Preface

The centenary of the Australian Army and the centenary of the Federation of the Australian nation in 2001 fittingly symbolises the fundamental relationship between army and nation in the course of the twentieth century. If defence is one of the basic functions of the nation state then the creation of viable instruments of defence is one of the first responsibilities of government. From tiny and generally ineffective beginnings in the aftermath of the South African War, through the mass armies of the two world wars which called on a high proportion of eligible men for service in its ranks, to the modern, professional and technologically sophisticated force which provided the mainstay of INTERFET in East Timor, the Australian Army has adapted itself to changed and changing circumstances in ways which suggest a history of organisational and institutional diversity in keeping with the wide-ranging changes in Australian society over the same period.

In historical terms, the engagement between the army and society has been the most wide-reaching and profound of any of the three Australian services. Successive generations of men and, increasingly, women served in its ranks to a greater numerical extent than in the RAN or RAAF. It has consistently recruited more aboriginal people, and those from communities of more recent migrant origin, it has long been the most thoroughly 'Australian' of the three services, its traditions and observances less overlain with British attributes than those of the RAN , while for a century before the 1960s it reached into communities large and small in both urban and regional Australia through the local part-time unit, whether volunteer, militia or citizen force. In World War I its senior officers earned the professional respect and admiration of their regular counterparts in the imperial army, while its soldiers established a clear link between war service and an emerging national identity. The Anzac tradition which figures so large in any consideration of what it means historically to be an Australian is unambiguously tied to the figure of the Australian soldier, not a sailor or an airman.

The papers in this collection were originally presented at the Chief of Army's annual military history conference in Canberra in March 2001, as part of the Australian Army's centenary birthday observances. Though strongly focused on the historical past, the papers, and the conference, addressed a number of issues all of which have a continuing utility in the early years of the new century.

The army's roles and missions over time have required consideration of the two broad conceptions of national security policy which have competed for attention over the last 100 years: a 'narrow' conception focused on the defence of Australian territory, and a 'broad' conception which emphasises the defence of Australian interests. Before 1914, an early Minister for Defence, James Whiteside McCay, characterised this as the 'everywhere or anywhere' debate, and it remains central to consideration of both national defence and the place of the army within that. The army has been through a number of exceedingly lean periods when its role in the defence of Australia was considered secondary to that of the other services, with dire consequences in the early years of World War II, in particular. The success of the commitment to East Timor should not obscure the fact that the army's resources were stretched very thinly in 1999-2000 by an operation which did not involve significant casualties or an intense operational tempo. The observation of an earlier prime minister, Sir Robert Menzies, that policy makers should 'give up discounting the army', has acquired additional weight.

In democracies military service and citizenship are closely linked, and the composition and representativeness of the services is justifiably a matter of public interest. As Hugh Smith notes, the ADF 'represents and symbolises the community in ways no other organisation does'. While some decry the use of the armed forces for the purposes of 'social engineering', the fact is that service in the army, in particular, has helped to 'make Australians' in a literal as well as a symbolic sense. Service in the AIF during World War I convinced many men that ' Home ' was Australia, not Britain, and the recognition of their identity as 'Australians', and not merely as Victorians or Queenslanders, was an important legacy of the war. The army has had a good record of according fair treatment to indigenous Australians, beginning during World War II in particular and in advance of many areas of civil society. While it has not gone as far as some would like, it has also opened up opportunities for women in both the enlisted and commissioned ranks in the last twenty years. In a time when competition is intense for the skills and abilities of young Australians, issues of recruitment and retention—who serves, and for how long and on what basis—will continue to be of concern to those who formulate policy. But these issues also have a history, whose study may prove instructive.

The Australian Army is a young army when compared to most of its western counterparts, but it is one old in experience. Many of those experiences reflect well upon it, some do not. In an era of increasing geo-political complexity it is essential that the army continues to reflect the values of Australian society, that it draws upon the broadest possible elements of its population, and that governments equip it adequately to play its part in the defence of national interests. The army's experiences in the past will not necessarily provide the answers to the problems that will arise, but they will certainly offer a caution.

As in the past we are indebted to Roger Lee and his staff in the Army History Unit for their assistance at every stage of the conference. We are especially grateful to those who have submitted their conference papers for inclusion in this volume. Associate Professor Hugh Smith was unable, for last-minute personal reasons, to present his paper at the conference, but has most kindly made his paper available to us. We also thank Margaret McNally who has brought her customary skill to bear on typesetting the papers, and Karen Costello and Jeff Doyle for their most welcome assistance.

Peter Dennis and Jeffrey Grey

I wish to thank all those involved in the production of this volume, especially those who contributed papers, for their understanding and patience when circumstances imposed unavoidable delays.

Peter Dennis

Contents

Contributors: Contributors

Introduction
Lieutenant-General Peter Cosgrove: Cosgrove

Armies in History, History in Armies
Roger Spiller: Spiller

From Deakin to Dibb: The Army and the Making of Australian Strategy in the Twentieth Century
Michael Evans Evans

The Role of Military Survey: Benefiting the Civil Community and the Army
Chris Coulthard-Clark Coulthard-Clark

'Quite Pathetic to See': The Australian Army's Permanent Recording Notices in Papua New Guinea
Richard Reid Reid

Broken Lineage: The Australian Army's Heritage of Discontinuity
Peter Stanley Stanley

One Hundred Years of Army History
David Horner Horner

Women Warriors: Pragmatism, Politics and American Society
Georgia C Sadler Sadler

The United States Armed Forces and Minority Integration
Alan Gropman Gropman

'Why Would a Woman Want a Job Like That?' A Personal Reflection
Judy Costello Costello

Minorities and the Australian Army: Overlooked and Underrepresented?
Hugh Smith Smith

Back to the Future: The One-Army Concept in a Time of Change
Alan Ryan Ryan