Aussie gov’t: American power fading
posted at 2:52 pm on May 1, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
If the last 100 years could be called the American Century, don’t bet on that holding true for the next 100 years. That assessment doesn’t come from one of our enemies or adversaries, but from one of our closest allies. Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd warns his nation that they can no longer rely on American power to protect them, and that they had better rethink their defense policies:
THE Rudd Government has acknowledged that the supremacy of the US has begun to fade and Australia is preparing for an uncertain future in which it can no longer rely on the protection of its main ally.
In a fundamental shift in defence plans, the Government has explicitly declared that US primacy in the Asia-Pacific – the bedrock of the nation’s security since World War II – may be ending. The change, caused by the rise of new great powers such as China, is set to produce growing regional tensions and a “sudden deterioration” in Australia’s security.
A 20-year defence blueprint, to be released by the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, today, prepares for a multibillion-dollar build-up of naval and air forces to ensure that Australia can defend its northern and sea approaches.
Australia has grown much more concerned about the Chinese military build-up, especially in their blue-water navy, which has gone mainly unexplained. They predict that the Chinese will eclipse the US in the Pacific Rim by 2030, and that their vital defense lifeline may no longer exist. Rudd doesn’t foresee hostilities between Australia and China, but he wants to prepare their defense strategy in case China decides to flex its muscles.
For almost 20 years, through three successive administrations, the US has neglected its blue-water navy, at least in relation to the emerging threat from China. We have gone lighter and flexible, gearing ourselves not for primacy against a large opponent but for rapid response to smaller threats. If we continue in that direction, Australia has good reason to worry about Chinese control of the waters and isolation from the rest of the West.
Unfortunately, we are not likely to see a reversal of policy in an Obama administratration. Under Obama, Defense has made clear that they will prioritize the lighter-flexible model and cut costs. Diplomatically, the Obama administration has practically made a fetish of not projecting American power. Don’t expect them to challenge China in the South Pacific any time soon.
Under those circumstances, I wouldn’t bet on getting much help from the US, either.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Its a good thing you people don’t care what other countries say about the USA.
benny shakar on May 1, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Translation: He has no faith in Obama but can’t admit it
Daemonocracy on May 1, 2009 at 2:57 PM
FDR believed in a huge naval buildup, just as JFK ran on the Missile Gap. Any argued similarity between the latest hero of the ‘progressive’ wing of the Democratic Party and their alleged historical heroes is a delusional lie.
Beagle on May 1, 2009 at 2:57 PM
Don’t send in a community organizer to do a MAN’S job!
HornetSting on May 1, 2009 at 2:57 PM
ZERO right on target …
tarpon on May 1, 2009 at 2:58 PM
The good part is, hopefully Europe will get the idea too and begin arming up. It`s about time they got off their asses and pitched in to defending freedom.
Still, I would hope after Obama is out, we try to catch back up-quickly!
ThePrez on May 1, 2009 at 2:58 PM
This has a good side and bad side. The good side is that an ally, one that has sholder burdens over and over again, is beefing up its capabilities. Now if Europe can do the same. The bad side, obviously, is that we need to remain the strongest in perception and reality.
WashJeff on May 1, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Translation: Elections have consequences.
portlandon on May 1, 2009 at 2:59 PM
One little ‘O’man can cause a lot of damage.
jake-the-goose on May 1, 2009 at 2:59 PM
It`s not that I don`t care, I just wouldn`t let the opinions of others dictate our own economic and defense policies, should we disagree.
ThePrez on May 1, 2009 at 3:00 PM
No worries, mate, Obama will protect us all with “Soft Power”!
Which is logically equivalent to “Hard Weakness”.
ZenDraken on May 1, 2009 at 3:00 PM
I’ll say the one good thing about the “surrender mentality” of the Obama administration …
It’s forcing our ALLIES to now choose between their government health care plans and buying fighters.
Our liberal allies are very proud of their socialist governments and how much they provide their citizens – but it’s because WE’VE BEEN THE ONES DEFENDING THEM.
Now that we’re unreliable – they can’t outsource their defense to us anymore for free. They must pay.
Watch liberalism come crashing down in every major country!
HondaV65 on May 1, 2009 at 3:00 PM
I agree, we are carrying the water for 95% of the globe. It’s time they start spending some dough to keep themselves safe.
HornetSting on May 1, 2009 at 3:01 PM
Sickening.
Because of the follies of those who do not understand, a new generation of Americans, Britishmen, Kiwis, Aussies, and Japanese may die once again in a cutthroat battle for the Pacific.
And this time, we won’t simply be able to pull up to their doorstep, drop nukes, and force their capitulation. We’d have to go in. Massively.
First Islamist Jihadists, than Latin American despots, than the Soviet Union, than Spain, than China.
Why are we trading our dearly-earned victories away to those we have already defeated?
Turtler on May 1, 2009 at 3:01 PM
This must be tough for The Won, he doesn’t like to be criticized but doesn’t like the military, what to do, what to do?
Cindy Munford on May 1, 2009 at 3:01 PM
Glad to have Australian military to defend our alliance.
maverick muse on May 1, 2009 at 3:02 PM
Yes It is nice if our allies would grow some teeth and defend themselves for once. The problem is that this will just lead to liberals to gut our military further and proceed with social engineering. Basically, we head backwards while they move forward.
Daemonocracy on May 1, 2009 at 3:02 PM
Well this we knew…
What does this say to NATO? Western Europe has had the luxury of tiny defense budgets with America’s help. What are they thinking about Russia? It’d be a shame if they had to spend their welfare cash on defense.
Theworldisnotenough on May 1, 2009 at 3:02 PM
I hope we get to bail them out too!!
WashJeff on May 1, 2009 at 3:03 PM
Obama: Sorry! Can’t talk now. Viking kittens are coming!
lorien1973 on May 1, 2009 at 3:03 PM
Well who could’ve seen this coming? Oh yeah anyone with eyes to see.
petunia on May 1, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Speak softly, carry no stick.
Yep, sure makes this American proud.
myrenovations on May 1, 2009 at 3:04 PM
What is so funny is that Rudd is a liberal, not unlike our own little p*ssy liberal, and HE sees that his country needs to defend himself. Now, if we can get the messiah to stop campaigning and do his damn job….
HornetSting on May 1, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Quickest strawman ever?
lorien1973 on May 1, 2009 at 3:05 PM
Talk softly and carry a flimsy little carrot stick.
petunia on May 1, 2009 at 3:06 PM
100% correct. However we can have the biggest guns, best technology, & strong resolve but when the guy who has the keys to the show is a squishy retreatist we might as well be throwing spit balls and sending harshly worded letters.
The US has become the UN in 100 days.
portlandon on May 1, 2009 at 3:06 PM
Yeah, all but ONE! (or is that WON?)
fumpbump on May 1, 2009 at 3:07 PM
Quick, send Hillary down under to show them some of her Smart Power.
Brat on May 1, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Bunny shaker’s too dumb to realize they are insulting him too.
HornetSting on May 1, 2009 at 3:08 PM
They might want to seriously consider accelerating their program, as I am not sure they have 20 years.
-Dave
Dave R. on May 1, 2009 at 3:08 PM
With all due respect, I think that the age of the “battlewagon” blue water navy died after WWII.
A massive billion dollar battleship is a waste of resources when it can be sunk by a single million dollar fighter.
Rogue on May 1, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Can I say I blame him?
As Obama weakens the U.S., Austrailia is figuring it out. Maybe when we get rid of the B.O. Austrailia will welcome us back but side by side and not behind out backs.
upinak on May 1, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Obama is basically doing to this country’s defense what many 7-11s have done for theirs-putting up fake cameras.
This only deters the weakest of predators.
The strongest require a much more ferocious deterrent toward violence.
It’s about time the rest of the world start manning up for their own defense. It’s not our job to save the world from itself.
Badger40 on May 1, 2009 at 3:09 PM
I’m not liking our chances with the Won at the helm.
thomasaur on May 1, 2009 at 3:09 PM
Benny is a self made nothing. WTF does it care… it is an Alaskan Elitist!
upinak on May 1, 2009 at 3:09 PM
How convoluted is this? Are you proud that in three months of Democrat control, we are losing the confidence of our allies? We don’t care what they say, unless they’re right. And they are.
capitalist piglet on May 1, 2009 at 3:09 PM
HondaV65
Along similar lines, when the US economy comes crashing down and our feckless leaders spark wars all over the globe, watching ally after ally destroyed, something like the Color Revolutions is likely to make the ‘progressives’ as anathema in this country as they are in the Czech Republic today. The key point about his ’successful’ first one-hundred days is that it’s Obama’s economy and Obama’s foreign policy now. Though the NYT and NBC will still run interference for him, the American people aren’t likely to buy it once it’s clear his policies have reached their unintended(?) but entirely predicted conclusions.
Beagle on May 1, 2009 at 3:09 PM
So they’ll be needing some weapons, right?
Time to invest in Lockheed Martin.
Otis B on May 1, 2009 at 3:10 PM
Ships are still important for defense-but the new ocean is the skies.
We control that of course, we are still top dog.
Badger40 on May 1, 2009 at 3:11 PM
Gates yesterday: Yeah. About that Iran nuke thing. We can’t and won’t do anything about it.
Australia today: Yeah. About that super-power thing … it’s not really workin’ out right now.
Good job, guys.
lorien1973 on May 1, 2009 at 3:11 PM
“The Defence White Paper, “Defending Australia in the Asia Pacific Century: Force 2030″, says replacement of the fleet of six Collins Class submarines with 12 new subs will be Australia’s largest ever single defence project.”
“Confirmed in the paper is the purchase of around 100 of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters”
Oh yeah. I’m seeing profits.
Otis B on May 1, 2009 at 3:12 PM
How do you defend your Dear Leader on this lack of defense for our allies? By trying to put HA readers on the defense? Curiously pathetic little creature you are.
kirkill on May 1, 2009 at 3:13 PM
Spain?
Darth Executor on May 1, 2009 at 3:14 PM
benny shakar:
Oh puh-leaze. Who do you THINK we are worrying about?
We are comparatively safe from a threat from the Pacific. Australia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and New Zealand are not.
The Chinese or Indonesians come knocking on the West Coast, we just move inland.
What happens to the Pacific Democracies if it is Beijing or Jakarta dominates the very ocean on which they sit?
Fool.
Turtler on May 1, 2009 at 3:14 PM
Europe’s current mindset is that it would be easier to surrender to Islam, as they are doing it gradually every day.
thomasaur on May 1, 2009 at 3:14 PM
Obama must be gloating…”That didn’t take long!”
Christian Conservative on May 1, 2009 at 3:15 PM
You moron. We care about allies but don’t believe in kissing the butts of regimes like Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela. Obama shows a pathological dislike of American allies and his political opposition, but loves American enemies. The more you say you want to destroy the US, the more Obama tries to make nice with you.
Beagle on May 1, 2009 at 3:17 PM
I don’t. I’m glad to see these guys ponying up for their own defense. Particularly if it involves buying our stuff. Trade deficit? 100 F-35s will make up some of that lost ground.
Otis B on May 1, 2009 at 3:18 PM
There’s nothing to worry about from the Chinese navy. Hillary’s got half the State Department working on a RESET button in Chinese.
Cicero43 on May 1, 2009 at 3:19 PM
This has a larger economic effect.
A Chinese military is going to need alot of steel, alot of engineers, alot of coal for coking, alot of everything basically. And so will every country that plans on counter China’s growing military. Which means Asia is going to be the area with a larger economy and a shift of wealth will occur because Asia will be producing in the same way America produced in the 20th century and England produced in the 19th. This also means we are at the beginning of a long term bull market in commodities. At the same time we in America are facing a ridiculously inflated currency, and a preposterous trade defecit. The America standard of living in the next 20 years is going to be an uphill climb at best. Of course their are ways to have a prosperous economy but that is an uphill political battle.
Theworldisnotenough on May 1, 2009 at 3:20 PM
That would be funny if our allies stopped their own recessions by creating jobs in their own defense industry. As long as they don’t go USSR, it is a winning strategy.
Cindy Munford on May 1, 2009 at 3:20 PM
Nah, he’s laughing and saying to himself how talented he is. But I dare say that ‘when the fit hits the shan it ain’t gonna be pretty’.
thomasaur on May 1, 2009 at 3:20 PM
Dear God, This is the ultimate irony.
portlandon on May 1, 2009 at 3:20 PM
HornetSting on May 1, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Exactly. I wonder if this has anyting to do with Obama’s apology tour – that was some projection of strength from him huh? While I agree with others that our allies need to beef up their capabilities, that is not the reason Rudd is heading in this direction. He wants to increase Australia’s military strength because he sees America as weak and waning – not because he desires to become an equal partner with us. Hell, the way we are going Australia may have to defend us!
KickandSwimMom on May 1, 2009 at 3:20 PM
Theworldisnotenough on May 1, 2009 at 3:20 PM
Maybe.
Otis B on May 1, 2009 at 3:21 PM
I’m far too busy worrying about what other countries want to do to us.
myrenovations on May 1, 2009 at 3:22 PM
Cindy Munford on May 1, 2009 at 3:20 PM
The Aussies are going to buy F-35s – made by Lockheed Martin right here in the US of A.
Giddyup.
Otis B on May 1, 2009 at 3:22 PM
Is it fading or is it being willfully thrown away?
Don’t mind Kevin Rudd, he is a drunken oaf. He’s ruined practically everything the great John Howard built. He’s a prefiguration of Obama and we in Australia regret him mightily. trouble is we don’t have a conservative leader in the wings like Sarah Palin.
promachus on May 1, 2009 at 3:23 PM
Heah Benny, this may come a shock to you but Kevin Rudd, like almost all Australian leaders is pro-American. Despite his differences with George Bush, he still respected him and counted him as a friend of Australia. Australia has always pulled its weight in the Alliance. He sees Obama as heralding the death knell of America as a great power and a leader who is on the side of tyrants, not free elected governments.
The world is quickly coming to the conclusion that the United States is lead by a President who has childish ideas and can be bullied by friend and foe alike. The most immediate impact of Obama’s leadership is the growing potential for regional nuclear wars in the Middle East and South Asia.
jerryofva on May 1, 2009 at 3:23 PM
Australia needs the F-22…now moare than ever.
pseudonominus on May 1, 2009 at 3:24 PM
Theworldisnotenough on May 1, 2009 at 3:20 PM
Under Reagan we ran a similar arms race against the USSR and made a butt-ton of money.
I say bring it on, China.
Otis B on May 1, 2009 at 3:25 PM
What if barry and the boys on Capitol Hill decide to pass some trade legislation concerning military goods and othe hardware?
thomasaur on May 1, 2009 at 3:26 PM
Yeah, but Chavez gave us a book…
right2bright on May 1, 2009 at 3:27 PM
Know this may bother some of you–but I would not be sorry to see the US fade from the global playbook a little. I’m tired of having to support everyone, fight everyone’s battles and be blamed for everything from imperialism to global warming. Let some other country take up the sword and more power to them.
jeanie on May 1, 2009 at 3:27 PM
promachus on May 1, 2009 at 3:28 PM
We don’t do battleships anymore — the concept of a battleship is dependent on being able to withstand enemy fire and engage in a slugging match with other battleships. Guided missiles laugh at that.
Which is why we have destroyers (sometimes called cruisers) that specialize in deploying and intercepting missiles.
In the end, the carriers do the work with their fighters, but they need the rest of the navy to keep them floating. Air power needs Air bases, and carriers provide the mobile version.
Of course, it would probably help if we had a new carrier based superiority fighter, but, oh well.
Count to 10 on May 1, 2009 at 3:28 PM
I see your point, but if we had some decent leadership, it wouldn’t take us losing our world power status to accomplish this. All it takes is some common sense to see that we need to help ourselves first, screw all the countries that hate us, take care of our own! And still have the world afraid of our might.
HornetSting on May 1, 2009 at 3:29 PM
I would guess that China realizes that their biggest threat come from radical Islam and not the US. They may treat us in the future like a weak younger brother as a result of the amount of debt that the US owes them.
thomasaur on May 1, 2009 at 3:29 PM
that’s my point…Ed bemoans our lack of a large “blue water” navy. Defense ships wouldn’t be blue water, and a lighter, faster more responsive force would be fine. As long as air power is still held, a large blue water force is vulnerable at best, a sitting duck at worst.
Rogue on May 1, 2009 at 3:30 PM
Nothing, and I mean nothing, would cripple the world economy like the regional wars US power has been preventing for the last half century. Paying for the military is cheaper than loosing all of that trade.
Count to 10 on May 1, 2009 at 3:31 PM
thomasaur on May 1, 2009 at 3:26 PM
I’m sure they’ll tax it somehow. But then it becomes a cash cow for them, too, so why not?
Otis B on May 1, 2009 at 3:31 PM
According to the realist doctrine of Robert Gibbs, it’s not worth to save the little democracies against the might of big tyrannies. Throw them to the wolves.
promachus on May 1, 2009 at 3:32 PM
So what? The capabilities of that thing ought to scare the bejeezus out of them.
Otis B on May 1, 2009 at 3:32 PM
What are you talking about?
Aircraft carriers are blue water navy. No blue water navy, no air power. Maybe, some time down the road, VTOL aircraft will be the norm, and smaller ships will be able to collectively do what the big carriers do today, but that isn’t now, nor is it in the next few years.
Count to 10 on May 1, 2009 at 3:34 PM
thomasaur on May 1, 2009 at 3:29 PM
Yeha maybe. But they want a blue water navy and they want to exert their hegemony over a very large area of ocean.
We’re going to compete with them, I think, inevitably.
We’re definitely going to compete with them over fossil fuels eventually.
Otis B on May 1, 2009 at 3:35 PM
You know, I’m actually going to give the weasel a little credit here.
This posture forces other nations to provide for their own damned defense.
I say it’s about time.
Otis B on May 1, 2009 at 3:36 PM
Because the new friendships that barry wants to forge would rather that he didn’t allow it. I also believe that he would just as soon see our military and it’s suppliers dry up and atrophy from lack of use.
thomasaur on May 1, 2009 at 3:38 PM
In other words…lighter and more flexible
Rogue on May 1, 2009 at 3:38 PM
What are you talking about? We have the greatest blue water Navy ever to patrol the high seas.
Do you mean the move towards a littoral capability? That has been the recent trend, but even that has been curtailed.
We have 12 carriers. China has exactly zero.
But they want some.
Otis B on May 1, 2009 at 3:39 PM
Having visited China frequently since 1990 and having lived here for the last 3, I believe I have a good sense of China’s rise. That said, I don’t believe they’ll be able to match US power in the Pacific in 40 years, certainly not 20. In fact I don’t think they’ll be able to do it in the next 100 due to emerging demographic and resource issues.
Here’s a quick reality check
DarkCurrent on May 1, 2009 at 3:39 PM
I’m not so sure. A recent defense paper from the Aussies says they want to purchase new subs and F-35 fighters.
If Obama somehow blocks it, then I’ll say I’ll apologize for being optimistic, but this is good news as I see it right now.
Otis B on May 1, 2009 at 3:41 PM
I agree %100 on that point. In the future it will all be about oil,gas and to a lesser extent coal.
thomasaur on May 1, 2009 at 3:41 PM
After 102 days he hasn’t given me much to be optimistic about.
thomasaur on May 1, 2009 at 3:43 PM
I realize that carriers are large blue water ships, but I’m addressing this:
For almost 20 years, through three successive administrations, the US has neglected its blue-water navy, at least in relation to the emerging threat from China. We have gone lighter and flexible, gearing ourselves not for primacy against a large opponent but for rapid response to smaller threats. If we continue in that direction, Australia has good reason to worry about Chinese control of the waters and isolation from the rest of the West.
I think that the USS Ronald Reagan would show that we’re not neglecting our carrier force…we may not have them on an assembly line, but we’re still building them.
Rogue on May 1, 2009 at 3:44 PM
No, you are missing where we currently are. We need things as heavy as we currently have — the lighter things, like the new littoral craft, can do little patrol missions, but aren’t outfitted for heavy combat. Yes, we need those too, but we can’t go scrapping our cruisers and destroyers just because they aren’t cost effective against pirates. We need newer, more modern versions of the big ships, because the little ones, as flexible as they are, can’t bridge that gap.
Count to 10 on May 1, 2009 at 3:44 PM
Why do the Australians hate us?
LibTired on May 1, 2009 at 3:45 PM
Obama said he wants this guy’s words translated from Australian pronto.
LibTired on May 1, 2009 at 3:46 PM
There is that, but they don’t have to match us to do damage.
Count to 10 on May 1, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Just one in a long queue.
bluelightbrigade on May 1, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Hopefully the Aussies will fix their gun laws. Then if Obama is re-elected, my family and I can emigrate down under.
Right_of_Attila on May 1, 2009 at 3:47 PM
thomasaur on May 1, 2009 at 3:43 PM
Me neither, brother, and maybe I am grasping here, but I think this may work out to our benefit.
It was probably accidental, though.
You see, Obama can’t take any kind of credit for military stuff like this. Increasing arms sales overseas is probably a deal-breaker amongst the unicorn crowd.
But, if this guy is as slick as they’ve been saying he is, well, just maybe this was by design.
I’ve been very reticent to give him any praise for being smart until he showed me something, and this would be that something.
Now, if he will only tell the Spaniards to go jump in a lake and fire Napolitano, I’d sleep a little easier.
Otis B on May 1, 2009 at 3:47 PM
Count to 10 on May 1, 2009 at 3:44 PM
We’re scrapping the littorals.
Otis B on May 1, 2009 at 3:48 PM
First thing Sarah Palin does in office will be to rebuild the army. I wouldn’t worry.
ZJPolitical on May 1, 2009 at 3:49 PM
I’m not advocating a move in any direction, I’m simply addressing Ed’s comment. Our navy as is may be heading to lighter flexible, but you’re missing my point as well. In the event of a modern superpower war…a destroyer or crusier would have a very short life expectancy.
Not saying they’re not needed, just saying in the age of sattelites, cruise missles and over the horizon air-to-sea missiles, they’re also a bit outdated.
Rogue on May 1, 2009 at 3:50 PM
The ‘REAL’ American Idol on the ‘REALITY’ show American Idol. Now that’s power.
Brat on May 1, 2009 at 3:52 PM
Rogue on May 1, 2009 at 3:50 PM
As long as we have a couple dozen subs loaded to the gills with TLAMs, we’re good to go.
Most of the rest of it is for show.
Otis B on May 1, 2009 at 3:52 PM
Fool.
-Dave
Dave R. on May 1, 2009 at 3:54 PM
Isn’t that a contradiction in terms?
I wish! But then again, perhaps not, because while liberalism is ascendent it cultivates tyranny and what comes after liberalism is not automatically liberty, and might just as easily be oppression. For example, it is liberals who most favour the “thought crimes” (a.k.a. hate crime) now introduced on both sides of the Atlantic.
YiZhangZhe on May 1, 2009 at 3:58 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »