Pentagon Chief To Visit Australia, Thailand And Cambodia

[webfact]

Pentagon chief to visit Australia, Thailand and Cambodia

WASHINGTON, Nov 9, 2012 (AFP) - US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will travel to Australia, Thailand and Cambodia next week as part of America's strategic tilt to the Asia-Pacific, even as crises in the Middle East demand the Pentagon's attention and resources.

In a week-long trip starting Sunday, Panetta will head to Perth, for an annual US-Australia meeting of ministers that will include Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the US military's top officer, General Martin Dempsey, and the head of Pacific Command, Admiral Samuel Locklear, officials said Thursday.

The summit comes after the arrival of US Marine and Air Force units to northern Australia, billed as evidence of an American "rebalance" towards the Pacific after a decade of ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The talks will "provide an opportunity to review the alliance's progress on successful Marine Corps and Air Force deployments to northern Australia and to discuss the next steps in this important cooperation," Pentagon spokesman George Little told reporters.

In his fourth trip to the region since June, Panetta "looks forward to this opportunity to further advance our long-term strategy of rebalancing toward the Asia-Pacific," Little said.

After Australia, Panetta will fly to Thailand, the first visit by a Pentagon chief since 2008, before heading to Cambodia where he will join 10 counterparts at a meeting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

Panetta will stress "the importance of ASEAN unity for regional stability," Little said.

The United States, anxious about China's growing military power and assertive stance on territorial disputes in the South China Sea and elsewhere, has backed calls from some nations in the region for a "code of conduct" designed to avoid clashes over potentially resource-rich waters.

Regional divisions about how to handle China on the issue prevented ASEAN members from issuing a joint statement after a July summit in Phnom Penh, the first such impasse in its 45-year history.

The United States has sought to reassure allies in the region that Washington will sustain and expand its military presence, but some partners question if the Americans have the financial means to back up the vow given fiscal pressures at home. The Pentagon has already deployed additional aircraft and naval ships to the Middle East amid tensions with Iran.

Panetta's tour of Asia reflected his belief that US security and prosperity were tied to the Asia-Pacific region, his spokesman said.

The secretary's trip was announced as tensions flared in the Middle East, with US officials acknowledging that Iranian fighter jets intercepted an American surveillance drone last week over the Gulf and fired at it at least twice.

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2012-11-09

[webfact]

THAI-US RELATIONS

US defense secretary to visit Thailand

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Defense Secretary Leon Panetta leaves Sunday on his fourth trip in just over a year to the Asia-Pacific region including Thailand, an area now defined as central to U.S. national interests and military strategy, Stripes Central online reported Thursday.

Panetta will be joined next week in Perth, Australia, by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey and Adm. Samuel Locklear, head of U.S. Pacific Command, for annual U.S.-Australia ministerial meetings.

During the stop, Little said, Panetta will thank Australia for its major contributions to the war in Afghanistan, and review what Little said were positive outcomes of recent rotations of U.S. Marines and airmen to the country.

From Australia, Panetta will head to Thailand to meet with leaders there. The final stop is in Cambodia, for an Asean defense ministerial summit. Panetta has called the association a model for conflict resolution in a region fraught with competing territorial claims.

-- The Nation 2012-11-09

[bigbamboo]

There's always a crisis in the Middle East and the view from Doi Inthanon over south east Asia is lovely.

[theslime]

Bushie gave us Aussie,s Deputee status after 9/11, are we going to be up graded to Sheriff ? Maybe when the President gets there.

[EarthAlien]

Don't these Aholes ever get tired of playing international policeman?

Remember Vietnam you morons.... you LOST!

[Jingthing]

Yes, America lost in Vietnam, but that was then, and that was a very questionable war.

Now the USA is playing an entirely different role in Asia, as the geopolitics in the region are very different now, and I for one, wish the best to Panetta (and his successor because he's leaving).

Yes, it's about a balance with China. It's not about starting a war. It's about preventing war.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Jingthing

[NxaiPan]

Yes, America lost in Vietnam, but that was then, and that was a very questionable war.

Now the USA is playing an entirely different role in Asia, as the geopolitics in the region are very different now, and I for one, wish the best to Panetta (and his successor because he's leaving).

Yes, it's about a balance with China. It's not about starting a war. It's about preventing war.

And presenting a valid alternative to China. If America does not support and be seen to support allies or wannabe allies, the Chinese will soon fill the void. Thailand could so easily slip into a role of being China's Florida, given proximity, potential and the ethnicity of the bulk of Thailand's decision making elite.

The US are making hay, to China's obvious disgust, in Myanmar, but it suits the Burmese also so it is hardly a neo-colonial re-run.

[johna]

What threat does Australia face that it needs US Marines stationed there?

Why does China need to be contained, does China have Al Qaeda links?

Chinas claims to islands in its surrounding seas can be peacefully resolved and have so far not resulted in a single shot being fired.

Chinas policy of engagement with Myanmar and Cambodia has paid of whereas Americas policy of sanctions has failed, Does America actually believe that a policy of containment will lead to a peaceful resolution of a non existent problem or perhaps the creation of a problem will boost sales for the Pentagons business partners

China has had a couple of bad centuries but its now back, grow up and accept it.

[hhfarang]

Don't these Aholes ever get tired of playing international policeman?

Remember Vietnam you morons.... you LOST!

We didn't really lose, we just left. In every war the U.S. has been in since WWII, the populace and the politicians refuse to fight an all out war because now we are too civilized to do that (read politically correct). Instead they fight a limited war and just feed enough people, equipment, and money into it to stretch it out until everyone grows weary of it and demands that we quit. We didn't win in Korea, we just drew a line on the map and quit fighting. We didn't win in Viet Nam, we just left, leaving our South Vietnamese allies to be slaughtered. We didn't win any war in the middle east, we left or are leaving, and leaving a mess behind.

My dad always said that if a job is worth doing, it is worth doing right. If a war is worth entering, it is worth going all in and winning quickly and convincingly enough that if we leave the country doesn't go back down the path that took us to war in the first place. Does anyone really believe that any of these wars couldn't have been won by the U.S. if it had gone in with the same determination it had in WWII or any war before that?

We should stay out of wars unless we have the guts to do what is necessary to win them, and win them quickly. Putin's Russia, China, and Iran are watching us become weak willed wimps and are just waiting until the time is right.

Edited November 10, 2012 by hhfarang

[theslime]

Don't these Aholes ever get tired of playing international policeman?

Remember Vietnam you morons.... you LOST!

We didn't really lose, we just left. In every war the U.S. has been in since WWII, the populace and the politicians refuse to fight an all out war because now we are too civilized to do that (read politically correct). Instead they fight a limited war and just feed enough people, equipment, and money into it to stretch it out until everyone grows weary of it and demands that we quit. We didn't win in Korea, we just drew a line on the map and quit fighting. We didn't win in Viet Nam, we just left, leaving our South Vietnamese allies to be slaughtered. We didn't win any war in the middle east, we left or are leaving, and leaving a mess behind.

My dad always said that if a job is worth doing, it is worth doing right. If a war is worth entering, it is worth going all in and winning quickly and convincingly enough that if we leave the country doesn't go back down the path that took us to war in the first place. Does anyone really believe that any of these wars couldn't have been won by the U.S. if it had gone in with the same determination it had in WWII or any war before that?

We should stay out of wars unless we have the guts to do what is necessary to win them, and win them quickly. Putin's Russia, China, and Iran are watching us become weak willed wimps and are just waiting until the time is right.

[llhm2711]

Haven't been back to oz in awhile, but do we have in government anybody clever enough to talk to? I don't think so

[EarthAlien]

Yes, America lost in Vietnam, but that was then, and that was a very questionable war.

Now the USA is playing an entirely different role in Asia, as the geopolitics in the region are very different now, and I for one, wish the best to Panetta (and his successor because he's leaving).

Yes, it's about a balance with China. It's not about starting a war. It's about preventing war.

Don't these Aholes ever get tired of playing international policeman?

Remember Vietnam you morons.... you LOST!

Oh yeah,.. its always about preventing war. That would be a valid point if not made by the biggest warmongers and liars on the planet. That's what they said in 1962 and right up to 1966 when the first marine corps landed. Was all going to be over within 18 months. Lets not forget the Gulf of Tonkin justification for US involvement which since has been proven to be a complete lie and hoax. 66,000+ US, 4,400 AUS and millions of Vietnamese died in that Vietnam "conflict",.. and all because some arsehol_e politicians decided it would be good for the US and was necessary to contain communism. Fat lot of good that did as the VC won and marched into Saigon. Now the US has Obama the extreme socialist who is hellbent on introducing his own form of communism framed in the slogan "change we needed to have".

We didn't really lose, we just left. In every war the U.S. has been in since WWII, the populace and the politicians refuse to fight an all out war because now we are too civilized to do that (read politically correct). Instead they fight a limited war and just feed enough people, equipment, and money into it to stretch it out until everyone grows weary of it and demands that we quit. We didn't win in Korea, we just drew a line on the map and quit fighting. We didn't win in Viet Nam, we just left, leaving our South Vietnamese allies to be slaughtered. We didn't win any war in the middle east, we left or are leaving, and leaving a mess behind.

My dad always said that if a job is worth doing, it is worth doing right. If a war is worth entering, it is worth going all in and winning quickly and convincingly enough that if we leave the country doesn't go back down the path that took us to war in the first place. Does anyone really believe that any of these wars couldn't have been won by the U.S. if it had gone in with the same determination it had in WWII or any war before that?

We should stay out of wars unless we have the guts to do what is necessary to win them, and win them quickly. Putin's Russia, China, and Iran are watching us become weak willed wimps and are just waiting until the time is right.

My friend,.. I honor your father's integrity and the lives of all who served and fought in Vietnam. I have personal friends who served and returned and know of others who did not.

It's not the soldier's and brave men and women that I am addressing,... it is the power mad, self serving greedy bastards that make such wars and dispose of innocent lives as though they are units of stock to be discounted on the stock market.

Yes,.. US "just left" Vietnam in 1973-75 but they left without achieving the primary objective of liberating the south Vietnamese people and actually made things far worse for them and then created more overspill calamities in Cambodia in the aftermath.

My message to all is to not be duped by the deceiptful lies of the US warmongering propaganda machine in that they are concerned about world peace when in fact they are hell bent on world domination. Personally if I had major issues with my family at home, as does the US, then I wouldn't be knocking on my neighbors doors insisting that I help them out with their family issues!

[geriatrickid]

Don't these Aholes ever get tired of playing international policeman?

Remember Vietnam you morons.... you LOST!

Not anymore. In an amazing twist of fate, Vietnamese and American ties are becoming closer. It can be argued that relations with Vietnam are much more reliable and stronger than they ever were with South Vietnam. Trade with Vietnam is much more diversified and robust than it ever was with South Vietnam too. Vietnam has political clout with the Americans because it is the only SE asian country since 1946 to have successfully defended itself on its own against a Chinese encroachment.

[geriatrickid]

My message to all is to not be duped by the deceiptful lies of the US warmongering propaganda machine in that they are concerned about world peace when in fact they are hell bent on world domination. Personally if I had major issues with my family at home, as does the US, then I wouldn't be knocking on my neighbors doors insisting that I help them out with their family issues!

Are you for real? The American public is weary of war. The prevailing sentiment is one of isolationism. There is no desire for world domination. Not even the Bush administration had such an agenda. It would be an unsustainable strategy. One need only look at the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflict to see that. The USA doesn't want to be incolved in anymore conflicts. This is why there were no boots on the ground during the arab spring and why there will nto be an active involvement in Syria. In the meantime, thousands are slaughtered in Syria because the peace loving Chinese and Russians want it that way.

[Jingthing]

Yes, the Neocon movement championed by W. Bush is dead. Even Romney in his foreign policy debate basically presented himself as offering an identical version of Obama's foreign policy but with a white face.

[chooka]

Leon WHO??????? Never heard of the guy and I don't think many other aussies have either.

[Chicog]

Are you for real? The American public is weary of war. The prevailing sentiment is one of isolationism. There is no desire for world domination. Not even the Bush administration had such an agenda. It would be an unsustainable strategy. One need only look at the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflict to see that. The USA doesn't want to be involved in anymore conflicts. This is why there were no boots on the ground during the a\Arab spring and why there will not be an active involvement in Syria. In the meantime, thousands are slaughtered in Syria because the peace loving Chinese and Russians want it that way.

The US are staying out of Syria as much because they know it would lead to a much larger conflict, and probably destroy the fragile US economy when the oil dries up.

They can't afford a ground war and trying to surgically take out Assad would leave a power vacuum that could end up being much worse for the region.

[Jingthing]

Leon WHO??????? Never heard of the guy and I don't think many other aussies have either.

Granted, he's no Lady Gaga ...

[simple1]

What threat does Australia face that it needs US Marines stationed there?

It's not just immediate military threats, but long term, currently unknown, threats that Australian may face in the region. That's one of the reasons for the ANZUS treaty that still stands today. Australia currently requires US diplomatic and logistics support in the time of tension & conflict. Just research the support required from the USA for the Australian intervention in East Timor.

The Australian military receives many accolades for it's professionalism,. However, the Australia militarily is relatively small with somewhat limited forward force projection capability, again reenforcing the need for a strong strategic relationship with the USA.

[keemapoot]

What threat does Australia face that it needs US Marines stationed there?

It's not just immediate military threats, but long term, currently unknown, threats that Australian may face in the region. That's one of the reasons for the ANZUS treaty that still stands today. Australia currently requires US diplomatic and logistics support in the time of tension & conflict. Just research the support required from the USA for the Australian intervention in East Timor.

The Australian military receives many accolades for it's professionalism,. However, the Australia militarily is relatively small with somewhat limited forward force projection capability, again reenforcing the need for a strong strategic relationship with the USA.

Not to mention the very close cooperation with the NSA. Anyone Google or wiki Pine Gap to find out more reasons for close military and security cooperation with Australia.

[chooka]

What threat does Australia face that it needs US Marines stationed there?

It's not just immediate military threats, but long term, currently unknown, threats that Australian may face in the region. That's one of the reasons for the ANZUS treaty that still stands today. Australia currently requires US diplomatic and logistics support in the time of tension & conflict. Just research the support required from the USA for the Australian intervention in East Timor.

The Australian military receives many accolades for it's professionalism,. However, the Australia militarily is relatively small with somewhat limited forward force projection capability, again reenforcing the need for a strong strategic relationship with the USA.

The Australian army is around 30,000 strong.There are more police in Australia than soldiers.