Free peoples do not need Keating's hope for the future

I like Hugh White even if I don't agree with him all the time. I haven't read his new book so I won't comment about it.

I will comment on Keating and his dangerous thinking.

The U.S. has done a lot of dumb things. However the alternative to their protection in the Pacific Rim doesn't look good for things like free speech and human rights.

Keating is right to question Australian involvement in stupid U.S. wars. Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq are good examples. Australia can say "no" and still be a credible ally and friend. Australia should tell the U.S. where it stands instead of being a door mat.

Along with that comes the idea that friends like Australia and the U.S. should help each other out. Australia should--at every opportunity--tell its friend when it is wrong instead of following off on a useless war.

At the same time though, when a crisis appears like the recent communist Chinese bullying in the South China Sea, Australia should stand tall and say they will have none of it. This by itself is doing the right thing and giving a kick in the shin to a currently spineless U.S. to bring some carrier diplomacy down to warmer waters. Naturally from that, Singapore, Japan, South Korea and other regional nations will feel reassured and respond with more resolve.

I do wonder if Keating really has an appreciation of the buzz-word's "Asian Century" being thrown about recently.

The last century for Asia was pretty good, minus the wars of course. But let us focus on the outcome of some of those wars. Keating mentions "American failure" in Korea. Sorry if I don't see it.

Today South Korea is a realitively free country with a strong economy. I wonder if Keating prefers North Korea? That would have been the result if the U.S. had not stepped in.

It is interesting that Keating avoids World War II. Without U.S. concern over the Pacific, Japan would have occupied Australia.

Japan would not be what it is today without the U.S. and General MacArthur's enlightened administration; which also gave women the right to vote.

Keating is right about the U.S. not needing to get involved in a war "on mainland Asia". The U.S. agrees. That is why the U.S. Army has almost no place in the U.S. DOD's Pacific plan. Air power and naval power is where it is at when it comes to hard power and thus the important thing: deterrance.

Keating doesn't seem to have an appreciation of the dangers of a totalitarian power. Hitler, Stalin and Mao murdered millions of people. Yet, Keating is willing to give communists a free pass.

Keating's idea for Australia's place in a future Pacific is dangerous. His kind would rather give in to communist bullying than step in to help a friend in need like the Philippines.

Keating and his kind appear to be the type of people you can't depend on when the going gets rough. That is the ultimate definition of being un-Australian.

What Keating does not understand is the following. While Japan, South Korea and the U.S. may argue about things from time to time, the U.S. strong military support, for a free and unmolested Japan and South Korea is unmovable.

Bullying Japan and South Korea is the equal of doing the same to the U.S.

Communist appeasement aside--for example, those in the Bush administration that balked at selling Japan the F-22--most of America will not tolerate Japan and South Korea in peril.

By the way, a strong, free military coalition of deterrence in the Pacific will not hurt trade. The communists may get mad, but they are not stupid. They, more than Keating, respect strength.

Mr. Keating would be wise to remember that when considering some alternate-reality "Asian Century"; under the thumb of totalitarianism.

Kopp paper is a warning to U.S. leadership

"If the United States wishes to retain its primacy in modern nation-state conflicts, technological strategy must be restored to the prominence it enjoyed during the Cold War period."


A recent paper by Dr. Carlo Kopp in July's Joint Force Quarterly, "Technological Strategy in the Age of Exponential Growth" walks you through technology growth patterns over the years. Read the whole paper from the beginning. I promise it won't hurt your head understanding it.

For anyone interested in the well-being of U.S and allied military superiority, this paper is a warning that time is up. We better get strong logic fused into our senior leadership or the consequences could be loss of deterrence. With loss of deterrence comes war.

The inevitable consequence of failing to practice good technological strategy is that opponents will produce breakthroughs. A smart opponent will produce repeated “capability surprise” events to an advantage, as the United States did to the Soviet Union, contributing crucially to the eventual bankruptcy of the Soviet bloc.

Technological Strategy vs. Exponential Growth

The presence of exponential growth in key current technologies is a double-edged sword because these technologies have been commodified and are globally accessible in the commercial marketplace. A Russian or Chinese weapons developer will have access to much of the same basic technology as his peers in the United States. This represents a leveling of the technological playing field unseen since World War II. For instance, the well-developed Russian technological strategy intended to defeat U.S. airpower is disciplined and well-considered, leverages exponential growth in key technologies, and displays a deep understanding of critical ideas and how to leverage globalized exponentially growing technologies.

On a level playing field, with exponential growth in critical technologies, the player who can best exploit talent to an advantage—all else being equal—will inevitably win. For the United States and its technologically competent allies, this period should be one of critical reflection. Many recent high-profile programmatic failures display numerous symptoms of poor practice and implementation of technological strategy during program definition and later development, beginning in the decade following the end of the Cold War. Moreover, poor understanding of exponential growth and concomitant early component obsolescence has contributed to severe life-cycle cost problems across a wide range of programs.

A good case can be made that these failures directly reflect the diminished role of technological strategists in the post–Cold War environment, where imperatives other than defeating peer competitor nation-states became ascendant and dominant, while the last generation of Cold War–era technological strategists progressively retired from government service or retired altogether, with few if any replacements trained or appointed.

Bold emphasis mine.

Australia and Operation: USELESS DIRT...all for nought

....."but the greatest insult to the lives of the soldiers sacrificed to date would be to tell them that it was all for nought...."

It was all for nought not because of the soldiers. It was all for nought because of a poorly advised and deluded senior leadership that could not learn anything from places like Vietnam. The same kind of leadership that could not understand what is and what is not a valid reason to go to war.

For a war to be important to a society, most of the public (that funds it) has to believe it is a valid effort to the security of the nation. I don't think that it has been proven that Afghanistan is a valid security effort for the protection of the Australian public. It is possible that most Australians don't even think it is.

How many useless dirt piles are we to overturn for no gain; and why?

2 more Australian soldiers killed. What strategy?

Two more Australian soldiers are dead in Afghanistan.

That is 3 in a short time; along with more wounded. Rather than start with the bare facts, the war-cheerleaders in the news media start out the piece by stating how the Prime Minister states Australia is committed to the mission in Afghanistan. Is “Australia” really all for Operation: USELESS DIRT? I’m not so sure. Certainly both the mainstream war parties are for the mission. The troops do what they are told and carry out the mission to the best of their ability; even if the strategy is grossly flawed.

“One Digger was murdered and another killed in a chopper crash in a black day for the Australian army in Afghanistan.

The first death occurred at a forward operating base in the Baluchi-Chora Valley when a rogue Afghan national army solider shot dead an Australian lance-corporal as they performed guard duty together.

The second, from Victoria, was badly wounded and later died from his injuries after an Australian army CH-47 Chinook helicopter crashed in Zabul Province. The victim was a qualified helicopter pilot, but had not been flying the chopper when it crashed.”

Vietnam: just on a different scale. Pakistan (Laos and Cambodia for the historian) is also not secure. It is pretty hard to win hearts and minds of a tribal society. It is even more difficult when the mission provides no valid security for Australia. For instance, 911, the reason to get into this mess, was caused by poor U.S. visa control and poor airline and airport security. The initial reason to go to Afghanistan as stated by the then U.S. President was to get Osama. That mission is over.

How many troops is our brave Prime Minister willing to sacrifice for a fool’s errand?

It is rather interesting that Houston just testified to the validity of Australia’s involvement in this war. Maybe at least if someone is going to be running this side-show then they need real Army experience? Sorry, but the political war hawks along with Houston, don’t give me the confidence of being war leaders.

I don’t think Houston has a grasp on the lack of quality of the Afghan security forces.

Then there is the issue of nation building. Why would I or anyone else want to contribute any money to a society that thinks child molestation is a sport?

Australia does not have any war leaders. This is unfortunate for our soldiers that ultimately pay for strategic folly. Just because they rightly volunteer to defend our country does not give the executive leadership the right to misuse them. It would be nice to see this discussion explored in the public. Maybe by doing that, we can save some lives.