Australian Deputy Army Chief Critiques "Pollution" of Military Profession by Managerial Logic
Major General Chris Smith, the Australian Deputy Chief of Army, delivered a powerful address last year, criticizing the military profession for what he described as a "pollution" by "managerial and advertising logic and double speak." The speech, initially given at the Chief of Army's History Conference in November, recently gained significant public attention after being uploaded online.
Major General Smith stated that the army had adopted "nonsensical and theoretically implausible concepts" and had become "detached" from the inherently violent aspects of warfare.
Overview of Key Critiques
Major General Smith identified several fundamental areas of concern within the army:
- Complacency and Discipline: He cited issues such as complacency, poor discipline, and a perceived lack of moral courage among personnel.
- Historical Knowledge: Smith highlighted that many personnel lacked fundamental knowledge of war's nature and history, a critical gap for military professionals.
- Language and Ignorance: He specifically criticized what he termed "gibberish" prevalent within the army, suggesting it was used to mask ignorance. Smith contended that this linguistic shift indicated "something rotten at the professional core" of the Australian Defence Force (ADF), attributing it to ignorance and hubris.
Language and Conceptual Criticisms
The Deputy Chief provided several examples of language he viewed as problematic and indicative of this "pollution":
- Referring to a 'complex and challenging strategic environment' instead of a 'dangerous place.'
- Using 'challenges and issues to meet, face and overcome' instead of 'problems.'
He argued that officers' understanding of warfare was "abject," leading to an unquestioning acceptance of managerial language and abstract concepts like 'decision superiority' and 'information dominance.' Smith expressed concern that a significant school of thought within the army viewed war primarily as 'about influence' rather than the use of force, a perspective he linked partly to historical unfamiliarity.
He specifically critiqued the use of euphemisms such as 'deliver effects,' and clearly stated the army's fundamental role:
"We seek out, close with, kill, capture, seize, hold and repel attacks."
Smith emphasized that such abstract language disconnects the military from the harsh realities of its operations.
Implications and Historical Context
Major General Smith also suggested that treating killing and dying in war as merely an 'incidental workplace hazard'—a practice he linked to hazard-based allowances since the early 2000s—could have profound implications for military conduct. He further argued that historical ignorance contributed to over-centralized tactical decision-making, where even minor engagements are coordinated at high headquarters.
He referenced findings from a 2012 report on Australian soldiers' conduct in Afghanistan, which identified failures in leadership, moral courage, and historical perspective. Smith cautioned against diminishing scale by referring to minor engagements as battles, boasting about the complexity of contemporary warfare without evidence, and pandering to soldiers' wants.
Army Initiatives and Expert Commentary
In response to addressing these profound concerns, the army is reportedly working to enhance historical awareness by mandating the study of warfare. This includes the introduction of a new Bachelor of War Studies degree, which is expected to be completed by approximately 75% of army officer cadets.
Experts have welcomed these developments. Elizabeth Buchanan of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and Professor Peter Dean of the Australian National University have described Major General Smith's speech as a crucial challenge. They view these initiatives as a positive step towards developing a deeper intellectual edge and fostering critical engagement with the true nature of warfare within the ADF.