This is an extremely broad definition, and given how cautious Defence has traditionally been to media coverage, it is likely that almost any public discussion could be viewed as sensitive to policy or strategic issues. Combine this with a culture in which, as Josh rightly identifies, there is little reward for articulating an idea in public, and it is possible to understand why so few Defence personnel make public comments.

The third point is that the ADF's regulations on public comment are much more stifling than those of our allies. The US Air Force offers detailed rules of engagement to its personnel to encourage them to blog. US Army public affairs policy details twenty categories of official information that require clearance (ie. opsec, electronic warfare, casualty information, significant military operations), rather than just 'anything likely to be sensitive'.

In fact, US military policy states that 'senior commanders and staff officers are expected to discuss military matters within their purview with news media representatives'. The regulations explicitly state that military students 'and think tank-type organisation members may publish articles without the standard review and clearance process. This is in the interest of academic freedom and the advancement of national defence-related concepts and to stimulate debate on strategic Army issues'.

The reality is that Australian generals have less freedom for professional public debate than Chinese generals. And as Albert Palazzo rightly pointed out, this is having an tangible impact on the ADF's effectiveness as a fighting force.

Photo courtesy of the Defence Department.

The response by the Chief of Army, General Morrison, uses a phrase that is highly revealing. He is willing to see military personnel publicise their views provided that 'the Department (and Government) knows what public comment is being expressed and that it is correct'. But why does Government need to know in advance every statement that every officer might make to the media? The reason is obvious and the consequences clear.

General Morrison then insists that public comment should be 'correct'. What this means is not just that factual mistakes should be avoided but that controversial views must be suppressed. Yet debate about important issues does not deal in 'correct' and 'incorrect' views. Certainly, some facts may be correct or incorrect – such as how many submarines the ADF has – but why we need submarines, the sort of roles they should perform, whether 6 or 12 would be adequate, the appropriate level of spending on such platforms and so on are issues on which there is no 'correct' or 'incorrect' view.

In any serious dialogue about major defence issues, divergent views are inevitable and desirable. And such views need to be expressed and debated by those who have thought seriously about them – including, but not limited to, military personnel. Something as broad and uncertain as the future of war – which Al Palazzo's article focused on – is above all one in which a wide range of informed views should be heard.

The suggestion that the ADF may not have the 'intellectual horsepower' (Sir Arthur Tange's phrase) to discuss major defence and security issues is one I would discount, in part again from personal experience. After UNSW introduced the Master of Defence Studies at ADFA in 1987 a large number of middle-level ADF officers enrolled part-time in a range of courses. This was a long-awaited opportunity for them to study and learn and they proved an outstanding group. I taught two courses – one on ethics, law and war, and one on armed forces and society. The level of debate in class was high and discussion animated with divergent views on most matters. Colleagues teaching other masters courses were similarly impressed.

One of the points made by Dr Anthony Bergin and myself in a recent study of professional military education (ASPI Special Report no. 48, August 2012) was that there is no real opportunity for ADF personnel to publicly demonstrate their intelligence and expertise – in contrast to every other profession. We suggested the ADF create a journal with a high degree of editorial independence that would be a forum for debate about major defence issues. Contributions would come from all quarters but well-argued critical articles from ADF personnel would be particularly welcomed. My suggestion is that it should be launched by the Minister for Defence.

This may be too much to expect but there is a precedent, albeit limited. A few years ago an enlightened Commandant at ADFA designated a part of the campus bounded by the library, bookshop, coffee shop and IT centre as a 'non-saluting area' where all could meet in a more or less non-hierarchical fashion. Perhaps a professional military journal could become another 'non-saluting area'.

Creation of a journal for defence discussion has been mooted by some, but that would only foster the usual scholarly approach to defence debate with pretty narrow distribution largely involving those virtually professionally involved in that field. The majority of the retired military community will mostly steer away from formal writing and any dialogue that they perceive might be tempered somewhat by political correctness; but they will be more inclined to make frank worthy contributions to freer debates in blog-style forums. Such mediums of course need to be appropriately moderated, although necessarily be somewhat less restrictive than the process adopted by this fine institution at present.

The Lowy Institute is a breath of fresh air providing quality debate lacking in other forums; but it could serve the nation even better by adopting a less scholarly process for dialogue to attract participation from all levels of the retired military community, wherein there remains an invaluable reservoir of combat experience for which there is no substitute.