The deputy commander-in-chief delivered a scathing speech at a major conference last year, declaring that “the logic and double talk of management and advertising” had “contaminated” the profession.
Major General Chris Smith also warned that the military was accepting “nonsensical and theoretically impossible concepts” and becoming “liberated” from the inherently violent nature of war.
The speech was delivered at the Secretary of the Army’s Historical Conference in November, but recently began to circulate more widely after being uploaded to a YouTube channel run by the Army’s professional development platform, and has already drawn praise from several veterans.
He cited complacency, poor discipline and a lack of moral courage within the military, warning that many within the military lack a basic understanding of the nature and history of war, while spurring recent moves to strengthen the intellectual foundations of the officer corps.
He began by taking aim at the “gibberish” prevalent in the military, suggesting it was used to obscure ignorance.
Major General Chris Smith criticized the use of “managerial speech” within the military. (ADF: Andrew Hetherington)
“According to recent military documents, the world is not just a ‘dangerous place’; it is a ‘complex and challenging strategic environment,'” he said.
“We are not talking about ‘problems’. We have ‘challenges and problems to confront, face and overcome.’ We speak in unnecessary jargon and gibberish.
“This is symbolic of how Western militaries, including our own, have allowed modern management and advertising logic and double talk to taint the profession.”
Major General Smith told the audience that the problem was not superficial and suggested that “something is rotten at the professional core” of the Australian Defense Force (ADF).
“Aside from the inevitable creeping of managerial rhetoric and postmodernism into everyday language, I think in the case of the Australian Army it comes from ignorance that manifests as a form of arrogance,” he said.
During his speech, the deputy secretary did not directly criticize the current or former federal government, instead emphasizing that many of the deep-rooted problems have been around for years, even decades.
However, this wide-ranging speech remains a shocking indictment of the ADF and the military by one of its most senior representatives.
The deputy army chief said there were serious consequences for not speaking directly about the war. (ABC News)
Maj. Gen. Smith said the officers’ knowledge of war and “what makes an army tick” was “terrible” and that it showed “an unquestioning acceptance of things like administrative jargon and post-modern abstract thinking.”
“It also appears as nonsense and theoretically implausible concepts, like decision superiority or information superiority,” he said.
He warned that there was a “conception within the military and more broadly” that war was about “influence” rather than the use of force, and that this was partly due to historical ignorance.
“For those without a foundation in war studies, the essence of war is elusive,” he says.
“I don’t believe that the Australian military understands, even at a basic level, the violence of war, much less the implications of that fact.
“I don’t think this ignorance is a new phenomenon. I think it’s been going on for decades, and the consequences are very real and very serious.”
In his speech, the deputy army chief said it was possible to “kill the path to victory”, adding: “Just ask the Taliban.” (Accessories: ADF)
He slammed the Australian Army and Ministry of Defence’s use of euphemisms such as “making an impact”.
“We don’t effect. We seek out attacks, approach them, kill them, capture them, capture them, hold them and repel them,” he said.
“The postman delivers, the florist delivers.
“This is important because the abstractions in our language separate us from the reality of what the military does.
“For example, providing effects conjures images of a neat war, where packages of destruction are carefully divided. [and] Delivered to compliant passive targets. ”
He said the abstraction infused into the narrative promoted by “coin dinistas” (a likely reference to counter-insurgency experts) “led many officers to believe that charity, dominant narratives, information campaigns, persuasion and dispersal of large sums of money were the first resort of war, and that violence was either a troubling side effect or something to be avoided.”
“We convinced ourselves that we could not die to win the war,” he told the conference.
“But of course you can. Just ask the Taliban.”
He also argued that the decision to give Australian troops benefits “on the basis of a logic of exposure to danger” – which has been common practice since the early 2000s – risks treating war like a “workplace hazard”.
“Treating murder and death in war as an incidental hazard in the workplace has potentially serious implications for how we deal with them,” he says.
Deputy Secretary promotes further education on war
Maj. Gen. Smith said historical ignorance also played a role in officers mistakenly believing that technology could “overcome the fog of war” and ensuring that even “small tactical engagements” were coordinated at headquarters.
“There is a technical logic that supports this idea, leading to the conclusion that the most senior theater commands must plan and execute certain small-scale tactical engagements, such as ship-sinking engagements,” he said.
“There is no need to point out the folly of this kind of highly centralized approach to war, but it is already ingrained because we forget or cannot imagine the great friction between war and war.
“This is the kind of thing Clausewitz takes pains to emphasize to people trying to understand war.”
The deputy chief also said A keen assessment of the flaws he discovered A 2012 report documented inappropriate conduct by Australian soldiers in Afghanistan and said it exposed a failure of leadership, a “general failure of moral courage” and a “loss of historical perspective”.
Maj. Gen. Chris Smith spoke on Capitol Hill during the Army History Secretary’s Conference. (ABC News: Jenny McGee)
“Calling small-scale battles as battles narrows our sense of scale and perspective. Arrogance overcomes humility when we boast about how complex and challenging modern warfare is compared to wars of the past, and about disputes with little evidence to support them,” he said.
“And if we pander to our soldiers’ every desire, they develop a sense of entitlement, which leads to unmet expectations and resentment.
“In other words, our hyperbolic and empty rhetoric, flattery, unwarranted praise, and pandering back then were weak substitutes for moral courage.”
He said the Army is now moving toward greater historical awareness by requiring war and military studies, including a new bachelor’s degree in war studies that about 75 percent of Army cadets complete.
Australian Strategic Policy Institute senior fellow Elizabeth Buchanan said the degree would be a “welcome development for Australia’s strategic and defense intellectual ecosystem”.
”[Army Chief] common [Simon] “Mr Stuart is encouraging future generations of our armed forces to equip them with the deeper intelligence that will undoubtedly set the Australian Army apart on the battlefield and in our international reputation,” she said.
“It is difficult to develop groupthink and ‘yes’ men and women when the basis is a significant early engagement with the intellectual and philosophical truths of war.”