Work Boat World and Ausmarine Editorial – June 2014
As I recall those words, or something very similar, were uttered by President Dwight Eisenhower as he left office after eight successful years presiding over the fast improving fortunes of the United States of America.
I was thinking of the wisdom of those words and their appropriateness to the modern situation as I reflected on the various threats, abuse, accusations and lies that have been directed at me from parts of that military-industrial complex (MIC) over the past decade or so.
Indeed, to have had the temerity to question, let alone disagree with, the motives or capabilities of leaders of the MIC was to inspire an amazingly excessive response.
Some of the more extreme of those responses came shortly after my public questioning and criticism of the 2003 Bush-led invasion of Iraq. My doubts were based on three factors. (1) That even Mossad (the Israeli intelligence service) had publicly declared that there were no WMDs. (2) That Saddam Hussein was already contained quite economically, and (3) That a ground war was going to be incredibly expensive in terms of lives, limbs and money and likely to be very long. Vietnam came to mind.
As a citizen of a so-called free country, Australia, I was rather taken aback when I was contacted by the private secretary of the then-Prime Minister and, among other things, accused of treason for expressing such views. Of course, since then, I have taken cold comfort from the fact that the Iraq war turned out precisely as I predicted. In that regard I keep thinking of Dr Johnson's famous comment: "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel".
Against that background I have been contemplating defence expenditure. In Australia and many other developed countries, governments are having to look hard and seriously at all items of expenditure. Defence is invariably a big one.
Defence expenditure is conventionally measured as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product. Australia, for example, aspires to, and is pushed by its big ally the USA, to two per cent. This seems a ludicrous benchmark to me. Proportionally, Australia is going to get a lot less for its two per cent than, for example, China. China's wages alone are about ten per cent of Australia's.
Further, once the two per cent target is set it appears that almost no effort is made to try to maximise the value per dollar of the money that comprises that percentage. "We have agreed the expenditure. Great. Now we're safe" – seems to be the approach. There is virtually no attempt made to maximise value for money.
Of course, that approach is quite widespread among developed countries' governments. It makes it easy for the MICpeople to sell the idea of ridiculously expensive and complex defence equipment. Unfortunately, for taxpayers many of their retired senior military officers and defence bureaucrats have become fully paid up members of the MIC.
In fact, I have noticed that too many serving officers and bureaucrats have become willingly complicit in "the system". As one of my shipbuilder friends once said: "Never underestimate the influence of frequent flyer points in defence purchasing." Sad.
Another important factor is the problem of wasteful and costly interference in contracts by comparatively junior officers and bureaucrats. Why can't governments place an order and leave well enough alone? They should let their suppliers produce what they have been contracted to deliver.
I recall back in the early eighties being shown over the NQEA shipyard in Cairns, Australia, by its boss Don Fry. He was then building the first couple of a large order of Fremantle-class patrol boats for the Royal Australian Navy.
Asking how much they cost, I was staggered by his reply. I commented that the price was outrageous and Mr Fry agreed. When I asked how much a similar boat would be if I were to buy one, he replied "… about a third of that". Obviously, I asked why. His response was to point to a number of uniformed lieutenants and lieutenant commanders wandering around the shipyard with clipboards. He said: "See him, and him and him. They are just the visible part of the problem. They get in the way."
Another problem is that too many defence personnel, both uniformed and civilian, cannot resist demanding all the "bells and whistles" including a lot of capability that is both very expensive and unnecessary.
All these character deficiencies are pandered to by the MIC. They shouldn't be allowed to do so. There is absolutely no reason why governments cannot do what private ship owners have been doing very successfully for thousands of years. That is to order their vessels and equipment on the basis of fixed price – fixed term contracts.
The only loser from that approach would be the MIC people and their government counterparts.
In the long run it is the individual captains and their crews who make the difference in war. The best ship in the world is hopeless in the hands of an inferior captain. History provides us with endless examples of the converse. Perhaps governments ought to be reminded periodically of that vital fact.
Neil Baird
