NEWS Bumper Boats in the SCS

[Flash]

All things that should have happened four or more years ago, before China started seizing things.

You don't think the ground wasn't being laid? And if you forgot international relations are a two way street with internal politics of the other countries also playing a big role; the PI has long had a roiling domestic debate about the US presence there and only aggressive Chinese moves finally tipped the balance in favor of more cooperation with us, if the LCS had been ready on time or even just a little late they likely would have been in Singapore sooner and Vietnam is finally realizing that they need more than just a few Russian arms in order to have a more credible deterrent.

Your assertions belie your ignorance of what has been going on in that region for the past few years, but that wouldn't fit into the narrative you have apparently bought into.

 

[Brett327]

I'm bad at math, but was Bush in office four years ago?

He said four or more years ago. Regardless of timeframe, attempting to assign blame based on a purely partisan perspective isn't particularly constructive. When someone's political worldview centers on "everything is Obama's fault," I tend to lose interest.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

He said four or more years ago. Regardless of timeframe, attempting to assign blame based on a purely partisan perspective isn't particularly constructive. When someone's political worldview centers on "everything is Obama's fault," I tend to lose interest.

You brought up Bush. What are you talking about?

 

[Brett327]

It's really not germane to the discussion, but he implied that there were policy shortcomings from the Obama administration WRT China and the SCS. I brought up GWB simply to show that the previous administration wasn't any more hawkish on China than the current one. In fact, one could argue that the rebalancing to Asia, to the extent that it has been executed thus far, is a far more activist and effective counter to an expansionist China.

 

[danpass]

Clearly the earlier comment about,"WILL the US come ....? " was frowned upon, (and I understand, I didn't like when I originally heard it), but that came from a podcast where a British Admiral mentioned being asked such questions in his conversations with the movers and shakers over there, a question he had not ever heard before.. He mentioned that in the past it had always been, "WHEN will the US come ....?"

Now this: http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2016/08/03/Singapores-existential-serve-on-the-TPP.aspx

Comment below from Singapore PM Lee Hsien Loong

Here’s the critical bit: If the TPP fails, according to Lee,

{I}t hurts your relationship with Japan, your security agreements with Japan. And the Japanese living in an uncertain world, depending on an American nuclear umbrella, will have to say: on trade, the Americans could not follow through; if it’s life and death, whom do I have to depend upon? It’s an absolutely serious calculation, which will not be said openly, but I have no doubt will be thought.

=======================
and then this, involving the buildup of submarine forces in the region:
http://warontherocks.com/2016/08/asias-looming-subsurface-challenge/

"Countries in Asia are seeking credible deterrence forces as their confidence wanes regarding the peacefulness of China’s rise and the reliability of U.S. commitment to preserve stability."
========================

I'm seeing more and more commentary from various sources expressing the same line of thought. This sort of thing will take a lot of work to overcome. Perhaps the big move of B1, B2 and B52 to Guam this past week will mean something.



_

 

[Flash]

...a British Admiral mentioned being asked such questions in his conversations with the movers and shakers over there, a question he had not ever heard before.. He mentioned that in the past it had always been, "WHEN will the US come ....?"

I guess the Brit forgot they were the ones that pulled out and we stayed.

Now this: http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2016/08/03/Singapores-existential-serve-on-the-TPP.aspx

Comment below from Singapore PM Lee Hsien Loong

Even the article notes that he is exaggerating. A trade agreement, even an important one like the TPP, is not going to upend over 60 years relations with our most important allies in the Far East whether we sign it or not, especially ones based on longstanding defense treaties and with thousands of troops stationed in those countries.

and then this, involving the buildup of submarine forces in the region:
http://warontherocks.com/2016/08/asias-looming-subsurface-challenge/

"Countries in Asia are seeking credible deterrence forces as their confidence wanes regarding the peacefulness of China’s rise and the reliability of U.S. commitment to preserve stability."

The biggest reason more and more Asian countries are investing in submarines is that they can afford them now. Two generations ago most of East Asia was firmly in the third world when today some are among the leading economies of the world and others are rapidly expanding. A submarine force, much less a trained and credible one which a lot of new submarine forces, is a more of a 'luxury' item for most militaries in terms of need and cost. So while some folks may have subs that doesnt' necessarily mean they are a force to be recokened with, just ask the Argentinians how well theirs did in '82.

Also, that chart is way too optimistic. Thailand and the Philippines with subs?! Maybe pier side....

I'm seeing more and more commentary from various sources expressing the same line of thought. This sort of thing will take a lot of work to overcome...

I have seen plenty of commentary too but far too much of it is ill-informed and fits into some sort of narrative that the author or publication espouses. Even Jerry Hendrix, CAPT, USN (ret) who has gained a lot of notice for writing about carriers and subs lately, seems to have an axe grind when it comes to carriers and backs up his commentary with misleading info.

And then there is the focus of some of these folks, many of whom look only to Asia since they specialize or live there when the US has to look globally from Europe to the Middle East and then East and South Asia too. Skepticism of our presence there has abounded since we first sailed there in 1800's and won't abate any time soon.