The Australian Army has completed a two-year internal review into the state of the profession and institutional reform targeting command accountability. This period of introspection addressed what Lieutenant General Simon Stuart, the 41st chief of army, diagnosed as insufficient professional intellectual discipline for the rigours of a renewed age of great power competition.
Stuart, whose tenure as chief of army ended on 8 July, anticipated the positive effect that clarity of purpose and character would have on the army and designed the review to reacquaint soldiers with the currency of military force. In the long term, the army would regain the institutional muscle-memory to fight large-scale combat operations and sharpen its land warfare concepts, doctrine, command and control, and capabilities.
But first the review process had to contend with reversing a contraction and blurring of the army’s jurisdiction, expertise and capacity for self-regulation that occurred during and after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These three areas framed the review. In his May address – the last in a series of four keynotes on the state of the army profession – Stuart used this framing in summarising the results and progress made.
The review made a strong case for expanding the army’s social contract by reviving domestic civil-military relations, beginning with frank dialogue between service members, the citizenry and elected representatives. Enabling groups and non-government agencies must engage and remain receptive to calls for support for future Australian Defence Force operations. This will be necessary if we are all to dispel lingering romanticised views and misunderstandings owing to a legacy of ‘wars of choice’ and domestic crisis responses. By way of example, Stuart reminded the audience that every soldier in the room would have fallen to take 15 metres of territory from Imperial Germany at Passchendaele, near the Belgian city of Ypres, in October 1917, only for it to be recaptured three days later. It was not lost on those gathered that such violence had reappeared on modern battlefields and city streets or that anyone fortunate enough to return from war learned harsh lessons about reintegration into society. A war in the Indo-Pacific would demand unity of effort and draw on Australian national support and industry. There is much preparatory work underway to build this resilience.
Second, the review established a need to impart the reality of war on recruits during training and follow-on education. Reform focused on ensuring that personnel understood that war remained a violent, brutal, unpredictable, paradoxical and ethically challenging human endeavour. This understanding should ensure that future generations of soldiers can adapt quickly to changing tactics and resist the corrupting nature of war. Time will tell whether this approach is apt to achieve the outcome.
The army will also incorporate more clearly defined expectations of what good soldiering looks like. Recruits will receive more extensive training and copies of a new handbook, titled The Soldier. The handbook codifies the professional obligations of all Australian soldiers. Officers will be encouraged to study a rebuilt curriculum around developing strength of character and competence at the Land Combat College and obtain a bachelor’s degree in war studies at the ADF Academy. The course will be introduced in 2027. Uptake of the new degree will be watched closely as a measure of long-term interest in a professional military career. This kind of exposure to the army’s professional body of knowledge and land warfare expertise will produce cohorts that are more versed in the nature of war and the foundations of military command, benefitting the institution and nation.
Lastly, the review responded to the army’s part in restoring trust in the ADF’s ability to apply military force ethically in the defence of Australia in a way that is proportionate to the threat. Stuart and senior army leaders developed a written code of honour for generals, titled The Sword and Baton. The code establishes the standards expected of general officers and makes clear that service and the interests of the nation must always come first.
Taking this view further, the code states that senior commanders must exercise a duty of care that goes beyond societal norms. This duty holds whether soldiers are in or out of uniform, in sickness or in health and extends to military spouses and family members. The army has been working to ensure that soldiers experiencing mental or physical health challenges can recover within their units and use discipline systems for support and redemption rather than pursuing more complex and less definitive administrative remedies. This avenue will reinvigorate the ‘chain of intimacy between soldiers and commanders’ at all levels and provide the chain of command the agency and resources needed to build the linkages that underpin the army’s will to fight.
The end of the review doesn’t signal the end of the army’s introspection or remediation. Its campaign plan will now include a designated line of effort for monitoring and achieving the professionalisation of the service. This outcome is a worthy inheritance for the next generation of soldiers and a sound foundation for the new chief of army, Lieutenant General Susan Coyle, to carry forward.
Coyle, a capable leader with an exemplary record of steering organisations through change, will no doubt reinforce the army’s people-focused culture and accelerate the transformation Stuart began. This continuity of direction and drive for professional integration is needed to forge closer linkages between the ADF, industry, public servants and civil society. It’s also necessary as the army moves to turn the page on counterinsurgency and smaller-war thinking to begin a new chapter in its history.
