Dear Japan
By Mitch Berg
To: Japan
From: Mitch Berg
Re: Protests
While I can certainly appreciate that an American military presence on your soil may cramp your style and make you upset…
Thousands of protesters from across Japan marched today in Tokyo to protest against U.S. military presence on Okinawa, while a Cabinet minister said she would fight to get rid of a marine base Washington considers crucial.
Some 47,000 U.S. troops are stationed in Japan, with more than half on the southern island of Okinawa.
Residents have complained for years about noise, pollution and crime around the bases.
…please don’t feel me disrespectful in noting that you had a grade-A chance of averting this whole situation up through December 6, 1941.
Just saying.
That is all.
February 1st, 2010 at 9:25 am
After 60 years, it’s time to present the bill and roll up the tent. There is nothing a base can do that a carrier group can’t. Besides, what good is having a base in Japan when they bring their fight to US streets – a la Toyota.
February 1st, 2010 at 9:56 am
We should move the base from Okinawa to Taiwan that would allow us to build a better relationship with the PRC.
February 1st, 2010 at 10:00 am
A forward base in Okinawa would be a good strategic platform to have in the event the USA wants to get involved in another land war in Asia.
While we’re preparing to commit classic blunders, why not take over Corsica in case we want to go against a Sicilian when death is on the line?
Option B would be to defend America, not the world. We should pull our troops back from South Korea and Japan to defensible areas we own, such as Midway, and let Asians fight their own battles.
The days of naval convoys island-hopping to take on coal or oil are over. The days of America as guarantor of world peace are drawing to a close. Put America’s interests ahead of theirs. Let the bases go.
.
February 1st, 2010 at 10:43 am
AC shows his knowledge of military strategy is right up there with his knowledge of climatology, science, and informal logic. Land based military can do something that naval fleets have a bit of trouble doing; stay above the waterline after absorbing merciless pummeling with bombs, torpedoes, and artillery. That’s why we haven’t disbanded the Army and Air Force, for goodness’ sake.
February 1st, 2010 at 11:29 am
Bubba,
Point of order; JustPlainAngry and Angryclown are, semihomonymic screen names notwithstanding, not actually the same person.
February 1st, 2010 at 2:39 pm
And the last time we had to stay above the waterline after absorbing merciless pummeling with bombs, torpedoes, and artillery. was when exactly?
Your knowledge, bubba, is devoid not only of historic perspective, but of logic.
Oh, and with comments like that, don’t be surprised when I start calling you RatioRinkyDink Jr.
February 1st, 2010 at 4:24 pm
JustPlainFoolish, USS Cole and HMS Sheffield, not to mention that large portions of the Chinese and Russian navies and air forces are designed to put U.S. carrier groups on the ocean floor.
Devoid of logic and historical perspective? If I am, so are the boys at Annapolis and the Pentagon. I’m going to suggest, rather, that you’re projecting a bit.
February 1st, 2010 at 5:24 pm
My message to the cabinet minister: “Three words: Kim Jong Il.”
February 1st, 2010 at 6:04 pm
By the way, if we (as some commenters here seem to desire) abandon our forward bases, good luck keeping the oil tankers coming should some other nation decide not to respect our official isolationism.
Don’t get me wrong; I’d love for our nation to be a little more concerned about its own good and not trying (badly) to change the rest of the world. I even think it would probably change the world more if we withdrew a bit.
Even so, it’s a pretty darned good idea to have a few bases scattered around the world where we can have a few planes, soldiers, drydocks, fuel and ammunition depots, and so on so that the “letters of marque and reprisal” can be more readily carried out.
(put differently, it’s only the carriers and submarines that are nuclear and can steam indefinitely without being refueled…..)
February 1st, 2010 at 8:54 pm
Hey, bubba, lets put this post and my comment into perspective – we are talking about Japan here! JAPAN! Now who is projecting? Besides, what the F can Okinawa base do against those vaunted large portions of the Chinese and Russian navies and air forces are designed to put U.S. carrier groups on the ocean floor. BTW, you owe me an apology.
Bill, you do know Japan is an island, right? Good luck waging land war from Japan – that’s definitely a bridge too far. Any reprisal from anything KJI will attempt will have to come from a carrier group – not from a base in Okinawa.
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:01 am
JustPlainFoolish, no apology is forthcoming, except for confusing you with AC. You simply don’t know squat about this, and it shows.
But to help you out, if you’re confused about why the U.S. might want a base at Okinawa, look at a map. It’s the perfect place to observe and contain the Chinese and Russian navies, as the Ryushus form a barrier between the coastal waters around China/Korea/Japan/Taiwan and the rest of the Pacific.
As long you need to reprovision ships, and as long as land based weapons systems have advantages over ship based, and as long as there are credible forces in Shanghai and Vladivostok, there is a reason for a base in Okinawa.
And as our gracious host notes, if the Japanese didn’t want to give us that, they should have thought about that a little more in 1941.
February 4th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
But to help you out, if you’re confused about why the U.S. might want a base at Okinawa, look at a map. It’s the perfect place to observe and contain the Chinese and Russian navies, as the Ryushus form a barrier between the coastal waters around China/Korea/Japan/Taiwan and the rest of the Pacific.
You are delusional. Especially after this whopper: as long as land based weapons systems have advantages over ship based