- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
search
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
At Large
Following the New Australian Defense Model
(Page 2 of 2)
Tokyo still spends far less than it could, but its capabilities are likely to grow as the international threat environment becomes more unsettled. In May Japanese Foreign Minister Hirofumi Nakasoni visited Australia and called China's military build-up an "issue of some concern." Japanese officials have begun debating the unthinkable: creating the capability to preemptively take out North Korean missiles and even developing nuclear weapons. "Calls for the debate are escalating," explained Takehiko Yamamoto, a professor at Tokyo's Waseda University. The growing number of Japanese advocates of a larger military split between those who would amend Article Nine or simply interpret the pacifist provision away. "We won't sit and wait for death," said Gen Nakatani, a former civilian defense chief now heading the Liberal Democratic Party panel on security policy, in May.
Other East and South Asian nations too, are arming. The International Institute of Strategic Studies notes "substantial evidence of continuing efforts by several Southeast Asian states to modernize their armed forces." For instance, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam all are constructing submarines. A plethora of better-armed smaller states may be unnerving to some, but will further constrain the dominant regional powers. Such a build-up also puts a premium on America's democratic friends doing more, since they can ill afford to rely on Washington to protect them from everyone else.
Indeed, the most important incentive for Australia to strengthen its forces is recognition that America is likely to do less. Canberra's White Paper lauds the continuing U.S.-Australian alliance, but delicately warns of changes to come: "the United States might find itself preoccupied and stretched in some parts of the world such that its ability to shift attention and project power into other regions, when it needs to, is constrained." In fact, Americans concerned about paying for Medicare, Social Security, and accumulated debts aren't likely to want to keep spending as much as the rest of the world combined to protect wealthy friends, like Australia. And as Beijing develops its own potent military with the ability deter U.S. involvement, Washington will be far less likely to risk war to micro-manage local and regional disputes in East Asia.
The U.S. should make the same point to Japan and South Korea, as well as other friendly states, such as the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, and Thailand. It is time for them to take over their own defense responsibilities, instead of sitting idly by assuming that Washington will come to the rescue in any crisis.
The U.S. cannot forever be the world's 911 number. While most of America's allies hope the good times of U.S. subsidies go on forever, Australia is more realistic. Recognizing that Washington is not likely to forever patrol the globe, the Rudd government is preparing Australia to be militarily self-sufficient. The rest of America's military dependents should do likewise.
Comments
Leave a Comment
Related Articles
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Pingback| 7.13.09 @ 6:18AM
Doug Bandow » Blog Archive » Amazing: One Ally Willing to Carry Its Share links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
mhastings| 7.13.09 @ 6:38AM
About time they stood up for themselves. This is an echo of what Pat Buchanon says in "Day of Reckoning" (which every American should read) and I fully agree.
Mike Hastings
Melvin| 7.13.09 @ 7:43AM
Come on people. why should the Europeans defend themselves? they have us.
European leadership doesn't have the will or the spine to defend themselves, history proves that.
Oh, but they are quick to bash the United States at the drop of a hat the the Americans are not doing enough.
Many Europeans want the United States out of Europe because we are too imperialistic. Well fine, let the vaunted EU start paying its share of security in the world, fat chance of that happening when the EU leadership is still haggling over what color the Latte cups should be.
Hank Rearden| 7.13.09 @ 8:19AM
This is truly a life lesson that can be used in other venues. The US has decided to stop subsidizing the defense of other nations so they've decided to take care of themeselves (which they're more than capable of doing). Imagine if we applied the same principals to economics!!!
blackelkspeaks| 7.13.09 @ 9:32AM
It is way, way past time for this defense realignment to happen.
My main Beef No. 1 against Bush was his misconduct of the "War On Terror" (what a stupid phrase) by not requiring our "allies" to finally put up or shut up during our operations. (His asinine energy-related policies were Beef No. 2.) Every country that expected us to continue protecting them should have had battle units in the front lines, shoulder to shoulder with our own troops, dodging bullets and bombs, not just "in the rear with the gear". If some country refused to do so (like Germany, Japan, Canada, et. al.) then we should have worked to disavow any common defense agreement, which was clearly not valid anyway.
It is a little known fact that more American servicemen have died in the myriad foreign wars we've engaged in since 1945 than died in WWII itself. But our "leaders" have never demanded that those nations that we've protected recognize this sacrifice, nor have they required that those nations begin to assume their own defense responsibilities. Consider the blood and treasure the US has squandered in the past sixty years on behalf of ungrateful and dissolute client states all over the world. This idiocy should have stopped years ago.
The sad thing is that the Republicans have let this happen, just like everything else they've let go to pot on their watches. Now this is likely to happen anyway, but in the most deleterious manner, and for all the wrong reasons.
Tim| 7.13.09 @ 11:35AM
If you think you can rely on Barrack Obama to protect you in a fight, or that US military capacity is going anywhere but downhill now through 2016, well, you got another think coming
Richard Baker| 7.13.09 @ 11:45AM
Having been stationed in the Federal Republic of Germany, as it was then called, from 1972-1974, I am amazed that after the fall of the Soviet Union we still have a military presence in Europe. Time for the EU to defend itself. Don't think that there is much chance that Hitler and Mussolini and Stalin are coming back. Let these Little Sisters of the Poor defend themselves and pay for their own defence.
Tyler| 7.13.09 @ 2:05PM
Blackelkspeaks is a hundred percent right. George Bush did not do enough to get our allies involved in fighting terrorism. I don't know what these countries like Australlia and Japan are thinking if they seriously think they have an ally in the US. It's obvious to anyone with common sense that obama doesn't have any allies except dictators and our enemies. They are right to build up there military. The only question is what the heck took them so long. They saw America as there defense that is pathetic. Every country should defend themselves. America should never have been the defense for the world that is pathetic. On this issue I agree with ron paul.
Thom| 7.13.09 @ 6:20PM
blackelkspeaks| said, "It is a little known fact that more American servicemen have died in the myriad foreign wars we've engaged in since 1945 than died in WWII itself. " Blackelkspeaks can you back that claim up with some facts? 292,000 WWII dead. About 100,000 between Korea and Vietnam. I'm having some trouble finding the other 200,000 plus.
Thom| 7.13.09 @ 6:35PM
I’m all for our allies defending themselves……but not at the expense of us reducing our defensive capabilities as part of the bargain. We have a history of putting more faith in paper agreements than actual military capability. The day our allies actually shoulder their share of the burden is the day we won’t have the capability to engage and win against any major player given our history. Australia had a larger more capable military force prior to WWII than today and the only thing that kept Japanese forces out of Australia was the US Navy. Nothing the Australians are going to do in the next two decades is going to deter China. Maybe they’ll deter New Zealand. California has a larger military presence and capability than Australia by a very large margin.
Richard Baker| 7.13.09 @ 7:35PM
Thom:
I suggest you read the history of the Aussie and Kiwi soldiers. While not a large military, they are VERY good. Ask the Germans, Italians, and the North Vietnamese. They live in a tough neighborhood and the "ANZACs" are not to be taken lightly. I've trained with these guys and they are quality.
Thom| 7.13.09 @ 8:15PM
Richard,
I know their quality but numbers matter. The Chinese can build the entire Australian armed forces every year right now. The Japanese had nothing like the population we are talking about and the Australians had nothing to stop them with in WWII. The Spartans had quality too and it eventually won out at considerable cost and time to prepare. Australia bulking up isn’t going to change the balance of power in that part of the world. If Japan gets serious that will matter, not Australia. Compared to the armed forces of Taiwan or South Korea, Australia has almost nothing to speak of in offensive capability. 40 year old F-111s is about it for power projection. Going to take a lot more than what they are talking about to put them on the military map in that neighborhood.
cheap jordan shoes| 7.13.09 @ 9:17PM
I am very interested in it, could you please tell me some more imformation? Thank you!
blackelkspeaks| 7.13.09 @ 9:20PM
RE: Post WWII Casualty Rates
US Service Deaths (including Battle, In Theatre Non-Battle, and Out Of Theatre Non-Battle)
Note - Figures approximate:
Korea - 55,000
Vietnam - 90,000
Gulf War 1 - 2100
Gulf War 2 - 5200
Afghanistan - 1200
Add the Phillipines, Cambodia, Iran, Lebanon, Grenada, Libya, Panama, Somalia, Haiti, Yugoslavia, Kosovo, and the number of service deaths year upon year for sixty years whilst maintaining global military operations.
Truth to Power| 7.13.09 @ 11:04PM
"It is a little known fact that more American servicemen have died in the myriad foreign wars we've engaged in since 1945 than died in WWII itself."
It should not be known at all.
War of Independence (1775-1783) 25,000
Quasi-War (1798-1800) 20
Barbary Wars (1801-1815) 35
War of 1812 (1812-1815) 20,000
1st Seminole War (1817-1818) 30
2nd Seminole War (1835-1842) 1,500
Mexican-American War (1846-1848) 13,283
3rd Seminole War (1855-1858) 26
Civil War (1861-1865) 623,026
Indian Wars (1865-1898) 919
Spanish-American War (1898) 2,446
Philippine War (1898-1902) 4,196
Boxer Rebellion (1900-1901) 37
Mexican Revolution (1914-1919) 35
Haiti Occupation (1915-1934) 146
World War 1 (1917-1918) 116,708
World War 2 (1941-1945) 407,316
Korean War (1950-1953) 36,914
Vietnam War (1964-1973) 58,169
El Salvador (1980-1992) 20
Beirut (1982-1984) 266
Persian Gulf Support (1987-1988) 39
Invasion of Grenada (1983) 19
Invasion of Panama (1989) 40
Persian Gulf War (1991) 269
Somalia (1992-1993) 43
Bosnia 1995 12
Afghanistan (2002-2009) 686+
Iraqi (2003-2009) 4,299+
blackelkspeaks| 7.14.09 @ 12:04AM
Check your figures with the US Naval War College. Add up all of the service deaths experienced since 1945; not just battle deaths, but for in theatre and out of theatre non-battle operations, as well as for standard operations required to support excessive global commitments for over sixty years.
Those thousands of little engagements that don't make the usual lists (and there are many, like the Spanish bar bombings or the USS Cole) add up to very large numbers.
Richard Baker| 7.14.09 @ 9:07AM
Thom:
I suggest that you read up on the recent Aussie governments' procurement choices. The F-111 is not the final word. The Chinese will go elsewhere as the Aussies decide to exhibit their usual pugnacity. Remember, the Chinese have serious ethnic and religious struggles going on at home. I'll still bet my money on the Australians every time. If Rommel were here, he'd agree.
ED Hardy Hoodies| 7.24.09 @ 2:14AM
i like
cheap handbags| 7.25.09 @ 7:18PM
We only sell the top grade replica cheap handbags, some of them are genuine leather handbags, yet the price is far lower than the authentic designers want you to pay. We lead you to a genuine pool of bags : collections in wide range: handbags, shoulder bags, clutches, tote bags, purses and wallets, the hottest brands you can find like replica Louis Vuitton handbags, Replica marc jacobs handags, Replica Prada handbags, Coach,Replica Chloe handbags,Burberry, Dior,replica Chanel handbags, Chloe,Replica gucci handbags, Dolce & Gabbana,Replica Balenciaga handbags . Crafted to the highest standard, from the finest materials in the industry, we guarantee the toppest Replica Hermes handbags at low price you'll find anywhere.
george| 7.29.09 @ 2:31AM
LV Bequia Leather handbag , commonly referred to as
Louis Vuitton Bequia, or sometimes shortened to
Louis Vuitton Classic China Run handbags has become one of the most
Louis Vuitton Classic China Run luxury brands.
outlet louis vuittongood
lv outletl like
louis vuitton outletsgood
louis vuitton outlet storesnice
dropshippngwatch| 9.2.09 @ 10:45AM
Replica Watch
Replica Watches
Fake Watch
Sales Replica Watches
Fake Watches
Fake Watch
Replica Watch
Replica Watches
Fake Watch
replica Rolex watches
Replica Graham Watches
Replica Gucci Watches
Replica Guess Watches
Replica Harry Winston Watches
Replica Hermes Watches
Replica Hublot Watches
Replica Hugo Boss Watches
Replica IWC Watches
http://www.dropshippingwatch.com
SEagan| 9.12.09 @ 5:42PM
Why doesn't the U.S do anything?
fsdkfl| 10.18.09 @ 11:27PM
shanghai massage
turntable bearings