Ishihara Tells NY Like It Is

[Mulboyne]

The Foreign Policy Association invites you to attend a lecture featuring Shintaro Ishihara, the Governor of Tokyo. "The Future of Asia: The View from Tokyo". November 7, 2005 5:30 PM - 7:00 PM
U. S. Trust, New York City

It's fully booked. Anyone going? Ishihara is in NY to get some pointers on organising a city marathon in Tokyo. He's already made one interesting speech:
Kyodo via Japan Today: Ishihara says U.S. can't win war with China, calls U.S forces incompetent

Tokyo Gov Shintaro Ishihara used a speech in the U.S. capital Thursday to convey his views on China, arguing that economic containment is the best strategy because the United States would "certainly" lose a war with China, which he said would not hesitate to sacrifice its people on a massive scale when fighting against an enemy...The governor, an outspoken politician known for his nationalistic views, also said U.S. ground forces, with the exception of the Marines, are "extremely incompetent...Therefore, we need to consider other means to counter China," he said. "The step we should be taking against China, I believe, is economic containment."...Noting some American politicians believe China will move toward democracy and that some people say there will be elections in the near future, Ishihara said, "I believe such predictions are totally wrong."

[blackcat]

Someone PLEASE SHOOT THAT RACIST WAR MONGERING CUNT

[emperor]

As Tokyo Gov Shintaro Ishihara was taunting African-American citizens of New York with watermelons and buckets of fried chicken someone shot the racist warmongering cunt.
November 8, 2005

[electrocat]

i dont know his history.. but that quote is somewhat correct. We would lose a war with china. tell me the last war we won? world war 2. You can maybe count the gulf war, but that was kind of a 80% win. we didn't capture bagdad or unseat saddam. Lets not forget the mother of all losses vietnam. Not sure about korea...hmmmm...

[Greji]

Lets not forget the mother of all losses vietnam.

The political results of vietnam were brought about by an incompetent leadership in DC which bowing to perceived pressure from the media and the anti-war lobby, ordered a military withdrawal and then cut the funds to assist the South. The RVN's were left by promises made in Paris, and when the US congress saw that funding for support was fore ever banned, the North Vietnam army in violation of the Paris accords attacked South. That led to the loss by the South Vietnamese (mother of all losses if you like that phrase) and widespread genicide as the winners rolled in.

But it certainly was not a "mother of a loss" by the US military. The North Vietnamese vets will tell you that to this very day. Check the losses on both sides before you openly classify that as a loss.

Just a humble opinion from someone who was there (on several occasions)!

[electrocat]

there are no real winners in war.


but your explanations you gave, didn't include the total lack of support for the war by the people of the US and also guerilla warfare that even our modern army can't fight.

all those reasons sound like a loss to me. Sorry but we did lose that one. Of course it wasn't a kind of Nazi or japanese surrender like ww2. But we didn't accomplish any goals there. And alot of innocent people (including the draftees) died for those mistakes.

[jingai]

The political results of vietnam were brought about by an incompetent leadership in DC which bowing to perceived pressure from the media and the anti-war lobby, ordered a military withdrawal and then cut the funds to assist the South.

Perceived pressure? I'd say marches of hundreds of thousands of people, plummiting approval ratings for the president, student riots, draft resistance, veterans returning their medals, etc were actual political pressure. If you don't have support from your civilians, how can a democracy fight a war?

The military is very good at dealing with certain types of conflicts. I think it's safe to say that counter-insurgency ("winning hearts and minds," building up social and political institutions, reducing religious/social/economic cleavages that support insurgents...) isn't one of them and this makes the US military less than effective in Vietnam or Iraq. The strategy of killing your adversaries and their supporters doesn't work when the people you're killing are the same ones you need to win over. You can win militarily (or by comparing casualties) and still fail to achieve your political objectives, as we're finding out yet again.

Fortunately, I don't think we have to worry about US versus Chinese forces as there are better political and economic tools to handle any developing conflicts!

[kamome]

The Foreign Policy Association invites you to attend a lecture featuring Shintaro Ishihara, the Governor of Tokyo. "The Future of Asia: The View from Tokyo". November 7, 2005 5:30 PM - 7:00 PM
U. S. Trust, New York City

Anyone going?

Damn, I just saw your post. It's too late for me to attend. I would have tried to wrangle a ticket somehow had I known.

[Mulboyne]

Ishihara is in NY to get some pointers on organising a city marathon in Tokyo

[Greji]

Perceived pressure? I'd say marches of hundreds of thousands of people, plummiting approval ratings for the president, student riots, draft resistance, veterans returning their medals, etc were actual political pressure.

I do not agree here in part. I meant perceived in the manner that the politicians felt it was a threat to their political office from voters! There is no doubt that there were many sincere people demonstrating against the war, but the press made it into a nationwide movement of "everyone" and it was not until the anti-war side played a major role in the selection of Georgeous George McGovern and when he was unilaterally trounced that the democrats found out that the anti-vietnam sentiment nationwide trump card that they played was not as big as they had believed, hence the term "Silent Majority" was born. However, Nixion was now in office, but the course had already been pre-set in concrete, so much so that even Tricky Dick was unable to perfect any of his favorate above (and more famous, below) board tactics to change the direction. He did re-start limited bombing of supply areas and lines and the mining of the harbors to prevent Soviet and Chinese re-supplying of the North, but it was still to little to late for the South and served only to bring the North back to the tables in Paris.

The military is very good at dealing with certain types of conflicts. I think it's safe to say that counter-insurgency ("winning hearts and minds," building up social and political institutions, reducing religious/social/economic cleavages that support insurgents...) isn't one of them and this makes the US military less than effective in Vietnam or Iraq.

I cannot agree with this at all. First, if a military could not deal will "certain types of conflicts", the military and quite possibly, the government it represents would certainly not exist for very long in the real world.

Secondly, I cannot speak for Iraq of course, having not been there, but it would appear from the reports of the amount of the population voting in the elections and their determination in the face of the terrorism mounted against them, that something is being done right.

However, having actively served in Vietnam, I feel I can comment on that action with some expertise. Following the much malaligned Tet offensive of 68, the complexion of the war turned very much in the favor of the RVN. The Viet Cong had maintained their position of power in a lot of the provinces from their ruthless surpression of anyone who might turn against them and/or report their operations. It just as easy for Joe Vietnamese in the rural provinces to provide taxes and/or rice allowances to the VC and at the same time accept help and goodies from the US and RVN and let everything continue Status Quo. As a general rule, being a rurual agraian society, they really didn't care about poitics and who was in charge. General Giap may have misread the military result of Tet, but he did not miss on it becoming the international Media feeding festival that it did. The losers were the Viet Cong. There are other theories that he didn't care about the military result. Be that as it may, the sum result of the continued Tet offensive, the subseqent Easter and Autumn offensives of the same year was the elimination of the VC as combat units. They were totally devastated and were never again to become an effective fighting force in the war. Giap was then forced to begin the wholesale infilitration of the South with NV regular army units. This did not sit well with provincial Vietnamese as the NV were considered as FG's as much and even more than the US military in a lot of cases and more and more of previously uncommitted South Vietnamese rallied to, or began directly supporting the RVN government and their troops. Late 1968 to 1970 saw the RVN government and military coming into a position where they had a reasonable control over the countryside.

This, unfortunately for the South, went by the wayside with method and timetable for withdrawal that was placed on the US military by congress. The politician's rush to "get the troops home" to "show good faith" to the Paris Peace Talks and probably more important for them, to make political points at home, left the RVN's with a war that had been prosecuted and funded from the US side. Instead of an orderly withdrawal with continued support, allowing the RVN to fully take over all aspects the war, the RVN were left literally overnight with the US war plan and no funds. When the US Congress cut off all support and funding, their fate was sealed. Giap who had been infiltrating the South with major NV army units from the Ho Chi Min trail through Laos and Cambodia and directly through the DMZ, to also "show his good faith" to the Paris Accords, was thereby able to change the name of Saigon to Ho Chi Min city fairly easily. The war was won by North Vietnam against the politicians of Washington not the military. It was lost by the US allies of over ten years who were either imprisoned or executed. That you can call your mother of defeats. Having said that, I have to say that Giap's stratigies were for the most part, genious. Even if he was allowing the total destruction of the VC in 1968, he gained the effect of having a total massacre of the troops turned into a victory in the western media. He had the foresight to resume the talks and make the proper concessions in Paris after Nixon took office, but he was boostered by knowing that he did not have to (and didn't) abide by them and the US would be forced to abide by media pressure. The US congress became his unwitting assistants and he immediately thereafter became the proud owner and proprietor of Saigon! He out politicked the US politicians, which in itself, a major accomplishment!

Fortunately, I don't think we have to worry about US versus Chinese forces as there are better political and economic tools to handle any developing conflicts!

You are spot on here. The Chinese leadership is aware at this point in time that their military other than having the advantage in sheer numbers are not technically advanced enough to wage war against the west. This is not to say they will not advance to that position in the future, but as you point out, the politics and economics of the future should invariable change the picture of future confrontations. This should be apparent to every one but Blinky Ishihara!

Again, just MHO

[Taro Toporific]

The Foreign Policy Association invites you to attend a lecture featuring Shintaro Ishihara, the Governor of Tokyo. "The Future of Asia: The View from Tokyo". November 7, 2005 5:30 PM - 7:00 PM
U. S. Trust, New York City

Anyone going?

Damn, I just saw your post. It's too late for me to attend.

The Japan Times: Nov. 28, 2005
....Ishihara's speech at the Foreign Policy Association on Nov. 7 was an embarrassment. He started out by saying he must be "the first and last Japanese writer" whose book sold half a million copies in the United States. The book, of course, is "The Japan That Can Say No." Yet Ishihara did not connect his boast to what was to be the main part of his talk: In the face of the growing Chinese threat, Japan needs to strengthen its military alliance with the United States, and that calls for a greater U.S. military presence in the western Pacific. His book with Morita was subtitled "Why Japan Will Be First Among Equals."
I remembered what Joseph Nye had said at another FPA session a few years earlier. Discussing the undesirability of the U.S. going it alone, the Harvard professor asked: Who will remember today that just a decade ago there was talk of Japan taking over the world? The audience tittered.
Ishihara was discursive, anecdotal and, despite his boast in the handout that he is "a rare strategic thinker" among Japanese politicians, unstrategic. Japan need not rely on the Chinese market, he argued. It can always develop natural resources in Siberia and turn to India as an alternative market. Well, who said Siberia is part of Japan? Is India as an optional market a given?
Ishihara was unthinking. China is the only country in the world that hasn't experienced civil society in the past thousand years, he said. It doesn't mind killing millions of people, including its own, and will think nothing of annihilating the U.S. base in Okinawa with a nuclear bomb. The first assertion is flat wrong, and the second out of place, though wiping out an entire enemy military base is not a Chinese monopoly but every strategist's dream.
Ishihara was thoughtless. He ominously predicted the Americans would be shaken if a U.S. aircraft carrier with a 5,400-man crew were surrounded by Chinese submarines and sunk. He then nonchalantly admitted he didn't know how many American soldiers were killed in Iraq, whether the number was 1,000 or 2,000.
A young Japanese friend who went to the talk with me observed afterward that Ishihara is known for being "weak on final details" (tsume ga amai) or lacking intellectual rigor. Little wonder that Mishima is said to have despised him though he engaged in several more taidan with him.
The only relief that day was the audience. It mostly consisted of my compatriots, a large portion of it the Japanese mass media.
----
Hiroaki Sato is a translator and essayist who lives in New York.

[Mulboyne]

Message to the citizens of Tokyo
In February 2007, Tokyo will host the Tokyo Marathon. Like major marathons held in New York or London, the Tokyo Marathon will provide an opportunity for the sporting public to run alongside professional runners. In preparation, I traveled to New York at the beginning of November to observe the ING New York City Marathon. I was able to witness the race first-hand and learnt a great deal. The race organizers generously allowed me to ride in the lead car and follow the entire course with the front runners.
...The Tokyo Marathon will start at the Tokyo Metropolitan Government Building, and then proceed to the Imperial Palace, Ginza, Asakusa and the Tokyo Waterfront Odaiba area. By including many attractive locations in the route, I am confident we can set a scenic course enjoyable for the runners. The starting point in front of the government offices is apparently some 30 or 40 meters above sea level, with the Odaiba area close to sea level. The course will be mainly downhill. Although there will some uneven areas along the way, we can expect some pretty fast finish times.
...During the marathon, I hope that residents along the race course will actively hold events and activities in the spirit of a "marathon festival." I would like to encourage everyone in Tokyo to consider being part of this exciting event.

Olympic Bid
At the regular Assembly session in September, I officially announced that Tokyo would put in a bid to host the 2016 Olympics....Some people say that it seems outdated to have the final torch bearer light the Olympic Flame in the opening ceremony. It has even been suggested that Astroboy, the world famous anime character, could fly into the stadium to light the sacred flame above the back stand. I think this is quite an interesting idea.