.
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.
COPYRIGHT
CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Patrick J. Buchanan
needs
no introduction to
VDARE.COM readers; his book State
of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and
Conquest of America
be ordered from Amazon.com. His latest book
is Churchill,
Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How
Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost
the World,
reviewed
here by
Paul Craig Roberts.
