Japan (catch all)

1 May Christian Science Monitor - Japan to Step up its Asia Security Role.

Quote:

---

An agreement to realign US forces in Japan, to be finalized Monday in Washington, marks another step forward for Tokyo's ambitions to play an integral part in maintaining stability in a potentially volatile Asia-Pacific region.

Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso and Defense Agency director Fukushiro Nukaga will meet their US counterparts, Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld, to discuss a pact that is a key part of the Bush administration's global transformation of the American military...

The agreement is expected to lead to closer cooperation between the two militaries, as well as a more equal security partnership. The accord provides for the relocation of both a US division headquarters from the state of Washington and the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Forces Command to Camp Zama in Kanagawa, making intelligence sharing more comprehensive. It also establishes joint US-Japan use of the air base at Yokota, near Tokyo...

The driving forces behind ever-closer military relations come from both sides of the Pacific. One factor is the friendship between George W. Bush and Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, who share views on security issues.

On the US side, there is a desire to create a hedging strategy in Asia, given the view that China poses a potential long-term threat. That includes ending the regional perception of Japan as weak in military matters, says Mr. Ishii...

---

From CBC

Quote:

---

Japan passes bill to amend pacifist constitution
Key step towards once again intensifying Japan's military role
Last Updated: Friday, April 13, 2007 | 5:14 AM ET
The Associated Press

Japan's lower house of parliament on Friday approved guidelines for amending the pacifist constitution, a key step in Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's push to give the military a larger global role.

The legislation passed easily because of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party's majority in the chamber. The 1947 U.S.-drafted constitution has never been amended.

The vote came after members of the LDP and coalition partner New Komei Party pushed the legislation through a lower house panel meeting Thursday despite calls for more debate by the opposition.

More...

---

Given everything else going on in the region, this will be a very interesting debate to follow.

Marc

The Japanese have a reasonably effective Navy and Air Force. They are hobbled by the same problems they had in WWII--lack of any conception of joint operations.
In working with their Ground Self-Defense forces, I find hardworking, intelligent officers. With few exceptions, however, I don't see a "warrior spirit." I'm not saying that they need an army of samuri's, but there is an intensity and element of risk-taking that is necessary. I just don't see it in their ground operations.

I had the somewhat unique experience of coaching the Japanese on the ground in Goma, Zaire in their first out of area deployment since WWII. There was most definitely an unreal element to it; they--and these were fairly senior officers--were most out of place and they knew it. The Japanese DATT in Nairobi made a special trip to Kigali just to ask me to go talk to them. I did and gave them my pitch of the FAZ (Zairian military) as uniformed bandits. The Japanese Colonel looked at me and said, "Colonel you know what you have said to us is very different from what the French said." I simply pointed to some FAZ bandits outside his wire (the US wire left behind by the JTF) and asked him if those guys made him feel secure. As I recall the Japanese had 3 maybe 4 light troop carriers with no crew served weapons. Their small arms were secured inside the carriers and total numbers were around 80 men including officers. Their "mission" was to somehow provide security in the camps. I told the Colonel the best thing he could do was go home and not risk his men.

Best

Tom

Phil has a good point, they are effective (although I have seen better in the 80's while in Korea with Rock Marines and Japanese Infantry), but they seemed to step aside when danger comes a callin'.

Tom's first hand experience nearly made me fall out of my chair while reading his book. Tom provided an honest assessment from "on the ground" "front and center" and floored them. They obviously fell fool and victim to French know-it-all. Many have already.

Quote:

---

Many Japanese credit the charter's pacifist clause with keeping the country out of war since 1945, preventing a resurgence of wartime militarism and allowing Japan to focus on becoming wealthy.

Abe and supporters, however, argue that Japan needs to take more responsibility in maintaining global peace and security. The country dispatched troops on a humanitarian mission to Iraq in 2004-2006, the first time since the Second World War that Japanese soldiers have entered a combat zone.

---

It's about time they spent a few bucks for world peace :wry:

23 July NY Times - Bomb by Bomb, Japan Sheds Military Restraints by Norimitsu Onishi.

Quote:

---

... But from here in Micronesia to Iraq, Japan’s military has been rapidly crossing out items from its list of can’t-dos. The incremental changes, especially since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, amount to the most significant transformation in Japan’s military since World War II, one that has brought it ever closer operationally to America’s military while rattling nerves throughout northeast Asia.

In a little over half a decade, Japan’s military has carried out changes considered unthinkable a few years back. In the Indian Ocean, Japanese destroyers and refueling ships are helping American and other militaries fight in Afghanistan. In Iraq, Japanese planes are transporting cargo and American troops to Baghdad from Kuwait...

Richard J. Samuels, a Japan expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said that revisionist politicians like Mr. Abe and Mr. Koizumi, once on the fringes of Japan’s political world, succeeded in grabbing the mainstream in a time of uncertainty. They shared the view “that the statute of limitations on Japan’s misbehavior during the Pacific War had expired” and that Japan, like any normal country, should have a military...

---

I have long begged that Southeast Asia begin to prepare to defend themselves. A map of deployments (for the U.K., U.S.) shows the heavy concentration still in Germany (U.K.), Japan, SK, and while not in Taiwan, they are under our umbrella of defense.

All the while, we are suffering under a war that is underfunded and undermanned in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is way past time to rethink our strategic priorities and take the hard actions.

Abe has the right idea. Thanks for the link Dave.

Governing Party in Japan Suffers Election Defeat - NYTIMES, 30 July.

Quote:

---

Japan’s governing Liberal Democratic Party suffered a crushing defeat Sunday in the election for the upper house of Parliament, but Prime Minister Shinzo Abe vowed that he would not step down.

The main opposition Democratic Party seized control of the upper house by a landslide, capturing seats not only in cities but also in rural districts that had long been strongholds of the Liberal Democratic Party. The rout was widespread, with household names in the governing party falling one after another before opposition newcomers. It could also stall Tokyo’s moves toward a more assertive foreign policy and active military.

In a devastating rebuke to Mr. Abe, angry voters punished him for his mishandling of bread-and-butter issues and for a series of scandals in a government seemingly in disarray. Past prime ministers have resigned in the face of similar losses, but Mr. Abe, even before all the votes were counted, tried to head off inevitable questions about his leadership ...

---

Military Review, Jan-Feb 11: Muddled Dawn: The Implications of the New Administration in Japan

Quote:

---

Nine months after the DPJ’s landslide, the party’s first prime minister, Hatoyama Yukio, resigned, largely over a contretemps surrounding the Futenma issue. Japan ushered in its fifth prime minister in less than four years. Soon the ink was spilled again, this time declaring Japan ungovernable. Has there indeed been a new dawn for the Rising Sun? Should Americans be worried, as some pundits seem to be, about the alliance, or more recently, Japan’s reliability? Probably the questions most Americans would ask are: Why should we care? Why do we still have troops in peaceful Japan more than 60 years after World War II? Why is Japan important, and why is it unique?

---

Military begins voluntary evacuation of families in Japan

http://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/...japan-1.137999

Quote:

---

YOKOSUKA NAVAL BASE, Japan — The U.S. military authorized voluntary evacuations of eligible family members of Defense Department personnel Thursday from bases in mainland Japan following increasing worries over nuclear reactors damaged in the country’s largest recorded earthquake.

---

Quote:

---

Officials don’t know how heavy the demand will be, but the potential number of evacuees is in the thousands, Pentagon spokesman Col. David Lapan said. The primary means of evacuation will be commercial airlines and chartered flights, but if the demand is heavy, military aircraft will participate.

---

Quote:

---

“This does not affect U.S. military personnel, does not affect civilian personnel. Only eligible family members,” Lapan said.

He added that the voluntary evacuation was precautionary and that he knew of no elevated radiation measurements at U.S. bases that prompted it.

The evacuations could start Friday morning, Navy officials in Japan said.

---

Quote:

---

At bases across the country, families wrestled with whether to evacuate, splitting their families during the stressful time.

---

http://www.stripes.com/polopoly_fs/1...3732511302.jpg

". . .the voluntary evacuation was precautionary and that he knew of no elevated radiation measurements at U.S. bases that prompted it."

Voluntary means self-inflicted. A NEO of choice and not of necessity. What are we strategically communicating to Host Nation when we abandon ship like this?

Seems to me that all U.S. military personnel sponsoring dependents in Japan are affected. Every last one of them now has to explain their personal decision to their spouse rather than just kiss 'em good-bye and tell 'em to quit crying and get on the G. D. bus. And not knowing what the demand is going to be ensures a Charlie Foxtrot at the departure airfields.

Oprah is on AFN Japan.

I think it's probably a wise precaution. Unlike the hysteria surrounding potential CONUS fallout, there is some sense to this. The Japanese 12 mile evacuation zone is too damned small, and both the power company and their government are not performing very well dealing with these problems. Having dealt directly with the Japanese government, this does not surprise me any. Weaseling, misdirection, and lying are pretty much their normal way of doing business. This can be seen both in the track record of the power company, and the constant state of near failure their government operates under. Those are their results, not my opinions. They're likely to keep having a lot of meetings, and keep doing too little.

The odds that there will be a meltdown of sufficient temperatures that the resultant gases reach superheated temperatures are extremely low, to the point of not being a very credible scenario. That is what it would take to generate dry particulate matter in the upper reaches of the atmosphere that could in turn potentially generate trans-oceanic fallout. Those sorts of temperatures are usually only achieved via a nuclear detonation.

Radioactive particulate matter escaping right now, and potentially in the future is doing so carried in steam. It's already wet, it's not dry matter, and it's heavy matter too. These are complex heavy molecules that are already wet, and are more than less likely to attract further condensation. Which means that it's very unlikely that they're going to dry out, magically float higher, and cause the easily paniced masses on the US west coast any trouble.

It does however mean that there's some serious potential for toxic ground fog to develop, and localized toxic rainfall. I say localized because even caught up in a rain storm, these are the first things that get rained out, not the last. Rain storms are cyclical, think about those thunderstorm models every weather report you've ever seen trot out during the summer. Storms are constantly replentishing themselves, until they lose sources of moisture, lose energy, lose material that acts to facilitate condensation, and stop. In this case, the steam acts as a comparatively low level (compared to the `we just poured out a cup of the Sun' levels of heat) gas in the atmosphere, and the particulate matter acts to seed condensation. This is material that wants to sink. Since it's primarily in steam, or in steamy smoke, it loses it's thermal energy very quickly. So the threat is localized, it will stay local, and none of the surrounding countries are at any great risk at this point. Some of the modeling that's out there in the press right now is based off of figures & data related to nuclear detonations, not comparatively cold and wet smoldering fires. These are obviously flawed models, but it's an easy communications based mistake to make when someone is asking you what would happen if the radioactive material did get that high, and not how would it get there, or if it was even possible.

However, people in Japan are, and if we're going to help, it makes a heck of a lot of sense to free servicemembers up to only have to worry about themselves, their own safety, and their mission. If I had family within 300 miles of those plants, I would evacuate them.

All of what I've said is my own opinion, and I'd certainly welcome any data based contradictions to it. I want to see these problems solved, and I don't want to contribute to the witless fear mongering that's pervading the press. I might remind SmallWars readers that you all are all too familiar with just how much the press is full of crap. This instance is no different than the litany of profit driven narrative lying that you've already become quite sadly used to seeing.

Keep in mind, there are power issues as well as major logistics issues that Japan faces right now. The less population in affected areas, the better. Less to take care of. It is high time we restart NEO ops seeing what is happening to so many countries. Get them home and safe so the JOE's can do their work light hearted, not worrying about loved ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anonamatic

I think it's probably a wise precaution. Unlike the hysteria surrounding potential CONUS fallout, there is some sense to this.

---

Fukushima is almost 200 miles north of Kanagawa. Readings taken 20 klicks away from the plant register on the order of hundredths of a microsievert per hour. I fail to see any cause for precaution here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cannoneer No. 4

Voluntary means self-inflicted. A NEO of choice and not of necessity. What are we strategically communicating to Host Nation when we abandon ship like this?

---

Among other things, a national struggle with long division.

http://www.stripes.com/first-militar...and+Stripes%29

Quote:

---

About 233 of the 240 seats on the flight from Yokota to Seattle were filled, according to the Air Force, which said it was able to place all residents who wanted to leave Saturday on the flight.

---

Quote:

---

As of 3 p.m. Saturday, 556 people at Yokota have signed up for the flights, according to the base public affairs office. There are expected to be 11 flights between now and March 27 out of Yokota.

---

Quote:

---

Misawa base officials couldn’t say by 2 p.m. Saturday how many family members they think will want to fly out of Misawa. They were also still coordinating flights, and were unable to predict when the first planes carrying families would depart.

---

Misawa AB is the closest USFJ installation to the reactors, and a reasonable candidate IMHO for mandatory NEO.

Quote:

---

At Naval Air Facility Atsugi, near Tokyo, officials began mustering families with pregnant women, infants and special needs at the base movie theater around 9:30 a.m., only to cancel the muster shortly afterward. Dozens of families had shown up at the theater with their luggage and pets. Officials issued a statement apologizing for the inconvenience, stating that things are very fluid right now.

Base officials were meeting Saturday afternoon to discuss departure times for the first flights.

---

USAEUR did no NEO for Chernobyl. By the time they knew what had happened everybody had pretty much absorbed their dose, sucked it up and drove on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cannoneer No. 4

Misawa AB is the closest USFJ installation to the reactors, and a reasonable candidate IMHO for mandatory NEO.

---

Misawa is about thirty miles farther away (as the crow flies) from Fukushima than Yokosuka.

Quote:

---

USAEUR did no NEO for Chernobyl.

---

How do you evacuate in the advance of an explosion you've no idea is coming?

I know this matter slipped from view, but an IISS Strategic Comment is worth a read, partly as it identifies an issue which officialdom would rather keep from public view - nuclear security as illustrated by:

Quote:

---

It was a missed opportunity that, for reasons of national security, nuclear-security issues were not included in stress tests of 143 reactors ordered by the European Union after Fukushima.

---

Link:http://www.iiss.org/publications/str...ter-fukushima/

I noted that at the 2011 summit the UK became the 'lead' for one of the nine areas for work 'Protecting sensitive information related to nuclear security (United Kingdom)'. Given the history of HMG over the UK's own nuclear history an excellent choice, as one insider recently commented akin to "There are many decisions made where there are no official records".

1) Those interested in recently (?) measured radiation levels (at different distances from the Fukushima reactors in Japan) should see:

#http://www.meti.go.jp/earthquake/nuc...nitor02_01.pdf #
(dose levels measured 1 meter above the ground)

#http://www.meti.go.jp/earthquake/nuc...nitor02_02.pdf
(dose levels measured 1 centimeter above the ground)

Note that the color code is explained near the lower left corner of each display. Radiation levels are expressed in micro-Sieverts per hour. [The 10 micro-sieverts, for example, is the same as 0.01 mSv, etc. And 10 micro-Sievert/hour is the same as 0.24 mSv/day, or 7.2 mSv/month.]

2) How significant are these levels? The effect of penetrating radiation on a person depends on the dose received. The common unit of dose is Sievert (Sv). Smaller doses are expressed in milliseverts (mSv) or microseveret.

A dose of 10 Sv will most likely results in death, within a day or two.
5 Sv would kill about 50% of exposed people.
2 Sv can also be fatal, especially without prompt treatment.

0.25 Sv = 250 mSv is the limit for emergency workers in life-saving operations.
0.10 Sv = 100 mSv dose is clearly linked to later cancer risks.
0.05 Sv = 50 mSv is the yearly limit for radiation workers.

0.004 Sv= 4 mSv typical yearly dose due to natural radiation (cosmic rays, etc).
0.003 Sv= 3 mSV typical dose from mammogram

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.

Just joined up and the information in your post is just what I've been looking for. Many Thanks.

Radiation:Fukushima reactors update

The accident phase was enden in Fukushima, as described at:

http://tinyurl.com/8yshwhy

But the process of “decommisioning reactors” is expected to take 40 years.

Ludwik Kowalski
.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16377178

Quote:

---

A former member of Japan's Aum Shinrikyo cult has turned himself in to police after nearly 17 years on the run, one of three remaining fugitives.

---

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1178735.html

Quote:

---

The cult had amassed an arsenal of chemical, biological and conventional weapons in anticipation of an apocalyptic showdown with the government

---

.

Quote:

---

Nearly 200 members of the cult have been convicted in the gas attack and dozens of other crimes. Thirteen, including cult guru Shoko Asahara, are on death row. No one has been executed.

---

These guys bought the friggin process for the manufacture of Sarin from the head of the Russian Security Council for less than $100,000 in the early nineties. Lord knows what else they got their hands on.

Quote:

---

Shinzo Abe reveals plans to lift Japan's ban on fighting in conflicts overseas

Japan's prime minister calls for review of way country interprets its pacifist constitution – a move likely to raise tension with China

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...licts-overseas

---

Quote:

---

Obama says US will defend Japan in island dispute with China
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ute-with-china

---

Quote:

---

China is destabilising south-east Asia, US defence secretary says

• Chuck Hagel says US will not ignore from Beijing's actions
• Chinese general says 'criticisms are groundless'
• Washington pledges to support uneasy allies, including Japan
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ecretary-warns

---

Quote:

---

Australian defence minister backs US on China’s ‘destabilising’ actions


David Johnston says he supports US defense secretary’s view that China is undertaking ‘destabilising, unilateral actions’ in the South China Sea
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...lising-actions

---

Quote:

---

Why Russia is bolstering ties with North Korea

Angry with the West's response over Ukraine and eager to diversify its options, Russia is cozying up to North Korea. For Pyongyang, the timing couldn't be better, says Eric Talmadge
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...es-north-korea

---

Given the current 'situation' in the South China seas' and these issues that are taking place across the world, how far will the US be able to maintain her prime position as the leading nation of the world.

Apart from China exerting her quest for world supremacy, Putin has a 'Putin Pivot' in place. Is it to counter US' 'Asia Pivot'?

What must the US do to tweak her foreign, strategic and economic policies, given the unfolding circumstances, to be able to dictate the 'fate' of the world as she is still doing?

Ray asked a question:

Quote:

---

What must the US do to tweak her foreign, strategic and economic policies, given the unfolding circumstances, to be able to dictate the 'fate' of the world as she is still doing?

---

I am not convinced the USA has ever been able to dictate the 'fate' of the world as she is still doing.

There have been a few times when the USA has been the paramount capable nation, after WW1 & WW2 for example. It has not always used that capability, often due to domestic factors and more recently has been obsessed with terrorism to the detriment of many other issues - including its own problems at home.

The USA would have to do far more than 'tweak' its policies to attain the position you ascribe to it - dictating the world's fate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davidbfpo

Ray asked a question:

I am not convinced the USA has ever been able to dictate the 'fate' of the world as she is still doing.

There have been a few times when the USA has been the paramount capable nation, after WW1 & WW2 for example. It has not always used that capability, often due to domestic factors and more recently has been obsessed with terrorism to the detriment of many other issues - including its own problems at home.

The USA would have to do far more than 'tweak' its policies to attain the position you ascribe to it - dictating the world's fate.

---

Fair statement.

However, it was touted that US was the supercop of the world. And sure it acted as one and enforced it too.

Was that bogus?

If it were, then how come Bosnia, Serbia, Iraq or even Afghanistan happened or making the OPEC irrelevant to blackmail or pushing the boundaries of Europe to squeeze Russia or Middle East and none complained!?

Does one really believe Egypt, Algeria or Syria is a problem of their own making?

If that is not deciding the fate of the world, then what is?

Then if the US want to retain her primacy, what should it do?

Fade away as a wilted rose?

I do agree that the wily Oriental mind of China has somewhat degraded the US value to keep global equations, but then to see it fade away would hardly 'warm the cockles of the heart' of many nations around the world and in Asia.

What does paramount capable nation, mean?

It means capable to make its writ run!

Ray,

You asked:

Quote:

---

What does paramount capable nation, mean?

---

I believe that the USA remains the only global superpower, with no nation in a position to be a rival globally. Hence the use of the adjective paramount. I originally used italics for capable to draw attention to the USA having the capability to exercise power, it is simply that it does not always exercise that power.

In a number of spheres the USA has incredible power, notably to coerce, gather information, provide intelligence and apply direct military force. It remain weak in other spheres, in trade, ideology - or "message", info ops and finance.

Around the globe the USA is readily portrayed as a 'cop' with a big stick and little else. One that shelters itself behind walls.

The USA is far more than this. D-Day reminded me of the immense economic and industrial mobilization undertaken; not to ignore the huge Canadian contribution.

In other threads, maybe now old, American members have remarked that the USA has been engaged in a political-military campaign against terrorism (once known as GWOT), but domestically it has been carrying on as normal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

However, it was touted that US was the supercop of the world. And sure it acted as one and enforced it too.

Was that bogus?

---

Yes, it was bogus. The US, like every country, acts or does not act according to its own perceived interests, and that's not compatible with the "cop" role.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

If it were, then how come Bosnia, Serbia, Iraq or even Afghanistan happened or making the OPEC irrelevant to blackmail or pushing the boundaries of Europe to squeeze Russia or Middle East and none complained!?

---

I'm not sure what you mean by "making the OPEC irrelevant to blackmail".

The US acts, when it acts, according to its own perception of its own interest. Both perception and interests are subject to revision, so the basis for action (or inaction) is not always going to be the same. Not all of these events are exclusively related to US action in any case: "pushing the boundaries of Europe" owes at least as much to Eastern Europeans preferring to be allied with the West as it does to any US action. It is a mistake to interpret events through an overly US-focused lens: people act on their own initiatives and perceptions, not because on anything the US did. In any event, lots of people complained about all of these, some of them in the US, where there is rarely if ever a consensus on what the national interest is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

Does one really believe Egypt, Algeria or Syria is a problem of their own making?

---

Yes. That kind of "problem" cannot be "made" from the outside. Outside forces will inevitably try to exploit and manipulate events once they start, but that's not the same as causing them and the US is not in any way the only one playing that game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

If that is not deciding the fate of the world, then what is?

---

It's not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

Then if the US want to retain her primacy, what should it do?

---

First, acknowledge that trying to maintain absolute military supremacy without absolute economic supremacy is a one way street to exhaustion and collapse. Trying to be top dog at all times and in all places and to have the final word in every dispute is neither necessary nor sustainable.

Second, stop dissipating energy and resources on efforts not central to US interests. Apply force only when it is necessary to do so, in places and over issues where critical US interests are at stake. Empires and hegemonies are more likely to fail through overextension and overcommitment than through the restrained use of power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

Given the current 'situation' in the South China seas' and these issues that are taking place across the world, how far will the US be able to maintain her prime position as the leading nation of the world.

Apart from China exerting her quest for world supremacy, Putin has a 'Putin Pivot' in place. Is it to counter US' 'Asia Pivot'?

What must the US do to tweak her foreign, strategic and economic policies, given the unfolding circumstances, to be able to dictate the 'fate' of the world as she is still doing?

---

Our most recent version of the National Defense Strategy was titled "Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership," which we have done on an unprecedented scale for the betterment of mankind in my opinion. Yes we're a global power and a global cop, a role that many countries welcome. While Colin Gray a leading UK strategist believes our role as a global cop is indispensable, I don't know if he speaks for the majority of the UK, or if it even matters. The majority of people in the world live in ignorance willingly on what threatens their interests.

The U.S. has a played a leading role globally since the end of WWII, but during the Cold War faced significant competition from the USSR. The Cold War was in many ways a competition for influence to begin with. After the USSR collapsed the U.S. still played a leading role globally in NATO, Korea, Balkans, leading counter piracy efforts, leading counter terrorism efforts, leading the effort to free Kuwait from Iraqi occupation, etc.

It is only natural that other State powers will emerge that will challenge that dominant role, but it is a major exaggeration to state we'll fade away. Our relative power to others may be decreasing, but no other state comes close to wielding the global influence or reach that we do.

Other powers that are starting to wield coercive power, but so far that power has been restricted to their backyards where they have a geographical advantage.

Frankly we have a weak administration that doesn't understand the way the world works, and much like LBJ finds the world a distraction from the work the administration would prefer to do on the home front. After the next Presidential election we'll see if our relative power increases, flat lines, or continues the downward trend. I think the downward trend is temporary, but like the rest of us I don't own a crystal ball so we'll just have to wait and see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

Our most recent version of the National Defense Strategy was titled "Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership," which we have done on an unprecedented scale for the betterment of mankind in my opinion. Yes we're a global power and a global cop, a role that many countries welcome. While Colin Gray a leading UK strategist believes our role as a global cop is indispensable, I don't know if he speaks for the majority of the UK, or if it even matters. The majority of people in the world live in ignorance willingly on what threatens their interests.

The U.S. has a played a leading role globally since the end of WWII, but during the Cold War faced significant competition from the USSR. The Cold War was in many ways a competition for influence to begin with. After the USSR collapsed the U.S. still played a leading role globally in NATO, Korea, Balkans, leading counter piracy efforts, leading counter terrorism efforts, leading the effort to free Kuwait from Iraqi occupation, etc.

It is only natural that other State powers will emerge that will challenge that dominant role, but it is a major exaggeration to state we'll fade away. Our relative power to others may be decreasing, but no other state comes close to wielding the global influence or reach that we do.

Other powers that are starting to wield coercive power, but so far that power has been restricted to their backyards where they have a geographical advantage.

Frankly we have a weak administration that doesn't understand the way the world works, and much like LBJ finds the world a distraction from the work the administration would prefer to do on the home front. After the next Presidential election we'll see if our relative power increases, flat lines, or continues the downward trend. I think the downward trend is temporary, but like the rest of us I don't own a crystal ball so we'll just have to wait and see.

---

With utmost humbleness and humility at my command, I will state that the statement - we have done on an unprecedented scale for the betterment of mankind in my opinion, is not only condescending but totally misplaced.

While being a supercop of the world is well taken, even if disparaged, solely on the count that the US has the military and economic power to do so, yet given the social and cultural difference that prevails around the world and not taken into consideration by the US, very few would be comfortable to feel that the US speaks for the 'conscience' of the world. Even France, a western nation, is doubtful.

Colin Gray a leading UK strategist does not impress me as to what he has to say since he comes from a nation that its glory is past its shelf life and is solely kept in circulation being the poor relation of the US but totally ignored by the world.

Actually other powers are not being coercive and challenging the US. They are merely stating that they are also around to be reckoned and the free lunch is over. That is why the US influence is waning and not only because the US has a weak administration, though that also plays a role.

It is true that many nations, including India, appreciate the 'global supercop' attitude of the US. But the point to note, is that it is only when it suits their purpose.

In response to your U.S. still played a leading role globally in NATO, Korea, Balkans, leading counter piracy efforts, leading counter terrorism efforts, leading the effort to free Kuwait from Iraqi occupation, etc, I would say there is no ground to moralise and act as the 'saviour'.

Note the behaviour pattern for Kosovo (? or is it some other place) and Ukraine. Speaks volumes of double speak! Not that where I come from is affected or bothered.

India has been wracked by the same terrorism via Pak sponsored Islamic goons and malcontent. The US ignored the same. But woke up only when they were visited by the same on 9/11! So, it is not so moral cause that US took on GWOT. It was merely self interest and self sustenance!

Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait?

You really feel 'Freedom and Democracy' and 'American way of life' is a rationale to go invading nations? Rather cockeyed a rationale. How many nations find US Freedom and Democracy the "Holy Grail" and a panacea to a great life?

If 'Freedom and Democracy' & 'American way of life', then why this mess in both the countries? They should actually be life in peace and harmony.

As far as Kuwait is concerned, please go back to history and see how the western nations with the help of the League of Nations cut up the Middle East to serve their purpose.

Look at history and see how everywhere the British colonised and then were forced out, they left rifts that they could manipulate to still serve their purpose.

Forgive me for being blunt, but all must look at different perspectives to find solution instead of forcing their own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

Yes we're a global power and a global cop, a role that many countries welcome. While Colin Gray a leading UK strategist believes our role as a global cop is indispensable

---

Global power, yes. Global cop, I don't think so, though it would depend on how you define "cop". To me the "cop" construct suggests that we act to enforce laws or norms that are apart from our own interests, and that we do not do. We act on our own perception of our own interest at any given time, not to enforce some external law or concept of rightness. That is of course normal, but it is not compatible with the role of "cop".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

The majority of people in the world live in ignorance willingly on what threatens their interests.

---

I'm not so sure of that. Their perception of interests and threats may diverge from ours, but that doesn't make them ignorant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

Frankly we have a weak administration that doesn't understand the way the world works, and much like LBJ finds the world a distraction from the work the administration would prefer to do on the home front. After the next Presidential election we'll see if our relative power increases, flat lines, or continues the downward trend. I think the downward trend is temporary, but like the rest of us I don't own a crystal ball so we'll just have to wait and see.

---

That I suspect is an exaggeration. The current administration took office saddled with expensive and unpopular legacy wars that had little or no chance of really favorable resolution. It's been restricted by an electorate that has close to zero appetite for overseas adventurism. Any understanding of "how the world works" has to be balanced by a realistic appreciation of how domestic politics work.

In the long term the fate of American power relative to other nations will depend less on foreign policy decisions than on America's ability or inability to get domestic and economic policy back on track. Global political influence and military strength rest on economic strength and cannot be sustained or increased if economic strength fades.

Ray,

I appreciate bluntness and your insights. Some I agree with, others not so much, but remain open to your perspective.

To some extent I can understand the condescending accusation, but that wasn't the intent. It was to capture what I believe is the general desire of most Americans to do good around the world, an in many cases to do so selflessly. On the other hand we do have national interests that we protect that conflict with our values. I think that is a reality for most countries. I'm both an idealist and realist.

Quote:

---

While being a supercop of the world is well taken, even if disparaged, solely on the count that the US has the military and economic power to do so, yet given the social and cultural difference that prevails around the world and not taken into consideration by the US, very few would be comfortable to feel that the US speaks for the 'conscience' of the world. Even France, a western nation, is doubtful.

---

France has always had penis envy of the U.S., but moving on to your other points. What if a nation has the means to be a regional or global security providers like India and China, but they don't step up. Does that make them morally superior in your view? Your other point I agree with, we try to push our way of life and do not appreciate prevailing social and economic differences.


Sorry got to run, but great exchange and I'll send more later via Smartphone.

Quote:

---

On the other hand we do have national interests that we protect that conflict with our values. I think that is a reality for most countries. I'm both an idealist and realist

---

That is more truthful than

Quote:

---

we have done on an unprecedented scale for the betterment of mankind in my opinion

---

It would be as hypocritical as saying Mahatma Gandhi saved the world with Mandela and Martin Luther King taking his line!

I have no quibbles with the US protecting her interest in whatever way it wants to include actions in Iraa and Afghanistan.

As far as the iraq war is concerned, here is an interesting commentary

Quote:

---

Although completely suppressed in the U.S. media, the answer to the Iraq enigma is simple yet shocking - it an an oil CURRENCY war. The Real Reason for this upcoming war is this administration's goal of preventing further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard. However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves. This lengthy essay will discuss the macroeconomics of the "petro-dollar" and the unpublicized but real threat to U.S. economic hegemony from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency.
http://www.rense.com/general34/realre.htm

---

and

Quote:

---

The outbreak of the Iran-Iraq War in 1980 followed a decade of rising oil prices and fluctuating oil supplies, both of which had fueled the ascendance of OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries). The industrialized oil-importing nations of the non-Communist world and their major oil companies feared that the Iran-Iraq War would compound these trends. But ironically, the outbreak of the war saw the importing nations display a resurgence of initiative, while OPEC�?¯�?¿�?½s bargaining power declined. Despite persistent efforts to maintain the high prices and leverage it had enjoyed throughout the 1970s, the cartel ultimately suffered the consequences of internal disunity and increased caution on the part of the importing nations
http://www.gloria-center.org/2003/12/rubin-2003-12-01/

---

Good reasons to the Iraq War. No quibbles there.

But the rationale of Freedom and Democracy is totally bogus.

If it were so, then the first to have been attacked was Saudi Arabia, a totally decadent region with weird laws and a financier of terrorism the world over.

Quote:

---

Although completely suppressed in the U.S. media, the answer to the Iraq enigma is simple yet shocking - it an an oil CURRENCY war. The Real Reason for this upcoming war is this administration's goal of preventing further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard. However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves. This lengthy essay will discuss the macroeconomics of the "petro-dollar" and the unpublicized but real threat to U.S. economic hegemony from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency.
http://www.rense.com/general34/realre.htm

---

Rense is a monumentally unreliable source, and this theory has been debunked so often and so conclusively that it's really not worth repeating.

There is a harebrained conspiracy theory "explanation" for just about everything that happens in the world. Their omnipresence does not mean they have any connection to reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

That is more truthful than



It would be as hypocritical as saying Mahatma Gandhi saved the world with Mandela and Martin Luther King taking his line!

I have no quibbles with the US protecting her interest in whatever way it wants to include actions in Iraa and Afghanistan.

As far as the iraq war is concerned, here is an interesting commentary



and fi



Good reasons to the Iraq War. No quibbles there.

But the rationale of Freedom and Democracy is totally bogus.

If it were so, then the first to have been attacked was Saudi Arabia, a totally decadent region with weird laws and a financier of terrorism the world over.

---

As Afghan that theory on why we went to war with Iraq is bogus, but important I can't see how you can deny the goodness the U.S. has done worldwide. Of course if you want to believe we went to war in Iraq to prevent the Euro from becoming the currency for OPEC that may partially explain it. I think some nations only look after their self interests and can't perceive a nation acting to achieve objectives based on moral imperatives. Ghandi was over rated in many respects. He did provide a model for non-violent protest that failed in most cases to include India, but MLK was able to successfully employ it in the U.S. based on a confluence of factors, not the least being that our behaviour was conflict with our stated morals. Every revolution is unique based on local factors.

Just curious since India was close to the USER and remains close to Russia do you think the world would be better off if the USSR model dominated the world?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

As Afghan that theory on why we went to war with Iraq is bogus, but important I can't see how you can deny the goodness the U.S. has done worldwide. Of course if you want to believe we went to war in Iraq to prevent the Euro from becoming the currency for OPEC that may partially explain it. I think some nations only look after their self interests and can't perceive a nation acting to achieve objectives based on moral imperatives. Ghandi was over rated in many respects. He did provide a model for non-violent protest that failed in most cases to include India, but MLK was able to successfully employ it in the U.S. based on a confluence of factors, not the least being that our behaviour was conflict with our stated morals. Every revolution is unique based on local factors.

Just curious since India was close to the USER and remains close to Russia do you think the world would be better off if the USSR model dominated the world?

---

What is this 'goodness' of the US you talk about?

Combating during the Cold War and putting newly independent nations, that were economically struggling to chose sides, 'goodness'?

It was not Bush who propounded the theory - either with us or without. It was John Foster Dulles. He divided the world. Nehru was US centric, but he also wanted to be on his own having come out of the colonial era. Dulles pushed him into the Soviet arms! That is goodness of the US?

Gandhi maybe overrated. But then he got rid of a 300 years plus colonial serfdom without a shot being fired. If that is not something historical, then what is?

Are you suggesting that the white supremacy that MLK using Gandhian tactics is more significant, brutal discriminatory and disgraceful than a 300 year colonial rule? Maybe. I cannot comment since I am not aware if the whites of the US were more brutal and ruthless than the British Raj. Maybe there were and you would know best.

India is not close to Russia as you may like to feel. Initially, as I have explained, the US pushed India into the Russian hug.

Open up your eyes. Check the facts. Is India still in the model of Russia?

We are neither following the US dictates or the US dictates. We are, as also countries try to do, is following the model that suit us best in the circumstance.

Russian model would have been great for USSR, but by a long chalk, it would not have been good for India or any other country since the parameters and cultures are different.

You would know better.

Has the American values and way of life and US concept of Freedom and Democracy worked out in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Why has it not, when it was super for the USA?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

Rense is a monumentally unreliable source, and this theory has been debunked so often and so conclusively that it's really not worth repeating.

There is a harebrained conspiracy theory "explanation" for just about everything that happens in the world. Their omnipresence does not mean they have any connection to reality.

---

No source in the world is reliable.

All have an agenda.

Sooner we realise, the better for all!

Ray

I agree with many of your criticisms and agree we made our fair share of missteps to include Bush's your either with us or against us declaration. There were reasons for it but I think we could have achieved the same by stating we will pursue AQ where ever they seek refuge and accomplished the same thing without an ultimatum. Our foreign policy during the cold war for reasons that were probably rationale thus the necessity of realpolitic that conflicted with our stated values. The excesses pursued by the Dulles brothers was inexcusable and our congress got that under control validating the strength of our political system. The people's congress got our foreign policy more in line with our values.

What goodness came out of behavior writ large? Compare the life styles between Western and Eastern Europe for one. Who championed human rights globally? What country more than any other helped lift millions out of abject policy? What other country has a system that enables it intellectual capital to develop technologies to include the Green Revolution and medical advances that contributed to advance humanity?

We certainly act in our interests and we also act at times in an altruistic manner to promote goodness because the American people determine our national interests also, not just the politicians and military. Again the strength of our system. As all becomes more transparent the greater that strength is.

Ray

My point about Ghandi was he wasn't responsible for the bits leaving India but MLK used Ghandi's strategy effectively.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

No source in the world is reliable.

All have an agenda.

Sooner we realise, the better for all!

---

No source in the world is 100% reliable.

Some are 100% unreliable.

Rense.com is 110% unreliable. Not to be taken seriously,

Bill Moore,

Just see what the goodness of America has done. What the US did may have been in good faith, but that is not how others see it because the consequences for them is more horrendous and horrific.

Quote:

---

Iraqi soldiers, police drop weapons, flee posts in portions of Mosul

As security forces ran out, militants overran Iraq's second-largest city on Tuesday -- a stunning collapse that heightened questions about Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's ability to hold onto not only Mosul, but his entire country.
Militants seized Mosul's airport, TV stations, the governor's office and other parts, if not all, of the northern Iraqi city.
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/10/wo...iraq-violence/

---

Bush wanted Freedom and Democracy and now we have a huge problem on our hands.

The complete Middle East is reeling because of this 'goodness' that US has spread.

Saddam was maybe a tyrant, but that is what kept these people under check. Can't spread ideology, good that it maybe, to people who don't understand and those whose life has been fashioned through a regimentation enforced by strict codes of their religion, which is contrary to democratic principles.

I shudder to think of this onslaught of these fundamentalist fanatics because India has suffered much from these foreign spawned elements. And to find more running menacingly wild, is really very depressing.

Victor Frankenstein must bottle the creature he has created or soon the world will be devoured!

And soon the US will quit Afghanistan which is another chaotic area.

I feel sorry for the US and I feel sorry for fate of the world.

I was reading an article that stated that if the US had kept Iran on their side, then it would not be blackmailed by Pakistan over the logistic route. It would help the US to circumvent Pakistan, which is the womb and hotbed in spawning terrorists and which they cannot now control and is their Frankenstein. Latest reports of the Taliban action on Karachi airport is horrifying.

No offence meant.

Just to state the old proverb - Think before you Leap!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

Ray

My point about Ghandi was he wasn't responsible for the bits leaving India but MLK used Ghandi's strategy effectively.

---

Then why did the British leave and that too in a hurry?

Check what was the writ given to Lord Mountbatten?

Quote:

---

One explanation for the chaotic manner in which the two independent nations came into being is the hurried nature of the British withdrawal. This was announced soon after the victory of the Labour Party in the British general election of July 1945, amid the realisation that the British state, devastated by war, could not afford to hold on to its over-extended empire.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british...n1947_01.shtml

---

Devastated by war, could not afford to hold on to its over-extended empire, why could the British not hold on to India.

What prevented Britain?

Obviously, the unrest and clamour for Independence and which could get ugly.

There was already the mutiny in the Royal Indian Navy.

The british left India for a lot of reasons, but in my opinion the INA revolt , and the subsequent trials, leading to mass mobilization and military defections indicated the British couldn't hold India. As for our misplaced adventure in Iraq and unrealistic goals in Afghanistan the world should question our judgment and lack of strategic foresight. The events playing out now were pretty much predicted by people who understood the region. In my opinion Bush Jr didn't have half the wisdom of his father and we and the rest of the worldwill be paying a high price for that hubris for a long time. U.S. forforeign policy is too elitist, too coercive, non-compromising, and excessively preachy. Oddly it is very much at odds with the American people in many cases. You shouldn't judge us by our policies alone when you think about American contributions to the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

The british left India for a lot of reasons, but in my opinion the INA revolt , and the subsequent trials, leading to mass mobilization and military defections indicated the British couldn't hold India. As for our misplaced adventure in Iraq and unrealistic goals in Afghanistan the world should question our judgment and lack of strategic foresight. The events playing out now were pretty much predicted by people who understood the region. In my opinion Bush Jr didn't have half the wisdom of his father and we and the rest of the worldwill be paying a high price for that hubris for a long time. U.S. forforeign policy is too elitist, too coercive, non-compromising, and excessively preachy. Oddly it is very much at odds with the American people in many cases. You shouldn't judge us by our policies alone when you think about American contributions to the world.

---

From the US standpoint, I would not say that the US was wrong into going into Afghanistan and Iraq.

Afghanistan was essential to hunt down OBL who killed a whole lot of people who were American or on American soil and the Taliban were not ready to hand him over. Any country which had the military and economic clout as the US would have done what the US did.

Iraq, to my mind, was a direct and natural corollary to the Defense Policy Guideline of Cheney and Wolfowitz (or Wolfowitz Doctrine) and the Economic Policy Guidelines, given the end of the Cold War and new strategic objectives.

Iraq was the centre of the turbulent and unpredictable Middle East and unlike the First Gulf War which was besot with innumerable logistic issues, having a sizeable presence in Iraq would allow quick reaction anywhere in the ME before it became a festering wound.

Further, Iraq had sweet oil (economically a win win) and the second largest oil reserve. Therefore, a control over that would break the monopoly of the OPEC to manipulate prices and supply. It will be recalled that this blackmail of the OPEC was detrimental to the US, nay world, economy.

Therefore, both actions are justified.

However the manner of approach was, in my opinion, unfortunate. One has to cut one's coat as per the cloth. The US overreached. Instead of first addressing Afghanistan, it also took on Iraq, resulting in none being brought to a logical conclusion. And the US and the world suffers even as of today.

And what a waste in terms of lives and finances.

As the British would say, both are a massive cock-up, not having thought through and instead banking on a self induced superiority complex.

Unfortunate and sad.

My apologies for moving OT.

Of course going into Afghanistan was justified, what I disagree with was our attempt to turn it into a modern nation using our military. It takes time for a culture to evolve. Removing Saddam was justified, but incompetent execution above the tactical level combined with unrealistic ends.

Quote:

---

The final trial of a member of the Aum Shinrikyo cult opened in Tokyo today, nearly 20 years after followers of the apocalyptic group released sarin nerve gas on the city's subway system. When the case concludes, and cult members are no longer required to give testimony against each other, the executions can begin. Eleven followers of Shoko Asahara, who declared himself a reincarnation of Christ and founded the cult in 1984, have been sentenced to death for crimes that include murder, abduction, the production of weapons and creating nerve gas.

---

Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...g-closure.html

Quote:

---

Japan's military on Saturday launched its first Marines unit, tasked with defending remote islands in the face of China's growing maritime presence in the region. The Self-Defence Forces' amphibious fighting unit staged an exercise with US Marines at Sasebo in western Japan following the inauguration ceremony. The 2,100-member brigade, based in Sasebo, will be responsible for defending remote islands and retaking them if they are invaded.

---

https://www.yahoo.com/news/japan-lau...130754865.html

Moderator adds: There is a thread for Japan, not updated since 2015:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...an-(catch-all)

Quote:

---

The Defense Ministry plans to expand the scope of the capacity-building assistance by Japan’s Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) to other nations’ militaries, to include South Asia, it was learned on March 24.

These programs, which have so far centered on the Southeast Asian region, are envisioned to serve as leverage to push forward the initiative for a free and open Indo-Pacific region, as advocated by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, the sources said.

Assistance to Sri Lanka is anticipated in the first phase of the scheme. Japanese defense officials have begun consultations with their Sri Lankan counterparts regarding specific assistance measures, including maritime security, according to well-informed sources.

The Defense Ministry embarked on programs for capacity-building assistance in fiscal year 2012. So far, the programs have been implemented in 14 countries and one organization, mostly in Southeast and Central Asia. They have mainly been in the fields of disaster relief, humanitarian assistance, and facilities maintenance and development.

---

https://japan-forward.com/japan-expa...de-south-asia/

Heads up, HARPOON scenario writers.

Quote:

---

Tokyo will launch its first aircraft carriers since the end of World War II to accommodate a growing number of stealth fighters, long-range missiles and other equipment adding to the Japan Self-Defence Forces (JSDF). The guidelines approved at a meeting of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's Cabinet call for refitting the Izumo helicopter carrier into a ship that can deploy expensive, US-made F-35B stealth fighters capable of short take-offs and vertical landings. The work would be done over five years and the ship would carry 10 stealth fighters, while the refitting of a second helicopter carrier into a second aircraft carrier would follow.

---

Quote:

---

Japan plans to buy 147 F-35s, including 42 F-35Bs, over the next decade. These stem from the same class of fighters procured by the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF), labelled the "most lethal acquisition in the Air Force's history". The new planes will include 18 short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) B variants of the F-35 that planners want to deploy on Japanese islands along the edge of the East China Sea.

---

Quote:

---

The navy's two large helicopter carriers, the Izumo and Kaga, will be modified for F-35B operations, the paper said. The 248-metre-long Izumo-class ships are as big as any of Japan's aircraft carriers in World War II. They will need reinforced decks to withstand the heat blast from F-35 engines and could be fitted with ramps to aid short take-offs, two defence ministry officials said.

---

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-...-wwii/10632254