Foreign Troops in Australia?

[Maharg67]

Please read all of this post before reacting one way or another.

 

Recently the Australian Federal Government announced that there would be an increased presence on Australian soil of American soldiers. This has concerned me greatly but not because the military are American. What concerns me is that the Australian Government has not gone to the Australian people to ask us what we think of this. Only the Greens Party in Australia seems to be broaching this subject in a way that speaks of concern.

 

That this could be the 'thin edge of the wedge', the start of a sneaky process to get more American military on Australian soil until there are large permanent American military bases here.

 

How would Americans feel if the American Federal Government decided that Australian (or other foreign) soldiers should be permanently based in US territories with out at least going to ask the American people what they think about this idea?

 

If Australian citizens were asked for their opinion and they agreed, perhaps through a referendum, then that would be a decision supported by me.

 

It should be noted that many peoples in the world now opposing American bases on their soil do so partly because they were never asked about their opinion in the first place. The same was true of Soviet bases in Eastern Europe before the USSR crumbled. This is not about political views or about any particular nationality.

 

Please be positive in your responses.

[grannywils]

I have read your whole post, and will admit to knowing fairly little about the agreement you mention. Firstly, I will say that my immediate reaction was not a knee-jerk "what does he mean by that" response. I do not believe that your intent was in any way anti-American. I think that might have been your concern, when you asked that we "read all of the post before reacting one way or the other. I understand your concerns regarding the idea of a foreign government having troops on your soil without your own government having come to you first. And I agree that we in the United States would not take very kindly to that either. Having read up on why they are meant to be there, it appears as though the primary concern seems to be increased presence of the Chinese and their possible intention of developing a naval power of some sort. Apparently both of our governments are looking to watch over the Asia-Pacific region's security, and to maintain clear access to the South China Sea. I also understand that at least at this point it will be more a matter of our naval ships and aircraft having full access on a rotating basis, stopping for exercises as well as repairs, etc. This in no way is meant to diminish your originally expressed concern. I absolutely get what you mean by the "thin edge of the wedge" scenario. I can only say that we live in a time when there is no such thing as peace and security anywhere, and it seems as though we all end up looking to our allies in hopes of warding off potential threats in an attempt to be proactive rather than having to rush in at the last minute. I am so totally not a battle strategist; and indeed, I am probably all wrong here. But it was the best I could come up with by way of attempting to understand the reasoning behind such a move. Governments everywhere are losing touch with their citizenry, it would seem.... PS-still enjoy your writing, by the way....

[Lisnpuppy]

I have no idea how Australia's constitution reads but I believe the US Constitution's third amendment would provide protection from this particular scenario. I think that maybe there is something planned as the US badly needs a presence in the pacific other than the Philippine which is so unstable. I don't know if its a base or a 'sharing' of an existing Australian military base.

[Aurielius]

"Kevin Rudd, the Australian foreign minister, said: "From the Australian perspective, here we are with a vast coastline, a population of just 23 million. It has always made national security sense to have a strong security alliance with America"

 

Evidently the concept of having a fast reaction force disturbs you. If and when you need them prepositioning of material and the infrastructure of a a base or bases will need to be already in place, calling for assistance when an emergency does occur will be a tad too late. Australia is an ally and I believe we are responding to a request from your government not making the request. No offense but the Australian Navy is a little underpowered to handle the Chinese. The personnel are Marines and Navy, they are the usual fast reaction forces.

[dazzerfong]

"Kevin Rudd, the Australian foreign minister, said: "From the Australian perspective, here we are with a vast coastline, a population of just 23 million. It has always made national security sense to have a strong security alliance with America"

 

Evidently the concept of having a fast reaction force disturbs you. If and when you need them prepositioning of material and the infrastructure of a a base or bases will need to be already in place, calling for assistance when an emergency does occur will be a tad too late. Australia is an ally and I believe we are responding to a request from your government not making the request. No offense but the Australian Navy is a little underpowered to handle the Chinese. The personnel are Marines and Navy, they are the usual fast reaction forces.

 

That is, IF, the Chinese invade. Funny how China's always portrayed as the bag guy.....................and yes, I'm a little offended both at the understatement of the Australian Navy (if you actually did a little research, it's not as bad as it looks) and the fact that you instantly placed China in the context. And yes, I'm Australian Chinese.

[Maharg67]

Aurielius....

 

The idea of having a 'fast reaction force' on Australian soil does not disturb me. The nationality and nature of the force is of secondary consideration to me. The real consideration is that the Australian Federal Government needs to respect the Australian people by being open and clear about future intentions though not to a point of risking national security. That the Australian Federal Government made such a request only makes the situation more dubious as far as I can see. Such a request should have come after consultations with the Australian people.

 

The main issue here is not the USA but the relationship between the Australian Federal Government and the Australian people. The same sort of issue would come up, or at least should come up, if it were British military forces being stationed on Australian soil.

 

As for 'fast reaction force' concepts, Australia has already experimented with such ideas for many years. It is part of our needing to defend a large, rather empty continent and long coastline. Such considerations go back to World War Two and perhaps before.

 

I am quite aware of the logistics problems of putting military bases together in a hurry. I am not ignorant when it comes to such matters but the concern of defense needs to be balanced with political concerns internal to the Australian nation-state.

Edited November 13, 2011 by Maharg67

[Lisnpuppy]

"Kevin Rudd, the Australian foreign minister, said: "From the Australian perspective, here we are with a vast coastline, a population of just 23 million. It has always made national security sense to have a strong security alliance with America"

 

Evidently the concept of having a fast reaction force disturbs you. If and when you need them prepositioning of material and the infrastructure of a a base or bases will need to be already in place, calling for assistance when an emergency does occur will be a tad too late. Australia is an ally and I believe we are responding to a request from your government not making the request. No offense but the Australian Navy is a little underpowered to handle the Chinese. The personnel are Marines and Navy, they are the usual fast reaction forces.

 

That is, IF, the Chinese invade. Funny how China's always portrayed as the bag guy.....................and yes, I'm a little offended both at the understatement of the Australian Navy (if you actually did a little research, it's not as bad as it looks) and the fact that you instantly placed China in the context. And yes, I'm Australian Chinese.

 

Dazzerfong...

 

It is well accepted that China IS a threat in the region to the West and has been for a long time. The statement nor mine of America having an interest in the Pacific (which was looking at China among others) is not a prejudiced one. China is still communist, supports countries that most Western governments do not and is far and away the most powerful country in the region.

 

Stop trying to make some where there is none. If you really think that bringing China up is prejudicial then show me how they are not to be considered a threat.

 

Aur- Stop thinking like a military man and think like a young, progressive civilian and the thought of a foreign power's military in your country on a long term basis. And chill or something. :P

[Aurielius]

@Marharg

I was only answering the question of why the proposed basing was being put forward. That you as an Australian feel left out of the decision making process is something for you to take up with your regional representatives to the Australian Parliament. As for our mutual defense arrangements they go back as far as the retaking of New Guinea, the last time Australia needed help it took many months to supply it and if memory serves we did our best but it was a near run thing. The internal affairs of your country are of course yours not mine.

 

@dazzerfong

Actually the concept that my post was anti ethnic in some way is far from true. I simply identified the possible threat that was being countered. I did not imply a Chinese invasion of mainland Australia but rather a maritime incursion that might need our assistance. That the aims of the Chinese government do not coincide with Australia's is one that your government sees as a problem, hence the request. As for RAN I have nothing but respect but your last carrier was the HMS Vengence and is no longer in service, in terms of Naval Air the Australian Navy is deficient and until the Collins class is actually built the RAN's submarine force is out of date. So that leaves the RAN as capable of conducting a surface action, considering the last adherents of surface actions were the Japanese Imperial Navy, I do not think the RAN wants to emulate that tactical concept.

 

@Lisnpuppy

In the the words of Popeye.."I am what I am"....and make no apology for it either. Considering the proximity to 11/11 I am somewhat suprized at your dainty barb.

Edited November 13, 2011 by Aurielius

[marharth]

Hate to break it to you, but the USA has troops everywhere. There is literally nothing anyone can do to change that. Our military is simply ridiculous and this is not the first time we have sent troops to foreign countries. We have troops stationed in multiple other places as well. We also have a bunch of aircraft carriers and subs for no reason.

 

 

That, and military decisions are not made by the people.

[HeyYou]

Hate to break it to you, but the USA has troops everywhere. There is literally nothing anyone can do to change that. Our military is simply ridiculous and this is not the first time we have sent troops to foreign countries. We have troops stationed in multiple other places as well. We also have a bunch of aircraft carriers and subs for no reason.

 

 

That, and military decisions are not made by the people.

 

For no reason?? Wait for the next major war, then you will see just why it is we have them. They aren't something you can just mothball till needed, and then pull them out of storage.....

 

Military decisions SHOULDN'T be made by the people. The government points, and then SHOULD step out of the way. Tell the military the missions, and mission parameters, and then turn them loose. Having politicians run the war doesn't turn out well. (Vietnam anyone? To a lesser extent, Korea.....)

 

Now, I will grant you, that of late, the government has been sending the military to places that I don't believe they should be in. Iraq was based on lies, manipulations, and falsified intelligence. Anyone that didn't support going into Iraq was either ignored, or marginalized. (or outright fired....) Why do you think Colin Powell resigned? He didn't want anything to do with it. Afghanistan was to get ONE guy. So, we invaded, overthru a legitimate, if distasteful, government, and then engaged in yet another round of "nation building", which we outright SUCK at. We had no business there either. One seal team would have been far more effective, and a LOT less expensive. Opium production in Afghanistan before we invaded? Damn near zero, the taliban didn't go for that kind of thing. Today? Afghanistan provides 80% of the worlds supply of opium. Wonderful. Not to mention that we support one of the most corrupt governments on the planet. (that we installed.....)