>Now who's being a bit silly? :) If anyone could cite sources supporting such a strange position, presumably they would have by now.
There's nothing strange about that position. The Japanese derive enormous benefit from the US presence. We left the Philippines when the Philippine government asked us to do so, and we'd leave Japan under the same circumstances. Do you really think we'd go to war with Japan to maintain bases there? That's preposterous.
>As for the US, Okinawans want the US military off their land.
So what? Okinawa isn't an independent country.
>In any case, that's all besides the point. Even if your claims were 100% correct (and there's areas I agree with), the point still stands: "It's doing reasonably ok because we let it". You're arguing a point I haven't made.
We "let" Japan do things to the same extent we "let" other countries do things. The only real stick we have with the Japanese is the threat to leave and take our money and protection with us.
The Philippines is a perfect example: "But, while Mt. Pinatubo provided a visible excuse to abandon the air base, U.S. officials were increasingly coming to view the facility as too expensive, as well as unnecessary in a time of tight budgets and easing post-Cold War tensions. Philippine political hostility to the continuing U.S. military presence and acrimonious negotiations with Philippine officials also made retention of the facility less attractive." (http://articles.latimes.com/1991-07-18/news/mn-3381_1_clark-...)
Dick Cheney said, "We have made a decision ... that we simply do not want to go back in and try to reuse Clark Air Force Base. The cost of doing so would be several hundred million dollars. It's in an area that is still threatened by continuing eruptions by the volcano."
> So what?
Indeed, "so what?" is our common reply to people's wishes to get our military off their land, as with Cuba's Guantanamo Bay and the Middle East in general.
I already mentioned one obvious alternative to occupying Okinawa against its residents' wishes. But as usual, "so what?" is the response.
> We "let" Japan do things to the same extent we "let" other countries do things.
Yep, ask people in the Middle East, Cuba, etc. (That's it from me, given that I cite evidence rather than merely repeat vague snatches of politics we can get from propaganda sources. I wish others would show us the same respect.)
No it isn't. We would not have left Subic Bay unless they asked us to.
>Indeed, "so what?" is our common reply to people's wishes to get our military off their land
It's not "their land". It's Japanese land, and people in Okinawa don't get to make that decision for the entire country. The country of Japan wants us to be there, and we'd leave if they didn't.
Places in Japan have NIMBY sentiment. Go figure.
>Yep, ask people in the Middle East, Cuba, etc...
The Cubans made a deal with us for a long lease in Guantanamo. When the lease is up we'll leave.
We never had any intention of staying in Iraq or Afghanistan, and we wouldn't have been in either country if the locals had kept to themselves. We were invited into Qutar and KSA.
There's nothing strange about that position. The Japanese derive enormous benefit from the US presence. We left the Philippines when the Philippine government asked us to do so, and we'd leave Japan under the same circumstances. Do you really think we'd go to war with Japan to maintain bases there? That's preposterous.
>As for the US, Okinawans want the US military off their land.
So what? Okinawa isn't an independent country.
>In any case, that's all besides the point. Even if your claims were 100% correct (and there's areas I agree with), the point still stands: "It's doing reasonably ok because we let it". You're arguing a point I haven't made.
We "let" Japan do things to the same extent we "let" other countries do things. The only real stick we have with the Japanese is the threat to leave and take our money and protection with us.