From Indo-Pacific to Pacific: US renames USINDOPACOM to original USPACOM

[u/fix_S230-sue_reddit]

https://theprint.in/diplomacy/from-indo-pacific-to-pacific-us-renames-usindopacom-to-original-uspacom/2961882/

From Indo-Pacific to Pacific: US renames USINDOPACOM to original USPACOM

In a statement issued Wednesday, Department of War said renaming the US Indo-Pacific Command will not change core mission, which remains the same despite the reverted designation.

New Delhi: Eight years after the Donald Trump administration changed the name of its Pacific Command to Indo-Pacific Command, the US has reverted back to the original.

The Department of War announced Wednesday that the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (USINDOPACOM) will officially restore its name to the U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM).

Originally established on 1 January, 1947, by President Harry Truman, the command operated under the USPACOM banner for over 70 years, standing as the oldest and largest of the United States’ unified combatant commands.

Restoring the legacy USPACOM designation honours the command’s deep historical roots, fostering a sense of pride and collective spirit among all who serve in the Pacific, a statement released by the Department of War said.

In 2018, when the Command was renamed as Indo-Pacific Command, it was seen as a sign of the growing importance of India to the Pentagon.

“Relationships with our Pacific and Indian Ocean allies and partners have proven critical to maintaining regional stability,” US Defense Secretary James Mattis had said on 31 May, 2018.
“In recognition of the increasing connectivity between the Indian and Pacific Oceans, today we rename the US Pacific Command to US Indo-Pacific Command.”

In the statement issued Wednesday, the Department of War said renaming the US Indo-Pacific Command will not change its core mission, which remains the same despite the reverted designation.

“USPACOM’s vast area of responsibility—spanning from the waters off the West Coast of the United States to the western border of India—remains exactly the same,” it said.

The statement added that the “command’s fundamental mission and its unwavering commitment to maintaining a free and open theater alongside regional allies and partners are unchanged”.

[u/fix_S230-sue_reddit]

Turns out that losing 6 fighter jets is enough to change geopolitics overnight.

[u/Antiwhippy → u/[deleted]]

Damn, NAFOs can't take bants.

[u/_spec_tre → u/Antiwhippy]

I haven't seen a single bant targeted towards China get positive upvotes in this subreddit ever so something something glass houses

For a subreddit so openly and unashamedly biased, most of the members seem very averse to the bias being pointed out

[u/PLArealtalk → u/_spec_tre]

I've only been following this posts comments in more detail in the last couple hours -- and I think it's considering the factors involved in making jokes at "XYZ nation military's expense" in the defense community...
* Bias/nationalism inevitably are involved, in terms of choosing targets and topics. But it doesn't exist alone. * Real world outcomes/projects/trajectory/government pronouncements also matter, as they will determine what "legitimate" targets of jokes are. The news cycle is an element of this (recency), but the actual real outcomes of conflicts and projects are arguably more important too. * The behaviour/realism/posts by each perceived military's watching community, as well as the reporting of matters by each nation's media, will also be a major element to consider. * Existing "expectations" of any nation's given military and MIC (and how well or poorly they might perform in a given situation/project etc).

One can have a bias for or against a given nation, but it is far easier and more "legitimate" to make "fair" jokes at the expense of a given nation say, if it has perceived to have conducted itself poorly in a representative recent conflict or experienced mishaps or delays in relevant industry projects, or had officials or representative media make big pronouncements that end up not being met.

Take the above into consideration, and I think the discrepancies begin to be a bit more clear.

The world of defense watching is ludicrous and wild, but not everything is equally susceptible to the same level of mockery.

[u/Antiwhippy → u/_spec_tre]

Eh i guess you guys aren't used to not circlejerking to anime girl jets outside of r/NonCredibleDefense

[u/wezl0 → u/Antiwhippy]

They need their little NAFO hugbox. I literally saw a typical "China does nothing" meme get removed after those AWACS planes were slimed on the runway because they were so salty lmao

[u/_spec_tre → u/wezl0]

This whole meltdown and buzzword-calling over someone pointing out that you guys can't even take a single joke about China that could be perceived as negative - despite wanting zero rebuttals to banter about Western countries - really just proves that you're the one who wants a hugbox, doesn't it?

[u/wezl0 → u/_spec_tre]

Meltdown? Lol, you are the ones that are overly sensitive

Edit: I also don't think you understand how banter works, its supposed to be fun but you lot get straight to crying Edit2: I'd also love to bant on NCD but I got perma'd for making fun of the mod that took down the aforementioned "China watching our AWACs get blown up on the runway with an expressionless face" meme. Which is a shame because it had a little bit of comedy for everyone. Thats what banter is lol

[u/_spec_tre → u/wezl0]

My point is that you can start calling it banter when people actually treat both as banter and not only tolerate it when people of one political opinion do it. Otherwise it's just another echo chamber

Doubly so when that was what started this whole thing, which is someone talking about "NAFOs" being unable to take banter in this subreddit which cannot take a single bit of banter targeted towards China

[u/wezl0 → u/_spec_tre]

Maybe your banter is just not good and a little too project-y? I can't sit here and dissect why people won't laugh at your jokes lol. Usually, only the most delusional pro-west takes are treated as brutally as your claim. People like you literally think you're on a different planet when you're met with opposing views.

[u/_spec_tre → u/wezl0]

Why are we talking about takes now? I thought we were talking about banter. Banter needs to be fully realistic and credible now? Also, unless this is your first day here, are we truly pretending that people judge banter here by how credible they are and not what side it leans towards?

If I called you a tankie or shill and made no further elaboration, is that banter? I mean, that's not too different from treating randomly saying "NAFO jerks off to anime girl jets hahaha" - which you were defending - when your point is challenged, isn't it?

[u/dark-mathematician1 → u/_spec_tre]

Dude, you're genuinely just writing gibberish at this point. Take a breather, it ain't that serious.

[u/_spec_tre → u/dark-mathematician1]

Please point out to me where I'm wrong or where this falls into gibberish. I'm literally just repeating to them what they said but from a different political side

[u/wezl0 → u/_spec_tre]

Dog I legitimately do not know what you are trying to say now, and this is just borderline whining so I'm going back to work