AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: US Marines to Australia
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
http://www.theatlantic.com/international...ia/248266/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...81272.html

Original Story:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-marine...1n9lk.html

This is interesting enough. 1,000 Marines, plus more over time? Given who is supporting this grand idea...would it be good for Australia to acquiesce to what he is asking for? Is Australia really that defenseless? I realize they do not have many soldiers or people, hell, they barely make sustained forces size as it is.

Is there something about China that the insiders know?
Probably a good idea. Naturally the Collectivist elements of both countries are for it(Jackasses and Labour). Even the right wing Liberals and the Dumbasses will agree.

Obviously the next big strategic conflict is going to be between PRC and the rest of Asia. Naturally the US doesn't want to be left out. And we would be hard pressed even if we didn't want to. Hell even Vietnam is lobbying for us to stop the heathen Chinese.

However, if we don't get out fiscal and monetary house in order, we are not going to be much of a leader in that role.
Yet he keeps cutting defense spending.
From the SOP post WWII US "we rule the world" paradigm, this makes excellent sense.

I question how much logic it makes for Australia. China is going to rule Asia, they live there after all and I'd take my time and debate with my security types if it is more likely:

1) the US can&would deter China from ruling Asia affecting Australia

2) The US could/would protect Australia if invaded by China in the next generation

3) Would Australia be more likely targeted because of our association with the USA.

I think (3) could be yes and if it is, Australia doesn't need us there.

I also question the willingness of the Americans to lock horns with any state with the potential power of China.
Most average Americans would do it if it really was a just conflict where it meant actually defending the liberty of what is considered a free country such as Australia. Just like we'd do for the UK, etc.

Business and business/political interests on the other hand, might object. I do not think Chinese methods of government and regional control are exactly in any way desirable to Australians, so this makes sense. They were going to be a target sooner or later economically or politically - this is an early move. To avoid making themselves a target in the hopes the lion won't pick them out of the herd in the immediate future isn't something to place much emphasis on in terms of foreign relations.

1000 Marines isn't much, but it is a statement.
I have read recently two things that may be germane.
1. The US has decided to up its military presence in Australia
2. The US has decided to reinvigorate its Pacific defense policy.

I think Australia will become a big military base for the US for projecting power in SE Asia. The Australians would probably like this due to the increasing military activity in China. In addition, Australia is not so far from the straights of Malacca, through which much shipping goes. It is a choke point.
Tait,

The level of deaths and casualties fighting a war with any large state might be prohibitive mentally. Look how difficult Iraq turned out to be emotionally here and we were fighting ~20% of 30 million w/o the direct organizational talent of a state.

The folks here would want to help, I doubt we'll be prepared to risk the level of casualties a large state would cause.

BTW, I disagree with your view that China eventually must "target" Australia. Why do you feel they would, for what purpose?

China is not managed by messianic foreign affairs , they're just a normal large state, they will govern their region and their neighbors like ours will pretty much take it. They are not like an Islamic caliphate or communist mentality.
That is just it, Australia may not want to participate in "being managed" within the region.

I have to agree with you on pointless wars, American hubris and the lack of gumption in the American public. However, we must be careful, Pat, to not get sucked down the vortex of that mentality to where there is nothing else we'll allow ourselves to consider.

First off, there is a concept of a just or popular war that Americans traditionally supported in history, and usually will now. The current Middle East conflict was a political mess. And casualties were hyped up by the media as ammunition against the war, and furthermore, those people who saw the war as largely ridiculous are obviously going to be far more upset over deaths.

This would likely not be the case in defending Australia. First off, it's a country with people, political history and culture close to ours. That counts for much, unlike fighting for Arabs. Also, it will have been the non-aggressor should a conflict with China arise. And moreoever, the appeal that they do not want to play China's game in their neighborhood playground (of which a country has a right to determine for itself) will add to support of their defense.

As for targeting Australia, I do not just mean militarily or something, Pat, I mean that China will increasingly *target* putting pressure or work towards mitigating Australia's power and influence and bringing it under it's sphere of control.

Don't be too much of an anti-war, doom monger in acceptance of so many things as they are, Pat. If you do, you become guilty of bad judgment just as much as the war-hawks seeking to march legions all over the Globe. Quite a few of our bases and military adventures need to be shut down ASAP, and quite a few other brilliant ideas need to just stay in the craniums of their creators, but if anything, I would support a defense of Australia or New Zealand, or any country that asks for it in the case of their legitimate right to exist on their own.

If Australia doesn't want to be governed by the influence of another country, or at least not a particular country, hen they will not wish to be governed by them.

I am sure some goober is going to say that the ME adventures had the same justification and all that bullshit, but no, really, they didn't. The fact we're being run out now by their legitimate gov's is testament to that. And that Afghanistan is failing to embrace the wonders we brought with us to their benighted country is more proof.
I agree they wouldn't want to follow China's lead, I don't think Mexico, Canada and Guatamala really like to follow our lead either . We're the big guy on the block.

Venezuela is a good example of what happens when you rebel, they're going from first rate to poor fast. Consider Cuba in 1959 and in 2011. 1959, 3rd largest economy in the hemisphere, 2011, still driving 1959 Fords.

I just question whether or not we're willing or ought to be willing to be the Asian hegemon when there is an opponent of it in Asia with 3X our population and an oversupply of males whose economy is generating trillions of excess cash and whose educational system loves science,research.

If this was 1939, I'd say exactly the same thing about our Asian ambitions and Japan except they were not as formidable a foe as China would be. I don't even understand what benefits we gained from being an Asian power in 1939, I still don't get it.

We prevented Japan from running the show back then, maybe China or India now, so what? I just can't understand how that effects our independence over here. To be honest, I think our ambitions globally have more to do with making money for corporations than it does freedom and security for the people.

No, and Mexico and Canada should be so happy they have us to deal with than everyone else. Canada draws lines and knows the limit to tell us no.

As for being an Asian Power, I agree to not caring about deep involvement in East Asia. It doesn't preclude defending countries who utterly ask for it.
Tom Clancy has written several books which are more military strategy than novels - and has painted a pretty clear picture of the Asia zone. The one point that stuck in my mind was that the Earth is round and the waters around India and China are so large that our carrier task forces can cruise outside the visual horizon of any other naval forces. One of the not so secret aspects of Reagan's Star Wars technology was using our stealth ability to go invisible when we don't want to be seen, which allows us to extend our presence without being intrusive - to be in the best strategic position safely, and allow more capabilities than anyone else on the planet.

I don't know if the satellite coverage of Asian nations has improved to know where we are, but one of the greatest problems of the last decade was avoiding India's submarine navy. China was not a factor - but with India, enough ocean can now be covered to visually cover much of the closer waters. With the impending military cuts announced by Obama, we will soon have the smallest navy since before Pearl Harbor. Any strategic moves to Australia must be seen in the light of drastic efforts to not weaken our potential force projection to third or fourth-level irrelevancy.

Thinking militarily is not like thinking politically. While Obama can apologize to despots for us being better than they are, the military usually prefers having options. Right or wrong are political thoughts. Ability is the military mindset - and whatever the military tries to do, it is all about maximizing choices which are then under civilian command. Whatever the Australian thing is all about - I feel sure there are hundreds of Lieutenant Colonels running around the bowels of the Pentagon with heuristic flow charts and decision trees for every possible contingency that can affect the security of the U.S. and our allies - and there must be some logic behind their moves.
We're going to have a declining Navy regardless of who our President is. It's too expensive to operate a world class Navy with our profligate lifestyle, that's why even the "govern the world" types are going to be forced to adjust their ambitions along these lines.

The moment we lose the dollar reserve status is the moment Americans realize we're just like everyone else. Unless we elarn sooner by getting a million deaths in short order from a nuke or something.
Getting our fiscal and monetary house in order, if we ever do, is going to be a monumental task. And as long as the Collectivist elements of our society continue to rule the Democrat Party, and thoroughly intimidate the GOP, we will never be able to act decisively.

I'm just fed up with the entire thing, and would even welcome open rebellion in the streets. Jefferson was correct:

Quote:"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

Beck may want to appeal to our finer qualities in shunning violence, but clearly violence is the one thing that Collectivists understand best. I'm just too far along in years to value my life above all else. If we can't get them out through peaceful means, I say its time to start putting them out of Our Misery.

And I'm as serious as a heart attack.
Pax Americana, RIP.

Rome extender her dominance by allowing foreign (Germanic) troops and generals to take over the military while their civil society decayed. The US has no similar option.
Don't despair, if China falters like Stratfor thinks they will, we'll get another 25 freebie years to run the show.
I read that the number of Marines will be up to 2500. A full air-ground unit at the very least. Almost an Army Brigade size element. That is a lot in reality if you look past the numbers.
Yes, 2500 according to Rush. Here he praises new Obama's posture.

Any bets on how many kangaroos will end up pregnant? S6
(11-16-2011, 09:52 PM)mv Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, 2500 according to Rush. Here he praises new Obama's posture.

Any bets on how many kangaroos will end up pregnant? S6

I thought these were going to be marines station there, instead of sailors. S13

Another way to look at it is from the force-multiplier viewpoint. If there are many drones flying thousands of miles from their pilots ready to reduce the enemy to cinders, how do you count their strength?

Everyone mocks the Pentagon for $500 hammers and $200 toilet seats - but that was the cost of major programs amortized with them. What they produced was major advances in technology that keep us going.
I feel sorry for Darwin, AU, I do. I wish a military base upon no one, or their community, or enlarging one already existent. Servicemen are often terrible people. I bet the crime rate goes up. Should put them in the bush somewhere out of the way where they cannot ruin anything.

I also cannot wait to see how many tax dollars we'll bleed like crazy by being over there. Do not get me wrong, I am not against the concept of Marines in Australia is Australia welcomes them and it isn't a major money drain, nor am I against helping defend Australia possibly. However, knowing what I do, I cringe at all the money that will go away forever in waste, theft, and mismanagement plus hiring tons of the locals.
Pages: 1 2