Discussion about this post

User's avatar
TomG's avatar

If the Haasses of this country had enough integrity to even entertain a thought other than their own, they would benefit greatly from the view from the Larison side of the diplomatic isle. Earlier this week, Aaron Maté interviewed Maj. Danny Sjursen and Mathew Hoh. Major Danny's account of the payroll he routinely administered on our government's behalf was so indicative of the problem we falsely claimed we were addressing and laughable at the same time. Well worth a listen... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bo7P_podIk

Expand full comment
Paul Reichardt's avatar

There’s a lot of the “but Japan, Korea, and Germany!” arguments going around in attempting to make the case against withdrawal and I think those are worth engaging head on.

Of course, we didn’t put troops in Germany to fight the Germans but as a deterrent against a large-scale invasion by Soviet Union, who might otherwise see an undefended Berlin and West Germany as a tempting target for invasion. The Eisenhower doctrine—as formulated as his critique of Truman’s handling of Korea—employed a similar line of thinking. Of course, aerial bombing campaigns from 51-53 wiped out 1-2 million North Koreans (10-20% of the population, by Gen. LeMay’s estimates, out of a 1950 population of 10 million) which—setting aside the grave moral calculus there—was also aimed at preventing a post-civil war North Korea from being able to field and launch an army for a mass-invasion for decades. That’s what those massive troop installations were designed to do. As time went on, a lot of the inertia for withdrawing those troops becomes economic and political. There’s pressure to remove the naval base out of Okinawa due to crime of conflicts with locals, for example, but that gets countered by the local business establishment which has grown dependent on their patronage. It absolutely is a discussion to have about bringing those troops home as well.

Compare that with modern Islamist insurgencies in the Middle East, in which case it is precisely the presence of foreign armies and the perception of western imperialism that motivates them to attack and attract recruits. Yes, Al Qaeda attacked America on 9/11 and Osama Bin Ladin’s manifesto in the NY Times outlined a dog’s breakfast of grievances, but the proximate one seems to have been his view on the illegitimacy of the Saudi government that could only hold power due to the backing of US forces. His attack on the US—the “head of the snake”—was not because he hated our freedoms. They want us out, we want us out—maybe this doesn’t have to be such a difficult decision.

Expand full comment
7 more comments...

No posts