Foreign Praise for U.S. Global Power

Here's something you don't see everyday, a foreign newspaper editorializing in favor of U.S. "global dominance." It comes from The Australian, in the person of Foreign Editor, Greg Sheridan, who draws a number of conclusions from the recent U.S. Quarterly Defense Review.  Sheridan rejects the popular notion of major U.S. decline, and argues that U.S. dominance will continue for the foreseeable future. And he thinks that's a good thing. I agree, but it's unusual to hear that perspective from a non-American, even from closely allied countries.  Here are some key excerpts:

The defence budget and the QDR are critically important because they indicate that Barack Obama is determined to keep the US as the world's No 1 military power, and one that can carry out all the global responsibilities that Americans normally sign up for.

Normally we hear complaints about U.S. "arrogance," and even "imperialism." Sheridan points out that U.S. power is the basis of Asian security for countries such as Australia.

The network of US treaties -- the San Francisco system -- has been the bedrock of Asian security since World War II, and it has allowed for Asia's economic miracle. ... Only the US can provide the framework of security that has kept the Asia Pacific stable, and incidentally provided for Australia's security, over the past several decades. No other power can do it physically, politically or morally, especially not China.

He concludes,

Obama's defence budget and QDR demonstrate that the US has not lost the taste for global military leadership. For which we should all give thanks.

The whole thing is worth reading, as a welcome breath of fresh air in an atmosphere often polluted by anti-Americanism.

Optimism on Afghanistan?

You don't hear all that much optimism about Afghanistan lately. Even commentators prone to optimism are usually careful to point out all the difficulties, and offer only some cautious hope for the future. That's why it was surprising to see a major military figure go way out on a limb and say that he thinks "the tide is turning in Afghanistan." That's the opinion of Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, commander of the Australian Defense Forces, which have been assisting the U.S. in Afghanistan and currently have 1550 troops in country. He made that comment on the record during a government hearing. Let's hope his opinion is justified.

Australia Blocks WMD-related Exports to Iran

The lead story in Australian news sources is that the government has employed "special powers" three times to block some exports to Iran.

at least one prohibition notice related to a planned shipment of pumps that could have been used to cool nuclear power plants.

Unlike some countries that pretend to be unsure about whether Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, the Australian government is apparently convinced.

if you look at the threat to regional and global peace which Iran poses in its current nuclear weapons program there is no alternative other than robust international action including in areas such as this.

It's nice to see that one of our allies is at least willing to take economic measures against its own corporations that want to do business in Iran. 

Justifiable Taser Use

I've written a number of posts about incidents where in my opinion police use of tasers was unjustified and unnecessary. But here's one where the police officer appears to have been justified, and the negative consequences were the fault of the suspect.  In Australia a man ran toward a policeman carrying a lighter and a bottle of gasoline. When he refused to stop, he was tasered. Apparently since he had been sniffing gas and was covered with fumes,  the taser caused him to burst into flames. The cop helped put the flames out despite being attacked by a bystander.

This incident is an example of where a taser is a reasonable option, despite the unfortunate consequences. It's unreasonable to expect a cop to disarm someone with a bottle of gasoline and a lighter, a potentially lethal combination. But at the same time there is no major threat until the person gets close enough. Rather than simply shooting him, a taser gives the cop an intermediate option between lethal force and putting himself at extreme risk. Unfortunately the rules for taser use tend to be very loose in most jurisdictions.

Taser Death in Australia

Last week a mentally disturbed drug-addict died in Australia after policed tasered him 28 times. Police lied at first and said he was only shot three times, but data from the weapon showed the higher number. It is difficult to tell whether taser use was justifiable at all in this instance, at least from the reports I've seen. According to the article linked above, the victim

had gone on a naked rampage just days after being released from a psychiatric hospital. According to police, he was threatening to harm himself and officers so they tried to use capsicum spray on him.

But it's unclear whether he had a weapon or what exactly he was doing. And we know police lied about the number of shots fired, so it's possible they lied about the circumstances as well. This was not a one-on-one situation. The report indicates that there were multiple officers involved. It's difficult to believe that 28 shots from a taser could possibly have been a justifiable response.

This incident illustrates yet again that tasers are a potentially lethal weapon. They should not be used to enforce "compliance" with police orders, fired at children, or employed in situations that don't involve truly serious danger to police. Here's another example from the U.S. of what I consider taser abuse.

deputies attempted to give verbal commands to the suspect, a 26-year-old Volga man, to get him to cooperate. 
To gain compliance from the man, the deputies had to draw their Tasers and deploy

Unfortunately this type of tasering is common and accepted. The person in question was a "street dancer" involved in some kind of fight. Once again there were multiple officers involved, and the man was unarmed. Is it really too much to ask that two or more trained police officers be able to subdue a single unarmed man without blasting him with 50,000 volts?  If you are too lazy or weak to learn and utilize effective hand-to-hand techniques designed to subdue an assailant, especially with a two-to-one or greater advantage, then you have no business being on a police force. A taser should not be a substitute for effective training, or something police can easily resort to in order to avoid any risk to themselves. Police officers are supposed to "protect and serve," not put their own safety above that of the public. If you want to stay safe and take minimal risks, don't become a police officer.

Defense Build-up in Australia

The Australian reports that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd will announce a large military build-up.

Australia's biggest military build-up since World War II, led by a multi-billion-dollar investment in maritime defence, including 100 new F-35 fighters, a doubling of the submarine fleet, and powerful new surface warships.

Details are outlined in a defense white paper that analyzes Australia's strategic outlook for the next couple of decades. China's "steadily growing military might and the prospect of sharper strategic competition among Asia's great powers," are cited as among the reasons for increasing maritime forces.

Australia has long been a valued ally of the United States. A build-up of Australian military strength is good news for America, not even considering the benefit of increased arms sales.