The strategic implications of a gender equal ADF

In the wake of the decision to open all roles of the ADF to women, much attention has lingered on the physical and psychological dimensions of close quarter combat. There are legitimate concerns about this, and I will examine them in forthcoming posts, however less attention has been given to the strategic implications of opening up all roles in the ADF and the contribution of female personnel.

One example is that the inclusion of women augments the recruitment component of Australia’s strategic posture laid down in the 2009 Defence White Paper (PDF). In light of China’s rise and the shifting geo-strategic environment in the Asia Pacific, submarines are a seminal part of Australia’s asymmetric approach. However, with chronic manpower shortages, crewing one of our most important capabilities has been challenging. Limited female quarters had denied women certain postings and negatively impacted career progression, further restricting the size of submariner crews. In the course of Tuesday’s historic announcement, the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, Warren Snowdon, noted that shared bunk space allowed women to be integrated into the working space on submarines. For a service that is already under strain from under-staffed submarines (the RAN is even recruiting foreign service personnel to make up submarine capability shortfalls), the navy is now able to draw from a larger pool of able personnel.

This point illustrates the fact that, at the very least, the inclusion of women in all roles of the ADF is a complex issue that requires well-planned solutions but, if handled properly, promises to pay long-term strategic dividends for the nation.

Image courtesy of Sydney Morning Herald.

2 thoughts on “The strategic implications of a gender equal ADF

  1. Face it, Navy is yet to get it’s recruitment numbers through training pipeline right. They either recruit too many, not enough or do not allow enough for those who either fail training, resign or forced to leave for various reasons. You only have to look at what has happened with Supply Officers for example. They were training the exact same number of Deputies to that required as Head of Deparment without allowing for attrition. What happens? Not enough personnel for the billets at sea and thus some having to do several postings to sea where progression only required one. If your can’t get the basic right you can’t get the big picture stuff right.

  2. First, no more DADT, now…this? It must be 2012, right? Seriously, interesting take on this from a strategic vs. a strictly gender perspective.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s