Hot Topics | |
---|---|
;)"Yeah, I've been always awkward toward women and have spent pathetic life so far but I could graduate from being a cherry boy by using geisha's pussy at last! Yeah!! And off course I have an account in Fuckedgaijin.com. Yeah!!!"
Uber-lefties tend to have lots of spare time to go out and protest, since they live off government handouts
Level3 wrote: Sensible people who realize the base is good for the economy, and that a having a US base and democracy is far better than having a Chinese base and living under the hammer and sickle.
The US didn't give Okinawa back to Japan in the 70s, they sold it back.Level3 wrote:Too bad the US was kind enough to give Okinawa back to Japan in the 70's.
AssKissinger wrote:It's a total fucking welfare program for every degenerate piece of ghetto/white trash that's stupid enough to join.
AssKissinger wrote:They all must be in the military then since the military is the biggest government handout there ever was. It's a total fucking welfare program for every degenerate piece of ghetto/white trash that's stupid enough to join.
Level3 wrote:But it's the same old story everywhere. Uber-lefties tend to have lots of spare time to go out and protest, since they live off government handouts or donations from airhead movie stars, rather than holding down actual jobs. Sensible people who realize the base is good for the economy, and that a having a US base and democracy is far better than having a Chinese base and living under the hammer and sickle.
Greji wrote:I confess AK, I did 20 years +, in the USAF and may be stupid for it, but that don't give you no right to talk about my mama that way. I mean, you know, so what if she turned a couple tricks here and there. The trailer park is tough area to make a couple of bucks...
Coligny wrote:Dude, the Air Force wuz born in 47, I though you retired before the Meiji period ?
-confused-
Number11 wrote:Democracy? Give us a break . . . The US is hardly a democracy anymore. Half the households in America have someone working for the government, contracted to the government, selling something to the government or receiving some benefit from the government.
"PRO-FUTENMA" MOTIVATIONS:
On the US side, many considerations (aside from automatic pilot) went into the lingering hardline stance on Futenma.
ONE: Interservice rivalries. From the beginning, the US Air Force and the US Marines heatedly argued against merging Futenma's operations into the US Air base at Kadena. Skipping the (admittedly existing) complications, I have no doubt that if the President said "get it done," the Marines would be up at Kadena in no time -- and with no where near the reduction in operational capabilities they claim would be entailed.
In the late 1990s, Kurt Campbell argued in favor of the Kadena merger. At the time, General Gregson was his aide.
They lost.
Simply put: A Washington that is now sending young Marines into battle in Afghanistan is not in the mood to tell the Marine Corps leadership to come up with an alternative to Henoko.
That is a legitimate point that Japanese officials and politicians should take into account.
TWO: The role of Congress. As it is, there are cost-overruns on the huge expansion of military capabilities on Guam. It would not be easy -- short of spending a lot of political capital -- to go back to Congress and say more Marines than expected will be going to Guam.
THREE: Doubts about the DPJ. In a public forum in Washington recently, Armitage asked whether the current opposition to the Henoko plan might be a dangerous prelude to criticisms of all US bases on Okinawa. That concern can not be ignored, but the answer, it seems to me, mostly depends on attitudes of the US and Japanese governments: a willingness to give clear, strategic reasons for basing arrangements, and to honestly work to reduce the enormous burden on Okinawa.
FOUR: Doubts about Hatoyama and Ozawa, in particular. Unfortunately, Prime Minister Hatoyama has not exactly been clear about his strategic vision, and has come no where close to erasing doubts that, deep down, he still favors "an alliance without bases," which he advocated back in 1996. It is essential that Hatoyama provide more clarity, if the DPJ expects flexibility from the US side.
As for Ozawa: It is no secret that the Armitage-Green-Campbell troika strongly doubts Ozawa's commitment to the alliance. Whatever the reasons (I think they are very wrong on this, but...) this is a fact, and it has shaped American policy enormously.
Something tells me that if the barrel-chested warrior Armitage and the extraordinarily proud Ozawa were to meet, a lot of these issues could be resolved. People do matter, on both sides.
MARINES AND DETERRENCE:
Working one's way through the smoke and mirrors that have distorted this entire debate, what does the Futenma debate come down to?
ONE: Why are the Marines necessary on Okinawa?
TWO: Where does Japan, newly-liberated from the LDP, plan to take its own security policy, and, in that context, the US-Japan alliance?
ANSWERS:
As for why the Marines are on Okinawa: It all depends on whom you speak with. The most general answer is that they are there for "deterrence." Unfortunately, it is decidedly unclear how the potential absence of 18,000 Marines from Okinawa is going to embolden China or North Korea. The US deterrent in Northeast Asia is based, fundamentally (and virtually irreplaceably) on the US Air Base Kadena, and the US naval base Yokosuka. Behind them, as the build up occurs, is Guam, where three US attack submarines are based, F-22s are based, enormous amounts of weapons are based, and where there will soon be a lot of Marines who can move quickly.
Do 18,000 Marines on Okinawa really defend Japan? Of course not. Ichiro Ozawa has said that, at this point, Japan should be able to defend herself against an invasion.
Do 18,000 Marines really deter North Korea? There is some room for argument here. Some US officials will argue that there are very conceivable scenarios in which the Marines could play a key role. For example, in the event of a chaotic collapse of the North Korean regime, with potentially hundreds-of-thousands of people in need of relief, the Marines might be called on to seize North Korean ports to ease the delivery of humanitarian relief aid. That is a very legitimate concern, and there are others of a similar sort. But a chaotic collapse in the North would not be a split second occurrence. Marines from Guam, or even Hawaii could get there in a matter of days, before which a regime collapse in Pyongyang would have become obvious. This is not to minimize logistics, which is why the US and Japan should agree way ahead of time on pre-positioning of supplies and access to key bases (airfields, possibly even a Futenma that quietly remaines open for contingencies...)
But deter North Korean aggression? There is no credible argument around today that South Korean ground forces would not hold their own in the event of a North Korean invasion. South Korea currently has deployed along the DMZ more active-duty infantry forces than exist in the entire US Army and Marines combined worldwide!!
Think about that. After a beer or two, most planners at PACOM would say that the US Eighth Army is no longer needed in South Korea; its continued presence is bureaucratic legacy rather than a reflection of strategic thought.
A North Korean invasion of the ROK would be quickly beaten back (albeit in the midst of terrible devastation) by ROK ground forces, and US air and sea based artillery capabilities. BTW: The ROK has very capable Special Forces that could seize control of North Korean ports in a crisis. Whatever shortfalls may exist could be rectified by US-ROK training cooperation.
Similarly, the Marines are on Okinawa for legacy and bureaucratic reasons (including budget: Japan pays a lot of the cost for stationing such a heavy US Marine presence in East Asia...). That may sound terribly disrespectful, and it is not intended that way, at all. The Marines have to have a huge presence in the Western Pacific. The entire region needs to know that the US is there to provide the "oxygen" of security (in Joe Nye's words). They need to be in a place from which they can quickly respond to crises, such as earthquakes, terrorist troubles, etc., and also be able to train, and have good conditions for downtime. The question is: WHERE? Does it have to be Okinawa?
The DPJ is asking that question.
But the notion that the Marines are an indispensable part of the US deterrent in East Asia is not credible. Kadena is one of the largest US Air Force bases in the world. Yokosuka is home to the only US aircraft carrier task force the US bases abroad... The only one...
Any conceivable Chinese shenanigans requiring a US show of force would be met from Kadena or Yokosuka, not from the Marines now on Okinawa.
The DPJ knows that, and the more the US insists on making that argument, the less likely there will be an agreement any time soon.
THE WAY OUT: How are the US and Japan going to get out of this?
1) The DPJ has to strongly, unequivocally endorse -- and politically defend -- the continued, long-term US presence at Kadena and Yokosuka. That would open up many avenues for discussions. Once American officials are reassured on these points, other issues would be easier to take up.
2) Co-Basing: Sheila Smith has consistently been one of the big advocates of this notion, pointing out that it has been mentioned by the two sides but rarely acted upon. Japan's SDF has many facilities that conceivably could be home to the Marine helicopter operations now run from Futenma, and even the airplane requirements also now at Futenma.
3) Marine role: In Japan, the Marines should emphasize their multi-purpose role, pointing out how critical they are to humanitarian relief and counter-terrorism operations. This would sell well in Japan, especially if it were combined with co-basing (mentioned above), in which JSDF forces were also geared toward Peacekeeping and humanitarian relief. The Marines are understandably reluctant to be tagged as some kind of permanent "emergency services unit". They are warriors, and they should stay that way. But in today's world of counter-insurgency, a force that is able to multi-task is critical. In Japan, the notion of the Marines as an "ESU" would be great PR...because it has the virtue of often being true.
In the end, the alliance will survive.
My argument is that this is a great opportunity that should be seized. Japan – a left-center Japan -- is willing to have a larger security role in the world, but not one that rubber stamps bad American decisions. The US should actively pursue this chance, and not be locked into the details of replacing Futenma.
Number11 wrote:Deleted. I don't really care any more.
Mike Oxlong wrote:Was talking to a couple of people who attended the rally. One gave a figure I hadn't heard before...there have been about 330,000 crimes involving US military personnel on "The Rock" since the war ended in 1945. If that's correct, that works out to over 5,000 a year...
Midwinter wrote:That may or may not be true, but what I'm absolutely sure about is that the anal retentive fucks who record those figures also record trivial shit like riding a bicycle without a light as a crime. So that being said, I think we can discount 2/3s of that figure straight away as honestly, who the fuck cares.
Mike Oxlong wrote:You know, I rarely hear about that sort of thing being a problem other than in Tokyo. I'm sure the police are occasionally dicks elsewhere, but it seems the Tokyo Met Pol are somehow special...
Midwinter wrote:Okinawan police sick of the American menace might conceivably put their Tokyo counterparts to shame when it comes to being douche-bags. Just saying bud, I find it hard to believe the figure your friends suggested represents serious gaijin related crime without any form of padding what so ever. 9/10 people know you can make numbers say anything
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests