U.S. Forces in Japan: time to say good-bye?

[Capster78]

Japan's self defense force is highly trained and very capable if Japan increases its military spending to 1or maybe 2% of its GNP.

It would cost quite a bit more than that, you have to consider the bases that would need to be built, the training facilities, personell to train the extra forces, equipment ect ect. Im sure the Japanese have calculated the cost of building up their own forces and have determined in its best interest that paying for a smaller force of american troops with promises of bringing a much larger force if japan is attacked is much cheaper. The other issue the japanese have to consider is its neighbors. While it is true that relations have gotten much better between Korea, Japan and China, they can quicky deteriorate in the event one or more of them see the action of increasing military forces by japan as a threat. It has not been long since China and North Korea have been caught crossing into Japanese water with subs.

Much of the current military structure in the US military is outdated based on a French organization. Efficient armies should be modeled on a German organization focusing on brigades as the primary warfighter. However many former American Generals and Colonels have commited career suicide for criticizing the current structure.

This is a baseless statement. No names, references or links to back up the claim. Our structure has been tested in war to work. The french system has been tested and suceeded how much?? I think i remember the US rescuing the french from the germans, not the other way around?

The thinking is that hey we won world war II we beat the Germans and the Japanese and later the Soviets. Why change? Well first off it was the Soviets that beaten the Germans not the US.

What history book did you pull this from? Russia was begging the US and England to start a 2nd front. It was not untill US and English troops intervined that the Axis powers were able to start pushing germany back to its boarders.

The Chinese bogged down the Japanese in warfares of attrition and maneuver (particularly by the Communist 8th Route Army).

Funny, I remember somthing about Nuke that caused Japan to surrender. We never even enterd japan, just pushed 2 red buttons and japan surrenderd.

Well first off the Iraq war if not resolved quickly will become another Vietnam. Trust me I been to Iraq. Thus the US will need for its allies to be able to defend itself. Germany, Japan, and South Korea are no longer important strategic centers but the middle east and south east asia is where the terrorist are operating.

You are obviously not a military strategist. Having foreward operating locations in Germany, Japan and South Korea are detrimental to success in the middle east. Even the most sophisticated and well trained military is nothing without strong supply lines in reach of the battle zone.

So what I can see is that US forces will pull out of South Korea (South Korea has 340,000 troops while american forces only 37,000 about 10% of the total military defense) and they are already showing signs of an eventual pull out of the penninsula. The same will eventually do for Japan. But like South Korea, Japan must tell the US upfront that Japan will defend itself.

Again, showing your ignorance in military strategy. It is true, only 37,000 US forces reside in South Korea. You dont realize that thouse 37,000 troops main purpose is to serve for a mass buildup of follow on forces in the event of an invasion by the North. 37,000 troops can set up provisions for hundreds of thousands of more troops. For that reason, North Korea has not even thought twice to invade South Korea. Without our presence there South Korea would not have been able to focus on becoming the economic giant it is today. It would be in a constant arms race with North Korea which would have soaked up all their developmental money. Knowing that an attack on South Korea would be an Attack on the US and its allies is quite a deterent don't you think? Even Kim Jong Ill is not crazy enough to poke the sleeping bear of South Korea and all its allies protecting it. He knows it would be the end of his regime. The only thing that keeps the south and the US on its side of the Korean boarder is North Korea's weapons, even as crude and outaded as they are, would cause MASS civilian casualties even in the short time North Korea could put up a fight.

[quoteAnyways now the question is can Japan defend itself? I would answer yes![/quote]

Against china? I don't think so. The main reason for us being in Japan is to prevent an Arms race in this part of the world. Any move by Japan to build up it's military could be the spark that ignites another arms buildup in the asian countries. Which is why the US, acting as a nutral party, provides security of japan to ease its neighbors.

So all in all I believe it to be the best interest that the US reallocates their troops in Europe and East Asia to regions where they will be needed most (Iraq and Afghanistan) and let Kosovo be handled by the European Union and North Korea to Japan and South Korea and CHINA.

Again, you have little understanding of military tactics. Is it easier to land an attacking force from thousands of miles away right into a combat zone, or from a secondary location where they can re-organize first before makeing an attack. Is it easier to fly in supplies from the US strait to Iraq, or is it easier to have distribution and storage hubs so that supplies can make the trip faster if needed.

I would not trust China to handle anything on behalf of the UN. Just look at their human rights violations. Look how they treat North Korean refugees. They send them to their death's back to the north.

 

[Capster78]

Japan's self defense force is highly trained and very capable if Japan increases its military spending to 1or maybe 2% of its GNP.

It would cost quite a bit more than that, you have to consider the bases that would need to be built, the training facilities, personell to train the extra forces, equipment ect ect. Im sure the Japanese have calculated the cost of building up their own forces and have determined in its best interest that paying for a smaller force of american troops with promises of bringing a much larger force if japan is attacked is much cheaper. The other issue the japanese have to consider is its neighbors. While it is true that relations have gotten much better between Korea, Japan and China, they can quicky deteriorate in the event one or more of them see the action of increasing military forces by japan as a threat. It has not been long since China and North Korea have been caught crossing into Japanese water with subs.

Much of the current military structure in the US military is outdated based on a French organization. Efficient armies should be modeled on a German organization focusing on brigades as the primary warfighter. However many former American Generals and Colonels have commited career suicide for criticizing the current structure.

This is a baseless statement. No names, references or links to back up the claim. Our structure has been tested in war to work. The french system has been tested and suceeded how much?? I think i remember the US rescuing the french from the germans, not the other way around?

The thinking is that hey we won world war II we beat the Germans and the Japanese and later the Soviets. Why change? Well first off it was the Soviets that beaten the Germans not the US.

What history book did you pull this from? Russia was begging the US and England to start a 2nd front. It was not untill US and English troops intervined that the Axis powers were able to start pushing germany back to its boarders.

The Chinese bogged down the Japanese in warfares of attrition and maneuver (particularly by the Communist 8th Route Army).

Funny, I remember somthing about Nuke that caused Japan to surrender. We never even enterd japan, just pushed 2 red buttons and japan surrenderd.

Well first off the Iraq war if not resolved quickly will become another Vietnam. Trust me I been to Iraq. Thus the US will need for its allies to be able to defend itself. Germany, Japan, and South Korea are no longer important strategic centers but the middle east and south east asia is where the terrorist are operating.

You are obviously not a military strategist. Having foreward operating locations in Germany, Japan and South Korea are detrimental to success in the middle east. Even the most sophisticated and well trained military is nothing without strong supply lines in reach of the battle zone.

So what I can see is that US forces will pull out of South Korea (South Korea has 340,000 troops while american forces only 37,000 about 10% of the total military defense) and they are already showing signs of an eventual pull out of the penninsula. The same will eventually do for Japan. But like South Korea, Japan must tell the US upfront that Japan will defend itself.

Again, showing your ignorance in military strategy. It is true, only 37,000 US forces reside in South Korea. You dont realize that thouse 37,000 troops main purpose is to serve for a mass buildup of follow on forces in the event of an invasion by the North. 37,000 troops can set up provisions for hundreds of thousands of more troops. For that reason, North Korea has not even thought twice to invade South Korea. Without our presence there South Korea would not have been able to focus on becoming the economic giant it is today. It would be in a constant arms race with North Korea which would have soaked up all their developmental money. Knowing that an attack on South Korea would be an Attack on the US and its allies is quite a deterent don't you think? Even Kim Jong Ill is not crazy enough to poke the sleeping bear of South Korea and all its allies protecting it. He knows it would be the end of his regime. The only thing that keeps the south and the US on its side of the Korean boarder is North Korea's weapons, even as crude and outaded as they are, would cause MASS civilian casualties even in the short time North Korea could put up a fight.

[quoteAnyways now the question is can Japan defend itself? I would answer yes![/quote]

Against china? I don't think so. The main reason for us being in Japan is to prevent an Arms race in this part of the world. Any move by Japan to build up it's military could be the spark that ignites another arms buildup in the asian countries. Which is why the US, acting as a nutral party, provides security of japan to ease its neighbors.

So all in all I believe it to be the best interest that the US reallocates their troops in Europe and East Asia to regions where they will be needed most (Iraq and Afghanistan) and let Kosovo be handled by the European Union and North Korea to Japan and South Korea and CHINA.

Again, you have little understanding of military tactics. Is it easier to land an attacking force from thousands of miles away right into a combat zone, or from a secondary location where they can re-organize first before makeing an attack. Is it easier to fly in supplies from the US strait to Iraq, or is it easier to have distribution and storage hubs so that supplies can make the trip faster if needed.

I would not trust China to handle anything on behalf of the UN. Just look at their human rights violations. Look how they treat North Korean refugees. They send them to their death's back to the north.

 

[alantin]

We are missing the "necessary evil" option..

 

[Capster78]

We are missing the "necessary evil" option..

Necesary evil huh?? That sounds like a good way to feel less guilty about knowing you need our protection.

 

[alantin]

The US protecting doesn't sound very plausible, does it.. Exploiting sounds much more like what it stands for!

Because of the way US forced itself on Japan it's presence might have gained the position of a necessary evil but since when has invading a country, making sure it can't defend itself, and maintaining a military presence there, been protecting?
In some kind of anarchy perhaps..

Of course it is understandable if what they tell to their own people is something very different. That's how propaganda has always been!

In the end perhaps the best one of the given choices would be "Yes, They did a lot of very bad things"--

 

[Capster78]

The US protecting doesn't sound very plausible, does it.. Exploiting sounds much more like what it stands for!

Because of the way US forced itself on Japan it's presence might have gained the position of a necessary evil but since when has invading a country, making sure it can't defend itself, and maintaining a military presence there, been protecting?
In some kind of anarchy perhaps..

Of course it is understandable if what they tell to their own people is something very different. That's how propaganda has always been!

In the end perhaps the best one of the given choices would be "Yes, They did a lot of very bad things"--

All you have to do is look at the history of the region and the underlying fears of a mass military buildup would cause in this part of the world. Japan, China and Korea have clashed for centuries. There is still alot of animosity between the three countries despite the decades of relative peace. The US acts more as a appeaser in this region. Everyone is happy. We have an agreement with japan to have limited military capability in exchange for our promise protection. This appeases Korea, China, the Philippines and several other surrounding countries that somthing like WWII would never happen again. On the other hand it appeases Japan because it is not forced by large sanctions and limited protection like germany after WW1. If the US leaves it could throw that out of ballance. With everything happening in the middle east right now, the world can not afford another large troubbled region of the world.

 

[alantin]

Thus "necessary evil"!

That sounds like a good way to feel less guilty about knowing you need our protection.

I'm really happy that my country isn't invaded by the arrogant world police or doesn't "need USA's protection" as you put it..

Cheers! ^^

 

[Capster78]

Thus "necessary evil"!



I'm really happy that my country isn't invaded by the arrogant world police or doesn't "need USA's protection" as you put it..

Cheers! ^^

Keep repeating that propaganda which you have been brainwashed with. Ill be right back, I have to clean my guns and torture the small iraqi children hiden in my closet. -signed- American

 

[alantin]

LoL

You just keep believing your propaganda if it's easier!
I do understand that one would want to think of one's own country as "the good guys" and representing the "just cause" but is it really that hard to imagine that someone wouldn't warmheartedly welcome foreign invaders or is the detail that they are american supposed to make the people happy about it?

One just has to wonder, what "patriotism" means to an american..

I wonder if you would be fine with a foreign power, Russia?, occupying your country in order to "protect" it..
If you think, it wouldn't be right in your own country why would it be right in someone else's country?

I am proud that my grandfathers fought for the independence of this country and as a national of a country that formerly was under foreign rule I see foreign military presence in a country as a disgrace for everybody involved!

No one should have to carry the shame of a foreign occupation or rule, but Japan screwed up good in the WWII and now they are still paying the price. Yet, I sure can sympathise.


-Signed-
Foreign rule never again!

 

[EdZiomek]

Sure, why not.

I say, yes, Japan is self sufficient, warm and wonderful to the world, why should we need military bases there?

Besides, VietNam might allow us to use facilities in their region, or the PI once again.

Just like our forefathers told us... beware of a large, standing military... it almost suggests going to more and more wars, which will never be eliminated anyways.

Of course, Washington will state that the rise of China as a major force makes it a necessity to stay.

I say, When can we leave and return as tourists 100%?

 

[Soloer]

There is no right or wrong. The P world which start for Power is the LAW! After WW2. USA has been to almost every war. And how many of them is invading others? ALL! So it is just reality. I mean its wrong to do so, but ppl still do it. and ppl r selfish. ALL of US to some extend.

I dont think americans are right. somebody need to step up to the challenge and bring american domination down. U know who. HINT: "which country's economy is growing and which is weakening?"

 

[Soloer]

There is no right or wrong. The P world which start for Power is the LAW! After WW2. USA has been to almost every war. And how many of them is invading others? ALL! So it is just reality. I mean its wrong to do so, but ppl still do it. and ppl r selfish. ALL of US to some extend.

I dont think americans are right. somebody need to step up to the challenge and bring american domination down. U know who. HINT: "which country's economy is growing and which is weakening?"

 

[Soloer]

I'd like than to happen. Cause they don't invade others. Not oversea at the very least. No colonies in its history that we know. Boarder issues are normal happens everywhere. And its getting better now.

 

[Soloer]

I'd like than to happen. Cause they don't invade others. Not oversea at the very least. No colonies in its history that we know. Boarder issues are normal happens everywhere. And its getting better now.

 

[Capster78]

I'd like than to happen. Cause they don't invade others. Not oversea at the very least. No colonies in its history that we know. Boarder issues are normal happens everywhere. And its getting better now.

why is it getting better? HMMMMM notice that almost all major border clashes have had US involvement in trying to maintain peace?

 

[Capster78]

I'd like than to happen. Cause they don't invade others. Not oversea at the very least. No colonies in its history that we know. Boarder issues are normal happens everywhere. And its getting better now.

why is it getting better? HMMMMM notice that almost all major border clashes have had US involvement in trying to maintain peace?

 

[Capster78]

LoL

You just keep believing your propaganda if it's easier!
I do understand that one would want to think of one's own country as "the good guys" and representing the "just cause" but is it really that hard to imagine that someone wouldn't warmheartedly welcome foreign invaders or is the detail that they are american supposed to make the people happy about it?

One just has to wonder, what "patriotism" means to an american..

I wonder if you would be fine with a foreign power, Russia?, occupying your country in order to "protect" it..
If you think, it wouldn't be right in your own country why would it be right in someone else's country?

I am proud that my grandfathers fought for the independence of this country and as a national of a country that formerly was under foreign rule I see foreign military presence in a country as a disgrace for everybody involved!

No one should have to carry the shame of a foreign occupation or rule, but Japan screwed up good in the WWII and now they are still paying the price. Yet, I sure can sympathise.


-Signed-
Foreign rule never again!

Obviously ignorant of WWII and why we are in japan. Obviously ignorant of the Korean war and why we are in Korea. I understand completly where you are coming from in regaurd to having a forign military in your country. It does take away a bit of pride. I don't know many people who's pride would not be hurt by having to have a protector. No one likes that opinion of them and on an international stage it is even more shamefull in the eyes of a nationalistic country such as japan and korea to have a forign military and not their own protecting them.

And what is this about invading???? The US has not invaded anyone in my opinion. We landed in South Korea to keep North Korea and china from spreading communism. We landed in Japan to keep japan from building another army capeable of invading its neighbors again. Later on, this turned into a mission to protect Japan from any backlash affects down the road from anyone trying to get revenge. North Korea invaded to Conquer, Japan invaded to Conquer, Germany invaded to Conquer.. America invades to liberate. I think there is a HUGE difference there. There is no nationalistic pride americans hold to expand america.

 

[grapefruit]

And what is this about invading???? The US has not invaded anyone in my opinion. We landed in South Korea to keep North Korea and china from spreading communism. We landed in Japan to keep japan from building another army capeable of invading its neighbors again. Later on, this turned into a mission to protect Japan from any backlash affects down the road from anyone trying to get revenge. North Korea invaded to Conquer, Japan invaded to Conquer, Germany invaded to Conquer.. America invades to liberate. I think there is a HUGE difference there. There is no nationalistic pride americans hold to expand america.

As a person who does not believe the Soviet style communism was/is an effective model for creating an ideal society, I'm glad that the US fought in Korea and Vietnam. However, whether one considers war in a foreign territory as liberating or conquering depends on if one perceives the war brings in more positive results or negative ones. This is, to some extent, confirmed when we observe the war in Iraq and the difference in how the US and some in the Arab world recognize it.

I also feel "liberating others", sort of, forms a part of nationalistic American pride. The US is not motivated by territory, but the country is certainly motivated by other things. Also, when you take a close look at how European countries colonized others, it appears that their interests shifted toward the end of the colonial era from territorial ones to others like access to markets and natural resources. So, it is not just territorial motivations that often attract criticisms of colonization.

I concur with the fact that Japan and Germany had territorial motivations, but it appears strange to frame Korean War as "North Korea invaded to Conquer." After all, the Korean Peninsula belongs to Koreans. They have every right to govern themselves.

Obviously ignorant of WWII and why we are in japan. Obviously ignorant of the Korean war and why we are in Korea. I understand completly where you are coming from in regaurd to having a forign military in your country. It does take away a bit of pride. I don't know many people who's pride would not be hurt by having to have a protector. No one likes that opinion of them and on an international stage it is even more shamefull in the eyes of a nationalistic country such as japan and korea to have a forign military and not their own protecting them.

This is true, though. I agree.

 

[Capster78]

As a person who does not believe the Soviet style communism was/is an effective model for creating an ideal society, I'm glad that the US fought in Korea and Vietnam. However, whether one considers war in a foreign territory as liberating or conquering depends on if one perceives the war brings in more positive results or negative ones. This is, to some extent, confirmed when we observe the war in Iraq and the difference in how the US and some in the Arab world recognize it.

It is funny you should mention this. Many predicted that as a result of the war the US would gain favorable business deals with Iraq. This is far from the truth. If you do some research you will find that there was an american deal for oil that was put down by the government of Iraq. The only real financial gain the US can hope to have is lower gas prices once Iraq is stable. When you really sit down and think of all the countries in that neighborhood and the many disputed boarders in that region you can see the makeing of another large regional conflict much like WW1 or WW2. Pakistand and India, Pakistand and Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq, Israel and.... everyone in the middle east, Tibet and china, North Korea and South Korea.. Where is the spark going to ignite the fire at???? The largest spark at the time was in Iraq.

I also feel "liberating others", sort of, forms a part of nationalistic American pride. The US is not motivated by territory, but the country is certainly motivated by other things. Also, when you take a close look at how European countries colonized others, it appears that their interests shifted toward the end of the colonial era from territorial ones to others like access to markets and natural resources.

How is this working out for america right now? If we are looking for pride in liberating Iraq we are not doing a very good job. Most polls show America to be totally against the war, that is not pride is it? If we are looking for financial gain... again, not doing a good job if that is the case.

 

[Capster78]

I say, yes, Japan is self sufficient, warm and wonderful to the world, why should we need military bases there?
Besides, VietNam might allow us to use facilities in their region, or the PI once again.
Just like our forefathers told us... beware of a large, standing military... it almost suggests going to more and more wars, which will never be eliminated anyways.
Of course, Washington will state that the rise of China as a major force makes it a necessity to stay.
I say, When can we leave and return as tourists 100%?

Do you believe tentions between Japan and all the surrounding countries is gone? WW2 was not as long ago as you think, you are simply to young or not even born to remember it. It probably did not affect you like it affected the people in China, Korea or the Philippines. The general feeling I get when talking to a Korean or a Japanese person is that they are still very leery of each other. Its obvious the Chinese are leery of their neighbors given there mass military buildup over the last 5-10 years. Now you have Russia coming back to power. This may favor China and North Korea depending on how Russia's forign policy twords these countries evolves.

If you wish to eliminate war, the only way of doing so is to try and do what Hitler did and rid the world of all races and cultures leaving it with only 1 race, 1 culture and 1 ideology. This would be the only type of world that could exist without conflict. Even then, its still not a gauruntee. A country without a military is going to be easy prey.

 

[EdZiomek]

Capster...one question...

Capster... I am 56, still too young for my own good, and so old nothing works anymore (ask my wife!). Great posts here, but your comment..."If you wish to eliminate war, . ...." ...the Hitler ref is all wrong, when you think about it.

But yes, Humans are programmed for war, for dominance, for sex drives, for power drives, even for something as simple as ..."Gee, I like your sneakers, give them to me or I will kill you!"

My opinion...If iwo humans are left on this earth, they will eventually fight. And if there are two men and one woman, it will take at least 5 minutes for hostilities to commence, sex a little longer.

And if there are two women and one man, at least 3 days and ten minutes for war, with sex much longer!

What I want to know is ...if the United Nations was created in '46 or '48 to discuss all the world problems, at what point did they give the United States the Crown of "Head Honcho, Protector of the Earth, Grand Occupier of all Strategic Locations"?

And is the world now generally saying... "Hey self-appointed King-ster, you did good and bad in the past, take a break already, leave!"

"Change" is a healthy, wonderful thing. And there 30 more wars ongoing in the world we can concentrate on.

America should leave anywhere the people want us to leave.

 

[alantin]

Obviously ignorant of WWII and why we are in japan.

Obviously icabable of understanding what others are saying. Did you even read my post?

The invader is always morally inferior and in this regard I consider Japan even worse. I know very well how american military ended up in Japan and this is exactly why I wrote about "necessary evil" and:
"No one should have to carry the shame of a foreign occupation or rule, but Japan screwed up good in the WWII and now they are still paying the price".

And what is this about invading???? The US has not invaded anyone in my opinion. ...
... America invades to liberate.

Hmm..? kashii:

I think it boils down to perception just like grapefruit said. To you it might be liberation but go tell it to the countless people who lost their mothers, fathers, sons, daughers (civilians!) because the US came to liberate..

Also this just made me wonder how the native americans, who were liberated to their wonderful reservations, would feel about this.. kashii:

 

[grapefruit]

How is this working out for america right now? If we are looking for pride in liberating Iraq we are not doing a very good job. Most polls show America to be totally against the war, that is not pride is it? If we are looking for financial gain... again, not doing a good job if that is the case.

I believe the US failed to "liberate Iraq" and had no gain in pride, rather lost some reputation, and American people learned them too. I think that's why most Americans are against the war now. The reason why the US is unwilling to pull out immediately seems, to me, to avoid further damage to the US's reputation for liberation, since irresponsible sudden withdrawal will certainly cause Iraq more chaotic than its state prior to the "liberation".

Americans also turned against the war probably because most of them realized that there is no prospect for financial gains. The war turned out to be too costly. If I remember correctly, the initial assessment of how long the war was going to continue was much shorter than what we ended up with. So, the costs of the war became much higher than the expected gain.

Anyway, I guess my post was off topic.

 

[grapefruit]

Hitler did and rid the world of all races and cultures leaving it with only 1 race, 1 culture and 1 ideology. This would be the only type of world that could exist without conflict. Even then, its still not a gauruntee. A country without a military is going to be easy prey.

I am not supporting what Hitler did, but it is dangerous to believe what the US is (or has been) doing is completely different from what Hitler did. Self-reflection is always valuable. The US is surely trying to expand its ideology to the world (whether it is good or bad is what history will decide). Who to decide which country is "evil" and which is not? Isn't it an ideology? (By the way, I'm not judging which ideology is better, here.) Whether we like it or not, American globalization is also killing some type of cultural diversity.

 

[EdZiomek]

leavethe H idiot out...

Grapefruit... the H analogy is such a poor example, anymore, nobody hates him more than the good Germans, I promise you. Let that history die.

Let's talk beautiful present and future. Japan is a wonderful place, fully self sufficient. They can politically align themselves with anyone they want, one of whom is America. If/when they say... keep your carriers in the oceans, help us with our naval lanes, but be nice... can you take your physical troops somewhere else, please? Germany same thing.

It would be completely understandable, for the entire world.

Has it happened yet, or do the majority of Japanese accept our presence?