[Dr House]

What importance do the 4,000 combat Marines in Okinawa have to our strategic aims in the Western Pacific? The possible enemies are China and North Korea. Against North Korea 4,000 Marines will make no difference (South Korea's 680,000 man standing army and five million reservists will do the heavy lifting there)

North Korea is approximately as likely to act solo as South Korea is. If we retreat from South Korea and the war hots up again, China (which last I checked hosts the largest standing army in the world) will crush South Korea like a cockroach. This should be fairly evident.

and a war against China would primarily aeronaval, at least in the initial phase.

More important than war against China is strategic control over Chinese trade routes. The point here is blocking in China and restricting their expansion of power in the Pacific, not so much outright war.

Japan pays about $2bn a year to defray the costs of US Forces Japan, and there is no way that covers the cost of what are easily America's most expensive overseas bases.

It covers about 70% of the bill, last I checked. I don't recall what the bill is, but if I'm not mistaken the cost of overseas bases is about $700 million a year per on average, so I wouldn't be surprised.

One of our major strategic requirements in the Western Pacific is maintaining a strong relationship with Japan, and removing 17,000 unneeded Marines from Okinawa would improve our bilateral relationship.

I disagree. Generally speaking US military presence is quite popular in US-friendly nations in East Asia. South East Asian nations are actually asking for them.

And now we're making this problem worse by moving Marines to Australia for...whatever.

Australia is effectively our closest Anglospheric partner against China. It may not be the most vital, but it is vital.

Cut a deal with the Taliban, leave. Make it clear that if anti-American terrorist organizations take residency in Afghanistan again that they can expect to be showered with JDAMs.

And I presume the Taliban is forthright and honest and will totally not just invite them in anyway.

We'll lose influence in Afghanistan to Russia, Iran, China, and India, but who cares? Afghanistan is useless, and getting out of Afghanistan allows us to sever ties with Pakistan and improve relations with India.

Severing ties with Pakistan is a slow process that was already begun in the mid-Bush administration.

[Dave]

North Korea is approximately as likely to act solo as South Korea is. If we retreat from South Korea and the war hots up again, China (which last I checked hosts the largest standing army in the world) will crush South Korea like a cockroach. This should be fairly evident.

China can obviously defeat South Korea, but the question is at what cost. It certainly would not crush South Korea like a cockroach, as South Korea is one of the most heavily mobilized and armed countries on Earth. I'm not sure why our minimal forces in South Korea would alter the situation. They're just in harm's way and a source for political grumbling.

More important than war against China is strategic control over Chinese trade routes. The point here is blocking in China and restricting their expansion of power in the Pacific, not so much outright war.

What do Marines do to further this? That's a job for the USN and USAF.

It covers about 70% of the bill, last I checked. I don't recall what the bill is, but if I'm not mistaken the cost of overseas bases is about $700 million a year per on average, so I wouldn't be surprised.

I have no idea what the costs are, but I know the "sympathy budget" doesn't cover it. Additional, moving forces not needed in other countries back to the USA means the economic impact of those forces is in America rather than in foreign countries. Even if costs of basing in Japan were identical to CONUS (not likely), there is an economic benefit to American basing.

I disagree. Generally speaking US military presence is quite popular in US-friendly nations in East Asia. South East Asian nations are actually asking for them.

It's certainly not popular in Okinawa...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/ ... okinawans/

Australia is effectively our closest Anglospheric partner against China. It may not be the most vital, but it is vital.

Sure...but what do Marines have to do with this?

And I presume the Taliban is forthright and honest and will totally not just invite them in anyway.

The Taliban is fundamentally a Pashtun nationalist organization and acts rationally. Why would they do that?

[Oxymoron]

never dreamed I'd live to hear that one. What?

What is it that makes you say this?

[Rei Murasame]

You tried to describe the military as 'socialist' because it is a government entity that makes large purchases of equipment. That makes no sense to me, since as far as I am aware the military is tied to industrial groups, and the state is financialised.

So the military sits at the intersection where it is stocked and has revolving doors in the defence manufacturing industry and intelligence consulting services, and the missions that it is deployed on are determined by the financialised state and the politicians who have certain social obligations and pressures.

It's possible to criticise some aspects of that situation (such as "why is the state financialised?"), but any criticism that you make cannot possibly be a criticism of socialism, since there is no socialism involved in that.

Let me use the UK as an example of this. We are in a state of war because it is necessary to defend the financial positions that banks in this country have taken, and because we are for various reasons obliged to back up the United States in securing trade routes and resources so that global trade can remain smooth - or at least in a configuration that is favourable to us.

There's nothing we can do about that now, so leaving that aside I'll press on with the example. We - the UK - have a number of ships that currently are in need of planes that can be launched off them. The choices we have are that we could've bought tried and tested F/A-18s that are available immediately, and spent a bit of money on installing launch catapults to fling them off the decks. Or we could've bought some F-35Cs which also use catapults for takeoff. Or some mixture of the two. But there is another option - we could've bought F-35Bs and not installed the catapult system on the ships for them, since the F-35B can jump.

You can imagine the number of different overlapping industrial, financial, and social pressures involved in making that choice.

• The people who designed the new electromagnetic catapult system want any option that involves the catapult being there.
  
  
• The people who manufacture F/A-18s would like F/A-18s to actually be purchased.
  
  
• Navy Defence analysts would add that getting some F/A-18s would mean that the ships would at least have some complement of planes while awaiting the completion of the incredibly slow F-35 development.
  
  
• The Airforce wants the F-35B because it can jump.
  
  
• The manufacturers, among them BAE, want them to buy the F-35B because the F-35B costs more than the C-Type variant in the long-run, and BAE likes long-term money making, and more generally any kind of money.
  
  
• Budget-watchers in the civil service want them to avoid the F-35B because while it would allow the navy to forego buying the catapults, it would only appear to reduce military spending in the short term, because as BAE well knows, it costs more to maintain the F-35B in the long term.
  
  
• Politicians want to choose the F-35B option because it means that they can claim - deceptively - to have 'saved money' on defence in time for the next election cycle.
  
  
• Financiers don't know what they prefer.

Given that in my experience it appears that it has always been thus, what part of all that is 'socialist'?

[Dr House]

China can obviously defeat South Korea, but the question is at what cost. It certainly would not crush South Korea like a cockroach, as South Korea is one of the most heavily mobilized and armed countries on Earth. I'm not sure why our minimal forces in South Korea would alter the situation. They're just in harm's way and a source for political grumbling.

They probably can't, but try to think in terms beyond the strictly military. American military presence represents leverage; it represents power projection by the US government in the Far East, a tacit acknowledgment that the might of the American military stands behind its ally, which while strong nevertheless is in fact weaker than China.

Same goes for Okinawa. US forces get pulled out of there, and China will see that as tacit permission to start pushing around and harassing Japan (again); at which point they will start crying and want the bases back.

The point here is not as simple as "China invades here." The reasons these bases exist have less to do with actual mobilization and more with power projection; which they do accomplish.

What do Marines do to further this? That's a job for the USN and USAF.

Defense analysts refer to it as a job for the Navy and Marines. The two are typically intertwined on missions. The Air Force's primary duties at present are in the Middle East.

Sure...but what do Marines have to do with this?

Suppose China tries Russia-esque snoop jobs. Then suppose they're afraid of the American armed forces. China already likes to snoop on American government departments and corporations, what with things like Chinagate and extensive cyberattacks on companies ranging from Microsoft to Adobe; it's definitely the sort of thing they'd do.


In essence, China is a regional bully. Defending American interests in the region requires China knowing that it can't fuck with US allies, and US military presence (even token presence) is a confirmation of this.

The Taliban is fundamentally a Pashtun nationalist organization and acts rationally. Why would they do that?

They are Islamist first and foremost; otherwise they would not have sheltered bin Laden. He's not a Pashtun.

[Oxymoron]

Its socialist in terms that it has no profit motivation, it has no structure that allows its members to benefit from making it more effecient. Basically military bases function as socialist states, and we know that those are failures.

[bobgnote]

The military has a ton of profiteering corporations connected to it. To reduce any of that participation or personnel, start by cutting the source media, for trouble, around the world, which would involve the US military, namely aid to Isreal and funding for the CIA, to divest any dirty tricks they were up to or which they might do, such as:
1. Flyovers from Tibet and Taiwan, 1948, preceding the Black Cat Squadron (note China grabbed Tibet and threatens Taiwan);
2. Support for the Shah in 1953, with MI6;
3. Support for Saddam, 1958 (look how that turned out);
4. Support for UBL;

Cut the aid to Israel, right away, etc., etc. When the dirty deeds aren't done, we won't be in conflict. THEN we can cut what looks excessive.