US 7th fleet base in Bangladesh?

[Ray]

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.

That is right. It does not make sense.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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:

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/

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.

Here is one:

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

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.

I mentioned China being interesting in building a port in Bangaldesh and the String of Pearls strategy.

Nowhere have I mentioned bases in the SCS.

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 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.

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.

Breathing comes natural to us.

[Dayuhan]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

I mentioned China being interesting in building a port in Bangaldesh and the String of Pearls strategy.

Nowhere have I mentioned bases in the SCS.

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?

Showing the flag with 2 LCS to just show the flag? Whatever for?

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.

When the time come from push to shove, obviously there will be those roaming the sea in the Pacific who will congregate.

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.

[Ray]

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.

A waffle is like a pancake with a syrup trap.

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 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.

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.

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!

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?

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".

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 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?

The transcript goes:

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.

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

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!

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!

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.

During peacetime, no one will stop any legitimate shipping. That is so obvious that it requires no elaboration.

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

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.

That is obvious or else the 2 LCS are merely window dressing.

[Dayuhan]

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.

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.

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.

In the intelligence circles, it is said that no information, no matter how insignificant it appears, is to be overlooked.

Nor should any information be assumed to be true without corroborating evidence.

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!

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.

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.

USAID build infrastructure projects, on their existing budget. A military base is a different cup of tea.

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.

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.

That's why they're seen as more credible. "Information" from unspecified "unofficial sources" very often turns out to be misinformation.

The transcript goes:

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.

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.

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!

How many Chinese naval facilities actually exist outside of China? What actual naval assets are stationed at those facilities?

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.

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.

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.

[Ray]

Disbelieve in Haste, Regret at Leisure is possibly message of the video

[Ray]

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?

[Dayuhan]

Disbelieve in Haste, Regret at Leisure is possibly message of the video

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.

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.

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?

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.

"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.

[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.

Heard of Lord Thomas Babington Macaulau?

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!