Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
unhappycamper
unhappycamper's Journal
unhappycamper's Journal
October 16, 2012
In light of President Obama's highly publicized pivot to Asia, Australia's decision to slash its defense budgets has left many observers confused. As a result, both the United States and Australia need to clarify what they expect from their alliance in the future, or so argues Mark Thomson.
Confusion Down Under: Australia and the US Pivot to Asia
By Mark Thomson for East-West Center (EWC)
15 October 2012
Foreign observers of Australian defense policy are no doubt scratching their heads at recent events. Within six months of US President Barack Obama's administration announcing the US pivot to Asia, the center-left Labor government of Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard slashed defense spending and effectively shelved plans to expand Australia's defense force—plans that were released with great fanfare only three years earlier. The numbers are stark. A 10 percent year-on-year cut to the defense budget, and over the next two years defense spending as a share of GDP will fall below 1.5 percent—a figure not seen since the dark days at the end of the Great Depression in 1938.
The turnaround is dramatic. The government’s 2009 Defense White Paper laid out a vision for a strengthened Australian military built around a more capable navy. Initiatives included a doubling of the submarine force from six to twelve boats, and a new class of larger and more capable frigates to replace the aging Oliver Hazard Perry guided missile frigates. These measures are now all under question.
Of course, Australia is not alone in cutting back on defense, in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis the United States and many European countries are doing the same. But there is an important difference. Unlike the vast majority of developed countries, Australia has emerged almost unscathed from the recent global financial crisis. Economic growth is back close to pre-crisis levels and unemployment is hovering around 5 per cent. More importantly, Australian government debt is small by international standards.
~snip~
Moreover, and irrespective of what financial pressures emerge, there is also a feeling that Australia's appetite for defense investment has reached a peak and is now in decline; the post-9/11 decade of strategic urgency has been eclipsed by the post-financial crisis decade of economic insecurity. Even without these shifting perceptions, based on past experience the scene is set for cuts following withdrawal from Afghanistan. The longterm pattern of Australian defense spending is cyclical; defense investment rises in times of conflict and falls in times of peace—well in excess of the actual cost of operations.
unhappycamper comment: Australia is going to cut their military budget by 10%? The 'Coalition of the Willing' is shrinking in Afghanistan and the F-35 coalition will also start shrinking as soon as money counts to reasonable politicians. Lockheed must be saying "Ouch!"
(Military Budget) Confusion Down Under: Australia and the US Pivot to Asia
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Security-Watch/Articles/Detail/?lng=en&id=153375In light of President Obama's highly publicized pivot to Asia, Australia's decision to slash its defense budgets has left many observers confused. As a result, both the United States and Australia need to clarify what they expect from their alliance in the future, or so argues Mark Thomson.
Confusion Down Under: Australia and the US Pivot to Asia
By Mark Thomson for East-West Center (EWC)
15 October 2012
Foreign observers of Australian defense policy are no doubt scratching their heads at recent events. Within six months of US President Barack Obama's administration announcing the US pivot to Asia, the center-left Labor government of Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard slashed defense spending and effectively shelved plans to expand Australia's defense force—plans that were released with great fanfare only three years earlier. The numbers are stark. A 10 percent year-on-year cut to the defense budget, and over the next two years defense spending as a share of GDP will fall below 1.5 percent—a figure not seen since the dark days at the end of the Great Depression in 1938.
The turnaround is dramatic. The government’s 2009 Defense White Paper laid out a vision for a strengthened Australian military built around a more capable navy. Initiatives included a doubling of the submarine force from six to twelve boats, and a new class of larger and more capable frigates to replace the aging Oliver Hazard Perry guided missile frigates. These measures are now all under question.
Of course, Australia is not alone in cutting back on defense, in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis the United States and many European countries are doing the same. But there is an important difference. Unlike the vast majority of developed countries, Australia has emerged almost unscathed from the recent global financial crisis. Economic growth is back close to pre-crisis levels and unemployment is hovering around 5 per cent. More importantly, Australian government debt is small by international standards.
~snip~
Moreover, and irrespective of what financial pressures emerge, there is also a feeling that Australia's appetite for defense investment has reached a peak and is now in decline; the post-9/11 decade of strategic urgency has been eclipsed by the post-financial crisis decade of economic insecurity. Even without these shifting perceptions, based on past experience the scene is set for cuts following withdrawal from Afghanistan. The longterm pattern of Australian defense spending is cyclical; defense investment rises in times of conflict and falls in times of peace—well in excess of the actual cost of operations.
unhappycamper comment: Australia is going to cut their military budget by 10%? The 'Coalition of the Willing' is shrinking in Afghanistan and the F-35 coalition will also start shrinking as soon as money counts to reasonable politicians. Lockheed must be saying "Ouch!"
October 14, 2012
In this image provided by the U.S. Navy shows the guided-missile cruiser USS San Jacinto approaches at sea in the Atlantic Ocean June 6, 2012. The submarine USS Montpelier and the Aegis cruiser USS San Jacinto collided at approximately 3:30 p.m. EDT. Both the submarine and the ship were conducting routine training at the time of the accident.
The USS Montpelier is a Los Angeles-class submarine.
Navy says submarine, Aegis cruiser collide
By The Associated Press
Published Sunday, October 14, 2012 at 2:00 am / Updated at 2:00 am
NORFOLK, Va. (AP) - The Pentagon said late Saturday that it is investigating why a Navy submarine collided with an Aegis cruiser off the East Coast.
The U.S. Fleet Forces Command said in a news release that the submarine USS Montpelier and the Aegis cruiser USS San Jacinto collided at about 3:30 p.m. during routine operations. No one was injured, and the extent of any damage to the vessels was not clear Saturday evening, said Lt. Commander Brian Badura of the Fleet Forces Command.
"We have had circumstances where Navy vessels have collided at sea in the past, but they're fairly rare as to how often they do take place," Badura told The Associated Press.
Navy officials said the collision was under investigation, but declined to offer specifics on what happens next or on where the incident took place.
A Four (Or Five) Billion Dollar Fender Bender
http://www.omaha.com/article/20121014/AP09/310149990/-1#navy-says-submarine-aegis-cruiser-collideIn this image provided by the U.S. Navy shows the guided-missile cruiser USS San Jacinto approaches at sea in the Atlantic Ocean June 6, 2012. The submarine USS Montpelier and the Aegis cruiser USS San Jacinto collided at approximately 3:30 p.m. EDT. Both the submarine and the ship were conducting routine training at the time of the accident.
The USS Montpelier is a Los Angeles-class submarine.
Navy says submarine, Aegis cruiser collide
By The Associated Press
Published Sunday, October 14, 2012 at 2:00 am / Updated at 2:00 am
NORFOLK, Va. (AP) - The Pentagon said late Saturday that it is investigating why a Navy submarine collided with an Aegis cruiser off the East Coast.
The U.S. Fleet Forces Command said in a news release that the submarine USS Montpelier and the Aegis cruiser USS San Jacinto collided at about 3:30 p.m. during routine operations. No one was injured, and the extent of any damage to the vessels was not clear Saturday evening, said Lt. Commander Brian Badura of the Fleet Forces Command.
"We have had circumstances where Navy vessels have collided at sea in the past, but they're fairly rare as to how often they do take place," Badura told The Associated Press.
Navy officials said the collision was under investigation, but declined to offer specifics on what happens next or on where the incident took place.
October 11, 2012
Stay Back But Don't Worry: Halliburton Finally Stumbles on the Radioactive Rod It Somehow Lost In the Desert
by Abby Zimet
0.09.12 - 4:06 PM
Good news, nation: After an almost-month-long search by the National Guard, local police and health officials, an oilfield worker found a radioactive rod that the ever-reliable Hallliburton had lost on a 130-mile trip between fracking sites in the Texas desert. The worker found the seven-inch rod, which contains americium-241/beryllium - a potential ingredient in a dirty bomb and termed a "category 3" source of radiation by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) - lying along the highway near Pecos. The FBI determined that there was "no criminal activity" involved with the loss. We feel so much better.
“Apparently we take our nuclear waste, throw it in the back of a pick-up truck and drive around until the wind blows it away or it falls off on the side of the road...We don't need terrorism - we have Halliburton." - Gordon Duff, senior editor of Veterans Today.
Stay Back But Don't Worry: Halliburton Finally Stumbles on the Radioactive Rod It Somehow Lost ...
http://www.commondreams.org/further/2012/10/09-2Stay Back But Don't Worry: Halliburton Finally Stumbles on the Radioactive Rod It Somehow Lost In the Desert
by Abby Zimet
0.09.12 - 4:06 PM
Good news, nation: After an almost-month-long search by the National Guard, local police and health officials, an oilfield worker found a radioactive rod that the ever-reliable Hallliburton had lost on a 130-mile trip between fracking sites in the Texas desert. The worker found the seven-inch rod, which contains americium-241/beryllium - a potential ingredient in a dirty bomb and termed a "category 3" source of radiation by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) - lying along the highway near Pecos. The FBI determined that there was "no criminal activity" involved with the loss. We feel so much better.
“Apparently we take our nuclear waste, throw it in the back of a pick-up truck and drive around until the wind blows it away or it falls off on the side of the road...We don't need terrorism - we have Halliburton." - Gordon Duff, senior editor of Veterans Today.
October 11, 2012
http://atimes.com/atimes/Japan/NJ12Dh01.html
Agent Orange is Okinawa's smoking gun
By Jon Mitchell
Oct 12, 2012
Since 1945, the small Japanese island of Okinawa has been unwilling host to a massive US military presence and a storehouse for a witches' brew of dangerous munitions and chemicals, including nerve gas, mustard gas, and nuclear missiles. However, there is one weapon the Pentagon has always denied that it kept on Okinawa: Agent Orange.
Now, for the first time, a recently uncovered US army report reveals that, during the Vietnam War, the United States stockpiled 25,000 barrels of Agent Orange on the Pacific island. The barrels, containing over 1.4 million gallons of the toxic defoliant, were brought to Okinawa from Vietnam before being taken to Johnston Island in the Pacific Ocean, where the US military incinerated its stocks of the compound in 1977.
Contradicting decades of denial by Washington, the report is the first direct admission by the US military that it stored these poisons on Okinawa. A series of photographs was also uncovered, apparently showing the 25,000 barrels in storage on Okinawa's Camp Kinser, near the prefectural capital of Naha.
The army report, published in 2003 but only recently discovered, is titled "An Ecological Assessment of Johnston Atoll." Outlining the military's efforts to clean up the tiny island that the United States used throughout the Cold War to store and dispose of its stockpiles of biochemical weapons, the report states directly, "In 1972, the US Air Force brought about 25,000 55-gallon (208 liter) drums of the chemical Herbicide Orange (HO) to Johnston Island that originated from Vietnam and was stored on Okinawa."
Agent Orange is Okinawa's smoking gun
http://atimes.com/atimes/Japan/NJ12Dh01.html
Agent Orange is Okinawa's smoking gun
By Jon Mitchell
Oct 12, 2012
Since 1945, the small Japanese island of Okinawa has been unwilling host to a massive US military presence and a storehouse for a witches' brew of dangerous munitions and chemicals, including nerve gas, mustard gas, and nuclear missiles. However, there is one weapon the Pentagon has always denied that it kept on Okinawa: Agent Orange.
Now, for the first time, a recently uncovered US army report reveals that, during the Vietnam War, the United States stockpiled 25,000 barrels of Agent Orange on the Pacific island. The barrels, containing over 1.4 million gallons of the toxic defoliant, were brought to Okinawa from Vietnam before being taken to Johnston Island in the Pacific Ocean, where the US military incinerated its stocks of the compound in 1977.
Contradicting decades of denial by Washington, the report is the first direct admission by the US military that it stored these poisons on Okinawa. A series of photographs was also uncovered, apparently showing the 25,000 barrels in storage on Okinawa's Camp Kinser, near the prefectural capital of Naha.
The army report, published in 2003 but only recently discovered, is titled "An Ecological Assessment of Johnston Atoll." Outlining the military's efforts to clean up the tiny island that the United States used throughout the Cold War to store and dispose of its stockpiles of biochemical weapons, the report states directly, "In 1972, the US Air Force brought about 25,000 55-gallon (208 liter) drums of the chemical Herbicide Orange (HO) to Johnston Island that originated from Vietnam and was stored on Okinawa."
October 10, 2012
I'm sure Greek and Spanish citizens will be happy to live in squalor to pay for their 'fair share'.
NATO to discuss Afghan war, reveal new commanders
Source: http://www.salon.com/2012/10/10/nato_to_discuss_af
NATO to discuss Afghan war, reveal new commanders
By Lolita C. Baldor, Associated Press
Wednesday, Oct 10, 2012 9:30 AM UTC
BRUSSELS (AP) — Defense Secretary Leon Panetta urged NATO defense ministers Wednesday to help fill the shortfall of military training teams in Afghanistan in order to build the capabilities of the Afghan forces so they can take control of their country’s security by the end of 2014.
In remarks to the ministers’ conference here, Panetta asked that they provide the 58 teams that are needed, and give those commitments by later next month.
“The U.S. has filled a disproportionate number of these teams in recent years, and I ask for your help to fill the gap,” Panetta said, calling this a “critical moment” in the war.
The ministers are gathering in Belgium to deliberate the next phase of the Afghanistan war and to hear how military commanders plan to tamp down the insider attacks that have killed or injured 130 allied forces.
Read more: http://www.salon.com/2012/10/10/nato_to_discuss_afghan_war_reveal_new_commanders/
I'm sure Greek and Spanish citizens will be happy to live in squalor to pay for their 'fair share'.
October 8, 2012
Outgoing Red Cross head in Kabul has bleak outlook
AP / October 8, 2012
GENEVA (AP) — The outgoing head of the Red Cross delegation in Afghanistan says civilians are in greater danger with less hope for peace than when he arrived on his job seven years ago.
Reto Stocker says he’s ‘‘filled with concern’’ as he leaves the job he’s had since 2005 because suffering and hardship have increased among ordinary Afghans while their ‘‘hope for the future has been steadily declining.’’
Stocker said in a statement Monday that the proliferation of local armed groups has left civilians ‘‘caught between not just one but multiple front lines.’’
But he says the Geneva-based International Committee of the Red Cross has made some progress by persuading warring parties to hear some its concerns about the war that began when the U.S. invaded on Oct. 7, 2001.
unhapppycamper comment: This book details Britain's first loss in Afghanistan.
Get out. Now.
Outgoing Red Cross head in Kabul has bleak outlook
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/2012/10/08/outgoing-red-cross-head-kabul-has-bleak-outlook/xgF6tdiQ71zMnuNGrNCMwO/story.htmlOutgoing Red Cross head in Kabul has bleak outlook
AP / October 8, 2012
GENEVA (AP) — The outgoing head of the Red Cross delegation in Afghanistan says civilians are in greater danger with less hope for peace than when he arrived on his job seven years ago.
Reto Stocker says he’s ‘‘filled with concern’’ as he leaves the job he’s had since 2005 because suffering and hardship have increased among ordinary Afghans while their ‘‘hope for the future has been steadily declining.’’
Stocker said in a statement Monday that the proliferation of local armed groups has left civilians ‘‘caught between not just one but multiple front lines.’’
But he says the Geneva-based International Committee of the Red Cross has made some progress by persuading warring parties to hear some its concerns about the war that began when the U.S. invaded on Oct. 7, 2001.
unhapppycamper comment: This book details Britain's first loss in Afghanistan.
Get out. Now.
October 8, 2012
Retroactive Stop Loss Special Pay
Those Eligible Must Submit a Claim By October 21, 2012
The 2009 War Supplemental Appropriations Act established Retroactive Stop Loss Special Pay (RSLSP), providing $500 for each month/partial month served in stop loss status. Service members, veterans, and beneficiaries of servicemembers whose service was involuntarily extended under Stop Loss between Sept. 11, 2001 and Sept. 30, 2009 are eligible for RSLSP.
To receive this benefit, those who served under stop loss must submit a claim for the special pay. Throughout the year, the services have been reaching out to servicemembers, veterans and their families through direct mail, veteran service organizations, and the media. But there is still money left to be claimed, and the deadline is approaching. The average benefit is $3,700.
General Procedure
Individuals who meet eligibility criteria should submit an application by October 21, 2012. By law, there is no authorization to make payments on claims that are submitted after the deadline.
Eligible members should visit their specific service's Web site and submit their application on-line; on-line submission provides a claim number, allows for automated status updates, and provides a means for the military service to contact the applicant.
If eligible members do not have internet access, they should print, complete and sign Department of Defense Form 2944, Claim for Retroactive Stop Loss Payment. Next, choose the appropriate method for submitting the claim form and available supporting documents based on your service specifications. This information can be found on your service's stop loss Web site.
The following documents are examples of authorized source documents but may not be comprehensive, depending on specific status and service.
Tell a Friend
If you know someone who separated/retired and may be eligible, remind them to submit a claim before the deadline!
Note on Eligibility
Effective Dec. 19, 2009, per the Defense Appropriations Act, stop-lossed servicemembers who voluntarily reenlisted or extended their service, and received a bonus for such reenlistment or extension of service, became ineligible to receive retroactive stop loss special pay. There may be rare circumstances where an individual can be eligible for this pay and have received a bonus. The Department continues to encourage all who believe they may qualify to apply and allow a service counselor to review each individual situation.
Source Documents
1. DD 214 (8-09), Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty and/or DD 215 (8-09), Correction to DD 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.
2. Personnel record or enlistment or reenlistment document recording original expiration of service date.
3. Approved retirement/transfer to the Fleet Reserve memorandum or orders establishing retirement prior to actual date of retirement as stipulated in DD 214 or DD 215.
4. Approved resignation memorandum or transition orders establishing a separation date prior to actual date of separation as stipulated on DD 214 or DD 215.
5. Signed documentation or affidavit from knowledgeable officials from the individual’s chain of command acknowledging separation/deployment, etc.
6. Revocation of retirement or separation orders.
Last Chance To Apply For Stop-Loss Pay
http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2010/0710_stoploss/Retroactive Stop Loss Special Pay
Those Eligible Must Submit a Claim By October 21, 2012
The 2009 War Supplemental Appropriations Act established Retroactive Stop Loss Special Pay (RSLSP), providing $500 for each month/partial month served in stop loss status. Service members, veterans, and beneficiaries of servicemembers whose service was involuntarily extended under Stop Loss between Sept. 11, 2001 and Sept. 30, 2009 are eligible for RSLSP.
To receive this benefit, those who served under stop loss must submit a claim for the special pay. Throughout the year, the services have been reaching out to servicemembers, veterans and their families through direct mail, veteran service organizations, and the media. But there is still money left to be claimed, and the deadline is approaching. The average benefit is $3,700.
General Procedure
Individuals who meet eligibility criteria should submit an application by October 21, 2012. By law, there is no authorization to make payments on claims that are submitted after the deadline.
Eligible members should visit their specific service's Web site and submit their application on-line; on-line submission provides a claim number, allows for automated status updates, and provides a means for the military service to contact the applicant.
If eligible members do not have internet access, they should print, complete and sign Department of Defense Form 2944, Claim for Retroactive Stop Loss Payment. Next, choose the appropriate method for submitting the claim form and available supporting documents based on your service specifications. This information can be found on your service's stop loss Web site.
The following documents are examples of authorized source documents but may not be comprehensive, depending on specific status and service.
Tell a Friend
If you know someone who separated/retired and may be eligible, remind them to submit a claim before the deadline!
Note on Eligibility
Effective Dec. 19, 2009, per the Defense Appropriations Act, stop-lossed servicemembers who voluntarily reenlisted or extended their service, and received a bonus for such reenlistment or extension of service, became ineligible to receive retroactive stop loss special pay. There may be rare circumstances where an individual can be eligible for this pay and have received a bonus. The Department continues to encourage all who believe they may qualify to apply and allow a service counselor to review each individual situation.
Source Documents
1. DD 214 (8-09), Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty and/or DD 215 (8-09), Correction to DD 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.
2. Personnel record or enlistment or reenlistment document recording original expiration of service date.
3. Approved retirement/transfer to the Fleet Reserve memorandum or orders establishing retirement prior to actual date of retirement as stipulated in DD 214 or DD 215.
4. Approved resignation memorandum or transition orders establishing a separation date prior to actual date of separation as stipulated on DD 214 or DD 215.
5. Signed documentation or affidavit from knowledgeable officials from the individual’s chain of command acknowledging separation/deployment, etc.
6. Revocation of retirement or separation orders.
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Mar 16, 2005, 11:12 AMNumber of posts: 60,364
