Are U.S. Bases in Japan Dangerous?

“Japanese military not as strong as US” ≠ “Japanese military is weak”. Not by a longshot. If you think it does, then you are sadly mistaken.

Or maybe it’s sarcasm. In response to the fact that every time Sahel Rosa is on somebody asks “who’s that chick?”

“This land was empty when we showed up in 1945, all those people living around us just showed up for the money and jobs afterwards. (Actual US government argument).”

Do government reps actually argue that one? With the border to and from Okinawa virtually closed between 45 and 72, and thus no income from tourism, and many exports to Japan blocked for fear of disease, there was no economy but the base economy in Okinawa during that time. Where else were they going to move?

>>”The “host-guest” relationship needs to be explained better to the US side, though. Sure, officially the US says “Japan is the host”, but I have never seen a “guest” carry on the way the US does sometimes.”

Nonsense. The US knows perfectly well what’s going and acting to their advantage. It’s Japan that simply needs to assert itself rather than while. Japan is perfectly capable and has every right to do so.

>> I “invited” someone into my home if they tried to tell me which rooms they were going to use or that a section of my yard was “off limits”, only they could use it but I had to pay for it anyway, they would very quickly find their asses in the street.

Incomplete analogy. The head of the household and others see benefits in keeping the “unruly” guest and willingly debase themselves in order to indulge in said benefits.

>>And that is what this is coming down to.

Except you are nothing like the Japanese government.

Actually, if you are going to rely on a “bare assertion fallacy” in place of real logic, you may want to get your “facts” straight. The Mutual Security Treaty obligates that United States to “act to meet the common danger” in accordance with its own constitution. This is a very different obligation to that of, for example, the NATO treaty, where an “attack on one is an attack on all” and U.S. officials are very clear that there will be no such strong assurance of protection in the treaty with Japan at least until the latter determines to engage in collective self defense. Even then the wording would probably not change, as any stronger guarantee would not give leave Congress powerless, so they probably would not agree.

OK, so the United States is obligated to “act to meet the common danger” in accordance with its own constitution. That’s a fact.

Let’s say that means that the United States is obligated to defend Japan. That would be your interpretation. I would say that the United States isn’t obligated to defend Japan, but would anyway, because not doing so would undermine the validity of its alliances elsewhere, creating a self imposed obligation. So for the purposes of debate we should agree to consider it a fact that the United States is obligated to defend Japan, because even though it is not actually a fact, adopting such a position is the way to move forward. So for the purposes of debate:

That the United States is obligated to defend Japan is a “fact.”

But so what?

You implied that somehow the bare “fact” that they are obligated to defend Japan means that they are NOT there to assert U.S. power throughout the region, as if a) the two purposes are mutually exclusive (an indefensible position), and b) Japan’s defense is the primary reason, from the point of view of the United States, as to why they are there (a defensible position, however one that does not happen to be true).

Dude, you are quoting the guidelines, an administrative agreement, not the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security. It’s not ratified, so as far as Congress is concerned it has no bearing on their support or otherwise for an operation.

I agree that it does add credibility to the notion that the U.S. would defend Japan if the latter were attacked, and as I said, they would do so anyway, but if you are going to be finnickity about facts and original statements, please look at what you first said. You explicitly mentioned the treaty.

Charles Jannuzi’s statement was about the intent of the U.S. in deploying its troops to Japan – that is, it was an INTERPRETATION that the troops purpose in the region – presumably from the point of view of the U.S. – is to project U.S. power. Its quite a common interpretation as well, and one most in the U.S. military would agree with. The defense of Japan happens to coincide with that goal. You stated quite clearly that you disagreed with his interpretation (by saying NO, hence not implying – my bad – but actually flat out stating that Charles interpretation is wrong) and added some EVIDENCE (the treaty) which you think strengthens your INTERPRETATION (that the troops have been placed there to defend Japan).

OK then, let me give you my own evidence. The Marines were moved to Okinawa in 1956, when Okinawa was under U.S. occupation, and the U.S.-Japan security relationship was governed by the 1951 treaty, that had NO explicit offer of security guarantees to Japan. The United States did not have to negotiate with Japan to do this, or offer any other guarantees of security. Yet they still did it. Why do you think they wanted the troops there, hmmm? Don’t you think the reason they wanted the troops there are the same reasons they wanted them there in 1960 under the new treaty, in 1972 under the Okinawa reversion agreement, and under the current guidelines?

So let me ask you straight up. Regardless of whether they are there to protect Japan or not. Do you think that the troops are NOT there to project U.S. power in the region? A yes or no answer will do.

Oh so it’s “treaty-related documents” that outline the obligations now, is it? Well, no guidelines existed until 1978, then some more were written in the 90s. That puts quite a gap between the the ratification of the 1960 treaty, and a larger one between that and the 1951 treaty. How did either treaty manage without them for so long? How can they “come under the treaty” if they didn’t exist until 18 years AFTER the first treaty was signed. And was the U.S. not obligated to defend Japan before that?

Actually, there were other documents. the 1954 MSA, for example.

http://www.learner.org/workshops/primarysources/coldwar/docs/usjapan.html

Nothing in there about coming to the aid of another party in the case of an attack. And yet that is two years before the Marines were stationed on Okinawa.

My point, though, as I have stated above, is not that the Marines would not come to the aid of a Japan under attack. Of course they would. My point is, and this seems to Charles point too, and it seems to be lost on you, is that the defense of Japan is not their primary reason for being there. There primary reason for being there is power projection, or, if you like, forward deterrence. Deterrence requires the assertion of military might in the region, as Charles said. And they do that in the U.S national interest.

Do you honestly not believe that that is why they are there?

P.S. Wikipedia is great for finding leads to more information, and even when it mentions facts and cites its sources, but you lose points when you use it as an authoritative source in itself. Especially when you then say “don’t criticize me for citing Wikipedia.”

The only reason I haven’t quoted the actual treaty is because it is written in legal-eze and you would pretty much have to quote the whole damn thing for it to make any sense.

Taken right from your very own link:

“…the United States and Japan signed the Mutual Security Treaty, which stationed U.S. troops on Japanese soil for the defense of Japan.”

For the Defense of Japan.

Do you honestly believe that ALL of these sources are misinterpretations?

It’s pretty clear at this point that I am right, and you are wrong. You refuse to admit you are wrong of course, so you have been throwing every weak excuse in the book at me to try to weasel your way out of this instead of just admitting it. Just because I linked a few wiki pages out of laziness doesn’t make me wrong, it makes me lazy. I’ve read the treaty, and I’m sure by now you have too. You know damn good and well what it says. Furthermore, you’ve provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever to either prove that it doesn’t say the purpose of the American military being stationed there is for the defense of Japan, or to prove that the American military is there for some other primary purpose.

So let’s look at the scorecard: I’ve provided evidence to support my position. You dispute the quality of my evidence, but completely fail to prove it wrong. You provide what you think is evidence to support your position, and it turns out to support my side and not yours. You completely fail to provide any other evidence to support your position. (And finally you get pissy when I ignore your question about my opinion.) Not looking so good for ol’ Fat Tony now is it?

Wow. You live in a dream world. Foreign forces “sauntering” into undisputed sovereign territory of another nation? Really?

“All of this is just far fetched what-ifs”

Yes. And strategy is a question of probabilities. So you have just answered your own argument.

No, but it is unlikely that IF the U.S. just left, that Okinawa would suddenly be invaded by China.

No, you do not need to provide me with a Venn diagram, you were the one who replied to my comment about the Japanese with “No, the Okinawans…” My original statement was correct because the Okinawans are Japanese. When you begin your statement with “No,” that implies I am incorrect, which I am not. If you wanted to point out that I should be more specific, then you should have simply said so rather than saying I was wrong. For example: “Not all Japanese people, JUST the Okinawans have to put up with the presence of the American military.” THAT statement would have made it clear that you don’t disagree, but you want to be clear that the non-Okinawan Japanese are also benefiting from the burden that the Okinawans carry.

If I may paraphrase the rest of your argument, you are basically saying that the Americans should leave because the Japanese can protect themselves. Perhaps this is true. But that has nothing to do with and in no way negates my point that the Japanese are getting the better deal out of the current arrangement.

“So what then is your point? That “America” has more right to complain about the situation?”

Yep, despite your rather circuitous route to get there, you finally get it.

OK, so complain away if you are American. As I said, write a letter to your congressman telling him how much you want to move the bases out of Okinawa because you think “the Japanese” just whine too much.

Oh. He won’t listen to you? Why? Because he knows that the bases were negotiated on the basis of mutual interest and that there are downsides for Tokyo too? You don’t say.

By the way, if you are American, I bet the most famous 12 year old Okinawan in 1995 thanks you for paying your taxes so that those Marines and that sailor could “protect” her.

So “Americans” have more right to complain about the arrangement they have chosen to pursue because it is in their conception of their own best interests? But they are so comfortable with the current situation that they don’t want to make any adjustments??

How does that work?

Meanwhile, “Japanese” went along because they believed it was for the greater good to sell out the people of Okinawa. Now that Tokyo is considering that it might have been a callous act to foist most of the burden for the protection of the nation on to a small minority, it has no, or less right to “complain” (that is, reformulate the conception of its own interest?)

I’m afraid emotions define our interests all the time. The tendency to see threat everywhere – and thus to believe that all nations are trying to saunter into one another’s territory, as one person on this thread put it – is based on an “emotion” cultivated by a number of extraneous factors. The rape of the 12 year old school girl, on the other hand, is the event that kicked off the whole debate about realignment, so my statement above is quite relevant, as it defines the interests of a significant number of people involved in this debate. If you choose to ignore it by dismissing it as emotional, that doesn’t make you a realist. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Actually, true realists, like Barry Posen at MIT, for example, argue that the bases should be withdrawn, and the United States should rely on a multipolar balance of power to keep the peace.

And marines cause more crimes than do normal Okinawans. And crime rates are irrelevant. If they weren’t there there would be no crime by Marines at all.

gaijin, that is the pledge of allegiance. Fat Tony said there is no God in the American *constitution*.

I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your original statement, but for the record, the pledge of allegiance and the constitution are two very different things.

Ah yes. But it was Truman who inserted the ‘under god’ bit in the pledge. A clear breach of the constitution to have such fairy tales indoctrinated into public school children. Your great great great grandfather way back would be appalled. Unless he was one of those ‘goofy’ ones that believed in the Good Book.

Ya, I here he’s fat, too. Fat Tony’s mentioning of the constitution and God not appearing in it appeared irrelevant to me. Birds have wings is also a fact but that doesn’t mean it has any relevance to the dialog. I’m also correct in stating that birds have wings but that his hardly the point of this discussion.

God Bless America is a statement of patriotism. It’s in response the the Okinawan’s that are complaining about America’s presence and the dramatized theatrics of the t.v. news broadcasters that this feed is in response, too. Okkinawans have a right to protest the presence of U.S. soldiers and the naming of bases after American military heroes. I have a right to show my patriotism in response as well. The fact is that the U.S. isn’t going to move soldiers out of Japan or out of Okinawa until it’s in the interest of the U.S. There’s nothing that the Japanese can do about this situation other than protest. They’d better just keep their protest within reason because if they go to far America will crack the whip down on them. The U.S. controls Japan in perpetuity. And that’s the fact and the conclusion at the end of world war 2. Some sixty years has gone by but it’s still the fact. If this fact changes in my lifetime I’d be very surprised. The U.S. was taken from the American indians who likewise had a very long cultural history. It has never been given back to them. Japan is actually lucky that the U.S. allows to have an perceived image of a sovereign nation. The U.S. basically lets Japan do whatever it wants as long as it’s in the interest of the U.S. That’s about as good as it gets or is going to get for Japan. The Japanese are still luckier than the American indians who live in squalid poor wastelands that no one wanted to use or develop. Except for a few wealthy Indian entrepeuners that are rich through on site reservation Casino activity. Those are not just facts but existing realities. Time hasn’t changed the fate of the Indians and it’s not going to change the fate of the Japanese. The American Indians are even easier to feel sorry for because they didn’t do anything to Europe or any culture until they were ruthlessly invaded, slaughtered, raped and conquered by my U.S. ancestors. One of who was an Indian. The Japanese were finally conquered by the U.S. We are still here. That’s a fact. That’s a reality.

The U.S. will undoubtedly be in Iraq and Afghanistan in perpetuity as well. All of this talk of withdrawal was promised hogwash. Our supposedly liberal peaceful president Obama has actually increased the U.S. presence there. Now the republicans are coming back stronger than ever and they are going to increase worldwide U.S. military presence and expense even more. I wish it were different but it’s probably the indefinite the reality of the world we live in. Japan is still under a quasi occupation and I don’t think that the chance of that changing are about as likely as the U.S. being deeding back to the few remaining Indian descendants it was stolen from. I guess it’s just the old idea of “might makes right”. Until Japan has might it will never be able stand up independently and be in the right. What a sad world. I’m happy that I spend most of my days pretending to be ignorant of it’s tragedies and realities.