Be ware, the Marines are coming to Australia

[Uncle Fester]

But it's a lot closer to the IO, Straits of Malacca, Indonesia, etc, than Japan/Oki.

 

[KBayDog]

But it's a lot closer to the IO, Straits of Malacca, Indonesia, etc, than Japan/Oki.

But not as close as Subic.

Not a bad deal.

Never fear: Somehow we'll make it a bad deal.

 

[flaps]

in one day the c in c has pissed off the chinese with the marines in australia and also the ragheads in iran with b-2's and bunker buster bombs.

interesting

 

[Brett327]

I doubt the Chinese even bat an eye at the Australian issue. This is nothing more than a reshuffling of forces that were already in PACOM. It's afeel good PR story which has essentially zero tactical or strategic implications for anyone.

Brett

 

[Uncle Fester]

I don't quite agree. The forces involved in this instance aren't in and of themselves significant, yes, but this is a change in principal. Hosting US forces in any numbers has a lot of political significance. ANZUS has never been much more than a piece of paper up 'til now.

 

[Brett327]

I don't quite agree. The forces involved in this instance aren't in and of themselves significant, yes, but this is a change in principal. Hosting US forces in any numbers has a lot of political significance. ANZUS has never been much more than a piece of paper up 'til now.

Like any other treaty, ANZUS will still just be a piece of paper, indistinguishable from all other treaties whether there are forward deployed troops involved or not. In my view, the strength or legitimacy of any given treaty doesn't rest upon whether one country bases troops in another. Unlike Japan, which is proximate to the regional threats, placing a tactically insignificant number of troops in N. Australia is more of a symbolic jesture than anything else. If presence is what we have in mind, there are probably better ways to go about that.

Let's be clear - This isn't something I'm against. I'm just attempting to reel in the gee whiz crowd who want to ascribe more import to this than it merits. Ultimately, it will depend on what actually takes place there. If the Administration is just playing semantics with what is already a Det site for the Marines, then we're just talking about the status quo by another name. If we're talking about permanently placing a unit there, or building a base a la Iwakuni, that's a bit different. Time will tell.

Brett

 

[flaps]

pretty sure the chinese did come out with a statement expressing displeasure about the marine/australia thing.

http://www.voanews.com/english/news...ed-US-Marine-Base-in-Australia-134031053.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/18/world/asia/obama-addresses-troops-at-final-stop-in-australia.html

The agreement with Australia amounts to the first long-term expansion of the American military’s presence in the Pacific since the end of the Vietnam War. It comes despite budget cuts facing the Pentagon and an increasingly worried reaction from Chinese leaders, who have argued that the United States is seeking to encircle China militarily and economically.
“It may not be quite appropriate to intensify and expand military alliances and may not be in the interest of countries within this region,” Liu Weimin, a Foreign Ministry spokesman, said in response to the announcement by Mr. Obama and Prime Minister Julia Gillard of Australia

 

[Brett327]

That's the thing, Flaps. I don't care what the NYT has to say about it. I'll judge it based on what kind of footprint actually comes to pass. People (especially the media) love to draw conclusions based on what amounts to zero factual information about what this thing will look like. As I said before... time will tell.

Brett

 

[flaps]

my concern is that if we decide to have a war with them , they may not lend us the money to do it.