First U.S. Marines Arrive in Australian City of Darwin

[xchrom]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/world/asia/us-marines-arrive-darwin-australia.html?_r=1&ref=global-home

SYDNEY, Australia — The first Marines to be deployed to Australia under a deal that will boost the American military’s presence in China’s strategic backyard arrived in the northern city of Darwin late Tuesday night, a sign of the growing importance Washington is placing on the Pacific region.

The group of about 180 Marines, which will engage in training exercises with the Australian Defense Force during their six-month rotation, is the first contingent of 2,500 American troops to be deployed here by 2017 under an agreement signed in November by President Obama and Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

The decision to deploy the Marines to Australia, which had prompted Beijing to accuse Mr. Obama of escalating military tensions in the region, is part of the president’s publicly stated strategy of shifting the American military’s long-term focus toward the Pacific and an increasingly assertive China.

Australian Defense Minister Stephen Smith, who greeted the Hawaii-based Marines during a ceremony on Wednesday morning in Darwin, touched on the changing regional dynamics during an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.


*** what will the price tag be for this base?
i bet it gets bigger too.

[aquart]

1. First marines or first marines since World War II?

I thought we had some in the area back then.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

2. 1st Marine Regiment?

who can tell the way articles are written these days...

sP

[mrmpa]

36. The lst Marine Regiment.....

probably, because this Regiment has a history with Australia going back to WWII. Matter of fact the Regiment had adopted "Waltzing Matilda" (Australian Folk Song) as their own.

Why do I know this stuff?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

37. I gathered as much but the article is a little...well

not very forthcoming with details.

and why do you know that stuff? probably for the same reason that I know the propagation velocity of an electrical signal over RG58...

sP

[mrmpa]

38. & what is the propagation velocity?????eom

[ProdigalJunkMail]

39. standard or low-loss?

you can have .66c or .80c, respectively. this is the speed at which the the wave-front (in our case we are talking electromagnetic) moves through the cable. it is also sometimes called 'wave propagation speed' because 'velocity of propagation' would normally be measured (for engineering purposes) in a distance/time ratio rather than a percentage of the speed of light.

so, depending on your dielectric you get 198,000,000 m/s or 240,000,000 m/s...despite what many think, the signal is NOT moving at the speed of light within the cable...

sP

[mrmpa]

40. This is the reason I teach.........

History and not any of the sciences.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

41. are you calling me a geek? :-)

if so, that's cool. i love history, too, though. actually taught highschool history for a while before i decided that being a public schoolteacher was not for me. fell backwards into the tech industry 20 years ago and been at it ever since...

sP

[mrmpa]

42. Not a geek............

just an extraordinarily smart person.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

44. while that is a very generous compliment

i would simply say that i have a knack for details and remembering them. and geek would certainly be no offense...

have a good one!

sP

[xchrom]

4. i'm sure we probably did -- but this is part of the new base

we are building there.

to start there will be a couple of thousand -- i can't imagine it won't get bigger.


but even housing a couple of thousand is expensive -- while back home we grow the ranks of the poor.

[SwissTony]

5. There a few American troops in Darwin back then, more sailors than army, I suspect

The US lost about 5 ships and 10 planes in the bombing of Darwin in 1942. The town was hopelessly undefended. There would have been no air defence were not for the fact that 10 Kittyhawks were passing through. The US destroyer Peary was sunk along with a munitions boat and some others. A survivor of the Peary came back to Darwin a couple of years ago and got a wonderful reception. There's a memorial to those who died in the Peary on Darwin's Esplanade. It overlooks the spot where she sank.

"Darwin was a small town and not a happy place to serve in WW2. Nearly all the service personnel camped out in the bush. The millions of mosquitos, sand flies, bush flies, scorpions as big as yabbies, centipedes 6-9″ long, everything that crept or crawled, combined with poor diet, tropical ulcers and other associated diseases took a high toll of those who served there.

In the words of one American, 'This outpost in Australia is a substitute for hell !'"

[link:http://darwindefenders.org|

[arbusto_baboso]

33. No, it was all US Army in Oz in WWII.

The Marines went to New Zealand. Australia was part of MacArthur's Theater of Operations, and he had no USMC under his command.

[inna]

3. oh no!.. we need this as a hole in a head! how about investing in healthcare -

or infrastructure at least!

[UnrepentantLiberal]

6. What possible purpose could there be for this?

[xchrom]

7. this goes w/ our 'announcement' that we are going to

have a bigger presence in asia.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

8. Ah, big stick policy.

Got it.

[hack89]

10. The action in the region is shifting to the Indian Ocean

This gives us a presence in that region.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

12. Why do we need a presence in that region?

[hack89]

15. Because our economy is absolutely dependent on those trade routes.

The nexus of the Suez Canal, Straits of Malacca and the Straits of Hormuz - it is vital to the global economy

[UnrepentantLiberal]

18. Has anyone seriously threatened our commerce in the region?

(Well, they could, doesn't count.)

[d_r]

22. we also have obligations to important allies

like S. Korea, Japan, and well, Australia. Our navy rules the seas.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

26. What obligations?

Is this Meet the Press?

[d_r]

32. do you really not understand the obligations we have to S. Korea and Japan?

[hack89]

27. US military power has been in the region for 60 years

So no - no one has explicitly challenged us. They are not fools.

The reason that US military presence in the region has so much support from the smaller countries is that they like the stability of the present balance of power. They understand that a lessening of US power would be replaced by Chinese power - military, economic or diplomatic. One could argue whether more Chinese influence is good or bad but it is the uncertainty of change that scares the smaller countries. They remember the millions that died in the 1930s as a militaristic Japan expanded their empire by force and coercion. Since WWII the region has enjoyed a period of peace and prosperity like no other and they understand the role US power has played.

[NickB79]

35. Because there are 2 billion Indians and Chinese clamoring to be like the US

And all those consumers demand massive amounts of imported resources to fuel their economic development.

Resources the US wants to ensure WE have first dibs on, because as Dick Cheney said "The US way of life is non-negotiable."

Resource wars are on the way, folks. Energy, food, raw materials, it's all getting more scarce just as demand is booming. Get ready for the shit to hit the fan in our lifetimes.

[hack89]

9. No cost

The United States will not build new bases on the continent, but will use Australian facilities instead. Mr. Obama said that Marines would rotate through for joint training and exercises with Australians, and the American Air Force would have increased access to airfields in the nation’s Northern Territory.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/world/asia/obama-and-gillard-expand-us-australia-military-ties.html

[xchrom]

11. no such thing as a free lunch. we will be paying something. nt

[hack89]

14. We will pay for training regardless of where in the world it is done.

and secondly, why do you assume that Australia is not bearing some of the costs because they see this as a mutually beneficial arrangement?

Australia is a small, relatively weak country in a crowded and potential troublesome neighborhood. A strong military alliance with America is important to their national security.

[xchrom]

16. we'll pay for the training, we'll pay rent, equipment, and what we use.

we need more military bases like we need a hole in the head.

& this isn't about australia{and who's threatening australia anyway?} -- this is about expanding our military presence is asia.

[hack89]

21. And you know this how exactly?

in Japan, for example, the Japanese pay billions annually to support the US military. The Koreans do the same. It is reasonable to assume the Australians are too.

The Australian strategic fear is that a weakened US position in the region would be lead to increased Chinese influence in the area. They see China extending their military and political influence into the Indian Ocean and they want a stronger US presence in the area to counter this. India, by the way, has the same concerns. That is why we have seen an explosion of US - India military deals and increased US-India diplomatic exchanges.

[xchrom]

30. A Huge Financial Cost

http://demilitarize.org/news-and-opinion/fpif-bring-war-dollars-home-closing-bases/

Most figures used to estimate the cost of U.S. wars omit the global network of U.S. bases that provides vital resources and infrastructure to existing military conflicts. The Pentagon’s 2010 Base Structure Report, for example, lists 662 overseas bases but fails to include the 411 bases in Afghanistan, the 88 remaining bases in Iraq, or sites in Qatar and other countries where U.S. military personnel are stationed. Maintaining and constructing all U.S. bases cost American taxpayers $41.6 billion in 2010, according to Undersecretary of Defense Dorothy Robyn.

Of these 662 overseas bases, more than 70 military installations and bases and 28,500 U.S. troops are stationed in South Korea. Ted Galen Carpenter and Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute estimate that the cost of U.S. bases in Korea “probably runs on the order of $15 to $20 billion annually.” Although the United States and South Korea have agreed to reduce and consolidate the number of U.S. military bases in Korea, other bases and training ranges — including Osan Air Base in Pyeongtaek — are expanding displacing thousands of villagers and destroying Korea’s productive and limited farmland. ­


*** yeas -- countries financially contribute to having a u.s. military base on it's soil -- but that doesn't mean it's free to the u.s. taxpayer -- why are you trying to pass it off as tax free some how?

we have many thousands of u.s. military personell in asia already -- why do we need to 'impress' china more than we already are?

many of these bases are a waste of finances -- we need to be demilitarizing and bringing those dollars home.

[KG]

13. just think if the US had a leader that was a peace prize winner....oh, wait.

[Ikonoklast]

19. What was the Nobel awarded for?

Not for ignoring U.S. strategic interests around the world.

Isolationist Republicans were all for that at one time.

It gave us WWII.

[NoMoreWarNow]

29. Are you really arguing for the US as a global empire and world police force?

and defending that grotesque awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama?

WWII had many causes, and it is really a bit much to blame it on Republican isolationists.

[Blue_Tires]

17. Why isn't our presence in Japan/Korea/Guam/etc. enough?

Who's the wannabe Kissinger foreign policy whiz who thought this was a good idea??

[UnrepentantLiberal]

20. We found a gap where we weren't threatening someone.

Our way of life hinges on threatening everyone.

[Blue_Tires]

23. The cynic in me doubts this has anything to do with China

If I had to guess, I'd think we're going to get knee-deep covertly fighting the extremists in Indonesia

[UnrepentantLiberal]

28. Now THAT I believe.

[NoMoreWarNow]

24. just what we need! another far-flung US military base

let's close some other ones down, how about?

[marmar]

25. They've got to protect us from Saltwater Crocodiles !!!

[xchrom]

31. that at least is a threat i can understand!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. Is there a beach shortage in California? Can't they storm Malibu instead?

If it's natural to kill, how come men have to go into training to learn how?

Joan Baez

[Arugula Latte]

43. Oh goody. More wasted billions.

Effing military industrial complex.

[hack89]

45. Not really.

the Marines are in the area anyway - there is always an Amphibious strike group in the region. What is happening here is that on their way to the Middle East from San Diego, they stop at Australia for some training to knock off the rust after a month at sea.

The bases and training facilities belong to the Australians - we are not building anything new.