Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Trump administration has asked the Japanese to pay roughly four times as much as they have been to offset the costs of stationing over 50,000 troops in Japan.
Also, we have asked the South Koreans to pay five times as much as they currently do to offset the costs of 28,500 troops stationed in that country.
The administration has asked Tokyo to pay roughly four times as much per year to offset the costs of stationing more than 50,000 U.S. troops there, current and former U.S. officials familiar with the matter told Foreign Policy. Then-National Security Advisor John Bolton and Matt Pottinger, the National Security Council’s Asia director at the time, delivered the request to Japanese officials during a trip to the region in July, the officials said.
Japan is not the only Asian ally the United States is asking to cough up more money for continued U.S. troop presence. The officials confirmed that during that same trip, Bolton and Pottinger made a similar demand of South Korea, which hosts 28,500 U.S. troops, asking Seoul to pay five times as much as it currently does. CNN and Reuters previously reported that Trump had demanded Seoul increase its contribution.
I have not performed any specific calculations with regards to the costs of stationing American troops in these countries, or of the offsetting compensations that we receive from these nations for providing these security services. But it appears that the Trump administration has and there is no reason to believe that the additional amounts requested are excessive in any way.
Should these countries - both reasonably wealthy now, in no small part because of the security provided by American troops - now at least be willing to pay the costs of being protected by American forces?
This all seems very reasonable and appropriate, and probably long overdue. Agreed?
Last edited by Spartacus713; 11-16-2019 at 10:25 AM..
Why isn't the solution to just close the bases and bring the troops home?
Oh thats right, Trump is playing 6D chess (because ver. 1-5 have been failures) and we arent insightful enough to understand his grand plan
If Japan ever passes a constitutional amendment that enables their own self defense, then that would be a great and very appropriate question for them. Let's remember, they adopted these constitutional restrictions in the aftermath of WWII, while under occupation and oversight by us (General MacArthur).
As far as the South Koreans, that is a bit more tricky, as they are technically still at war with the North Koreans, who are effectively a vassal state of sorts for the Chi-Coms. The key to us withdrawing from South Korea appears to be the resolution of this little kurfuffle. Which does not appear to be at risk of happening any time soon.
Why isn't the solution to just close the bases and bring the troops home?
Oh thats right, Trump is playing 6D chess (because ver. 1-5 have been failures) and we arent insightful enough to understand his grand plan
Winding down our international involvement is what these invoices indicate. Angela Merkel received one awhile back as well.
This isn't about Trump. This is about economic shifts in the next generation that are much larger than any President. Clinton would be doing the same thing, though the specific timeline and communication technique would have been somewhat unique to her administration.
These invoices are merely a public-friendly signal to foreign leaders that that pulling out of our role as international cop is our intention.
They are a "public friendly" signal because they are the alternative to announcing outright that we are pulling back.
The result of the latter option possibly being a sudden negative affect on markets and the public in ways that could have chaotic immediate effects that could result in a measurable loss of life downstream.
These invoices superficially camouflage the real intention from the reactionary yet blissfully ignorant masses, even though anyone who is interested or the least bit astute can divine the actual communication. Its not that hidden. In fact, geopolitical analysts give open lectures on it on a regular basis.
Only be aware that how winding down our international involvement looks over any given period of time is left to those in charge. As such, its progress may not meet the standard of the rando citydata poster who thinks that they have a bird's eye critical view of "3-D Chess" that is in actuality widely understood foreign policy planning that is setting the stage for the coming changes in the next generation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjshae
Putin would love that, as would China and N. Korea.
If we are asked to leave, expect that S. Korea and Japan would be nuclear powers within a decade.
Nor does it matter what the political subversive thinks who is willing to mortgage our nation's social and civil fabric for geopolitical-context free Neo McCarthyism promoted to him for use, ironically, by the Far left communist element in this nation that has long indicated its desire to destroy it for the benefit of international communism.
Things will simply progress as they are planned to in this realm, across and regardless of any administration, and your neurotic, corrosive mutterings will adapt to whatever reality that you perceive to keep the cognitive dissonance at a minimum. Watch for the increasing degree of mental distortions, however. Its the stuff of which strange hermits with large supplies of aluminum foil are made.
If Japan ever passes a constitutional amendment that enables their own self defense, then that would be a great and very appropriate question for them. Let's remember, they adopted these constitutional restrictions in the aftermath of WWII, while under occupation and oversight by us (General MacArthur).
As far as the South Koreans, that is a bit more tricky, as they are technically still at war with the North Koreans, who are effectively a vassal state of sorts for the Chi-Coms. The key to us withdrawing from South Korea appears to be the resolution of this little kurfuffle. Which does not appear to be at risk of happening any time soon.
Correct, this is the crux of the issue.
The US forced them to adopt a constitution that outlaws a military with offensive capability (not entirely unreasonable after their actions in WW2).
However it is now time for Japan to become more self sufficient in their own defense.
How much they should pay to house 50,000 US troops should not be the question, the question should be how many of those troops can come home to the US in exchange for Japan beefing up their own military.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
