMH subscription because of this bellicosity (If I can find out who to write to). Who do these people think they are to put the whole country in danger with such inflammatory articles. I cannot get over ht crass stupidity in poking the bear like this. as has been much discussed, subs or anything else we might spend our tax payer’s money on wouldn’t matter if China did decide to take us over. Much better to engage with them as Wong is trying to do. And instead of stupid subs, why not some smart modern technology that enables us to be flexible and move quickly, as has also been suggested in recent days.
Sadly the SMH doesn’t let you cancel in writing. They make it as difficult as possible doing it by phone. In the end you have to patiently explain to some poor woman (never a man) that the newspaper you have read all your life has turned into the kind of tabloid trash that would disgrace the old Daily Mirror. When she asks what will return you to the fold, you will need to patiently explain that a real newspaper covers the news and its opinion pieces are well reasoned, and based on a actual knowledge – not the rabid fantasies of the extreme right. She will then, reluctantly, cancel your subscription.
I cancelled my sub. to the SMH as soon as I knew the SMH offices were being used for Liberal Party fundraisers. A pleasant young man spoke to me imploring me to keep up the subscription. He tried with no effect to justify what the SMH was doing. Independent Always etc…
Wong tries diplomacy while Marles beats the drums of war on behalf of the US. And nobody is asking how nobbling the trade route with China in order to preserve our trade route with… um… China makes any sense.
Marles is a lightweight. There is plenty other talent in the Labor Caucus but, clearly, he was owed a favour in scoring the deputy’s role.
And Marles is at it again this afternoon – warmongering away . . .
Agree. I’ve never understood why he holds one of the more important roles in the government as he comes across as pretty mediocre.
Cancel your subscription, as I did recently, by phone, and they’ll ask you politely, why. Then they’ll send you a questionnaire online. Give them the works, as I did.
Was the SMH report written by Parnell McGinness? It certainly reads that way! Turgid and nonsensical. Going to war with your best customer on the basis of supporting the country who took all our agri exports to china for the benefit of American farmers.