The US Military's Logic: Toying with Okinawa

Published in Okinawa Times
(Japan) on 14 April 2014
by Sumiyo Henna (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Courtney Coppernoll. Edited by Kyrstie Lane.
“I think sometimes people get this idea that the Senkakus look like the island of Okinawa or, you know, any of the other major islands. It’s a very, very small collection of small islands. You wouldn’t maybe even necessarily have to put somebody on that island until you had eliminated the threat, so to speak.”

It was April, that time of year when the cherry blossoms along the Potomac River are in full bloom. In the suburbs of Washington, D.C. a symposium sponsored by the Association of the United States Navy was held. Lieutenant General John Wissler, Commander of Marine Forces Japan, attended the symposium and gave a morning press conference to defense reporters. He expressed his opinion that, even if China were to invade the Senkaku Islands, the U.S. military would be able to provide enough power to recover the area.

In Japan, there's a widespread notion that the U.S. Marine Corps' presence is critical to defending Senkaku. Yet, the commander of the U.S. Marines in Japan has now flatly denied that that's the case, stating that amphibious assault operations, which are the Marines' primary role, would not be necessary in recapturing the islands. A large number of people might be astonished to hear such a statement.

One more thing I'd like to point out here is another quote from the same commander.* Though he's the commanding officer, he expresses concern about the U.S. Army attempting to serve an identical function as the U.S. Marines.

“The Marines … have functioned for years as a so-called second land army.”

Roughly three years ago, the secretary of defense at the time, Robert Gates, spoke at a spring naval association lecture. He questioned how the Marine Corps ought to function, noting that they operate under an old-fashioned line of thinking that hasn't changed since World War II. He ordered a review of military strategy, asking, “Why are such a large number of Marine Corps personnel in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan? We don't need two land armies.”

Half a year passed, and the then Marine Corps Commandant, General James Amos, responded by stating that the military should redefine the role of the Marines, returning them to their original purpose. “Larger than special operations forces, but lighter and more expeditionary than conventional Army units … [the Marines are] a middleweight force. We fill the void in our Nation's defense … we engage and respond quickly – often from the sea – with enough force to carry the day upon arrival.”

At one time, the role the U.S. Marines played in the Asia-Pacific region was questioned. Yet, now that we've moved past the trouble with Henoko, which was approved for a landfill, they've quickly recanted on relocating Futenma within the next five years. They talk about taking care of the Senkaku Islands by sky and sea, and they're not even trying to hide their turf war with the U.S. Army. When I see such a display from the Marine Corps, I start to wonder if they're not just using arbitrary logic to toy with Okinawa. I'm not convinced they're being entirely forthcoming.

*Translator's Note: Though the original article indicates that this quote is from Lt. Gen. John Wissler, it's actually from previous Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.


米軍の論理 沖縄翻弄

「尖閣は沖縄のような島だと思っている人もいるかもしれないが、実際には極めて小さな島の連なりだ。いわゆる『脅威』を除去するために、兵員を上陸させる必要すらないかもしれない」

 ポトマックリバーの桜が満開となる4月。米ワシントン近郊で開かれた米海軍協会主催の恒例のシンポジウムに出席した在日米海兵隊トップのウィスラー司令官は、国防担当記者らとの朝食会見で、たとえ中国軍が侵入したとしても、空と海からの攻撃だけで、米軍は十分な奪還能力を発揮できると語った。

 日本では、尖閣防衛には海兵隊のプレゼンスが不可欠といった論理が横行しているが、尖閣奪回に、海兵隊の本業である強襲揚陸作戦は必要ない、と在日米海兵隊トップがきっぱり否定したわけだから、驚いた人も多いかもしれない。

 ここでもう一つ注目しておきたいのは、同司令官が、海兵隊と同様の機能を持とうと試みる陸軍に警戒心をあらわにしたことだ。

 「海兵隊はもう何年もの間、第二の陸軍として行動してきた」

 約3年前の春、時の国防長官だったゲーツ氏は、海軍協会の講演で、旧態然とした思考体系の下、第2次大戦後も態勢が変わらぬ海兵隊の在り方に疑問を呈し、「イラクやアフガニスタンになぜこんなに多くの海兵隊員がいるのか。二つも陸軍は必要ない」と戦略構造の見直しを命じた。

 それから半年後。エイモス総司令官は「特殊作戦部隊より大きく、陸軍部隊より軽量な中量級部隊を主軸に、海から迅速に対応する」と海兵隊本来の持ち場へと回帰した役割を定め直したはずだった。

 一時はアジア太平洋地域における役割を問われたものの、辺野古の埋め立て承認で危機を切り抜けた今、普天間の5年内停止をあっさり否定し、尖閣に対応するのは空と海だと言い、陸軍との縄張り争いを隠そうともしない。そんな海兵隊の姿を見ていると、沖縄は軍の勝手な論理に翻弄(ほんろう)されているだけなのではないかと思えてくる。納得いかない。(平安名純代・米国特約記者)
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Switzerland: Trump’s Military Contingent in Los Angeles Is Disproportionate and Dangerous

   

Austria: Trump Is Playing with Fire. Does He Want the Whole House To Go up in Flames?

Venezuela: The Devil in Los Angeles

Mexico: Migration: A Political Crisis?

Germany: Donald Trump’s Military Intervention in LA Is a Planned Escalation

Topics

Spain: Trump-Musk: Affair, Breakup and Reconciliation?

Switzerland: Trump’s Military Contingent in Los Angeles Is Disproportionate and Dangerous

   

Germany: If You’re Not for Him, You Should Be Afraid*

Austria: Trump Is Playing with Fire. Does He Want the Whole House To Go up in Flames?

Taiwan: Taiwan Issue Will Be Harder To Bypass during Future US-China Negotiations

Venezuela: The Devil in Los Angeles

Germany: Donald Trump’s Military Intervention in LA Is a Planned Escalation

Mexico: Migration: A Political Crisis?

Related Articles

Japan: Trump’s 100 Days: A Future with No Visible Change So Far

Japan: US Administration Losing Credibility 3 Months into Policy of Threats

Japan: US-Japan Defense Minister Summit: US-Japan Defense Chief Talks Strengthen Concerns about Single-Minded Focus on Strength

Japan: Trump’s Tariffs Threaten To Repeat Historical Mistakes

Hong Kong: China, Japan, South Korea Pave Way for Summit Talks; Liu Teng-Chung: Responding to Trump