The always entertaining (and usually correct) Doug Bandow writes on Abe’s ascension as Japanese prime minister and why this should spur the United States to reevaluate Japan’s position in the world and pull its forces from East Asia. Read the whole thing—this is just a sample (albeit the key one):
The subject is highly sensitive throughout East Asia. It comes as no surprise that most of Japan’s neighbors like having a reasonably benevolent Uncle Sam as the local cop. They can spend less on the military; they need not work through the complicated politics of creating a more stable regional order; they can continue winning domestic points from Japan-bashing rather than confronting the past.
It comes as no surprise, but this situation is not in America’s interest. First, every security commitment is expensive, since the U.S. has to create force structure so Washington can make good on its defense promises. That’s an important reason why Washington now spends as much as the rest of the world combined on the military. America had little choice but to bear a disproportionate burden of defending the West in the aftermath of World War II. But not today.
Second, defense guarantees risk war. The hope, of course, is that Washington’s promise to fight will deter anyone else from risking war. However, deterrence can fail, in which case American involvement is inevitable, or almost so. Moreover, providing superpower backing for small client states encourages them to engage in more risky and potentially irresponsible behavior. It’s easier to be unreasonable and obnoxious if you’ve got Uncle Sam behind you, brandishing a few nukes.
Third, America’s military commitments reduce the incentive for its allies to invest in their own forces. If Washington is willing to loan you its navy and air force, why build your own? For instance, the Philippines, with a decrepit military, was quite explicit in hoping that a simple visiting forces agreement would again tie the U.S. to its defense. Taiwan, facing insistent Chinese demands for reunification, has suffered persistent political deadlock over proposals to upgrade its military.
Finally, acting as everyone’s protector puts Washington in the front lines of virtually every regional controversy. There is no intrinsic reason why America should, for instance, care who controls the Paracel, Spratly, or Dokdo/Takeshima Islands. But if its defense clients care, the U.S. is inevitably involved.
Like I said, read the rest on your own—it’s a goodie.
(HT to the Western Confucian)
{ 1 trackback }
{ 36 comments… read them below or add one }
That’s one way to reduce the level of Anti americanism around the world. Stop putting fingers into everyone’s pot and retrench. No matter what the good intentions are, if you get involved in every affair around the world, it’s likely the reason why you make so many enemies.
Nah, then people will hate the US for not helping and being selfishly arrogant or something.
The U.S. ought to be charging for its services, rather than even considering a pull out from any country. Why does the U.S. taxpayer have to pay for other’s mistakes? If the American military is really a “professional organization” as it is sometimes called, why can’t we charge a professional rate for its services to the countries we’re defending??
Let’s see, that’s 60 years Japan owes us for our military services we have provided them — that wipes out any outstanding debts. As a matter of fact, that would put Japan in the red, if we included the former “colonies” we provided services too.
–Remort
Remort wrote
“The U.S. ought to be charging for its services, rather than even considering a pull out from any country.”
the americans are already taxing the rest of the world.
the federal reserve prints dollars.
americans use it to buy goods and services from Asia
the People’s Bank of China, The Bank of Japan, The Bank of Korea either hoard the dollars as reserves or plow the dollars back into america through government bonds (at ridiculously low rates!).
the americans steadily devalue the dollar
thus, when Asians use their dollar, they do not get the equivalent of the goods and services they gave the americans.
now, charge? what charge?
nobody wants the american armed forces in Asia.
they can all go home
On the other hand,
americans need to deploy armed forces around the world.
Remort 바보 야?
Haven’t you read the paper from PNAC?
Here’s the link
http://www.newamericancentury......fenses.pdf
americans need to deploy armed forces around the globe so that they could shot down any resistance to the empire.
like Iran trading oil in Euros
“Nah, then people will hate the US for not helping and being selfishly arrogant or something.”
BUT think about this. If Americans stopped intervening around the world, surely, there will also be a cry that America is not doing enough. True. But you know what? You also won’t have 1 billion Arabs who would hate you for actively aiding and propping up Israel, with crazy loons like Bin Laden trying to destroy America. I rather see whinings that America is not doing enough to help the world, than see American flags getting burnt and Americans getting killed abroad. No comparison.
Leave Asia so that China and Japan can duke it out. After killing off 10% of their population and becoming dirt poor, these two countries may become friends.
ah the bin laden myth
Halloween is coming
watch the documentary by Adam Curtis
The power of nightmares
and be very scared
http://video.google.com/videop.....&hl=en
http://video.google.com/videop.....&hl=en
http://video.google.com/videop.....&hl=en
Remort,
..because that would make us Mercinaries, if you want those, talk to the Cubans about getting back into the busness.
cm,
Americans need to have a set of balls and accept the fact that its lonely at the top. And until a generation passes after someone else takes our spot in the world, this will continue. Essentially the only way to reduce anti-Americanism, is to be a second rate country and be subservient to someone elses hegemony. So tell me, who would you rater be subservient to?
That goes for you too Leo, whos bitch do you want to be?
the americans are already taxing the rest of the world.
thats not a tax, tax requires sovereignty
the federal reserve prints dollars.
how dare they! those bastards! printing their filthy money, and buying stuff with it! Who said they could do that?
americans use it to buy goods and services from Asia
What?! What outrageous subjugation! Forcing other nations to dump outrageously cheap textiles, KIAs, computer parts and other manufactured goods putting local American workers out of busness! OH what evil! Damn this infernal curse upon our world!
the People’s Bank of China, The Bank of Japan, The Bank of Korea either hoard the dollars as reserves or plow the dollars back into america through government bonds (at ridiculously low rates!).
the americans steadily devalue the dollar
Devaluating their dollar on purpose! Therefore devaluating all company financial reserves, government reserves, tax revenues, GDP and GNP in one fell swoop! Its the evil genious only Satan himself could posses!
thus, when Asians use their dollar, they do not get the equivalent of the goods and services they gave the americans.
All ther GOODS and Services, flooding asias poor economies! The humanity of it all! All that they export like ____ and _____ and ??!?!?….(!?), its not fair! oh and the F-16s with chinese made parts that are contracted in most cases to be made on the foreign nations soil. Have the americans no shame?
now, charge? what charge?
CHARGE CHARGE KILL THEM ALL!!!! [GRUNT!] [GRUNT!] [ROAR!] [THOW MONKEY SHIT!]
nobody wants the american armed forces in Asia.
they can all go home
OOOG! OOOG! RAAAAAAAWWWWR! ARG! ARG! RAAAAAAWWWWR!!
Hey Cap’n BBQ, “LeoStrauss” is already somebody’s bitch inside a sock that hasn’t come out the closet yet, so don’t bother.
How’s school going, Leo?
It’s good.
I have a lot of classmates speaking Ebonics.
Hmmm, sounds like Hawaii has changed a lot since the last time I was there.
The federal reserve prints money without restraint.
So much so, they stopped publishing M3
http://www.federalreserve.gov/.....discm3.htm
“Hmmm…hmmm…I don’t hear you….”
That’s OK, I’m just having some fun since I have to work today, not trying to “out” you or anything like that because frankly I don’t care. Aloha!
#16
michael wrote:
“Hmmm…hmmm…I don’t hear you….”
Huh? I was not talking to you.
But, yeah, if ever I need help with Ebonics, may I consult with you? You’re ethnically qualified, you know.
No, I didn’t know I was ethnically qualified Kush…err, LeoStrauss? What up homes?
Huh?
Not ethnically qualified?
I thought you are michael of the Metropol blog
Ah, and I thought you were the infamous Kushibora…and I still do, hahaha. Your secret’s safe with me, though.
Good choice for a sock name too.
I don’t know what you are talking about.
So, are you michael of the metropol blog or not?
the author assumes heavily that there is no way Japan will turn militarily aggresive.
Even with a complete withdrawal from one region of the world, I think it’s an illusion that US taxpayers or the budget gets a break. That’s just how the government works. The average American will not feel the savings.
Russia still can’t be trusted. They’re very edgy about the EU expansion. China can’t be trusted. Having a checkpoint right in their faces on the east and west is a great idea, even now.
I disagree with the author.
History repeats itself, and war is cyclic in history. Don’t put too much faith that a certain nation is too happy to go to war. War will always be a part of human history.
ask anyone who has studied war or history or politics. Peace is maintained by might.
what logically good reason did Japan have in attacking the US Pacific fleet on December, 1941?
Sanctions, embargoes?
Japan still had a negotiating team in the US. They still had a great chance of coming to terms by talking.
US would have agreed to terms and let Japan go on with Empire building, if Japan retreated from important spots in China. What did they care? In fact, it was better to deal with an advanced government like Japan rather than more substantially backwards governments of other nations in the region.
You never know who will go ahead with war, and the decision to go to war can happen in less than a month. If you have your own troops sitting in their territory, that effectively is a cost effective deterrant to war.
The only thing I would agree with is about a 50% reduction in forces.
“Remort wrote
“The U.S. ought to be charging for its services, rather than even considering a pull out from any country.”
the americans are already taxing the rest of the world.
the federal reserve prints dollars.
americans use it to buy goods and services from Asia
the People’s Bank of China, The Bank of Japan, The Bank of Korea either hoard the dollars as reserves or plow the dollars back into america through government bonds (at ridiculously low rates!).
the americans steadily devalue the dollar
thus, when Asians use their dollar, they do not get the equivalent of the goods and services they gave the americans.
now, charge? what charge?”
Jesus, sounds like someone needs to take an elementary course in economics. What you’ve described is the market function that corrects trade imbalance. A quick hypothetical example that I’ll shamelessly rip off from Milton Friedman. Suppose Country X can produce and sell any product in Country Y at a lower cost per unit. Let’s just say X is Korea and Y is the United States, to make things more sensible. It would then make sense for the US to purchase every good available from a producer in Korea, wouldn’t it? Well, not exactly, and the problem you outlined above is exactly why.
Suppose Korean won exchange at 1000 for every one of the US’s dollars. America would pay for those products it purchased from Korea in its currency, the dollar. What does Korea do with those dollars? At 1000 to 1 everything in Korea is cheaper in Korea than the US so there would be nothing Korea would prefer to buy from America. A perfectly imbalanced trade, just as I’m sure Korea would love to produce. But then what would Korea do with those dollars? They are after all paper, practically worthless unless used to buy something else. And there in lies the rub. No one would be willing to sell anything at that exchange rate. Why sell something to an american to get worthless paper when you could purchase much more with the won earned by selling in Korea? The exporter would try to sell off his dollars at 1000 to one but no fool in his right mind would exchange 1000 won for one dollar if he can buy less with that dollar. What would happen? Come on you wonderful sock puppet genius Leo, what’s the answer? That’s right! The exchange rate declines! Good job, I knew you could figure it out. The exchange rate declines and American products become competitive, erasing much of the trade imbalance that would exist otherwise.
So, the question then is why do East Asian countries hoard American currency? It’s very simple. Because they’re trying to impede the natural market forces that would correct a trade imbalance and maintain their native industries competitiveness in the American market. Whether this is actually a good idea is up to those countries to decide, and on balance it probably ends up costing more than it helps. But to flip into moonbat mode and assign blame for a falling US exchange rate on some neo-conservative cabal – as you clearly believe – is ridiculous. Natural market forces are not the slaves of American imperialism.
I’m going to apologize in advance for the gratuitous personal attacks in that last comment. I don’t know anything about ‘leostrauss’ let alone that he’s anyone’s sock puppet.
This author seems to run with a crowd very much on “the extreme left of the celestial sphere,” to quote Keynes. Based on a quick scan, he agrees that if America just would stop being so involved around the world, all would be well. I, on the other hand, would state that our free-market-ish economy means the freedom to trade with those outside our borders. Some see this as imperialism, looking through some Lenin-ist lens.
Unfortunately leostrauss has it right when suggesting that our lovely Fed inflates by printing more dollars. The Fed is one of those institutions that keeps the “ish” in our “free-market-ish” economy.
Bandow is a conservative isolationist from CATO, rather than the left. He’s been on the US-out-of-Korea rant for years.
Yeah, but even paranoid schizophreniacs have real enemies, and the case that Bandow has made over the years against the US continuing to countenance Korea’s free-riding is pretty compelling. That doesn’t have to mean the end of a mutual security commitment — if Korea has the sand for it – something that’s doubtful considering the way they hunkered down in camp in Iraq under someone else’s protection — but it ought to mean the wholesale withdrawal of US forces from the peninsula and the end of US taxpayer subsidization of Korea’s defense.
I see too many problems with that, it throws away too much. Better to address the ROKG (ie, the Roh admin) directly;
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/HI09Dg02.html
“The U.S. ought to be charging for its services, rather than even considering a pull out from any country.”
Great idea. America can be the international relations equivalent of the Mob related gangster thug who goes around the neighborhood stores, extorting the Mom-and-Pop’s for “protection” money.
Wait…I take that back. That’s already been happening for the past 50+ years.
From a big picture/long term interests perspective, Bandow’s thesis makes a whole hell of a lot of sense. Unfortunately, that also makes him an Ivory Tower, academic bubble-boy and his article is yet another work of professional naivete that is sadly out of touch with reality.
If there was ever a time when America’s political/economic leaders actually implemented policy for the good of the nation and that of the world, those days are long gone. All we have now are zillions of special interests, all conflicting and competing with one another. The agenda of the few and mighty are executed and justified using polished spin, media propaganda, and smooth lies. Benedict Arnold CEOs willingly outsource entire industries and hundreds of thousand of jobs overseas in the name of institutionalized greed and profit while knowing that this is hurting their fellow countrymen. But at the same time, they employ professional liars to hypnotize the public into thinking that this is supposed to be “good” for everyone and society as a whole. After all, isnt globalization the reason why you can walk into a Walmart and buy a dvd player for only $30? Nevermind that if you no longer have a job in the first place, a $30 dvd player doesnt mean a damn thing.
I dont think I even have to get into a whole schpiel about why we’re in Iraq, despite the official claims by the propaganda machine that this is being done in the name of freedom, democracy, and other belabored cliches.
America should evolve in its geopolitical mentality. Scaling down overseas military presence and other relics of the Cold War is good for America, and the world, but that would likely not happen because there are too many powerful individuals, organizations, and corporations whose interests are at stake. There are some who actually prosper because of conflict and America’s bloated military around the world. Unfortunately, they hold too many strings at the current moment. As far as the public is concerned, there are enough static minds who never question the conventional wisdom that American military instrusiveness around the world can never be anything but a good thing. The rest are simply too occupied worrying about where their next paycheck is coming from.
re: no. 25
Corpy Carly wrote:
“Jesus, sounds like someone needs to take an elementary course in economics.
…
A quick hypothetical example that I’ll shamelessly rip off from Milton Friedman.
…
”
too bad, corpy carly stopped with elementary economics.
Yeah right , milton friedman, the great nobel laureate, he’s so good, his theories work only for america.
Korea has always had trade imbalance with Europe, but the Euro has remained stable against the Won.
What does the united states has that Europe does not have?
maybe an overstretched empire?
maybe a central bank that prints money with abandon?
the hegemony of the dollar is so central to america’s power, america has to go to war whenever the dollar is threatened.
that is why the neocons are beating the drums against Iran.
you know, if you get sent there corpy carly, you may die
no 28
Richardson wrote:
“Bandow is a conservative isolationist from CATO, rather than the left. He’s been on the US-out-of-Korea rant for years. ”
that doesn’t add up.
from wiki
“Isolationism is a foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism). In other words, it asserts both of the following:
Non-interventionism – Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.
Protectionism – There should be legal barriers to prevent trade and cultural exchange with people in other states. ”
but according to CATO’s website:
How to label CATO
The Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato’s work has increasingly come to be called “libertarianism” or “market liberalism.” It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism.
Bandow may be against military adventurism but he is no conservative isolationist.
richardson, you should get your facts straight (well, this is something that is too hard for americans).
Leo,
I’ve been reading Bandow for years and know exactly what he is, which is how I described him.
Political labels are handy in general terms but don’t mean that individuals can’t pick and choose what they subscribe to and what they don’t. Which is what Bandow does.
Quick, look up ‘nuance,’ then you can put that dictionary back up your … , thanks.
I’m with Corpy in betting your some cowards sock.
You must log in to post a comment.