January 15, 2012
Akahata editorial (excerpts)
The U.S. Obama administration has proposed a new national defense strategy aimed at streamlining U.S. forces abroad following the end of the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The policy paper “Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21 st Century Defense” was released following the decision by the Congress to curtail 490 billion dollars over the next 10 years in the face of the nation’s worsening fiscal condition.
Maintaining world’s strongest military might
The United States sent in a massive number of ground troops in its attacks against Afghanistan and Iraq, incurring great human and fiscal costs. It finds it difficult to wage another war involving large-scale ground operations, and therefore is planning to reduce Army and Marine Corps strength.
Yet, the United States decided to add budgets on selected defense items in order to maintain the world’s strongest military might, as was referred to by U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. One of the priorities is to develop special operations capabilities. U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter suggested a budget hike for special forces to counter terrorism and the threat of weapons of mass destruction, and to improve the abilities of allies as well as to develop cyber and scientific technologies.
The new strategy is characterized by its emphasis on Asia and the Pacific region. Citing the need for the U.S. military presence in this region in order to maintain peace, stability, trade and U.S. strategic interests, the United States sees itself in the role of the world’s policeman, with keeping China foremost in mind. The United States is placing greater significance on its policy of strength.
Based on the assumption that China becoming a major power would be a threat to U.S. military operation capability in this region, the U.S. strategy seeks to maintain continued U.S. military superiority over China with its air and naval strength and the freedom to take military action. This emphasis in the new strategy contradicts the current situation in which economic relations are improving and relations in different spheres are developing between China and the United States.
In order to truly secure peace, the need is to endorse the United Nations Charter banning the threat or use of force, which is the very lesson that the United States should learn from its war of aggression against Iraq. The U.S. strategy advocating that military strength defends the peace goes against world public opinion.
Imposing greater burdens on allies
Keeping an eye on China, the new strategy maintains that the geographic arc from Japan to India is of prime importance, and imposes on U.S. allies a more aggressive military policy to conform with U.S. geopolitical interests. The danger cannot be overlooked that the new U.S. strategy will inevitably increase tensions in Asia.
Japan must not side with the U.S. strategy which will increase tensions in the region. Japan needs to take a path to free itself from the Japan-U.S. military alliance and pursue genuine peace from an independent position.
The U.S. Obama administration has proposed a new national defense strategy aimed at streamlining U.S. forces abroad following the end of the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The policy paper “Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21 st Century Defense” was released following the decision by the Congress to curtail 490 billion dollars over the next 10 years in the face of the nation’s worsening fiscal condition.
Maintaining world’s strongest military might
The United States sent in a massive number of ground troops in its attacks against Afghanistan and Iraq, incurring great human and fiscal costs. It finds it difficult to wage another war involving large-scale ground operations, and therefore is planning to reduce Army and Marine Corps strength.
Yet, the United States decided to add budgets on selected defense items in order to maintain the world’s strongest military might, as was referred to by U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. One of the priorities is to develop special operations capabilities. U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter suggested a budget hike for special forces to counter terrorism and the threat of weapons of mass destruction, and to improve the abilities of allies as well as to develop cyber and scientific technologies.
The new strategy is characterized by its emphasis on Asia and the Pacific region. Citing the need for the U.S. military presence in this region in order to maintain peace, stability, trade and U.S. strategic interests, the United States sees itself in the role of the world’s policeman, with keeping China foremost in mind. The United States is placing greater significance on its policy of strength.
Based on the assumption that China becoming a major power would be a threat to U.S. military operation capability in this region, the U.S. strategy seeks to maintain continued U.S. military superiority over China with its air and naval strength and the freedom to take military action. This emphasis in the new strategy contradicts the current situation in which economic relations are improving and relations in different spheres are developing between China and the United States.
In order to truly secure peace, the need is to endorse the United Nations Charter banning the threat or use of force, which is the very lesson that the United States should learn from its war of aggression against Iraq. The U.S. strategy advocating that military strength defends the peace goes against world public opinion.
Imposing greater burdens on allies
Keeping an eye on China, the new strategy maintains that the geographic arc from Japan to India is of prime importance, and imposes on U.S. allies a more aggressive military policy to conform with U.S. geopolitical interests. The danger cannot be overlooked that the new U.S. strategy will inevitably increase tensions in Asia.
Japan must not side with the U.S. strategy which will increase tensions in the region. Japan needs to take a path to free itself from the Japan-U.S. military alliance and pursue genuine peace from an independent position.
