Malcolm Turnbull resists terror 'machismo' as Coalition tensions simmer
By David Wroe
Updated November 24, 2015 — 7.47pm first published at 5.32pm
Sketch: A tale of two national security statements
France pushing for greater military effort against Islamic State
Malcolm Turnbull has vowed not to let "gestures or machismo" dictate his national security policy as tensions within the Coalition continued to simmer over how best to fight the Islamic State terror group.
Former defence minister David Johnston entered the fray on Tuesday, warning that sending special forces soldiers to fight the militants would end in a "bodybags-coming-home situation", in a direct reproach to former senior colleagues.
His attack, which were among the first significant public remarks Senator Johnston has made since Tony Abbott dumped him from the defence portfolio nearly a year ago, was aimed at countering Mr Abbott and Kevin Andrews, who succeeded him in the defence job.
Mr Abbott and Mr Andrews, who are both now backbenchers, have called for Australian special forces to be deployed on the battlefield against the Islamic State.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull delivers his national security address on Tuesday. Credit:Andrew Meares
Mr Turnbull made clear on Tuesday in a major national security address to Parliament that he would maintain the current course in Iraq and Syria and would resist the more hawkish calls from his own side in the wake of the attacks in Paris.
"We should grieve and we should be angry, but we must not let grief or anger cloud our judgment," Mr Turnbull said.
"Our response must be as clear-eyed and strategic as it is determined. This is not a time for gestures or machismo. Calm, clinical, professional, effective - that's how we defeat this menace."
Mr Turnbull said he did not plan to increase Australia's military role, though if allies requested additional help the government would consider it.
Instead he stressed the value of open and multicultural societies, insisting that "the strength of our free people will see off these thugs and tyrants as it has seen off so many of their kind before".
He suggested that an overreaching military response would play into the Islamic State's hands, saying that Islamic State's strategy was "fomenting resentment between non-Muslim populations and Muslims".
This was echoed by Labor leader Bill Shorten, who told Parliament that the heavy presence of Western troops in the Middle East would "only feed the propaganda of Daesh", using the alternative name for Islamic State.
Meanwhile Senator Johnston said calls to send special forces onto the battlefield to prop up local forces were a dangerous oversimplification.
"It's not as simple as saying, 'Let's put special forces in'. I really get a little bit annoyed when we start to think there is a simple solution to this. There is not. There is a very difficult, very tragic, bodybags-coming-home situation that we would have to confront," he said.
He said the 2004 battle for the Iraqi city of Fallujah had taken 13,500 US troops and left 109 dead and more than 600 wounded.
"There are dozens of Fallujahs across Syria and Iraq," he said.
Peter Leahy, the former Chief of Army, said Mr Turnbull's speech had been "appropriately moderate" for what was a very complicated strategic situation.
"If we are going to commit more forces, we need to have a clear strategy, an end state, an exit strategy, and all those things that aren't apparent at the moment," he said.
Professor Leahy, who now heads the University of Canberra's National Security Institute, also praised Mr Turnbull's promise to "redouble our efforts" in co-operating with countries in South East Asia to combat extremism across the region.
David Wroe
David Wroe is defence and national security correspondent for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.