This is a Momentum Media production. Contested Ground. Exposing the strategies and tactics of grey zone warfare as actors compete for power and influence below the threshold of armed conflict. G'day, how are you going? Phil Tarrant, co-host of Contested Ground, joined in the studio by Dr. Marcus Thompson, Major General Retired, and Leanne Garman, who is Managing Editor of Defence and Security at Momentum Media. Gentlemen, hope you're well. We're here to pick up.
our discussion that we started last week, viewing what's going on with the world and what's making headlines through the lens of Dime, which is essentially a model or a construct for... shaping the elements of influence and power between nations, D being diplomatic, I being information, which we covered last time we were together, M being military and E being economic.
It's a nice scaffold for shaping our narrative as we look at these very important points. But Marcus, does Dime have relevance? Do people talk about Dime or is it just something which is sort of innate in you when you... look at issues, look at problems in a military sense or even in the government sense. It's absolutely relevant, Phil. I mean, as one representation of the inputs or aspects of national power. Now, there are other representations of national power that would talk about, you know,
culture of your population and your demographic composition of your nation and how wealthy your nation is and all of that. But certainly, I mean... Dime is probably the simplest and actually gets to the heart of, you know, one of the big rocks that countries can move, you know, to exert their national power. And we're here to...
Kick off talking about the M for military, which is your domain, it being a domain. I was ready last week. I mean, we talked about information. I gave you that fabulous segue of talking about information as a domain, and then you ended the podcast. I know. This is where I want to pick it up with you because to the people, does the military apparatus know where it fits within the world of national power? No doubt you speak.
With people in the military, they probably think it's the most important aspect of national power and you're going to need to look towards what's been very... popular over the years, maybe in Africa or potentially the Pacific as a mechanism for changing governments. Coup, normally you need to have the backing of the army in order to shape different political outcomes.
We have less of them these days. They still take place. But the military is pretty important when it comes to both domestic but also international power projection for nations. In liberal Western democracies, Phil, far more about international. exerting power internationally rather than domestically. Certainly in Australia, law enforcement is not a job for the military. Sure, we've had the military used to...
You know, man, checkpoints at state borders during COVID lockdowns and, you know, and supporting bushfire and other forms of disaster relief. But ultimately, you know, the role of the... of the military is to fight the nation's wars. So we spoke last week. It was the inauguration overnight then of President Trump. Now he's putting together his cabinet or his...
executive leaders inside the government, Liam. Interesting appointment for the new secretary there is going to be looking after the military. What's your views on this? Oh, Phil, you can't... You see, you always throw me at the opinion questions to protect Marcus. I know Marcus is...
Very important. He's on a lot of boards. He's got a lot of it. So you throw the hard opinion. Mate, you're a journalist. You suppose I have an opinion these days as a modern journalist or as Mark has actually formed. But look, I've always been pretty open. Phil, Marcus, you both know my opinions on a lot of stuff. A lot of it gets edited out before our listeners get to hear the whole way before I go down. Too much of the rabble. Just answer the question, Liam.
New Secretary of Defence. What's your thoughts? I think the appointment of Hegseth as the US Secretary of Defence, I think it's fantastic. He's got a very good long-term vision for what the United States military should be and the abilities that it should project. He's got a great...
definition of where the next flashpoint is going to be. We've seen that the incoming administration is going to prioritise the Indo-Pacific. That is bread and butter. They're going to be moving into developing... very large, capable items to, in Hegseth terms, not just reputationally deter. potential aggressor in terms of we project that the US Navy might have this, but to create a real credible deterrence, I think...
Looking in the crystal ball, there will be greater rotations in the Indo-Pacific. There will be more US military presence in the Indo-Pacific, which is good for Australia and good for our neighbours and good for our region. So America's approach... to the Asia-Pacific or the Indo-Pacific, sorry, over the last period, some would argue would be sort of framed as, you know, strategic ambiguity.
exactly what would happen should there be a flashpoint in the Indo-Pacific. Do you see that changing under the Trump administration? Liam, again, it's an opinion piece, and under the new Secretary of Defence, you reckon it's a very clear and concise view towards... This is something that Hegseth has... on the incoming administration has touched on. Phil, Marcus, I think one problem that we've got in the West at the moment is that we see the rise of China and the invasion of Taiwan.
and a successful invasion of Taiwan, we see that as a fait accompli. We say, oh, everyone's pulling out numbers. Oh, I've heard next month or I've heard next five years. Like you've got your bloody spies in the PLA. No. We're treating it as a fait accompli that nothing that we can do between now and then will be a sufficient deterrence to the PLA to conduct these activities. Taiwan has a natural built-up point of advantage, that being it's an island.
Taiwan has the ability being a big enough island that you could notionally put enough short to medium range missiles there to create such a massive deterrent effect for any invading Navy or Air Force to just not bother trying. Now, we always hear, okay, we always hear that, oh, well, China doesn't care about manpower. They're happy to expend manpower. Manpower is still a finite resource. You're still going to have body bags that go back to China.
that upset families, that upset partners, that upset children. Then you had the demographic argument where people say, oh, well, you had that 50 million male, female imbalance. Well, those people, those men in that 50 million female-male imbalance that don't have families, that really don't have much to fight for and that could be feasibly sent over, they're getting old.
They're actually getting old because it's balancing out trying to realise that they need more women. We have to stop treating it as a fait accompli, which is exactly what the incoming administration has done, and saying there is still time for us to build a credible deterrence to China. And let's be honest, looking at the Chinese economy, it ain't in a great place. They won't necessarily be in the position in a few years to actually field capabilities to rival.
the US Navy or the US Air Force. And what it is, is we just got to tread water for the next 10 years to be better. And that threat will pass. I mean, right or wrong, I think, Liam, what you've just described is a succinct application of dime. as a construct. You know, it's all aspects of national power looking to, you know, generate from the US perspective, looking to deter, you know, that attack on Taiwan.
I guess it gives a sense to the D, the I, and the E as aspects of dime. The M is very clear and it's a very practical element of dime because... Typically, if diplomacy fails and diplomacy fails because your information has failed or your economy is failing, it all comes down to a call to arms and that's the end.
Well, the M is probably the most tightly constrained, Phil, and rightly so. I mean, the capabilities that modern militaries possess and have available to them, you know, must be tightly controlled, you know.
It was Sam Huntington, US author, wrote about civilian control of the military as being a bedrock of liberal Western democracy. Now, just for anyone who's listening, he wasn't talking about bureaucratic... public service control of the military he was talking about civilian government control of the military and and uh you know for you know just just let your imagination run wild for a moment yep got it
That's why the M is by necessity so tightly controlled and rightly so. And rightly so. However, sometimes that control gets... manipulated or manoeuvred in a way which isn't favourable for the outcomes of when, if and when you ever need to deploy that military. And we're moving now into a federal election here in Australia. And one of the points of discussion will be around defence spending, whether or not we're spending enough now.
And this is the point that it's about civilian control of the military, not civilian bureaucrats controlling the military. Does the military get fatigued with these ongoing political discussions and debates around... percentages of GDP that should be spent on military. The fact that you're fighting for people who are in the military.
by and large are driven towards the calling of why they are in the military, and that is to be supportive of their nation and the defence of their nation, but fighting for money to get... the equipment they believe they need to fight the next war, no doubt is a full-time job for generals and no doubt potentially fatiguing and sometimes quite...
quite distressing because they often don't get at you away. Phil, I'll tell you that if I found a group of soldiers when I was serving, if I ever found a group of soldiers who were not complaining about some aspect of their equipment, I would worry.
You know, whether it was boots or combat equipment or some highly technical piece of kit. If they didn't find something to complain about, I would worry because, I mean, one of the hallmarks of certainly Australian soldiers, and I've seen it, I've seen it amongst. Americans, Brits, Kiwis, Canadians as well, and others, is that they're always looking for something.
always looking for an advantage that you could spend as much as you want on them, but they'd always want something better. And that's because they're the folk.
who are who are going to step into the arena that they are the folk who are going into harm's way and they want the very very best available to them if they're gonna uh as they step into step into a fight you know i mean that they'll always want better and whatever you give them will never be good enough you know and that phil is why We don't use
shields and spears and bows and arrows anymore. They're always looking for something better. And then that becomes the role of the generals and the senior bureaucrats to balance that out. you could spend money in all one place, but then there's other priorities that might not be addressed. And it's a constant juggling act. Look, I think the percentage of GDP is, look, it's one measure.
of defense spending. But if your economy is crap, you know, and your macro GDP is crap, then 2% of your GDP is 2% of crap, right? You know, so it's all relative. But I think... One thing that I'm sure that we will see out of the new US administration is pressure on allies to increase defence spending, you know, and there's anyone working in defence.
industry in australia will tell you um you know there has been a slowdown in defense spending uh here over the past couple of years and i'm sure that that has not gone unnoticed if i can use a double negative that that has not gone unnoticed um amongst the – within the new – well, within the new regime. Well, you say pressure being – The new US regime. Yeah, you say pressure being –
put on a NATO alliance members to up their spend, no doubt that will be coming across the Pacific moving forward. And, Phil, I think, you know, I mean, you talked about, you mentioned the 2% number. You know, I mean, 2% of GDP has been an aspiration. for defence spending in Australia for some time. And there's been times we've hit it and there's times when we've missed it or there are times we've missed it by a long way. But that aspiration of 2% was before...
the decision to acquire nuclear-powered submarines. And so you add that... behemoth cost into the cost of running defence in Australia. Now, look, I mean, I'm no expert here and I'm four years out of date, but intuitively, this no longer fits into 2%.
Yeah, and I think there will be a lot of people sort of nodding their heads right now agreeing to you. But this all comes down to the E, which you quickly referenced. That's the economy. Now, the economy is a mechanism for raising the coffers of the government treasury, and that treasury is deployed into... these other aspects of DIME. So your diplomatic engine, your ability to be able to conduct those operations, whether they're overt or covert, your ability to control and conduct.
information operations, if you want to call it that, to get your outcomes, but importantly how that economy. contributes to defence capabilities and giving those advantages that you've spoken about in order for nations to not only defend its borders, but potentially...
to be a bit more expansionary where they are deploying those military capabilities for the needs of whatever's happening. Important time. We spent a decade fighting terrorism outside of Australia's shores. Now it looks as though the potential...
focus of our military is a lot closer to home. Hence the reason why we're spending money with building out new capabilities in our Navy, nuclear power, submarines, et cetera. So the E is pretty important stuff and the effectiveness in the E is controlled by the bureaucrats. is controlled by civilians. The economy is powered by, in Australia at least, in many ways, SME sector are often overlooked. And you see it already coming out now with some of the...
political campaign that's taken place as a coalition. They're putting a lot of emphasis back on the SME sector as someone who actually drives economic activity and is very supportive of the government coffers through tax receipts. So this is all pretty important stuff, the E. If you get the E wrong, your hands are tied.
Well, and for more information, have a look at the podcast that we did last year where Shane Oliver came on that Steve hosted where we dived right into that and made the link between, you know, macroeconomics of the nation and defence spending. Yeah, and you see some nations...
non-Western nations, they put a lot more than 2% of their GDP into military capability to see how Russia approaches their militaries and how they invest in that. But your military, if you have a big military and a capable military and a... hungry military, it can also impact other areas of economic development outside of those military areas. So it just depends really on your posture as a nation, how you actually want to...
frame your military. But I think what we're very clear about, and I think we're all supportive of it, Liam, that more money to defence capabilities is probably something that whether it's a new government or a continuing government really needs to focus on. But conflicting priorities, mate. Phil, the muscles in my shoulders and my neck are hurting from nodding so much.
Yeah, so I think for this podcast, moving forward, some more discussions around the E, the economy, and this is around sort of all aspects of it, whether it's critical infrastructure and fueling that, defending it, protecting it. fuel security, food security, all these, these are all aspects of the national economy. Fortunately in Australia, or maybe some people would say less fortunate, is that a lot of our economy and a lot of the tax receipts for our government is...
which they spend on stuff like military is driven out of digging stuff out of the ground. So as we enter this new Trump administration. You see the geopolitics of trade in the Indo-Pacific, whether or not people want to be buying our stuff and how we actually dig it out effectively so we can raise money to spend that money in the right way. I think that's going to certainly be top as a conversation for Contested Grounds.
a lot of guests on i think liam around that because it is of interest and no doubt this is that true intersection between this discussion being not really only for the natural security apparatus of Australia, but it's for the economic drivers of that here. And that is Australia's business, business leaders, and no doubt they're tuning into this to try and give some sense of it all. Hopefully we've helped you out by looking at these things through the construct of DIME.
it's a pretty easy thing to apply to most things. So I think that score is a good five out of 10 for how we've done that. Me say you guys probably, Marcus, a lot more informed, eight out of 10 for you and Liam. I don't know what you're saying. Five out of 10 used to be a pass. Yeah, maybe. But thanks for your time, gentlemen, today. I really enjoyed getting together.
They have these discussions. Lots taking place. We're doing this now every week for 2025. We'll try and do it in person as much as possible. But we're all quite busy characters traveling a fair bit as well. So we can also... meet online. But Marcus, good to see you for 2025. Liam, thanks for your continued contribution to this. What's the best way for people to contact you with any suggestions or commentary? Legal threats, direct to liam.garman, G-A-R-M-A-N, not like the GPS.
slash watch at MomentumMedia.com.au. Reach out with all complaints and positive feedback. Okay, very good. Thank you, gentlemen. Thanks for tuning in, everyone. We'll see you next time. Until then, bye-bye.