US 7th fleet base in Bangladesh?
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/v...w/13691403.cms
See the video.
Printable View
US 7th fleet base in Bangladesh?
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/v...w/13691403.cms
See the video.
Hillary in Dhaka: Why? And why now?
http://www.dhakacourier.com.bd/?p=6025Quote:
Why Bangladesh is of interest to the US?
• Bangladesh is important geopolitically because it shares borders with India and reformed and resurgent Myanmar. It is also a near neighbour to China and stands as a bridge between South Asia and South East Asia.
• Bangladesh is a maritime nation and its access to open sea, Indian Ocean, is strategically an asset.
• Bangladesh’s national unity is based on its ethnicity (Bengali/Bangalee) and not on religion because the country is a multi-religious one. Its homogeneity is an asset.
• Bangladesh is the only Muslim-majority country, which is surrounded by non-Muslim majority states, and the influence of neighbouring states on its history, culture and traditions is extensive.
• The rise of violent extremist Islamic organisations is not attractive to the overwhelming majority of people who are tolerant and respectful to believers of all faiths which constitutes of about 12% of its total population.
• Bangladesh’s government, since 2009, is determined to root out the terrorist elements from the soil of Bangladesh and as a part of the effort the government has continued to address the problems of money laundering and weak border controls to ensure that Bangladesh does not become a terrorist safe-haven.
• Bangladesh provides the largest peacekeeping personnel at the UN conflict zones and is well appreciated internationally for their performance.
• Bangladesh is a multi-party democracy with a secular constitution. There is a growing assertiveness of civil society on socio-economic issues. They act as a buffer between the citizens and abuse of power, if any by the authorities.
• In recent years there has been convergence in broad economic policies, namely encouragement of private sectors and de-regulation, among major political parties.
• Bangladesh is emerging as an economically vibrant country where businesspeople have been innovative and imaginative in pushing the economic growth consistently above 6% through decades. There has also been a change in the economy as 60% of Bangladesh’s economy is connected to the global economy. The lives of the people in rural areas have gone through dramatic changes with the easy availability of mobile phones and cable TV.
• Bangladeshi nationals have settled in America in thousands and as of 2012 there are about 150,000 Bangladeshi-Americans in the US and most of them are skilled and are professionals. In Michigan State one Bangladeshi-American was even elected in the State Assembly.
For the last few years the US and Bangladesh dialogue on issues of economic cooperation, trade-related matters, counter-terrorism civil-military relations, maritime security, disaster management and UN peacekeeping role is being conducted on a piecemeal basis and the US wants to have a formal permanent forum where all issues may be regularly discussed and actions taken.......
Indian Ocean has been increasingly militarised in recent years. India, China, Myanmar, Malaysia and Pakistan are engaged in bolstering their navies to oversee the sea-lanes of the Indian Ocean. China has extended its influence into the Indian Ocean through Myanmar’s Coco Islands where it reportedly has established a surveillance naval base.
It is reported that during the visit Hillary Clinton said that the US was willing to ensure safety to the rigs of oil exploration in the Bangladesh maritime area from sabotage or other kinds of maritime threats. Furthermore the US Secretary of State indicated that the US energy company Conocophillips was interested to explore another four five offshore blocks of Bangladesh.
On wider security, many strategists suggest that the US is interested to constitute a kind of security (not military) alliance to confront North East Asia’s instability and China’s supremacy in the Asia-Pacific region with India, Australia, Philippines and Japan. Bangladesh could also be included in the loop.....
BANGLADESH: AMERICA’S NEW STRATEGIC CYNOSURE IN SOUTH ASIA
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5C...paper5036.htmlQuote:
The new stronger American focus on Bangladesh can be gauged from American media and other documents. In one recent Wall Street Journal article it was written that “Bangladesh is the standard –bearer of South Asia”. In a Congressional Research Paper it was reflected that not surprisingly, Bangladesh is the ‘partner of choice for the United States in many of the foreign policy priorities of President Obama”
Bangladesh eminently qualifies as the United States new strategic partner in South Asia to replace its erstwhile focus on Pakistan with which the United States currently stands disillusioned. Bangladesh is a moderate Islamic country which under the current PM Sheikh Hasina has boldly demonstrated ‘zero tolerance’ for Islamist extremists by liquidating them and nor does it present any prospects of Talibanization like Pakistan.
In the overall geopolitics of South Asia any US strategic relationship or strategic partnership with Bangladesh does not create policy complexities for the United States in relation to India and the US-India Strategic Partnership. Unlike Pakistan, Bangladesh and India are not in an adversarial or confrontational ode even though some irritants exist especially on water-sharing.
Therefore, the ‘Joint Declaration of Bangladesh-United States Dialogue on Partnership’ signed by the two nations during US Secretary Of State Clinton’s visit to Dhaka on May 05 2012 needs to be viewed in this light and without any misgivings.
The major questions that arise from the United States strategic cynosure on Bangladesh and the Joint Declaration will logically what it portends for India and China and how would a Bangladesh-United States Strategic Partnership once fully consummated impact on the security interests of India and China?
As far as India is concerned there are two opposing portents that come to the fore. The first being a positive one in hat India views this development as one of a logical extension of the US-India Strategic Partnership transplanted onto a wider strategic canvass carrying positive security advantages for all three nations. It carries the nucleus of a US-India-Bangladesh Strategic Trilateral emerging.
The opposite portent, a highly improbable one, is that a Bangladesh-United States Strategic Partnership as a bipartite security understanding at some later stage may emerge on the same pattern of United States security linkage with Pakistan and all the attendant negative security connotations in its wake for India.
However, what is definitely intriguing is the American emphasis on Bangladesh’s role in the maritime security of the Bay of Bengal and the Indian Ocean. One would have thought that the United States under its Strategic Partnership understandings with India would have acceded that role to India as the dominant naval power in the region. What maritime role for Bangladesh in the Bay of Bengal is the United States envisaging?
The biggest impact of any evolutionary Bangladesh-United States strategic partnership would be on China with which Bangladesh has a Strategic Partnership Agreement. In Bangladesh policy circles, despite a lack of geographical contiguity, China was viewed as a countervailing power to India as the outsized and predominant power in the region.
In Chinese strategic perceptions, the coupling of the United States-India Strategic Partnership with increasing security cooperation between Bangladesh and the United States is going to be perceived as hostile.
Gotta love the bit about the 7th fleet moving to Bangladesh "after its retreat from Afghanistan". Somebody needs to look at a map. The comment about Chinese bases springing up around the SCS is also a bit curious, I'd want to ask what bases it refers to. And who's the guy saying the Indian Ocean should be a no-go zone for all other navies?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
Overall, though, is there any indication of what exactly these sources are, or any supporting evidence? Are they talking about a full-blown naval base, or a vessel deployment similar to what's going on in Singapore?
The overall tone of the video seems very breathless and excited, but is there any real substance behind it?
It is obvious that the 7th Fleet is not going to be based for the Bay of Bengal.
If one has read Dick Cheney’s Defence Policy Guidelines, which seems to be the Bible for what is happening around the world ever since Iraq, one would realise that the US aims to base its military assets in areas around the world for quick reaction. The first Iraq War has indicate the monumental issues of mobilisation resulting in the loss of strategic surprise and hence requiring a greater force to enforce the US interests.
Therefore, it all probability it would be a Task Force that maybe positioned.
If one understood Bangladeshi politics, one would understand the nuances, subtle that they are. But it is understandable if some haven't and yet comment with breathless and excited sarcasm and try to appear knowledgeable and consider what they read of some news reports or that of think tanks as something totally inferior in intellect to theirs! Yet, surprisingly the rebuttal or sarcasm has no substance given to back it up! Oracles, I presume!
At one time, China showed interest to 'develop' BD ports.
One surely knows the Chinese strategy of "String of Pearls".
Indian Ocean is a no go and the US is saying so with its deployments!
What on earth is the US doing in Singapore, if not to dominate a chokepoint to the Indian Ocean?
There is good reasons in India to be breathless and excited if one has followed the geopolitic and geostrategy of this region.
One wonders why one feels that "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary".
If indeed it were so, then the world would have ended long ago!
But then those who are ardent champions that China (which I find is your refrain on many threads) is only undertaking a Peaceful Rise (and with that refrain would like to disarm the others and lull them into complacency with such bogus pious platitudes) are forgetting that China's actions do not seem to be what is being tomtoms as what is China doing!
“You can fool some people sometimes, but you can't fool all the people all the time.” Bob Marley';s
Surely you appreciate the amusement implicit in the claim that the 7th fleet is retreating from Afghanistan. One wonders how it got there in the first place.
Obvious to you and me, perhaps, but the video you cited referred specifically to the US "parking its 7th fleet in a base in Chittagong". You can fool some people sometimes...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
Possibly, yes... if anything is stationed there at all. Since the whole report cites no sources and appears to rest on little more than SecState's visit to Bangladesh, the whole prospect appears to be rather speculative. We shall wait and see...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
Have any think tanks commented on the prospects for a US military base in Bangladesh? All I see is a single news report with some glaring factual issues and a singular lack of source references. An assessment from a credible think tank would be of more value.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
One surely does. However, the specific reference was that the US is allegedly "“Worried by increasing presence of Chinese naval bases in the south china seas”. I simply wondered what bases were being referred to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
Misunderstanding, I think... I referred to the comment made by the gentleman interviewed at 3:10-3:15 of the video you cited, to the effect that "Whether it is the Chinese Navy or the American Navy, Indian Ocean should be a no-go as far as all these navies are concerned”.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
How much dominance do you get with 2 Littoral Combat Ships? Not much, really, the Singaporean Navy carries more firepower than that. The scale of the deployment suggests that it's more about showing the flag than about dominance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
If you get breathless and excited over every unsubstantiated rumor of a US deployment, you'd have little opportunity to breathe. I'd wait for a bit more confirmation before hyperventilating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
That is right. It does not make sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayuhan
However, what was meant is understood by the Indian viewer since it was a flow from what was discussed.
It is obvious that Indians know that Afghanistan does not have any sea or ocean bordering her land expanse! ;) There has been close relations with Afghanistan historically and most people are aware that it is a landlocked country.
The Indian public is totally ignorant about matters military unlike western nations; even the Ministers and politicians have very little idea about the nitty gritties of military weaponry or organisation. Therefore, the finer details would go over the head of the viewers.Quote:
Obvious to you and me, perhaps, but the video you cited referred specifically to the US "parking its 7th fleet in a base in Chittagong". You can fool some people sometimes...
On the other hand they are aware that the 7th Fleet is something ominous, it being something naval sent by Nixon during the Liberation of Bangladesh by India and which was something that worried all!
No one is fooling no one. It is only to explain to those who cannot understand a platoon from a Corps; people of the ilk of Sarah Palin who sees Russia from her window.
In India, wars and the military is not of paramount interest. It exists and it does its work is all what concerns the average Indian. If Indians had the aggressive bent of mind, India would not be in dialogue with Pakistan given the terror strikes and Pak sponsored terrorism around the parts of India.
..Quote:
Possibly, yes... if anything is stationed there at all. Since the whole report cites no sources and appears to rest on little more than SecState's visit to Bangladesh, the whole prospect appears to be rather speculative. We shall wait and see.
Ms Clinton had stated that Bangladesh had a role to play in the Bay of Bengal and that is the start of the speculation. Even the US spokeswoman was ambivalent when asked during the Press Briefing.
Some excerpts from this region to include Bangladesh.
It is a known fact that Bangladesh does not even have a brown water navy, let alone any pretensions to a Blue Water Navy. Given in the context of the Joint Declaration to include building of ports and security issues, one and one adds upto two as far as the media is concerned. And no Govt spokesman has denied it so far.Quote:
However by referring to Bangladesh as “a key player in maintaining security in the Bay of Bengal,
http://www.gatewayhouse.in/publicati...2%80%99-moment
There must have been some unofficial indication or else why is there so much of speculation around this part of the world to include Bangladeshi commentators?
Quote:
Bay of Bengal apparently is the focus of US interests in Bangladesh, for strategic and other reasons. There is that interest to secure the Bay of Bengal for US companies like ConocoPhilips and others who have already managed to get a number of blocks in the bay. Other than that, the US has been interested in getting a foothold in the bay as it has not been thrilled with China's growing presence in the India Ocean, regional analysts feel. China has been neatly threading together its "String of Pearls", with ports in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Myanmar and beyond, and Bangladesh has been the missing pearl. The US wants to keep it that way, to all appearances. This is one pearl they don't plan to let China have.http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/BdOsint/message/8122
Quote:
it seems to me US is trying to prop up a Bangladesh that could be used to play against both India and China. But on May 21, in a discussion organized by a local think-tank, Ambassador Mozena clarified the nature of this strategic partnership. He stressed that it was not intended to contain China. Then what is its very purpose?—- the question eventually comes to one’s mind.
In this context, if one raises eye brows on American desire to see Bangladesh playing a bigger role in the Bay of Bengal, we could not blame him much. Analyst Dr. Subhash Kapila correctly questions U.S.’s intention in this part of the world:
Quote:
However, what is definitely intriguing is the American emphasis on Bangladesh’s role in the maritime security of the Bay of Bengal and the Indian Ocean. One would have thought that the United States under its Strategic Partnership understandings with India would have acceded that role to India as the dominant naval power in the region. What maritime role for Bangladesh in the Bay of Bengal is the United States envisaging?http://rezaulhoque.wordpress.com/tag/hillary-clinton/
Here is one:Quote:
Have any think tanks commented on the prospects for a US military base in Bangladesh? All I see is a single news report with some glaring factual issues and a singular lack of source references. An assessment from a credible think tank would be of more value.
Quote:
BANGLADESH: AMERICA’S NEW STRATEGIC CYNOSURE IN SOUTH ASIA
However, what is definitely intriguing is the American emphasis on Bangladesh’s role in the maritime security of the Bay of Bengal and the Indian Ocean. One would have thought that the United States under its Strategic Partnership understandings with India would have acceded that role to India as the dominant naval power in the region. What maritime role for Bangladesh in the Bay of Bengal is the United States envisaging?http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5C...paper5036.html
I mentioned China being interesting in building a port in Bangaldesh and the String of Pearls strategy.Quote:
One surely does. However, the specific reference was that the US is allegedly "“Worried by increasing presence of Chinese naval bases in the south china seas”. I simply wondered what bases were being referred to.
Nowhere have I mentioned bases in the SCS.
Quote:
How much dominance do you get with 2 Littoral Combat Ships? Not much, really, the Singaporean Navy carries more firepower than that. The scale of the deployment suggests that it's more about showing the flag than about dominance.
Showing the flag with 2 LCS to just show the flag? Whatever for?
To give an Army example in a Forward Company Defended Locality there are OPs and LPs. The whole Company does not have a 24 x 7 Stand to.
When the time come from push to shove, obviously there will be those roaming the sea in the Pacific who will congregate.
If one is blissfully unaware of events that happen around these parts and around the world, then of course, one can remain in the benign and serene Lotus pose of the Buddha.Quote:
If you get breathless and excited over every unsubstantiated rumor of a US deployment, you'd have little opportunity to breathe. I'd wait for a bit more confirmation before hyperventilating.
Breathing comes natural to us.
Certainly one hopes so. You still have to wonder what (or if) the person who wrote that subtitle was thinking. For those of us who are by nature skeptical and disinclined to believe all that is published, indications of sloppiness on the editorial level reduce the overall credibility of any given piece.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
The apparent intent of the video was precisely to spin the speculations into sounding like something ominous, despite a fairly thin basis. That could be interpreted as an effort to fool someone. Of course ominous news sells, and therefore media will do what they can to put an ominous spin on whatever fragments they can glean. That of course is their business, but we needn't buy into it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
Personally, when I read something clearly designed to evoke fear or greed, I assume someone is trying to sell me something... but as I said, I'm skeptical by nature.
BTW, Sarah Palin couldn't see Russia from her window, unless she had better vision than Superman.
Speculation is the product sold by the commentariat: they need it, and they will find it where they can.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
I may not know the political processes of India or Bangladesh, but I'm reasonably familiar with those of the US. I very much doubt that any decision to develop a military base in Bangladesh is going to happen without extensive public discussion before the decision is made: these things don't simply pop out of a hat. For one thing, there will have to be a budget allocation to develop facilities unless they are already in place, and that has to come through Congress.
Jumping from the very minimal hints and extrapolations under discussion to the assumption that the US has decided to base forces in Bangladesh seems quite premature and quite excessive. Maybe something to keep half an eye on, but way too early to get excited about it.
The think tank link you cite makes only vague references to an enhanced US/Bangladesh partnership, and says nothing at all about a naval base. Is there any serious, credible analysis discussing basing?
The video you linked to specifically stated that the US is "“worried by increasing presence of Chinese naval bases in the south china seas". I just wondered what specific bases they were talking about... or was that just another effort to make it all sound ominous?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
To demonstrate presence in a way large enough to be visible but not large enough to be threatening or to require a major commitment of resources. Isn't that what showing the flag is about? Certainly those 2 LCS are not going to dominate the straits of Malacca, and the US is not going to tell the Chinese Navy that they can't sail into the Indian Ocean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
If push comes to shove, they will congregate whether or not there are 2 LCS in Singapore... if the US decides that it wants them to congregate, that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
A waffle is like a pancake with a syrup trap.Quote:
Certainly one hopes so. You still have to wonder what (or if) the person who wrote that subtitle was thinking. For those of us who are by nature skeptical and disinclined to believe all that is published, indications of sloppiness on the editorial level reduce the overall credibility of any given piece.
As far as being skeptical, there are two ways to slide easily through life: to believe everything or to doubt everything. Both ways save us from thinking.
Quote:
The apparent intent of the video could have been to spin speculation, but as I said earlier, one has to know about what is happening in the world and keeping oneself isolated from the same is a self defeating exercise.Quote:
The apparent intent of the video was precisely to spin the speculations into sounding like something ominous, despite a fairly thin basis. That could be interpreted as an effort to fool someone. Of course ominous news sells, and therefore media will do what they can to put an ominous spin on whatever fragments they can glean. That of course is their business, but we needn't buy into it.
Personally, when I read something clearly designed to evoke fear or greed, I assume someone is trying to sell me something... but as I said, I'm skeptical by nature.
BTW, Sarah Palin couldn't see Russia from her window, unless she had better vision than Superman.
For instance, the Arab Spring led to the rise of Islamic parties. But if one is an isolationist and lives in his idealistic dream world, the event can come to bite – bitten by the same myopic vision that failed to plan through and instead only focussed in defeating the Soviets in Afghanistan. The same said myopia has come to bite and is still biting, not only the US, but the whole world.
True, it is speculation, but when such speculations happen around the region and beyond boundaries of Nations, it might be imprudent to disregard the same. Journalists and think tanks do have their eyes and ears within the corridors of power. Remember, Watergate? It was not in the public domain, but it happened. It was a journalist who ferreted out the same that brought Nixon down!
In the intelligence circles, it is said that no information, no matter how insignificant it appears, is to be overlooked.
I would not know if Sarah Palin’s vision beats Superman, but this I know is that she sure said in an interview with Barbara Walters that she could see Russia through her window and that is why she was well versed on foreign affairs!
This comment reminds me of the speculation of Lord Kelvin who was the President of the Royal Society in 1895. He had said "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible".Quote:
Speculation is the product sold by the commentariat: they need it, and they will find it where they can.
I may not know the political processes of India or Bangladesh, but I'm reasonably familiar with those of the US. I very much doubt that any decision to develop a military base in Bangladesh is going to happen without extensive public discussion before the decision is made: these things don't simply pop out of a hat. For one thing, there will have to be a budget allocation to develop facilities unless they are already in place, and that has to come through Congress.
Jumping from the very minimal hints and extrapolations under discussion to the assumption that the US has decided to base forces in Bangladesh seems quite premature and quite excessive. Maybe something to keep half an eye on, but way too early to get excited about it.
The think tank link you cite makes only vague references to an enhanced US/Bangladesh partnership, and says nothing at all about a naval base. Is there any serious, credible analysis discussing basing?
Hilary Clinton has already offered to build a port for Bangladesh. I take it that it was a considered opinion having gone through the processes as is applicable in the US.
Think tanks are not like the media. Their professional reputation is at stake and there is no escape route that the media has to render an apology with a correction. Therefore, think tanks have to be cautious and be ambivalent when commenting on a controversial issue even if they are aware of it through unofficial sources.
The transcript goes:Quote:
The video you linked to specifically stated that the US is "“worried by increasing presence of Chinese naval bases in the south china seas". I just wondered what specific bases they were talking about... or was that just another effort to make it all sound ominous?
Pentagon reports as they are increasingly worried over the string of pearls of Chinese bases across the South China Sea and their naval might spreading all across Asia.
It is correct that there are no bases in the SCS.
The String of pearls does envisage bases, even if they are not claimed to be so.
Apart from having naval facilities around India, China is also ensuring such facilities around maritime chokepoints as a counter to US commanding such chokepoints, be it the Gulf of Aden, Straits of Malacca or the Straits of Hormuz!Quote:
China mulling naval base in Gulf of Aden: admiral
(AFP) – Dec 29, 2009
BEIJING — A top Chinese naval official has proposed setting up a permanent base to support ships on anti-piracy mission in the Gulf of Aden, raising the idea that China could build foreign bases elsewhere.
In an interview posted on the defence ministry website, Yin Zhuo -- an admiral and senior researcher at the navy's Equipment Research Centre -- said such a base would bolster China's long-term participation in the operation.
"We are not saying we need our navy everywhere in order to fulfil our international commitments," Yin said."We are saying to fulfil our international commitments, we need to strengthen our supply capacity."
Link
Unlike others who are in a hurry, China does it all in good time like her 'Peaceful Rise' over years done with benign calm and deception has now turned into a "'Peaceful' Imposition of the Chinese Hegemony'. Everything so 'peacefully' done!
During peacetime, no one will stop any legitimate shipping. That is so obvious that it requires no elaboration.Quote:
To demonstrate presence in a way large enough to be visible but not large enough to be threatening or to require a major commitment of resources. Isn't that what showing the flag is about? Certainly those 2 LCS are not going to dominate the straits of Malacca, and the US is not going to tell the Chinese Navy that they can't sail into the Indian Ocean.
In the event of a confrontation, the situation changes.
As I had explained these 2 LCS are merely the ‘vanguard’ to the US naval pièce de résistance
That is obvious or else the 2 LCS are merely window dressing.Quote:
If push comes to shove, they will congregate whether or not there are 2 LCS in Singapore... if the US decides that it wants them to congregate, that is.
Doubting everything and questioning everything are the only courses available to thinking people. That doesn't mean rejecting everything, it means not accepting anything until it passes critical examination. "It must be true, I read it on the innernet" is not a position that makes any sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
Skepticism is essential. When reports come from single or uncited sources, when the content of a report cannot be verified by other sources, when there are overt factual errors or evidence of editorial sloppiness, when reports seem deliberately spun to evoke a specific emotional reaction... skepticism should be magnified.
Nor should any information be assumed to be true without corroborating evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
Google Earth would reveal unto you that Sarah Palin's home in Wasilla, Alaska is over 1000 linear km from the nearest point in Russia, with mountains in between. Don't believe everything you hear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
USAID build infrastructure projects, on their existing budget. A military base is a different cup of tea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
Some years back there was a huge flap here when the US build a fishing port in southern Mindanao. It was widely believed to be intended for military use. When a contractor with a history of doing work for the military was selected to do the work, the rumors were taken to be confirmed. It turned out to be a fishing port. Rumors are often wrong.
That's why they're seen as more credible. "Information" from unspecified "unofficial sources" very often turns out to be misinformation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
The transcript does not refer to "envisaged", it's worded to create the impression that there are actual bases. That goes beyond sloppy journalism, into the realm of deceptive journalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
How many Chinese naval facilities actually exist outside of China? What actual naval assets are stationed at those facilities?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
I'll file this report under "unconfirmed rumor, speculative, one", and see what else comes up. Way too early to get excited about it, and not nearly enough information to reach any conclusion.
In terms of any hypothetical conflict with China, window dressing is precisely what they are. They are there to show the flag, not to fight the Chinese.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
Disbelieve in Haste, Regret at Leisure is possibly message of the video
Panetta Open to Military Relations With Myanmar
http://abcnews.go.com/International/...6#.T8uq1dUtjCA
********************
Now, whatever could that mean?
Platitudes?
And there has been no dialogue or earmarked in the Budget as we are told that is was how things happen!
What's up?
Regret what? I'm not in any way convinced that the US intends to base units in Bangladesh, or needs to, but even if it came to pass, would it be something to regret? In any event what happens will happen whether we believe or not; we are the audience in this show, not the actors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
At this point the evidence presented seems to me clearly insufficient for belief. It will be mildly interesting to see if anything further develops. Such rumors are by no means uncommon, and they usually turn out to be (literally) baseless.
Saying that you're open to military relations is a way of opening dialogue, if the other party responds. Obviously that requires no budget, unlike developing a base.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
"Military relations" can mean a whole range of things, most of them not exactly earth-shaking. It would likely start very small, a couple of Americans doing some training and observation, a couple of officers from Myanmar going to school in the US. From there something bigger might or might not develop. The US has some level of "military relations" with most countries.
More than anything I see it as a way of showing that the US has noticed the efforts at reform and is showing willingness to respond with greater contact.
Heard of Lord Thomas Babington Macaulau?Quote:
"Military relations" can mean a whole range of things, most of them not exactly earth-shaking. It would likely start very small, a couple of Americans doing some training and observation, a couple of officers from Myanmar going to school in the US. From there something bigger might or might not develop. The US has some level of "military relations" with most countries.
His Minutes on Indian Education of 1835 envisaged
' creating, “a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect”.
The Minute is based on an idea that English education is not just superior in ‘science’, but would also inculcate superior morals, etc. that were responsible for making the English superior.
That is how it all starts!
Did what was envisaged ever actually occur?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
What the British envisaged in 1835 is not necessarily what the US envisages now. Many thousands of officers from all around the world have studied in the US, but I can't see that it's created a bunch of American clones in armies around the world.
In any event it would be excessive to jump from a statement that the US is open to military cooperation to the assumption that the US intends to Americanize the Bangladeshi officer corps. It sounds more like one more inducement to try to keep the reform process moving. Where it goes will depend on how that process proceeds and how the other party responds.
It is not envisaging what the British did in 1835.
It is the mode to change the mindset that is what I was alluding to.
It has been done and it is still being done.
For instance Indians were pro Soviets sometimes back. How come they have suddenly become pro American these days and why is the Indian Army basing much on the US military concepts and theories?
All Panetta did was offer the possibility of unspecified military-military relations. Safe to assume, I think, that he's trying to encourage the current reform and democratization trend in Myanmar, which is of course consistent with established US policy and thus to be expected. No need to read more into it than that. 1+1 does not equal 10.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
Just like you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayuhan
Deflect.
When one is trying to change he mindset, trifling don't do.
No comment on how Indian mindset was changed and so fast?
I was trying to stay with the point. How the Indian mindset changed seems distinctly peripheral to the question of what Mr. Panetta was trying to achieve by offering unspecified military-military relations to Myanmar.
Anything I could say about the changing of the Indian mindset would be speculative at best, but I would speculate that perhaps Indians noticed that the Soviet Union no longer exists, a phenomenon that might reasonably evoke some doubt over the merit of Soviet methods and doctrine. In a contest where one party loses and the other wins, observers might well be tempted to follow the example of the winners... but that, as I said, is speculation.
The manner how it was changed is hardly peripheral.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayuhan
It has become a well recognised template.
Understand Psyops.
Again returning to the point, are you saying that Panetta's offer is an effort to persuade the Myanmar military to change to a mindset more compatible with American desires? If so we agree... in fact that's pretty much what I already said: Panetta is holding out a little possible carrot as an inducement to continue the reform process. Nothing covert or sinister about it, the US has made no secret of its desire to see that reform process continue and accelerate.
Why does America want a base in Bangladesh? (And why India isn't amused)
http://ibnlive.in.com/blogs/sauravjh...nt-amused.html
So now we're talking about why the US wants a base in Bangladesh before confirming that the US actually does want a base in Bangladesh? Well, talk is cheap, and in blogs all things make sense, if you want them to.
Perceptions!
They need not be correct.
Blogs are but thoughts that bases itself on the author's perception.
As valid as yours or as irrelevant.
Everything is perception and everything is Maya.
Maya or Māyā (Sanskrit माया māyāa[›]), in Indian religions, has multiple meanings, usually quoted as "illusion", centered on the fact that we do not experience the environment itself but rather a projection of it, created by us.
If I hold a large rock 2 meters above my bare foot and release it... well, a projection it may be, but it will be hard to convince my toes of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
Of course people are entitled to their own perceptions, but if one is trying to determine which among the vast plethora of perceptions on the internet should be taken seriously, one has to be a bit critical. In this case, the author would have given himself a better chance of being taken seriously if he'd elected to discuss why the US might want a base in Bangladesh, rather than addressing the very hypothetical question of "Why Does the US Want..."
Assuming what has yet to be demonstrated is a poor way to make an impression on a critically-minded audience.
I also noted that the author starts out with a reference to claims that the US is "looking to park the Seventh Fleet at Chittagong", then bases his argument on a supposed desire to deploy air force, rather than Naval, assets.
All of this, of course, has to be weighed against many declarations that the US is trying to move away from large fixed installations in necessarily insecure political environments. There are obvious reasons for this: whatever the purely strategic advantage of such installations might be, the idea of pouring many billions into an installation where you might at any time be asked to leave is unappealing on many levels.
One of the arguments used against US bases in the Philippines has been that if the US and China get into it a base would be likely to attract attack, potentially even nuclear attack. One wonders if that fear prevails as well in Bangladesh...