Aukus, Hegseth, and Australia's Strategic Dilemma

The Shangri-La Dialogue, held in Singapore at the weekend, is a little bit like Christmas for security boys.

There’s lots of big talk – of great power competition, reshaping the strategic landscape, and the deteriorating strategic environment (all said with serious, knowing faces). And there are lots of weapons announcements.

For Australia, the weapons announcement came in the form of a new joint project under the second pillar of the Aukus agreement: developing “cutting-edge payloads and enabling systems” for underwater drones.

That new “signature project” was announced at a joint press conference with the Australian defence minister, Richard Marles, the US secretary of defence, Pete Hegseth, and the UK defence secretary, John Healey.

The same announcement also revealed that Australia would buy three secondhand Virginia-class submarines from the US under Aukus, instead of a mix of old and new, in a move to “simplify supply chain management, operational and maintenance requirements, and maximise cost efficiencies”.

Marles described the decision not to buy any new Virginia-class boats as placing “a premium on simplicity” but had to concede that there would be no “fundamental” shift in the cost of the multi-decade deal, estimated to be worth at least $370bn. This shift – a long time coming – is an admission of serious primary policy failure.

The language in that press conference was striking. After Hegseth had spoken, his Australian counterpart took to the podium and acknowledged “my good friend Pete Hegseth”.

It’s worth remembering that Marles’ “good friend” – whom he described as the “secretary of war” – is one of the principal architects of the destruction of the international rules-based order.

In Iran, a “ceasefire” notwithstanding, the US remains engaged in an illegal war that Hegseth says it is fighting with “no quarter, no mercy”. In the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, US strikes on fishing boats have killed more than 200 people over the last several months. And in Cuba, the US is engaged in a naval blockade, causing immense, unnecessary suffering.

That is all, apparently, unrelated to the Australia-US alliance.

After acknowledging his “good friend”, Marles noted that the new capabilities being developed under Aukus would be “put into the hands of the warfighter”.

“Warfighter” is one of Hegseth’s favourite terms. Using it was a choice.

Hegseth, as Marles would be aware, has a particular vision of the kind of warfighter he wants. Upon his return from Singapore, he blocked the promotions of several officers, captains and one-star admirals in his latest attack on “woke” leadership.

That is part of a pattern – Hegseth is purging the military leadership of people who don’t look or think like him. That imagery is apparently so important that military personnel wanting to attend Donald Trump’s birthday UFC event at the White House “must meet current waist-height ratio and current physical fitness standard”. No “fat generals”.

Hegseth’s warfighter is hyper-masculine and unbound by “stupid rules of engagement”.

Is that the kind of warfighter Marles was talking about?

Hegseth no doubt thinks so. When asked about New Zealand “freeloading” on the US, Hegseth said allies “better have the same capabilities we do, because if we don’t, our alliance is meaningless”.

Hegseth might have been talking about New Zealand but the message was clear. And it must be taken in the context of how the Trump administration treats its allies. Just last week Trump threatened to “blow up” longtime US ally Oman if it didn’t “behave”.

The US sets the terms. And it can change them at any moment.

Good friends, am I right?

Hegseth reminded his audience that his focus was on more weapons, not “empty globalist rhetoric about the rules-based international order”.

In contrast, Marles closed out his speech calling for nations to decide whether they want to be governed “by the laws we have built together” or the “tactics of those who prefer the alternatives”.

“Australia’s answer is clear,” he said. “Rules are essential. And operating by them is the pathway to regional peace, security and prosperity.”

So which is it? Equipping the “warfighter” with his “good friend” Pete Hegseth? Or are we governed “by the laws we have built together?”

Because Marles’ good friend has made it clear it cannot be both.

Standing in Singapore, talking up the security alliance and the need to equip “the warfighter”, Marles seems to have made his choice.