Talk:Australian Defence Force

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Australian Defence Force is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated FA-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Featured
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Australia / Military history (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Australian Defence Force is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force (marked as Top-importance).
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to for other than editorial assistance


This page, just a stub at present, duplicates the subject area of Australian Defence Force. The two pages should be merged. Which title is preferable? Tannin

For many countries we have 'Military of ..', so I chose that. - Patrick 10:53 Dec 25, 2002 (UTC)

"Australian Defence Force" is its official name given to it by the Australian government... "Military of Australia" is not its name, but purely a descriptive term... so in those terms ADF is better...

I don't mind if you redirect the other way. Either way it is good, I think, that both articles have been merged. Patrick 11:13 Dec 25, 2002 (UTC)

I would hope that eventually we would have both pages. The ADF article would focus on the relationship of the commonwealth government and the Armed Forces, and include things like a list of Defence Ministers, procurement and supply, etc. The Military of Australia would contain an overview of capabilities, manpower, budget, etc. just as do other Military of Articles. Lou I 20:57, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Since when are our defence forces subject to a foreign royal family? I think the correct name would be "Australian Air Force", "Australian Navy" just like the Australian army.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 18:32, 12 October 2004.

Since always. We live in a constitutional monarchy. The Queen is tops. Think why our ships are still O.H.M.S. It is RAAF and RAN. (Though maybe AA for American Auxiliary may be better substitute these days)--ZayZayEM 12:56, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The Queen is not tops (Puts on angry face), she is irrelevant, we are only a constitutional monarchy because no better system for a republic has emerged, it doesn't mean our armed forces have to be pro-monarchist in their naming. Since when does she put her military uniform on and go out and command them?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 07:58, 27 February 2005.
Well, the official status is what counts and what is valid. We could add that this is pro forma -- 14:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The personnel of the Australian Defence Force honour and respect the Queen and our royal traditions. They proudly serve in Royal branches of our armed forces, and would be angry at you suggesting a name change when you have done nothing to grant you the right to comment on the issue. Potential recruits are questioned on their allegiance to the monarchy, and swear an oath to the queen. Also Australian Army regiments are known as RAR (Royal Aus Regiments) so that ties in with the RAN and RAAF. If you dont like it, dont join, or move elsewhere.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 20:05, 6 June 2005.

Potential recruits are not questioned on their allegiance to the monarchy, nor do ADF personel necessarily honour and respect the Queen. Yet Australia is currently a monarchy, and the Queen is tops, even though she doesn't "put her military uniform on and go out and command them" (although both Prince Philip and Prince Charles have rather nice uniforms). She doesn't command the British military either. As for "If you dont like it, dont join, or move elsewhere", plenty of people join who are republicans, and someone could be told to "move elsewhere" whenever they disagreed with at least something regarding the current governmental situation - in which case everyone would have to "get out" to use the ignorant old saying which was paraphrased.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 10:04, 17 June 2005.

The Queen does actually wear a nice uniform and did serve in the British army. And with regards to Prince Philip, he actually did serve in the navy for quite some time. Xtra 01:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Australia is a British colony, what did you expect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlad Dracula (talkcontribs) 11:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This discussion page is not supposed to be for general discussion on the topic. The Royal Prefix to the Royal Australian Air Force and Royal Australian Navy is a known fact. Discussion on it is irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Military age[edit]

Military manpower - availability:
        Definition Field Listing
males age 16-49: 4,943,676 (2005 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service:
        Definition Field Listing
males age 16-49: 4,092,717 (2005 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
        Definition Field Listing
males: 142,158 (2005 est.)


"To apply for a career in the Navy, Army or Air Force, applicants must be at least 16 years and 6 months old."

BenAveling 08:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason why only males are listed in the table for military age? Females are in the defence force as well, and currently the only positions not available to females are:

Navy: Clearance Divers

Army: All Royal Australian Infantry Corps All Royal Australia Armoured Corps All Royal Australian Artillery Corps Combat Engineers

Air Force: Ground Defence officers Airfield Defence Guards Aircraft Surface Finisher (due to exposure to embryotoxic chemicals) 05:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I Thought it was 16 (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sea King Crash[edit]

Perhaps someone would like to mention the cause of the crash; it has been in the lime light recently.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 14:17, 17 April 2006.

As of today 20 March 2007 the Board of Inquiry report has not yet been published. However, it is evident from the transcripts that maintenance culture had become very slack, with many maintainers and their supervisors taking shortcuts. Presumably the BOI will have a lot to say on this subject when published, but at this point there is still no official cause for the crash. BillHall 23:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

% GDP?[edit]

What is the source used for the 1.9% GDP military spending figure? From numerous different sources, the numbers I come up with run between 2.6% and 2.8% of Australia's estimated 2005 GDP.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 09:44, 30 May 2006.

Frankly considering the size of our military and the crappy second-hand equipment throughout, I think the official budget figure is highly inflated, or somebody is pocketing billions/year. The guys and gals in uniforms don't get nearly paid enough to justify the spastic budget, and our equipment certainly isn't crash hot for this day and age either to justify it. Hopefully somebody has some kind of budget breakdown lying around they could put up. I suspect foreign aid and peacekeeping eat up most of the budget. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlad Dracula (talkcontribs) 11:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Citations added. A paper put out by treasury in the last few years also states that Defence materiel costs actually increase at 4% per annum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Informal review[edit]

These are the comments that come to mind following user:Nick Dowling's comment for an informal review:

  • Intro section should have a brief note on history
  • East Timor section needs to be filled out
  • Organisation could be expanded with more info on single service fighting formations and some history of CJFA(including the only posted-in ever incumbent)->HQ AST->JOC
  • Equipment table is clumsy and breaks up article; should be converted to text and mention made of M-1AIM and AD destroyer procurements
  • Bases section should be de-bullet-pointed and expanded
  • Ranks chart should be moved to the main article and only a general overview para left.
  • WP:MOS review

Cheers Buckshot06 05:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ranks and insignia[edit]

I removed this section in line with the comments from Kirill Lokshin in the article's peer review. Personally, I don't see any value in the current short paragraph or any point in expanding it given that the services have different ranks and insignia which are better covered in the dedicated article which has a prominent link in the infobox. DXRAW, why do you think that it's worth including? --Nick Dowling 07:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Largest in Oceania?[edit]

The article states that the ADF is the largest military in Oceania, with 51,000 full timers plus another 20,000 reservists. I may be missing something crucial here, but the corresponding article about the Military of Indonesia, the TNI, weighs in at over 360,000. What's the deal? MachiavellianMeow 05:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I imagine that whoever wrote that text was using a definition of Oceania which excluded Indonesia - according to the Oceania article this is one of several valid definitions of the region, and is probably the most common one in Australia. --Nick Dowling 08:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I think what the editor meant was that we are the most powerful in Oceania even with Indonesia included, cos theyre just a bunch of volunteers with old weapons —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gargabook (talkcontribs) 03:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

geographically Oceania does not include Indonesia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freewilly2fly (talkcontribs) 10:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


Very short for an 90 kilobyte article. I would suggest making it a lot longer. I see inadequate lead sections a lot, even in GAs and higher, but someone should be able to get a reasonable length summary of the article without having to read through the whole thing, and 3 brief paragraphs isn't enough IMO. Richard001 02:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Flying hours[edit]

Why are the (unreferenced) flying hours of the F/A-18s and F-111s included in the infobox, right at the top? Surely if they belong in there at all it should be somewhere down with 'deployed personnel' or similar instead just under 'headquarters'. Why not include the flying hours of the C-130 and P3-C fleet while we're at it, and then the Blackhawks and Chinooks? This could go on until the infobox is filled with things like the average number of coffee breaks an Army Operator Supply has per day. Ebglider91 (talk) 08:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be more applicable on the RAAF page since that annual flying hours can be used as a comparison between air forces, not militaries? (Bobbo9000)( (talk) 09:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

Is it time to remove this section of the info box? Not only does it refer to only one section of the ADF, it also (as previously indicated) only refers to two aircraft of the RAAF. Recommend removal due relevance and statistical inaccuracy. --Viper214 (talk) 12:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

East Timor operations[edit]

The deployment to East Timor was perhaps the most important in ADF history since the Second World War, and is covered by two paragraphs of Operation Warden under the INTERFET article that doesn't really mention what ADF contribution was.-- (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a good point. Other enhancement to the article that would be useful include two sentences of history in the introduction, and possibly a comment about the latest Defence Review pushing out expensive purchases of equipment to a later date. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi all, I have added a paragraph on operations in East Timor to Military history of Australia now. Please have a look and make improvements if you wish. ChoraPete (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


One would think that seeing as the nickname "Diggers" is internationally recognised, it would appear somewhere in one of the associated pages? Would somebody care to add this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


can someone put the total number of military personnel in the sidebar, its all the active military + active reserves+ reserves on standby which adds up to about 105 000 total troops --Gargabook (talk) 08:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that standby reserves are normally counted in totals of military personnel as they're only mobalised as a last resort during emergencies. Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
My mum is a standby reserve and they still train its just not as much, they should be counted. And 105 000 is better than 57 000 :), but standby reserves are counted in foreign militaries —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gargabook (talkcontribs) 08:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
This raises an interesting point, as indeed the way militaries measure their strength differs and many nations other than Australia do include their equivilant of the Standby Reserve amoung their totals. Any other thoughts on this? That said though Standby Reserves in Australia do not do any training - my understanding is that any Standby Reservist that does a single Army Reserve Training Day (ARTD) automatically becomes part of the Active Reserve figures for that financial year. Anotherclown (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
My mum is a standby reserve, they do more than 1 training day a year, they do less than active reserves but ppl revolve from active reserves to standby reserves all the time, other countries count there standbys so why wont we? There still really important —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gargabook (talkcontribs) 06:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
My point exactly. Standby Reservists have no training obligation... if they do any training they automatically move back into the Active Reserve for that financial year and hence are recorded in those figures. Anotherclown (talk) 08:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Are there any sources which list standby reserves when providing the figure for the total number of personnel in the ADF? The ABS Year Book Australia section on defence personnel states that "The total ADF workforce [on 1 July 2009] was 81,106," and that the standby reserves were "in addition" to this figure. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute's Australian Defence Almanac doesn't even mention that standby reserves exist, and the IISS Miltary Balance lists only active and reserve personnel for each country. I don't think that standby reserves should be listed as part of the total strength of the ADF as they have no training obligation, aren't part of formed units (even nominally) and are only mobilised in major emergencies. I believe that the nature of 'standby' reserves differs from country to country (eg, many reservists in Israel do no training in most years, but are members of formed units and can expect to be mobilised with their unit at very short notice). Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
but there still on the Dept of Defence payroll, so they should be included--Gargabook (talk) 09:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Just put an extra heading in the sidebar that says total troops or personnel or something and say 105 000--Gargabook (talk) 09:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC), i would but dont know how to, could be my internet connection
Personally I think adding the standby reserve total to come to the 105,000 figure is overstating things. Of course we should mention the Standby Reserve and its size as it forms a significant latent capability. In reality however the ADF itself doesn't seem to include them in total troop numbers though (hence the 81,000 figure). As Nick pointed out the Australian context is different to that of some other nations, and Standby Reservists have no training commitment and are not part of formed units. If they do any training they become part of the Active Reserve figures, and if the do CFTS or deploy they get counted in the full time total (as many do). The current info box seems fine to me and I propose rewording the lead to get rid of the 105,000 figure altogether. Anotherclown (talk) 10:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree - the figure is misleading Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
but the 105 000 is a summary of the total number of sodiers on the govts payroll, they get paid, they get uniforms they might not train as much but they still are soldiers, they change from active to standby all the time. There needs to be a title on the sidebar with just the total number of soldiers in the defence force, and since actives go to standbys and stanbys go to active all the time the figure can never really be accurate day in day out, the fact is in australia there are 105 000 troops on govt payroll so that should be represented in there somewhere :)--Gargabook (talk) 10:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Can you please provide a source that states that there are 105,000 personnel in the ADF? As I've explained above, all the sources on this topic I'm aware of don't as they either separate members of the standby reserve from active and reserve personnel or exclude them altogether (to these sources I'd also add the most recent Defence Annual Report - Appendix 7 (available here) also states that there were 81,106 members of the ADF on 1 July 2009 and also appears to exclude standby reservists from all of its figures) If you can't provide a source for this, it has no place in the article, particularly as this is a featured article and all material needs to be accurate and backed by good-quality sources to retain this status. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
My sources are whatever the sources that say the reserve (standby and active) are almost 50 000 all together, ok you dont need to put 105 000 as the total troop number put 80 000 but put a referance to the fact there there is 105 000 thousand personell in the adf its disrespectful to leave out 25 000 soldiers who would defend this country at the snap of the fingers

PS. Nick you seem to know a lot about the defence force im doing a report on protocols for an assignment, would you be able to give me a website that tells me basic protocal in situations that the army do (i cant find anything, probs security reason) or if u know wat to do can you tell me

sorry forgot to sign last comment --Gargabook (talk) 11:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'm removing the figure then - it needs to be backed by a published source, and as I've indicated above the published sources do not include members of the standby reserve in this way. The number of standby reservists is in the article in all the appropriate places. In regards to your assignment question, I'd be happy to help (though I suspect that Anotherclown knows more about this topic than I do), but can you please be more specific? Are you looking for information on the Army's main tasks? Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
im new to wiki so dont know if u cant message each other, but what does the army do if there attacked by the enemy that has much more numbers, how do they retreat, or do they fly a few choppers in to scare them, and what do smoke flares do in battle, what colour for what action ect --Gargabook (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
and can you please work into their that there is 105 000 total troops, it feels bad that a 25%--Gargabook (talk) 11:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC) of the guys that would die for us are being neglected
I'll reply to that question on your talk page. As for the 105,000 figure; it's misleading to lump this category of inactive reservists in with full-time personnel and 'active' reservists and this isn't done in the published sources we need to use to support all material in the article. Moreover, you're missing the point that the numbers of standby reserve personnel are in the article. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Assessment of capabilities section - update or remove?[edit]

The 'Assessment of capabilities' section is due for an update as part of the overall update of this article I'm (slowly!) working though. However, I'm a bit concerned that as the section can only be subjective and the range of opinions is limited it might be best to remove it all together. A key problem is that there simply aren't many sources of objective yet independent assessments of the ADF - the Australian Strategic Policy Institute is by far the best source, but only has a small number of analysts, the analysis published by the Kokoda Foundation is interesting but generally forward-looking rather than focused on the current ADF, I'm a bit skeptical about the Australian Defence Association's neutrality (and they mainly source the more detailed analysis they publish from ASPI or Kokoda Foundation analysts anyway) and the ANU's Strategic & Defence Studies Centre is primarily focused on strategic issues in Australia's region. I rather like having a section which summarises the ADF's current strengths and weaknesses, and ASPI has recently updated their analysis of the ADF, but would be interested in seeing other editors' thoughts on this topic. Nick-D (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Year of establishment[edit]

Copied from my talk page:

Hi! I have a bit of a problem with the ADF article being categorised "1976 establishments in Australia" and "Military units and formations established in 1976". I would have less problem with a date of 1901, but even that has its problems. Obviously, "somebody" co-ordinated the three arms (well, initially two arms) of the military in the period 1901-1975 - but they didn't have the name "ADF". The ADF is still a somewhat nebulous concept - no-one is employed by the ADF; even the current Chief of the ADF is still employed by the Australian Army. I don't know what the best solution might be. (But removal of those two categories you added would remove the problem!) Your thoughts? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the categories pending discussion here as to their appropriateness. Tim! (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
David Horner's history of the establishment and first decades of the ADF explicitly states that "The Australian Defence Force slipped quietly into existence on 9 February 1976". Until the late 1950s only loose coordination arrangements existed between the services (with the Secretary of the Department of Defence playing the main coordination role during World War II), and the service chiefs were fairly free to go their own way if they so wished (which they quite often did). In 1958 the position of 'Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee' was established to provide inter-service advice to the Minister of Defence, but the holder of this position had no authority over the chiefs of the individual services, and the level of coordination remained weak. It wasn't until the Defence Force Reorganisation Act 1975 came into effect on 9 February 1976 that the services were placed under the legal authority of a single individual (the 'Chief of Defence Force Staff') and serious attempts to coordinate their activities began. David Horner's book spells this out in some detail, though he notes that the concept of a single 'ADF' wasn't widely acknowledged until the 1980s. As such, the categories seem appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I did not say they were not appropriate. Nor did I say they were not accurate. What I said was that I had a bit of a problem with them. My problem is with the word "established". The implication is that there was nothing there before. As I said: Obviously, "somebody" co-ordinated the three arms (well, initially two arms) of the military in the period 1901-1975. And that same "somebody" (or bodies) must have had some sort of legal authority - or "power" - to do it. Does that make my problem clearer? Pdfpdf (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that anyone did coordinate the services properly before this time. There seem to have been unofficial arrangements, and the Minister for Defence obviously had overall legal authority, but the service chiefs were the bosses of their services and could ignore everyone but the minister if they wished. Horner gives examples of the problems this lead to (eg, differences in doctrine and force structures not lining up properly). I recommend Horner's book. Nick-D (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Hmmmm. So basically, the minister had responsibility for the job, whether he chose to do it or not! Interesting. Yes, it sounds like I do need to read Mr Horner's book, (along with the other books on the "yet to be read" shelf, and the pile of "papers to be read"). When I've done that, I'll re-consider if I still have a problem. Thank you for that. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Material on 2012 budget cuts[edit]

(moved from User talk:Nick-D)

I edited the "Current Expenditure" section of the ADF article with the US concerns about Australian defence spending in 2012. I didn't leave an explanation because I'm relatively new to this and didn't know it was required. The articles cited are from 2012, which is much more recent than many in the overall article and I think still relevant because Australian defence spending has not been raised as a percentage of GDP since. I have taken the word "recent" out though, due to subjectivity.

Regarding your second comment, I think that American defence spending cuts since are irrelevant to the discussion. They have not retracted their critisism and neither has Tony Abbott so I consider that they both stand. Incidentally, even after cuts the Americans spend roughly double on defence as a proportion of GDP as Australia does.

Cheers. Crikeydick (talkcontribs) 13:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I've just re-removed this material. This article is about the ADF, and not short-term political debates. The Liberals have since released various statements on defence spending which boil down to pretty much the same thing as the ALP's expressed policy - eg, to not cut below the current level, and an aspirational target of increasing spending by 3% a year at some undefined future date when money becomes available (see page 48 of their overall policy document [_pages.pdf here]). Abbott criticizes pretty much everything the government does (which is the job of an opposition leader; Rudd and Beazley did the same) so there's no particular need to single this out. I really don't see the relevance of the US Government's reported concerns (which I don't think have ever been stated publicly) - the US is always whinging about its allies not spending as much as it does (virtually none of the NATO countries meet the spending targets), often in more strident terms (Robert Gates delivered several public lectures about the low NATO spending), and it's currently slashing defence spending itself and is expected to keep doing so. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Abbott is the alternative Prime Minister of Australia and if he wins the next election will determine the shape of the ADF for years to come. That makes his opinion on what we should be spending on defence relevant in the leadup to the election - there is nothing to say that Wiki articles should only be "long term" - otherwise there wouldn't be articles on up coming elections at all. Therefore I have reverted it again. However, I take your point about the Liberals aspirational spending target so have referenced their policy in article.

Your point about the relevance of the American's point of view is subjective and I have reverted it. Donald Rumsfelt raised these concerns publicly while he was defence secretary and Richard Armitage has as well in the article that I have provided, as have other senior officials identified in the articles that I have provided . Personally I find the view of our major ally more relevant than an assessment of capability by some defence academic or thinktank, of the type quoted throughout the article, though others might disagree. The appropriate approach to resolving this is to report all opinions from a sources with a stake and expertise in the debate, make sure that it is identified as opinion and not fact, and then let the reader decide whether or not they agree. Otherwise take all the opinions, like the "assessment of capability" section, out of the article.

Can we discuss this without edit warring? I don't see the relevance of the views of onald Rumsfeld and Richard Armitage - Rumsfeld quit in 2006 and Armitage is a Republican who doesn't hold any position in the Obama administration (as far as I'm aware). The story you posted rests entirely on unnamed 'US officials' being reported to have complained during talks with the Secretary of the Department of Defence. Your material about the Liberals' target is wrong BTW - their stated goal (which is also the ALP's) is to increase the growth of the defence budget by 3% a year once finances allow. The Defence budget makes up a much higher proportion of government expenditure. BTW, given that this is a featured article, can you please take care with grammar and consistent referencing? Nick-D (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Reference 143 mentions critisism by the current US commander of Pacific Command, Admiral Samuel Lockyear, so you are incorrect that there are no named current officials who have made the complaint. I mention Rumsfeld and Armitage to demonstrate that this is an ongoing issue, and because they were both senior US officials with an interest in the alliance and who worked closely with Australia. I consider the views of our major ally on the capability of our defence force is relevant to an article relating to Australian defence policy, because they are the ones who might not come to assist us if they do not consider us to be pulling our weight. If the Americans are irrelevant to our defence, why would there even be a section on our foreign alliances in the article?

In any case, if you don't think it is relevant then it is your right to ignore that content. However, others may think differently and value the perspective of the American's and the Opposition. I think it is inappropriate for these articles to be censored because of one person's point of view. I reiterate that the appropriate treatment for these controversial issues is to put both sides of the argument and then let the reader decide. That is what I have done.

Thank you for the edits on the Liberal policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crikeydick (talkcontribs) 08:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Note, the approach that I have proposed is consistent with the Wikipedia article policies on Neutrality (equal weighting, neutral tone) and Verifiability (major newspapers are considered to be a reliable source). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crikeydick (talkcontribs) 08:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)