Its always welcome to see a new face on this board. Its always great to throw another side of the argument into the mix.
After reading your comments I disagree with some of your points. I think your calculations are based upon military calculations and do not take into account political situation. For example lets look at the Korean Peninsula situation. You are completely correct in the assumption that the US forces would not figure heavily in the conflict since they only comprise 10% of the forces deployed, but in the current political context, the 41000 US Forces deployed figures far more than double or even triple the number of ROK forces because they indicate a political commitment of the United States to the crisis. Pulling the US out would signal not only to the DPRK but South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and China. The US presence in the region is a stabilizer which prevents conflicts from erupting. If anything the US forces in Japan are not to prevent Japan from outside threats, but from itself. Imagine a situation where the United States withdraws from the region or announces its intentions to withdraw. Japan would quickly conclude a debate about repealing article 9 of its constitution and then remilitarize, undoubtedly unveiling its nuclear capability in the process. What would be the effect on the region? The South Korea would immediately follow suit and China would call it a crisis and start a huge defence buildup. Then Taipai would as well to protect its interests. Now you have 5 nuclear armed neighbours who don窶冲 trust each other armed with a nuclear capability窶ヲ I think the 80000 troops the US has in the region is a small price to pay to prevent that from occurring. Also the US troops in Okinawa are not for South Korea per say, but for Taiwan. Although the Chinese Communist Party may think Trade is important, reintegrating Taiwan as you well know has always been at the top of their foreign policy since 1949. And I would not rule out china using military force to do so. They have consitatnly saber rattled the region, and they have prioritized a massive deployment of short range missiles over their ballistic missile program. The troops in Okinawa are there as a rapid reaction force to put into Taiwan in case the situation collapse, Troops cannot be deployed there now because that would create a crisis.
You may make the argument that the US would maintain a verbal guarantee or mutual assistance treaties, but words never matter as much as troops and the presence there is required to maintain stability. What I don窶冲 agree with is the US窶冱 handling of the DPRK crisis because it has not dealt with it correctly or sufficiently and that has worried several countries, not the least of which is Japan. The rise in nationalist politics and the discussion about a reappeal of the Japanese constitution is directly related to the threat of North Korea. The north Korean testing of a Nodong II missile over the sea of Japan definitely had an adverse affect on the pacifist movement in Japan. I would argue that a greater commitment is needed in the region and that the US should rely on both Hard and soft power instruments, rather than uttering veiled threats and warnings to Kim Jong Il, give him some of the incentives he wants, and don窶冲 reneg on them like Clinton did with the Two light water reactors.
Also the Japanese army should maintain its current structure. The German maneuver brigade theory was a product of offensive theory, and it is best suited for that. Small mobile groups are difficult to operate under defencive situations. Although some German Generals were successful in using it (I can think of General Manstien窶冱 fighting retreat after the 6th army destruction in Stalingrad as one), but the French model is better designed for defensive operations. This is what the JSDF is designed for and should remain. The JSDF has been purposely designed to be utterly deficient in offencive character because of its pacifist constitution.. Any change to this structure might antagonize China and cause a breakdown in relations. An example of this was the outcry of the Japanese purchase of a Helicopter by both Korea and China because it was seen a the first steps towards a power projection capability. The US窶冱 role in the region is so vital and both sides attack it as wasteful.
I don't know if I can see Japan and China as ever having good relations. I work with a Air Force Lt. Colonel and he and I disagree on this issue theoretically. A lot of my research focuses on the EU, and it is a popular argument to use that if Germany and France can make up so can all other nations. Im a bit of an optimist and I say it can. My Air Force Friend is on the other side and he argues that it is European values that has created this situation, and that these values are not repicable across the world. I would disagree, I can't say it will be easy to replicate those values, as they take generations to form. One thing I see in East Asia now is that both parties bitterly dislike each other, Many Japanese look down at China and China is resentful of that. Stuff like this...
Japan's war past sparks Chinese rage
doesn't help at all.
As For Iraq, I think the change in US strategy there last week by bush pushing Bremer to speed up handover is a smart strategy. I think it was partly done to get the French aboard. Once a handover is complete, from discussions I have heard, the French look likely to contribute a significantly large enough force. The other reason is a change in tactics for rebuilding the nation itself. It is blatantly obvious that the United States cannot control the country as efficiently as a national authority could. I say this because the military presence is like a blunt object, it cannot penetrate Iraqi society effectively to find insurgents. And attempts to, using informants and the sort are detrimental to the US's image in the region. Giving Iraqis more power and helping them rebuild their nation their way is a more successful strategy.
I suggest you look around this board for other articles I have written, I think you may find it fertile grounds for discussion.