By shifting a large number of the 19,000 marines on Okinawa, leaders in Tokyo and Washington said they hoped to reduce the US military footprint on the island while retaining a strong enough presence to deal with security emergencies in the region.I will quickly admit to limited knowledge of military history and strategy, but I have never understood why so many American troops still have to be stationed in Japan to fulfill a WWII-era commitment.
In a joint statement, the US defence secretary, Leon Panetta, and the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, said the agreement would honour Washington's commitment to defending Japan and maintaining stability in an "increasingly uncertain security environment".
Will this decrease the military budget? Apparently not, because rather than returning to the U.S. or leaving the service, they are just being deployed elsewhere:
Up to 5,000 troops... will be sent to Guam, according to a US defence official quoted by Associated Press in Washington. The remainder will move to Hawaii or rotate between Australia and other parts of the region.
Our troops are there to prevent Japan from rebuilding it's military which could be seen as a threat to others in the region.
ReplyDeleteI must say that I spent six years on a base there and found the country and people to be absolutely wonderful!
Yes, that was the reason in 1946 after we forced their disarmament. What's the reason now?
DeleteFor a long time the reason was proximity to the USSR and China. I suspect now it is largely inertia.
ReplyDeleteWell, it is still the reason. I just read that analysis last week. I would direct you to the article if I could recall where it was! Sorry! I read lots of articles!
ReplyDeleteThe article said that, if our troops were recalled, the political climate there, the people, would demand a strong military. A strong military might mean at least consideration of nuclear capacity which would mean that their neighbors would worry about that. The most likely result would be an escalation of tensions. We keep them under our umbrella to assure their neighbors that the Japanese won't need to do this.
This is by far my favorite site.You do an amazing job and I enjoy every post! Thank you.
I believe you read it, and I would believe that that's the stated reason for stationing troops there; I just don't believe that's the actual reason. Nor do I believe that the presence of those troops constitutes anything like a deterrant force to North Korea or to China.
DeleteAnd tx for the compliment re the blog. :.)
We still have 40,000 in Germany...
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Forces_Germany
Again - it's hard to see why.
Well, it's obviously not to prevent Denmark or Poland from invading Germany. One of my friends has recently been stationed there, and as I understand it a substantial portion of the German contingent is there in support of our troops in the Middle East.
DeleteThe Japanese constitution (the one we helped them write and became effective in 1947, I believe) states that they will have no military. So I believe that is a strong reason to have our troops there.
ReplyDeleteI think another reason is to act as a a deterrent to China. China is currently making threatening noises about islands in the seas between it and Japan, the Phillipines, and Vietnam. The US considers it to be its duty to protect those countries from China. At this point in China's military development, the US and its aircraft carriers are a significant threat & deterrent. China is working hard on updating its military and gaining capability to destroy a US carrier group, but cannot yet do that, nor deploy a carrier group of its own.
I am not an expert, this is a summary of 3-4 articles I read in The Economist over the last 2-3 months.
Why? Because China wants to take back Taiwan. Because North Korea wants to re-invade the south. Because Russia, the old USSR, isn't that far away either. Frankly, it is a dangerous neighborhood. Although no one has threatened Japan (ignoring North Korea's saber rattling), if the US wasn't there then they could certainly be attacked as revenge for their WWII atrocities in Asia.
ReplyDeleteLike the US troops in Germany and Korea, they are trip lines, designed to trigger larger responses when an invasion happens. No one excepts them to really hold the line, or hold it very long.
Why? Because keeping a deployable combat capability within airlift reach at a time when North Korea is acting like a spoiled brat again just makes sense.
ReplyDelete