« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Oz realizes Obama’s America cannot be relied upon

Rudd ramps up defense posture as Obama scales back

By: Josh Painter (Diary)  |  May 2nd, 2009 at 10:30 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

U.S. supremacy is on the wane under President Obama, and Australia can no longer depend on its number one ally to protect it. That’s the assessment of the Rudd government, and it is taking steps to ensure that Australia can defend herself.

A white paper, Defending Australia In The Asia Pacific Century: Force 2030, outlines a range of possible security threats, including instability caused by the financial crisis, cyber warfare, failed states in the Pacific, Islamist terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, and other factors.

Although the document says the short-term chances of a direct attack on Australia are “very remote,” it warns that Australia must guarantee that it can protect itself in the midst of emerging powers in the region – particularly China, India and Russia – which could lead to a “miscalculation” with disturbing consequences for the Land Down Under.

The new military focus for the Rudd government is the defense of Australia’s borders through increased air and naval power to protect the northern sea-air gap, maritime approaches and offshore oil and gas reserves.

The blueprint calls for major hardware acquisitions including doubling Australia’s submarine fleet to 12, 100 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, eight frigates with submarine detection capability and three air warfare destroyers. For the first time Australia will have its own arsenal of sea-based long-range cruise missiles.

Meanwhile in the U.S., the Obama administration is preparing to cease production of its advanced F-22 Air Superiority Fighter, abandon its missile defense program and reject any modernization of its aging stockpile of nuclear weapons. In a new century of emerging and re-emerging threats, Obama, like Clinton and Carter before him, is intentionally and recklessly weakening America’s defense posture.

While the white paper recommends that Australia should continue to support the US alliance and American-led efforts to increase global security, it warns that Australia will no longer put her troops at risk “in distant theatres of war where we have no direct interests”.

It is yet to be determined how other U.S. allies will react to Obama’s determination to diminish America’s status as a superpower. In the Asian theater, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan will likely have to reallocate precious resources to increase their own military self-reliance. In Europe, the emerging democracies simply do not have those resources to defend themselves against a more aggressive Russian Federation, as was demonstrated by Putin’s incursion into Georgia. If Obama scales back the level of U.S. participation in NATO, nations such as Ukraine and Poland may find themselves increasingly isolated.

- JP

Cross-posted at Mainstream Conservative

Tags: , , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • tankertodd

    Obama pulling back the United States from the role of global superhero is a good thing. For too long countries have implicitly outsourced their security to us. That gave them the ability to plow those dollars into social programs. I’m thinking particularly of Europe and our direct manning of German borders, and France’s location behind Germany’s borders.

    Hopefully it’s not too late. These countries will need to ask hard questions about how to generate the funds to create modern forces. Hopefully they will look to their conservative leadership and the example of the United States on how to be prosperous.

    • redneck_hippie

      Since Australia is a Contact Country not a full NATO member, it is reasonable they would look to their own interests in the region first. They see the road the US is on and are acting accordingly, as they should. We?ve already seen the reaction of our partners when invited to increase efforts in Afghanistan. Although the article cites mainly economic changes bringing about the diminishment of US as dominant factor, I feel certain that our country going socialist is not unseen by them. China, India and others are becoming more economically powerful and the US is becoming a welfare state and diminishing her desire and ability to defend democracy here and abroad.

      No doubt in my mind that thugocracies big and small are encouraged with the change brought about by our recent national election.

      • Doc Holliday

        and possibly even Rudd’s for several NATO members. Australia was with us in the World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Well, other than Grenada, that is pretty much every time we strap it on. And yes it is good to see a Western nation actually increasing defense, I can’t think of another one doing this, including the USA.

  • izoneguy

    Looking to flee a Marxist state????

    Can we apply for political asylum?

    • Doc Holliday

      it is the conservative France lol. By the way, they are probably the most open to American immigration than any other Western Nation. The Brits will let pretty much anyone in BUT Americans. If you have needed skills, you can get to Australia. My prob is their absurd gun control laws. And I have to be able to see the Cowboys play.

    • mom2oneson

      homeschoolers that are looking at land in South America.

  • SteveLA

    Australia is not worried about most goings on in the world, only what’s going on in Indonesia.

    With a Northern part of the country having a sparely populated (less than 500K people) temperate area the size of Texas with water and good land, oil and other resources very near a country that has a booming population what would you do?

    If Indonesia decides to solve it’s population crowding problems with an invasion of the Northern Territory, far North Western Australia and NE Queensland, would Obama honor this long term commitment to Australia in the face of an invasion by a Muslim country? It’s a bet that Australia seems to not want to take.

    As history has proven the best defense against neighbors with ambitions on your country is a strong military defense. Australia is making sure that it’s own security is sound, no matter who is the White House.

    • Achance

      that is just waiting for the moment to take Taiwan and establish itself as the hegemon in the Eastern Pacific and western Indian Ocean. Frankly, if I were in the life insurance business, I wouldn’t be selling any policies in Taiwan. The Red Chinese can be confident that a combination of Democrat cowardice and business interests will keep the US from lifting a finger to oppose a Red Chinese takeover of Taiwan.

      Things are going to get awfully lonely for Australia in the next few years.

      • SteveLA

        A.

        The nightmare scenario for the Australians is a flotilla of cargo ships showing up off the coast of the country loaded to the gunwales with human beings escaping plagues and famine in their home country. The ships will be at least in some real sense sponsored by and backed by the country where these unfortunates are coming from.

        What does Australia do then? Start a war that the US may or may not help fight, let these refuges into the country with more of their fellow country men waiting for the green light to come or start blowing these ships and their human cargo out of the water?

        This fear is set in the oldest known feature of human history, the quest for land and elbow space for a expanding population. More wars have been started throughout history over the quest for territory, and I see Australia’s moves in defense the latest round in making themselves a hard target. The fact that Obama gives many countries pause when it comes to thinking America has their back is real and will only become more pronounced in the future.

        • mom2oneson

          Why do they have to let them in the country? Can’t they not let the refugees in? Is there some kind of law that any person on a boat has to be allowed in?

          • SteveLA

            mom2oneson

            The international outcry, the NY Times, the UN, the Obama administration will look at the vast open temperate lands of Australia in the North, mostly unsettled and cry “Help Humanity out”, let these poor people settle.

            The strategy for Australia is to keep these future refuges far far away from their shores to prevent this from happening.

            By the way, Australia has one of the strictest immigration policies in the world, and boat people now are not released into the general population when caught, . They are imprisoned until they can be tried and sent home.

          • Achance

            They were a friendly, needy people that just needed a place to live.

          • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

            …and actually quite interesting, as it forms a close analogy to the situation facing Western Europe.

            As Rodney Stark points out, the taking over of Roman Empire territory by the Goths and other barbarians was rooted in depopulation of the outlying territories of the Empire, as I recall through a combination of plagues and low birthrates.

            As a result the Romans could not form armies to defend the territory, allowing outsiders to come in. In other cases, the barbarian tribe were hired on as mercenaries and then stayed.

            To me, this has some strong analogy to Western Europe, with its combination of low birthrate and consequent recruitment of immigrants from Muslim nations to provide services to the natives. These immigrants are staying on and reproducing far faster than native Europeans, which would suggest that Western Europe will fall just like Rome did.

            As an aside, the Christians also reproduced much more rapidly than pagans, which was one factor in Christianity’s rise in the Roman Empire. Don’t know if this is the case today in Western Europe – at least among some subsets of Christians.

          • Achance

            point; they weren’t really invited, but they weren’t not invited either and they were useful to Rome for awhile.

          • SteveLA

            As an aside, the Christians also reproduced much more rapidly than pagans, which was one factor in Christianity?s rise in the Roman Empire.

            The same applies to populous countries like Indonesia which are predominant Muslim and have a high birth rate due to religious doctrine. Australia is mostly a European descendant population due to immigration policies which were in place to the 70′s which restricted immigration from Asian countries.

            Gee didn’t Barry live in Indonesia for a while? Could that have the Ozzies worried?

          • mom2oneson

            Why do they care so much what people say? The only thing that should matter is what their citizens say. That suprises me that bad press or a bad words from our president would make them feel pressured. Are they dependent on us so they need approval from us on their policies?

          • SteveLA

            mom

            A country of 10 Million facing say 5000 refuges off it’s coast backed by a military force, that’s the potential choice. If those driving the ships refuse to go back, or disable the ships, or start to scuttle them, that’s the crisis.

            Sink the ships killing everyone?

            Tow the ships back where they came from under military fire from the ships of the nation where they came from?

            Give in?

            Those are the the range of choices.

            Australia is building a hard shell to keep this from ever happening…good for them.

          • mom2oneson

            how does Australia become responsible for those people though, even if the ships sink they aren’t killing them. Are you saying the refugees have military with them and Australia doesn’t want to get into a war with them?

          • mom2oneson

            I didn’t mean that Australia shouldn’t care about thousands of people dying or not try to make sure they get back. I just mean like the safety of their own citizens comes first and it’s wrong that they would be put in a position of their own citizens being safe or settling outsiders in their country and if the people on the ships die it’s not due to Australia not settling them. I’m not against them dropping food and water on the boats to get back.

          • SteveLA

            mom

            First off, this is all hypothetical stuff, but the threat is very real and Australia has over the last 20 years been moving a large part of their defensive capabilities North.

            Not to get into global warming nonsense, but if something tips the balance in any country to the North of Australia, there will be pressure to allow refuges into the country. The question of would a nations military support the sort of thing that I have described in this tread, that’s the question in a nut shell. I think the government of Australia does not want to find out, and the only way to make sure that it would not be an easy thing for an adversary to do something like I have described is to be a hard target.

            Throw in some uncertainty of the US having your back, a country better make sure they can stand up for themselves. Obama does not give warm and fuzzies to many of the countries of the world that the US is a reliable ally anymore, from Australia to Israel, and that is a fact.

          • mom2oneson

            a natural disaster?
            I still don’t see the obligation in that situation to let refugees in but if the pressure is there it’s there. So would the pressure be from the nation’s military that the refugees are leaving?

            I agree wtih your hard target is very smart.

            Thanks for taking the time to explain it :)

  • Josh Painter

    SEATO (whose members included Australia, France, New Zealand, Pakistan, Philippines, Thailand, United Kingdom and United States) was intended to be a Southeast Asian version of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), in which the military forces of each member would be coordinated to provide for the collective defense of the members.

    Because SEATO, unlike NATO, had no joint commands with standing forces. and an attack on one member was not automatically considered an attack on all, SEATO never was an effective alliance. Just like with the UN security council, any one member could effectively block any collective SEATO action.

    SEATO folded in 1977, following the withdrawal of Pakistan from the organization in 1972 and France the following year.

    ANZUS (The Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty) is the military alliance which binds Australia and New Zealand and, separately, Australia and the United States to cooperate on defense matters in the Pacific Ocean area, though today the treaty is understood to relate to attacks in any part of the world.

    Yes, it is good that at least one of our allies is willing to stand up to defend itself. However, it’s a sad day when one of America’s staunchest allies can no longer trust the U.S. to honor its solemn commitments.

    - JP

  • leftylurker

    I hope not, for the country’s sake, because the article says that we’re going to be the dominant power until 2030. That’s like 5 more Obama terms in office!

  • Josh Painter

    will continue to be the dominant power until 2030. That’s just an estimate, and Obama could, by his actions, significantly compress that time frame. Especially if he does what he said he would do:

    “First, I’ll stop spending $9 billion a month in Iraq. I’m the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end it.”

    “Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.
    I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. And I will institute an independent ‘Defense Priorities Board’ to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.”

    “Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.”

    Depends on what Obama’s definition of “unnecessary spending” is, does it not? He’s managed to triple our deficit in just 100 days, and he’s just getting started with his irresponsible spending, none of which is justified by the Constitution. Meanwhile, he aims to curtail responsible spending, i.e., defense of the nation as required by the Constitution.

    So no prudent person should take that 2030 date to the bank

    - JP

  • ampla

    After our initial military victories in Afghanistan, America was the undisputed leader of the world in nearly all respects. By overextending our military in Iraq, Bush exposed the limits of American power. America may never regain that stature. American supremacy collapsed during the Bush administration.

    • http://www.the41stvote.org rcov092

      n/t

      • Jack_Savage

        And he just gave us a glimpse into how the left will try to rationalize the collapse of American foreign stature during this administration.

        It is careful, subtle, full of thought and research:

        “Blame Bush”.

        IDIOTS.

    • TNJim
    • mbecker908

      it’s collapse can be traced to two events.

      1. The hard left turn taken by the Democratic Party in the early ’70′s when they became the pawn of the “anti-war” movement.
      2. The return to the “anti-American” themes of the ’70′s by Democrats during the past eight years.

      If you would like to ascribe some blame to Bush, make sure that blame is for not standing up to the seditionist bastards who pass for elected Democrats in Washington DC. In a real world they would have been long ago hung and fed to the buzzards along with people like Frank Church and John Kerry.

      • Jack_Savage

        Treason used to against the law. Now it is a political tactic of the left.

      • Warrior

        to your list mbecker:

        Jimma Cata
        Bill & Hillary
        Teddy Kennedy
        Barney Frank
        Chris Dodd
        Maxine Waters
        Charlie Rangel
        Harry Reid
        Nancy Pelosi
        Conyers
        Waxman

        • mbecker908

          I would expand my list to every elected Democrat and Democratic machine employee.

          • Warrior

            I just thought I’d pile on for fun.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    Instead of warning that Australia will no longer put her troops at risk ?in distant theatres of war where we have no direct interests?.

    Instead of warning that Australia will no longer put her troops at risk ?in distant theatres of war where our allies will not appreciate our efforts or return the favor?.

    No good deed goes unpunished and Thank you, John Howard

  • pd111

    Josh, you write: “U.S. supremacy is on the wane under President Obama, and Australia can no longer depend on its number one ally to protect it. That?s the assessment of the Rudd government, and it is taking steps to ensure that Australia can defend herself.”

    But the White Paper is a long-term planning document. It tries to deal with Australia’s defense needs and policies over the next 20 years or so. It never mentions, nor does it even implicitly refer to, nor does it rely on any assumptions about, the specific policies of the Obama administration.

    The White Paper was commissioned more than a year ago. I wonder if you can identify any of its conclusions that would have been different if a Republican were now in the White House.

    • mbecker908

      would probably be pretty much the same with GWB in the WH because of the seditionist bastards referred to in the media as elected Democrats and because GWB refused to take them on.

      OTOH, if we had a POTUS who actually believed in liberty and who really stood against those who don’t – elected Democrats to a person – I would expect the report to paint a different picture.