Agreed on the other points, but are we sure of this? Because we don’t seem to have a strong record for leaving places better off than we left them.
In fact, I’d argue that we just keep creating the next generations of terrorists and insurgents to fight.
I’d rather just invite all the refugees over if they don’t like where they are. They’d make a far better workforce than a random sampling of us in the west.
I can see that we mostly agree, but I contend that being globally despised is too great a price to pay for our involvement in others’ local affairs.
It may be better to be well-liked and respected internationally, rather than feared.
Sure. Of course, you can also see the language as being used to cover up a fair amount of military strength as well - as long as japan sticks to their home Islands and doesn’t strike out to conquer the pacific again, everyone is happy with the arrangement. But I wouldn’t count that out at all, especially since the end of the CW and the recent bellicosity of North Korea (not that it hasn’t always been bellicose, as my dad was there in 80s and there was a point where things almost hit the fan).
But the primary mode of defense for Japan is a certain level of dependency on American military presence.
Probably a good call. US soldiers seem to have a hard time holding their liquor at foreign ports.
I’m sure the local drug dealer is happy with the banning of alcohol.
The title of the article is misleading (as is the various news agencies reporting it that way). The ban only affects the people on base in Okinawa. About 19,000 out of 50,000 stationed throughout Japan. The law itself has no teeth, but the worry is that it can be used to hold up US military expansion plans on the island.
This is really more of a local issue. How US personnel are interacting with Okinawans. Okinawa is not part of the Japanese mainland. It is part of an island chain with its own distinct culture from yamato culture of mainland Japan. They are more or less a colonial conquest There is a bit of tension between Okinawa and the national Japanese government over this (and a lot of other issues) as well. For an analogy, imagine the tension on Oahu if Pearl Harbor was a foreign military base! (forgetting my admitted underlying nonsense premise of a foreign power with a base on US soil)
I suspect that that is part of why the locals in Okinawa may be less than pleased. Going back to the Ryukyu independence movement(and presumably long before that, the area has changed hands a number of times historically) they haven’t always seen eye to eye with Tokyo; so even if they agree that US bases are in the interests of Japan, they don’t have to like being the ones stuck next to them. NIMBY and all that.
Recently the Diet has reinterpreted Article 9 of its constitution, which was what prevented Japan in a practical sense from exercising the reciprocity that was rhetorically required by the 1960 treaty. This has loosened prohibitions on muscle-flexing outside of Japan’s borders. Current thinking is that they can indeed come to the aid of the US should we need it, which has been reflected in the 2015 U.S-Japan Defense Guidelines.
Easier said than done. Many Japanese already feel that the JDF’s force potential is in flagrant violation of Article 9 of their Constitution. Mind you, I agree with you and I oppose our costly and undemocratic role as the world’s police force, just as the Founding Fathers would be aghast to see what we’ve embroiled ourselves in, but I also understand why Japan doesn’t want to spend political and financial capital building up a force that could defend itself from the revanchism and expansionism of their larger neighbors, especially China, with which they’ve had strained relations for centuries. Not to mention that the Japanese political far-right would love to see Japan amend away Article 9, which is enough for many not on the far-right to oppose doing away with it, particularly since the creeping expansion of the JDF has been seen by some as an incremental end-run around those restrictions.
And the US government isn’t about to give up their best strategic position in the region either, no matter what political candidates promise. If Trump does get elected, his isolationism, assuming he actually means any of it, is going to hit a brick wall (rather ironically).
Japan, even more so than Germany, has immediate breakout capability. If they decide that they want nuclear weapons the can produce some in less than a year.
Wow.
I thought before I watched that video that I had no interest in joining the military. Now I realize that my level of non-interest was nowhere near sufficient.
What a bunch of assholes.
It’s basically like that Risk-like game Diplomacy.
Rip-It addiction skyrocketed.
Also worth noting that none of this is exactly new as issue. As an irregular listener to NHK (Radio Japan),I’ve heard the issues around the US base in Okinawa come up fairly often. However, I think I’ve only seen it twice on this continent in past 6-7 years.
Which is what made the security agreement and subsequent renewals so problematic, including peripheral participation in a “good” war like Gulf War I.
Most Japanese I know are really conflicted on this: they want to stand up and take a responsible role (and China’s monkey shines in the South China Sea are truly worrisome), but they are simultaneously committed to the pacifist constitution. It’s a quandary.
This is an important point.
I get the problem with us being world police, I really do, but I feel we have a real interest in keeping the status quo as-is in Japan. Culturally there is a strong isolationist tradition in Japan. Given that the constitutional rules about Japan being able to build a military were forced upon them seven decades ago, I also get the desire to do away with them. We’ve seen a lot of reporting on that desire. I haven’t heard much said publicly about what the traditionalist group would do with their new power.
Given those facts, I certainly don’t see the benefit to America in giving that power back. While I feel I can make a compelling argument to reactionaries about how bombing mosques is actually bad for us individually, I don’t know how to start in this case.
Basically, when it comes to politics, “it’s not nice that we’re flexing our muscles” isn’t going to work as an argument. What’s the argument that will?
With your later point about the commitment to pacifism, is it likely that the Japanese you know understand the rules are only likely to change in the near future if the isolationists and warmongers come into power?
The isolationists (left wing parties) are the opposite of the war mongers (right wing). Also, the center-right wing is already in power, but without a sufficient majority to pass changes to Article 9 like they want to. The Komeito, a semi-Buddhist party, are in the coalition and don’t like the idea of changing the constitution (for all the obvious reasons).
I know Japanese on both sides of this: my family are pacificists, but I have friends who work directly for the center-right LDP (I interned there in grad school).
Pre-Castro my dads Navy squadron had a false external fuel tank for one of their planes, that they would fill with rum.
So, this should go over well
Ok, cool, you understand this better than me.
I see how it’s pretty dumb to conflate isolationism and a desire to war with foreigners, but my understanding of Japan was that a desire to preserve cultural heritage and resist outside influence was a major driver behind aggressive sentiment in the past. I’ve read that becoming a major power industrially and militarily became important as a way to keep us out, and it seems there has been some belief that the most effective use of that military power was to push us back.
I know many things in that country have changed enormously in the last century, so that could have changed, or my understanding of the history is incomplete or unsubtle, or feelings changed between the first foreign landings in Japan and WWII. Honestly, I think I figured both sides kinda hate me, so I ignored some subtleties. My purely American education has taught me that the Japanese are quick to change their actions, but slow to change their attitudes.
Since I’m talking to somebody seemingly Western with a good understanding, I’m genuinely curious. How strong is the isolationist sentiment? A complete ejection of foreigners and end to international trade? I, for one, am interested to hear more about both sides.
Edit: I admit, I’ve made adjustments and lessened the strength of some statements as I’ve brushed up. I was in too big a hurry to respond when I got slapped down. I would like to learn more from a different perspective.
Well, there is still sodomy and the lash…
