Reader riposte: Defence debate: Asymmetry

Crispin writes in with this reply to our defence debate. Here are parts one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine and ten.     

Rather than give a long list as to why I agree with Hugh (he clearly needs no herald anyhow), I'd like to pick up on something in the paper that hasn't been discussed much, and invite Hugh to comment if he wishes to.
 
I'm referring to Hugh's concept of 'asymmetry' (p. 14) between Australia's and Indonesia's armed forces. He points out Indonesia's large army and weak navy and air force, vis-à-vis Australia. 
 
Here I would also like to point to the contributions of Lachlan McGoldrick, and whilst that view has been attacked quite vigorously by Rodger Shanahan, I must voice my support of Lachlan's view being correct (although I am a believer that we could have more of an impact in Afghanistan if we chose to). 
 
Creating 'A Focused Force' that emphasises the disparities existent between Australian and Indonesian forces are going to reassure our neighbours about our procurements, and make it less likely they will participate in an arms race.

In fact, as Lachlan expressly mentions in his post, and Hugh seems to allude to in 'A Focused Force', a sea-denial structure makes our region more stable, while acknowledging the fact that if a major regional conflict did occur, we are more likely to be fighting alongside Indonesia as allies, rather than facing off as adversaries.