Brett Coster wrote: > >>Don't you see something worrying here? Not just one or two > carrier groups, > >>each more powerful than any other navy - THIRTEEN. That is just > straight out > >>and out overkill. >
JDG: > Not overkill at all - it just means that the rest of the Western World, > that spends a wholly inadequate amount on defense But is it a totally inadequate amount being spent? Noone else WANTS to put forces all over the world. Almost everyone else can see what the most likely threats they face and then build a defence force to cater for that. I've already written on what basis Australia is building its defence. We only have to make sure we have a qualitative advantage over our neighbours - which we have, both in hardware and training - and monitor the region. It helps if you build up good relations with your neighbours, too, which most of the time we do. So, who does the Netherlands have to defend themselves against? Belgium? Denmark? NATO is pretty well equipped at the moment for the most likely threats. Sure things may change in East Europe again, but changes don't happen overnight. At the same time, the last thing anyone wants to provoke is a local arms race. And at present even without US troops, NATO has a qualitative edge over all of Eastern Europe. Britain no longer has an Empire that required Pax Britannica. France's empire is now mainland France, Tahiti and Noumea. And maybe that tiny island off Canada. Russia can't afford the defence force it still has. Eastern Europe would rather spend money on building their countries, and they all want to join NATO anyway. So why should Europe spend any more than it currently is? Programmed upgrades won't upset any neighbours. Maybe it IS time for the US to leave. JDG: >, will be > calling on us to > the dirty work around the world. There's a difference between calling for US support and calling for US troops. Support can simply be getting the US to come out and condemn someone's actions. That's basically what happened with East Timor. Ideally, yes, we wanted Americans on ground, partly because it was a sign of US commitment. Logistic support and intelligence resources (which were joint US/Aust facilities anyway) were sufficient and probably kept the Indonesians really quiet. No troops, as such, were required. They may not even have been asked for, except as a backup if it all went pear shaped. Jakarta got the message. East Timor also subsequently turned into a UN operation. Still with a large Australian contingent, but UN control. The initial Interfet phase was also UN approved while Australian controlled. That's how things should be handled in future. However, what the US is doing with its expansion of its forces is directly in opposition to that. The US has unilaterally decided that it is going to be the policeman, judge, jury and executioner. As Gautam has pointed out, the US is building such a massive force, with such resources that noone else can possibly match it. Well frankly, your forces could be one quarter the size and pretty much the same would apply. Until Europe builds its EuroForce, and starts coordinating how it develops its military technologies then noone will possibly spend as much as the US. The qualitative gap will increase. But, now that there is already a gap, why is the US going out of its way to increase it? You don't have to spend these huge amounts. The current budget is not focussed, it is covering expenditure all over the place. Very, very little of it is suitable for a war on terrorism which is the ostensible purpose of the increase. What it really is is developing both Fortress America and an invasion force that can land anywhere, anytime. So, where do you want to go?(TM) JDG: > When killing starts in Kosovo, they > call the Americans. When killing starts in Korea, they call the > Americans. When killing starts in Iraq and Kuwait, they call the > Americans. When they start killing in Afghanistan, they call > the Americans. > First off, a lot of those problems should have been UN remediated. Now, the UN doesn't have a standing army and is rather underfunded. Basically though, as I see it, there are two things going on here. 1. People are more aware of injustices now than probably anytime in the past. So international condemnation of things like the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait SPONTANEOUSLY get made very quickly. Then it's a case of working out what to do about it. By rights, it should be the UN. However, the US categorically refuses to have its troops commanded by anyone other than an American. So, for the UN to work it either has to do without US forces or it has to allow the US to take the lead. I think it's about time to start supporting the UN. 2. Look at that list above. Kosovo and Korea are very different situations from Iraq and Afghanistan. I'll cover those first: Both Iraq (after Kuwait) and Afghanistan DIRECTLY affected US interests. Nobody called the US into Afghanistan, that was a unilateral US decision that was given worldwide support. It was an American operation. The Gulf War was due to a direct Kuwaiti request to the US, and it was also a US strategic requirement to protect both Kuwaiti and Saudi oil supplies for the US. After all, you use 25 percent of the world's oil, so you need Kuwait and Saudi to be in your sphere of influence. Yes it was also a moral requirement to enforce the right of Kuwait to exist, but the Gulf War was and is an oil war that protected US oil interests. The Europeans stuffed up Bosnia/Kosovo, largely, I think, because noone really knew how to handle it. It was something right outside the framework of European politics since WW2. Especially after Slovenia and Croatia had been able to defeat Serbia. Korea is a different thing entirely. Should the North invade, the US is directly linked by treaty and by having troops on the ground. There are also UN resolutions, aren't there? > Since nobody else is capable of confronting evil wherever it occurs in the > world, the Americans need to be prepared to answer the call of duty. > Brett: Look, the Europeans stuffed around far too long in Kosovo. The Germans, of course were very aware of the last involvement they had in the area and that their constitution had bars against external use of German forces. That has now been changed. The French have ALWAYS been aligned with the Serbs (see reasons for WW1 for explanation). Britain wanted to go in but couldn't get support, although in hindsight they could have parked their two carrier groups in the Adriatic. Austria also has constitutional bars on what its forces can do, and still does. Hungary is still bringing itself into the late 20th century. That covers the big boys in Europe and the near neighbours. It was not a NATO problem, it was a European problem. Noone was prepared for that, nothing was worked out to handle it. And everyone was probably hoping like hell the Yugoslavs would sort it out themselves (ie, get rid of Milosevic). Plus Russia was thoroughly anti any involvement. Not surprisingly, after 50 years of fearing the Russians roll through Europe, and with deja vu of Sarajevo, 1914, they halted until they could wring out US involvement. And that took FOREVER to come, mainly because of the Republicans wasn't it? America first, why should we get involved, etc. My how things have changed! As for other instances of evil, was it British or American troops that were involved in Sierra Leone? And are US troops facing off evil in Congo? The US faces Evil only if Evil directly affects US interests. In the old days, if there was a Marxist movement then it attracted US interest. I don't know what the criteria are these days, but there is no proof that all Evil automatically attracts the attention of US forces. Again, these should all be UN mandated. That's part of what it is for, so that nations can work out their problems etc. All part of good Earth citizenship. The big problem, though is that the US has decided that IT alone will take charge of these types of conflict, under its own rules and under US command only. That is why you are building the defence forces you are. It is YOUR decisions, not those of anyone else. Like I've already said, before too long everyone else is going to have to either take the US on trust or start opposing it. Anyone, like China, Russia and the Arab nations, who already doesn't feel predisposed to the US is going to be getting plenty to think about as this build up continues. Essentially, the most likely immediate effect is that China is going to get real nervous about this ever increasing capability of the US for immense destruction. So we get ourselves into another Cold War. A little bit of sanity and restraint now would work wonders in good will and would probably end up much less expensive. There's a difference between making it clear that you will stand up against someone, and triggering an arms race and confrontation. Now would be a good time for some restraint.
