Bring Our Marines Home
A month after Germany surrendered in May 1945, America’s eyes turned to the Far East, where the bloodiest battle of the Pacific war was joined on the island of Okinawa.
Twelve thousand U.S. soldiers and Marines would die — twice as many dead in 82 days of fighting as have died in all the years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Within weeks of the battle’s end came Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Three weeks later, Gen. MacArthur took the Japanese surrender on the battleship Missouri.
That was 65 years ago, as far away in time from today as the Marines’ arrival at Da Nang was from Teddy Roosevelt’s charge up San Juan Hill.
Yet the Marines are still on Okinawa. But, in 2006, the United States negotiated a $26 billion deal to move 8,000 to Guam and the other Marines from the Futenma air base in the south to the more isolated town of Nago on the northern tip. Okinawans have long protested the crime, noise and pollution at Futenma.
The problem arose last year when the Liberal Democratic Party that negotiated the deal was ousted and the Democratic Party of Japan elected on a promise to pursue a policy more balanced between Beijing and Washington.
The new prime minister, Yukio Hatoyama, indicated his unease with the Futenma deal, and promised to review it and decide by May. Voters in Nago just elected a mayor committed to keeping the new base out.
This weekend, thousands demonstrated in Tokyo against moving the Marine air station to Nago. Some demanded removal of all U.S. forces from Japan. After 65 years, they want us out. And Prime Minister Hatoyama has been feeding the sentiment. In January, he terminated Japan’s eight-year mission refueling U.S. ships aiding in the Afghan war effort.
All of which raises a question. If Tokyo does not want Marines on Okinawa, why stay? And if Japanese regard Marines as a public nuisance, rather than a protective force, why not remove the irritant and bring them home?
Indeed, why are we still defending Japan? She is no longer the ruined nation of 1945, but the second-largest economy on earth and among the most technologically advanced.
The Sino-Soviet bloc against which we defended her in the Cold War dissolved decades ago. The Soviet Union no longer exists. China is today a major trading partner of Japan. Russia and India have long borders with China, but neither needs U.S. troops to defend them.
Should a clash come between China and Japan over the disputed Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, why should that involve us?
Comes the retort: American troops are in Japan to defend South Korea and Taiwan. But South Korea has a population twice that of the North, an economy 40 times as large, access to the most advanced weapons in the U.S. arsenal and a U.S. commitment to come to her defense by air and sea in any second Korean War.
And if there is a second Korean War, why should the 28,000 U.S. troops still in Korea, many on the DMZ, or Marines from Futenma have to fight and die? Is South Korea lacking for soldiers? Seoul, too, has been the site of anti-American demonstrations demanding we get out.
Why do we Americans seem more desperate to defend these countries than their people are to have us defend them? Is letting go of the world we grew up in so difficult?
Consider Taiwan. On his historic trip to Beijing in 1972, Richard Nixon agreed Taiwan was part of China. Jimmy Carter recognized Beijing as the sole legitimate government. Ronald Reagan committed us to cut back arms sales to Taiwan.
Yet, last week, we announced a $6.4 billion weapons sale to an island we agree is a province of China. Beijing, whose power is a product of the trade deficits we have run, is enraged that we are arming the lost province she is trying to bring back to the motherland.
Is it worth a clash with China to prevent Taiwan from assuming the same relationship to Beijing the British acceded to with Hong Kong? In tourism, trade, travel and investment, Taiwan is herself deepening her relationship with the mainland. Is it not time for us to cut the cord?
With the exception of the Soviet Union, few nations in history have suffered such a relative decline in power and influence as the United States in the last decade. We are tied down in two wars, are universally disliked and are running back-to-back deficits of 10 percent of gross domestic product, as our debt is surging to 100 percent of GDP.
A strategic retreat from Eurasia to our own continent and country is inevitable. Let it begin by graciously acceding to Japan’s request we remove our Marines from Okinawa and politely inquiring if they wish us to withdraw U.S. forces from the Home Islands, as well.
This truth is so obvious and yet it flies in the face of established practice. We have a big overseas base, so we feel the need to hold on to it.
The government needs to explain exactly what contingency this base on Okinawa is meant to cover. Would we actually use it to stage US troops to defeat North Korea when South Korea is in a position to defend herself? Are we holding the “Japanese Militarists” at bay after all these years? Perhaps there is a real strategic reason to have large forward bases in the far Pacific, if so, the government needs to review and make the case to the American people.
The inevitable friction between Okinawan civilians and thousands of young Marines is a source of tension between us and the Japanese people. Personally, I think it’s better to bid Okinawa adieu.
On a contrarian note, I think we should have held on to Iwo Jima. we paid for it in blood and it’s actual value is so small that I think we should have annexed it.
Pat Buchanan like so many Americans does not concern himself with what occurred in the rest of the world. He has faith in American righteousness.
On April 7, 2002 the Japan Times carried the comments by Liberal Party leader Ichiro Ozawa that Japan could easily become a nuclear power. He stated Japan had enough plutonium to make 3 to 4 thousand nuclear weapons. “If that should happen, we wouldn’t lose (to China) in terms of military strength. What would (China) do then?” Not one word has appeared in the American press. One must ask what the Chinese think. If a German party leader had made a similar remark to the Russians, the New York Times would have pushed Israel off the front page. As an afterthought, what should Americans think of a nuclear armed Japan after pondering a nuclear armed Iran?
When thinking of Japan Americans soon lose historical perspective. The Japanese sneak attack at Port Arthur against Russia in 1904 brought respectful compliments from American cultural icons such as Teddy Roosevelt and the New York Times. On February 13, 1904 the New York Times berated the Czar of Russia: “the point that the Japanese violated international law in going to war without a formal declaration would be of no importance if the Czar had not dignified it in raising it to the Russian people” and added “the practice of initiating war by formal declaration has gone out”. Rough Rider Teddy wrote his son on how pleased he was by Japan’s stunning duplicity at Port Arthur.3 His sense of fair play was not affronted. While December 7, 1941 is still remembered as a day of infamy in America, no historical sense exists among most Americans that other nations have suffered similar faithless hostility. We continue to reject the lessons of history, not only our own, but especially other’s, as a guide to human interaction. Americans have preferred to rely on manifest nobility and being blessed by a kindly Providence to divine human actions.
In the May 5, 2002 issue of the Japan Times, Donald Richie reviewed Tokyo Central by Edward Seidensticker. Richie recognized Seidensticker as a very moral man who made stern judgments. One was “that the emperor was neither forced to abdicate nor taken to court as a war criminal was owing to General MacArthur’s vanity. He loved having an emperor under him”. Both men, pre-eminent authorities on Japanese culture, history and politics, recognized that Hirohito was a great war criminal by any definition. His Japan killed more people and occupied more territory than Hitler’s Germany. Yet he and his country were never held to standards of justice that were applied to the Germans. The Chinese have not and will not forget.
A potentially hostile Japan is far more of concern than what is occurring in Iraq and Afghanistan. Much the same should be thought of China, but American policy makers have long been deluded by the doctrine of free trade uber alles.
It is time to leave Japan & Korea. . Having lived in Japan for over 20 years & visited Okinawa , it’s time to go & leave under good conditions instead of waiting for another local diseaster to push us out . We left the P.I. at the perfect time . If Korea can not defend themselves , what does that say about our ability to train an army ?
And how many troops do you still have in Germany? Are they truly necessary?
I’ve long held similar views, though it pains me to have to agree with Mr. Buchanan. Similar arguments of impending doom arose during the discussions of leaving Subic Bay, Phillipines. Since our leaving we have somehow managed to survive.
I would carry Mr. Buchanan’s points a few steps further. I would – in addition to closing most of our overseas bases and military commitments – cease all foreign and/or military aid to ANY nation who says our presence in their country is no longer desired. Additionally – all aid would cease to any nation who prohibited flyovers by our forces.
If they don’t want us … bring our forces home – they can be redeployed along our Mexican border to actually try to achieve a semblance of security, assuming they would operate under an RoE that would put more value on their lives than currently in effect in the sandbox. And by the way – that piece of God-forsaken sand known variously as Afghanistan, Iraq, or whatever, is not worth the life of a single more American. Get them out!
Let these duplicitous bastards fend for themselves for a change. The time has passed when the USA should be the worlds police force and sacrifice OUR young men for corrupt and ungrateful nations.