Monday, 28 November 2011
Wake up, Australia! The US is playing with fire now, infuriating a nuclear-capable Pakistan
Letter I sent today to the editor of the Canberra Times. We shall see if they print it! (Note: they did, after editing out a crucial part! -Clair)
Dear people:
I'm reflecting on the implications that NATO admits it's probably to blame for that latest deadly helicopter raid on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, that killed up to 28 Pakistani soldiers and injured over a dozen others.
Islamabad responded by cutting off the flow of vital NATO supplies to Afghanistan. The incident deals a serious blow to already-strained relations over lethal incursions in Pakistani territory.
John Rees, a political analyst from the British-based 'Stop the War Coalition', describes how the U.S. and its allies are creating an explosive situation in the volatile region in this video interview.
Clearly this is a dangerous situation and there are indeed implications for Australia because of its close alliance with the US. With an increasingly enraged Pakistani population, this can only mean one thing - more instability and insecurity for Australia's own forces to contend with, and the threat of a devastating regional war brought ever closer to our own doorstep!
Australia would do well to rethink its own policy and develop a withdrawal plan since the government's justification for ongoing involvement in that region grows increasingly fuzzy, the mission is clearly not sustainable, and the entire effort does not have the support of the vast majority of Australians!
Clair Hochstetler
PO Box 827
Mawson, ACT 2607
Sunday, 27 November 2011
Implications of a US Marine Base in Darwin, Australia
5 Lessons of U.S. Plan for a Permanent Military Presence in Australia
By Max Fisher
Nov 10, 2011
What Obama's plan to build a marine base here means for China, Japan, Afghanistan, and global politics
An Australian naval officer watches a frigate arrive in Darwin / Reuters
The U.S. has arranged with Australia to install a permanent military presence near the northern Australian town of Darwin, a move that signals shifts in President Obama's foreign policy and the U.S.vision for its role in the world. Obama will formally announce the new base with Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard during his visit to Australia next week, the Sydney Morning Herald reported this morning.
Why is the U.S., at time of economic trouble and declining military deployments abroad, creating an all-new marine base in the land that Australians call Oz? Australia is a small-ish country by any measurement except for acreage, which is actually a poor way to understand the relative strength of nations. The World Bank ranks it 15th by GDP, between South Korea and the Netherlands. It's ranked 52nd by population, less than one tenth the size of its northern neighbor, Indonesia. Its military spending is about on par with Spain.
So this is probably not about protecting Australia itself. But repositioning U.S. forces in this way reveals how Obama sees the world -- and America's place in it -- as changing. Here are five immediate lessons from the plan to build this new permanent base, something that suggests a significant change in long-term U.S. foreign policy.
(1) Yes, it's about containing China's military reach. As China rises, the U.S. is attempting to either manage or contain that rise (which you believe depends on whether you see Chinese growth as necessarily threatening to the U.S. -- given how close U.S.-China economic ties have become, it's probably more about managing than containing). But, whatever the overall U.S. strategy on Chinamight be, the U.S. has appeared more eager to deter China's sometimes aggressive behavior in naval disputes with its neighbors, mostly over disputed islands and shipping lanes. These small-scale conflicts, especially if they escalated, could be incredibly damaging to global trade, much of which goes through the South China Sea. A greater U.S. military presence in the region, it's hoped, will deter Chinese aggression against its neighbors (which become relatively weaker as China becomes stronger) and maintain stability in this increasingly important region. "Australian strategic rationale is that we are also hedging against increasing Chinese military power and their capacity to destabilise maritime trade routes," a former Australian senior defense official told the Sydney Morning Herald. Putting troops inDarwin will expand the U.S. military reach in the Pacific, and more importantly it will establish a western Pacific troop presence that is close enough to deter China but far enough away to not have to worry about Chinese missiles.
(2) U.S. focusing away from Middle East to East Asia. Obama has been saying for a while that the U.S. should shift its attention away from the Middle East and Central Asia, regions that have often suffered from U.S. involvement and where anti-Americanism persists, toward East Asia. Our clients in the greater Middle East often seem to be more trouble than they're worth. Meanwhile, U.S. alliances in East Asia have been reliable and profitable. So why, Obama seems to be wondering, has the U.S.been investing so much in a part of the world where its returns are so low? This move suggests Obama's administration may be turning its attention away from the Middle East -- withdrawing fromIraq and Afghanistan -- to set America's military emphasis in East Asia.
(3) Obama wants out of Afghanistan. Though the U.S. has tentative plans to begin withdrawing from Afghanistan, it's easy to imagine that the U.S. military will push the White House to push back that schedule (as they've done, successfully, with previous drawdown plans there and in Iraq) or at least elongate it. A number of analysts are understandably skeptical about the fuzzy withdrawal plans, which could suffer as U.S. progress slows. But this suggests that Obama is serious about ending the war in Afghanistan. After all, these new troops in Australia have to come from somewhere.
(4) U.S. concerned about tension with Japan over military base. The U.S. marine base inOkinawa has been politically controversial in Japanese politics for years. No one seems to be crazy about the idea of a few thousand foreign troops on their soil, and a handful of scandals regarding bad behavior by some marines has worsened the tension. Last year, the Japanese Prime Minister resigned after Obama pressured him to renege on his promise to close the Okinawa base. It doesn't take muchto make a Japanese prime minister resign, but it was a sign of how much tension the base brings into U.S.-Japan relations, an alliance that both countries badly want to keep positive for economic and military reasons. There is a movement in Japan right now to relocate part the base someplace less populated, which the U.S. has resisted. But the Darwin base might take some of the pressure off Okinawa and allow the U.S. and Japan to move the base without sacrificing security interests.
(5) Could Australia be the new Saudi-style U.S. client? If the U.S. wants to build the kind of presence in East Asia that it could be closing out of the Middle East, it will need a reliable and pliant client state in the region. Japan is too powerful on its own and too independent; Indonesia might worry about a domestic backlash if it moves too close to the U.S.; South Korea is too worried about North Korea; and the nations of Southeast Asia are still not quite stable enough. But Australians are democratic, speak English, don't have ideological reasons to oppose the U.S., and could really use a powerful sponsor, especially as China becomes more dominant. "Australia is like [the Persian] Gulf, cant possibly defend itself, relies on US protection. Politically can't rock the boat, just like Gulf," Australian journalist Tom Gara wrote on Twitter. This explains why Australia has joined every single American war, including Vietnam, which even the British wouldn't touch." Australia, like the nations of the Persian Gulf, might be willing to hand its foreign policy over to the U.S. in exchange for the implicit security guarantee of a large military base.
Why is the U.S., at time of economic trouble and declining military deployments abroad, creating an all-new marine base in the land that Australians call Oz? Australia is a small-ish country by any measurement except for acreage, which is actually a poor way to understand the relative strength of nations. The World Bank ranks it 15th by GDP, between South Korea and the Netherlands. It's ranked 52nd by population, less than one tenth the size of its northern neighbor, Indonesia. Its military spending is about on par with Spain.
So this is probably not about protecting Australia itself. But repositioning U.S. forces in this way reveals how Obama sees the world -- and America's place in it -- as changing. Here are five immediate lessons from the plan to build this new permanent base, something that suggests a significant change in long-term U.S. foreign policy.
(1) Yes, it's about containing China's military reach. As China rises, the U.S. is attempting to either manage or contain that rise (which you believe depends on whether you see Chinese growth as necessarily threatening to the U.S. -- given how close U.S.-China economic ties have become, it's probably more about managing than containing). But, whatever the overall U.S. strategy on Chinamight be, the U.S. has appeared more eager to deter China's sometimes aggressive behavior in naval disputes with its neighbors, mostly over disputed islands and shipping lanes. These small-scale conflicts, especially if they escalated, could be incredibly damaging to global trade, much of which goes through the South China Sea. A greater U.S. military presence in the region, it's hoped, will deter Chinese aggression against its neighbors (which become relatively weaker as China becomes stronger) and maintain stability in this increasingly important region. "Australian strategic rationale is that we are also hedging against increasing Chinese military power and their capacity to destabilise maritime trade routes," a former Australian senior defense official told the Sydney Morning Herald. Putting troops inDarwin will expand the U.S. military reach in the Pacific, and more importantly it will establish a western Pacific troop presence that is close enough to deter China but far enough away to not have to worry about Chinese missiles.
(2) U.S. focusing away from Middle East to East Asia. Obama has been saying for a while that the U.S. should shift its attention away from the Middle East and Central Asia, regions that have often suffered from U.S. involvement and where anti-Americanism persists, toward East Asia. Our clients in the greater Middle East often seem to be more trouble than they're worth. Meanwhile, U.S. alliances in East Asia have been reliable and profitable. So why, Obama seems to be wondering, has the U.S.been investing so much in a part of the world where its returns are so low? This move suggests Obama's administration may be turning its attention away from the Middle East -- withdrawing fromIraq and Afghanistan -- to set America's military emphasis in East Asia.
(3) Obama wants out of Afghanistan. Though the U.S. has tentative plans to begin withdrawing from Afghanistan, it's easy to imagine that the U.S. military will push the White House to push back that schedule (as they've done, successfully, with previous drawdown plans there and in Iraq) or at least elongate it. A number of analysts are understandably skeptical about the fuzzy withdrawal plans, which could suffer as U.S. progress slows. But this suggests that Obama is serious about ending the war in Afghanistan. After all, these new troops in Australia have to come from somewhere.
(4) U.S. concerned about tension with Japan over military base. The U.S. marine base inOkinawa has been politically controversial in Japanese politics for years. No one seems to be crazy about the idea of a few thousand foreign troops on their soil, and a handful of scandals regarding bad behavior by some marines has worsened the tension. Last year, the Japanese Prime Minister resigned after Obama pressured him to renege on his promise to close the Okinawa base. It doesn't take muchto make a Japanese prime minister resign, but it was a sign of how much tension the base brings into U.S.-Japan relations, an alliance that both countries badly want to keep positive for economic and military reasons. There is a movement in Japan right now to relocate part the base someplace less populated, which the U.S. has resisted. But the Darwin base might take some of the pressure off Okinawa and allow the U.S. and Japan to move the base without sacrificing security interests.
(5) Could Australia be the new Saudi-style U.S. client? If the U.S. wants to build the kind of presence in East Asia that it could be closing out of the Middle East, it will need a reliable and pliant client state in the region. Japan is too powerful on its own and too independent; Indonesia might worry about a domestic backlash if it moves too close to the U.S.; South Korea is too worried about North Korea; and the nations of Southeast Asia are still not quite stable enough. But Australians are democratic, speak English, don't have ideological reasons to oppose the U.S., and could really use a powerful sponsor, especially as China becomes more dominant. "Australia is like [the Persian] Gulf, cant possibly defend itself, relies on US protection. Politically can't rock the boat, just like Gulf," Australian journalist Tom Gara wrote on Twitter. This explains why Australia has joined every single American war, including Vietnam, which even the British wouldn't touch." Australia, like the nations of the Persian Gulf, might be willing to hand its foreign policy over to the U.S. in exchange for the implicit security guarantee of a large military base.
Source from The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/
Tuesday, 25 October 2011
Rant Regarding the Spurious Idea That America is "Withdrawing" from Iraq -- is this a "Teachable Moment?"
Should we really be celebrating the President Obama's declaration of an end of the “war” in Iraq? So yes, a decision, long overdue, was finally made that all the troops are supposed to leave by the end of the year. BUT the troops remain in Afghanistan. And we are in essence simply contracting out an ongoing military presence to mercenaries - the continuation of our current policy to "ensure security" in Iraq - and we are going to pay for it out the wazooo for who knows how long.
Is this anything worth celebrating? I think this is one of those teachable moments when peace groups and peace churches could be issuing a statement or comment - but what could/should it be?
Well, at the least, an informed one!
As you might guess by now, I was quite unhappy with this quote from President Obama which beamed to the rest of the world: “The last American soldier will cross the border out of Iraq with their heads held high, proud of their success and knowing that the American people stand united in our support for our troops."
It's not a good statement at all - and here's why: It is likely that most Americans - and it is among other nationalities as well - think a war becomes "justified" when enough killing and destruction has been wrought to eliminate any effective opposition to "our cause" - or - if an especially despicable leader or two "over there" is assassinated. That is the subtext of many movies, video games, songs, and other aspects of popular culture now - the theme of "redemptive violence." Indeed, it's ubiquitous.
That is not a good definition of a just war - nor a cause for celebration. It's actually a very dangerous and repugnant value which often issues in decisions and actions completely counter to international law, not to speak of the principles of peace and conflict transformation. This deserves a lot more discussion and re-evaluation at the common people level as well as at the highest decision-making levels of our governments and civil society.
And let's discuss in open forums the bald facts about this so-called "withdrawal" from Iraq.
Withdrawal of troops yes, but replacing them with 5,500 "contracted" mercenaries!? (And look how well that has gone in the past!) The source of my information?
Just Foreign Policy: http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/blog/dailynews
One can subscribe near the top of JFP's home page for ongoing updates. For the reader's convenience here, I have posted (at the end of this column) the important set of facts they expose in their current "US/Top News Summary."
Obviously, matters related to this so-called withdrawal are not going to be "settled" at all without directly addressing a very disturbing reality - the heavy presence of private mercenaries - i.e. the contractors who will take over from the troops to protect the extensive network of American diplomatic corp members and other American interests in that land. Iraq has by far the largest American diplomatic presence compared to any other nation in the world! At the end of those bulletin points (below) the extent of ongoing financial entanglement is revealed. When one digs into all the details - and here is a good list it doesn't sound much like "withdrawal" to my way of thinking!
So, an important question becomes "What will be the attitude of the Iraqi people if nothing different is felt or experienced on the ground compared to the last few years when the troops were there, except for changes in the color of the uniform as the mercs replace the troops? (Remember, it’s still a war zone there!) And...what will be the attitude of Americans in the long run when they begin to realize the billions of dollars that America continues to spend in Iraq to uphold our special "interests" there?
I carry a dim hope that some noisy debate about this will stir soon, but it doesn't bode well that this information got uncovered already, back during Congressional Hearings in the first two months of 2011 --did you hear or know about these details before now? So, I won't hold my breath, because sure as anything the American mainstream media will continue to suppress these realities. This sort of information usually gets discovered and diseminated after investigations by independent media sources and their reporters who aren't "embedded" and dig out the truth. However, vast swaths of the American public are drinking the tainted coolaid of Faux News, Sanitized News, and conglomerate-owned media outlets of similar persuasion.
So, imagine the impact of sensitively-worded public statements by peace groups and congregations or denominations in contrast to the mainstream media news reports about the war being over as the troops come home.
THAT is our challenge. How to support individual war-weary soldiers, many with symptoms of PTSD, while appealing for a real withdrawal. How about this for a start?
We would have preferred the President to say: “The American people stand united in our acknowledgement of the difficulty involved in the Iraq service by our troops and in our desire that they will never be called upon again for such a war. We believe..."
How would you complete that phrase if someone interviewed you on the street regarding your reaction to the President's announcement? I encourage some creative discussion about this amongst our circle of friends and in our congregations between now and the end of the year when the media organizations repeat those deceptive announcements about how America is finally "withdrawing" from Iraq.
-Clair
______________________
The Facts:
Source: http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/blog/dailynews
1) The Obama administration has decided to withdraw [almost] all [uniformed] U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of the year, the Washington Post reports. The only [Department of Defense] U.S. military presence that will remain in Iraq after the end of the year will be the roughly 150 troops needed to protect the large U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad and its thousands of U.S. diplomats and other personnel, as well as provide training related to new military sales and other tasks.
2) President Obama said: "That is how America's military efforts in Iraq will end," notes Spencer Ackerman in Wired. But it isn't so, Ackerman says. On January 1, 2012, the State Department will command a hired army of about 5,500 security contractors, all to protect the largest U.S. diplomatic presence anywhere overseas.
The State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security does not have a promising record when it comes to managing its mercenaries, Ackerman notes. In July, the State Department blocked the Congressionally-appointed watchdog for Iraq from acquiring basic information about contractor security operations, such as the contractors' rules of engagement. You can also expect that there will be a shadow presence by the CIA, and possibly the Joint Special Operations Command, Ackerman says.
3) Sens. Jon Tester and Kay Bailey Hutchison introduced legislation to create a new commission to "scrutinize the necessity of the United States' current overseas basing structure" and do a cost-benefit analysis of closing multiple overseas bases, Starts and Stripes reports. This week the pair sent a letter to the congressional supercommittee urging them to make significant cuts in future overseas military construction projects. The letter called into question U.S. military projects in Europe and on Guam, saying the Defense Department has not justified the need for billions more in base spending there.
The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform earlier this year estimated that "responsible" overseas base closings could save taxpayers $8.5 billion in the next four years. The president's own Commission on Debt Reduction put that figure closer to $9 billion.
Is this anything worth celebrating? I think this is one of those teachable moments when peace groups and peace churches could be issuing a statement or comment - but what could/should it be?
Well, at the least, an informed one!
As you might guess by now, I was quite unhappy with this quote from President Obama which beamed to the rest of the world: “The last American soldier will cross the border out of Iraq with their heads held high, proud of their success and knowing that the American people stand united in our support for our troops."
It's not a good statement at all - and here's why: It is likely that most Americans - and it is among other nationalities as well - think a war becomes "justified" when enough killing and destruction has been wrought to eliminate any effective opposition to "our cause" - or - if an especially despicable leader or two "over there" is assassinated. That is the subtext of many movies, video games, songs, and other aspects of popular culture now - the theme of "redemptive violence." Indeed, it's ubiquitous.
That is not a good definition of a just war - nor a cause for celebration. It's actually a very dangerous and repugnant value which often issues in decisions and actions completely counter to international law, not to speak of the principles of peace and conflict transformation. This deserves a lot more discussion and re-evaluation at the common people level as well as at the highest decision-making levels of our governments and civil society.
And let's discuss in open forums the bald facts about this so-called "withdrawal" from Iraq.
Withdrawal of troops yes, but replacing them with 5,500 "contracted" mercenaries!? (And look how well that has gone in the past!) The source of my information?
Just Foreign Policy: http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/blog/dailynews
One can subscribe near the top of JFP's home page for ongoing updates. For the reader's convenience here, I have posted (at the end of this column) the important set of facts they expose in their current "US/Top News Summary."
Obviously, matters related to this so-called withdrawal are not going to be "settled" at all without directly addressing a very disturbing reality - the heavy presence of private mercenaries - i.e. the contractors who will take over from the troops to protect the extensive network of American diplomatic corp members and other American interests in that land. Iraq has by far the largest American diplomatic presence compared to any other nation in the world! At the end of those bulletin points (below) the extent of ongoing financial entanglement is revealed. When one digs into all the details - and here is a good list it doesn't sound much like "withdrawal" to my way of thinking!
So, an important question becomes "What will be the attitude of the Iraqi people if nothing different is felt or experienced on the ground compared to the last few years when the troops were there, except for changes in the color of the uniform as the mercs replace the troops? (Remember, it’s still a war zone there!) And...what will be the attitude of Americans in the long run when they begin to realize the billions of dollars that America continues to spend in Iraq to uphold our special "interests" there?
I carry a dim hope that some noisy debate about this will stir soon, but it doesn't bode well that this information got uncovered already, back during Congressional Hearings in the first two months of 2011 --did you hear or know about these details before now? So, I won't hold my breath, because sure as anything the American mainstream media will continue to suppress these realities. This sort of information usually gets discovered and diseminated after investigations by independent media sources and their reporters who aren't "embedded" and dig out the truth. However, vast swaths of the American public are drinking the tainted coolaid of Faux News, Sanitized News, and conglomerate-owned media outlets of similar persuasion.
So, imagine the impact of sensitively-worded public statements by peace groups and congregations or denominations in contrast to the mainstream media news reports about the war being over as the troops come home.
THAT is our challenge. How to support individual war-weary soldiers, many with symptoms of PTSD, while appealing for a real withdrawal. How about this for a start?
We would have preferred the President to say: “The American people stand united in our acknowledgement of the difficulty involved in the Iraq service by our troops and in our desire that they will never be called upon again for such a war. We believe..."
How would you complete that phrase if someone interviewed you on the street regarding your reaction to the President's announcement? I encourage some creative discussion about this amongst our circle of friends and in our congregations between now and the end of the year when the media organizations repeat those deceptive announcements about how America is finally "withdrawing" from Iraq.
-Clair
______________________
The Facts:
Source: http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/blog/dailynews
1) The Obama administration has decided to withdraw [almost] all [uniformed] U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of the year, the Washington Post reports. The only [Department of Defense] U.S. military presence that will remain in Iraq after the end of the year will be the roughly 150 troops needed to protect the large U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad and its thousands of U.S. diplomats and other personnel, as well as provide training related to new military sales and other tasks.
2) President Obama said: "That is how America's military efforts in Iraq will end," notes Spencer Ackerman in Wired. But it isn't so, Ackerman says. On January 1, 2012, the State Department will command a hired army of about 5,500 security contractors, all to protect the largest U.S. diplomatic presence anywhere overseas.
The State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security does not have a promising record when it comes to managing its mercenaries, Ackerman notes. In July, the State Department blocked the Congressionally-appointed watchdog for Iraq from acquiring basic information about contractor security operations, such as the contractors' rules of engagement. You can also expect that there will be a shadow presence by the CIA, and possibly the Joint Special Operations Command, Ackerman says.
3) Sens. Jon Tester and Kay Bailey Hutchison introduced legislation to create a new commission to "scrutinize the necessity of the United States' current overseas basing structure" and do a cost-benefit analysis of closing multiple overseas bases, Starts and Stripes reports. This week the pair sent a letter to the congressional supercommittee urging them to make significant cuts in future overseas military construction projects. The letter called into question U.S. military projects in Europe and on Guam, saying the Defense Department has not justified the need for billions more in base spending there.
The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform earlier this year estimated that "responsible" overseas base closings could save taxpayers $8.5 billion in the next four years. The president's own Commission on Debt Reduction put that figure closer to $9 billion.
Friday, 14 October 2011
Wishing I could be there with Leymah Gbowee (Nobel Peace Prize Winner) at EMU Homecoming this weekend!
It’s wonderful to feel some sort of connection with an alumnus from the same university where I graduated who received a Nobel Peace Prize this year! If I were in America now, instead of back in Canberra already, I would be shaking Leymah Gbowee’s hand sometime this weekend at our annual “Homecoming” in the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)