From war to peace - Japanese style

A great commentary by Colonel Wright. For all the fear mongering out there over Japan 'remilitarizing' and 'forgetting its past,' most Japanese I believe are very much like the men discussed above. Many wars fought today are pointless. I've known a few Japanese friends and they are totally against wars like the Iraq war, and have no concept of military service. Nor do they want to serve. America's Japan constitution has been a great way to pacify Japan. Today's youth care little about joining the military, re-arming, and conquering Asia as some fear mongers would have you believe. Today's youth in Japan like youth in other countries are soft, would rather do other things than join the military.

I would say that 9/11 also had a positive effect on people of all economic levels of joining the military on a patriotic level.

What a terrific article! Thank you, Japan Today, for posting it!

I believe there is a loose connection to the story of 400+ teachers in Japan's system who have been punished for refusing to obey a rule -- instituted in 2003 -- which mandates participation in a nationalistic ritual.

I want to read her book, "Dissent: Voices of Conscience." (Profiles of government insiders who have spoken and acted on their concerns of their government's policies.)

Just another anti-US military propagandist pushed by JT and endorsed by fellow liberals who have NEVER served any greater good.

Very interesting article and I can relate as an european.

Said that I did my national service(compulsory) and I think it benefited me and my country-men. Also lived in countries that been actively at war and talked to vets, etc.

Most countries have moved on from their own aggression days may they be european, asian, whatever. Yet, I still see a few countries cling to the past trying to glorify it and their actions and how they benefited others.

Which, I think is sad as they haven't moved beyond a mindset that existed 70/100/200yrs ago.

Japan, Europe, etc made their choices. Granted they might not be perfect and a knee-jerk reaction to what they suffered during war and occupation but lets respect them for it. And I understand where they are coming from.

Occupation of any kind includes suffering/soul searching by the occupied nations. Prisoners in the german camps were NOT freed for months, for them the guards just spoke english, russian, etc vs german.

How many nations had their country and industries reduced vs their occupiers whose homes were untouched and never faced violence at home. I and many other could tell stories.

That is all that those countries are asking for. Understanding and not the constant harping on "Being grateful we saved you", etc.

Just my view.

USA moves in a vicious cirlce. They need wars to make their econmy move and the wars on the other hand exhaust their country.

Wow Japan. Pot, meet kettle. Last I checked, American led wars were not there, unlike the Japanese invasions and occupations, with the sole purpose of rape and pillage and the gaining of more land. And where did they get their statistics? The mothers of America? This has to be one of the most one sided articles I have ever seen. I am glad that she retired from the service. On a side note, if you were against the Iraq war, why would you want to quit being a diplomat? Aren't they supposed to help governments get along through dialogue and understanding? Oh wait. She most likely was one of those who was told she had to serve as a diplomat in Iraq and quit. Either way, she needs to get her facts straight before spewing more of this anti-US, anti-military garbage. For someone who is so against what we are and what we do, I'll bet she sure appreciates that retirement check...

On a side note, what business do any Japanese have critisizing suicide, of all things, in our military? Don't they have a higher rate?

Yet, most Japanese would ask pointedly, “Attack from whom? From those the United States threatens?””

Uh, I dunno, China? North Korea?

Anyone in the East with expansionist policies?

The article certainly has a point, but there's a big, thick streak of naive in there. At no point in history has anger been the sole reason for attack. Seriously, these people think that a big, wealthy, technologically advanced country like Japan somehow wouldn't be invasion bait?

They say, “Let us live in peace and our example will hopefully make the entire world more peaceful.

There are two countries that are very close to Japan that have (1) a history of hating Japan, and (2) emerging military capabilities. Sorry, anyone thinking "Japan can live in peace" with no military protection (US or otherwise) is stupendously clueless. And that's even assuming that Japanese culture is somehow completely free of chicken-hawk tendencies, which only the most deep in denial could believe.

"Wow Japan. Pot, meet kettle. Last I checked, American led wars were not there, unlike the Japanese invasions and occupations, with the sole purpose of rape and pillage and the gaining of more land."

You might want to check the last few though.

Come on, if she wanted to say the Iraq war was such a ploy to get more whatever, just come out and say it. Don't beat around the bush (pun intended). And the last few? Enlighten me. Which last few were? I can only think of one, led by a "special" leader...

Japan is so blind to their own history just 50 years ago. They pretend and posture like they can do no wrong, but they are by far the aggressor when history is called in.

Not really matada, contrary to your blanket statements, many Japanese are quite aware of their bloody past, thank you. Japanese citizens at the grass roots level have assisted with things like the Comfort Women issue, things of that nature.

And rtrhead, what business do Japanese have criticizing suicides of U.S. military? First of all, it's not ALL Japanese, it's these group of males, thank you. And they are not criticizing the suicide's of U.S. troops, they are simply astounded by the fact that these suicides seem to be covered up by the VA. And second, these Japanese citizens have every right to their opinions on anything in the world, including the American military and war. As does the citizens of any other country.

Funny how a select few opinions seems to enrage the usual personnel here into twisting it into an "Anti U.S." diatribe. Even funnier is that these people would criticize the entire Japanese race if even ONE person said something that could be construed as portraying Japan as the victim in WW2 or denying past atrocities.

Yet, these Japanese the Colonel talked to did no such thing. In fact they simply offered their opinions on the Iraq war and the military/war complex, opinions that any normal person would view as decidedly ANTI war. Hardly anything to do with WW2 or other non issues. But now it's an "anti American" diatribe? Where do these ideas here on JT come from, it truly boggles my mind.

i have seen her on various TV programs, and while I respect her service, I have to disagree. She, being a retired Col. and with a little bit of understanding how US military and policy work, should know that the US does not go to war to gain possessions. Yes, we did in the past, mainly against the native Indians in the west, but even with the Spanish American War and the resultant gainging of Guam and the PI (after a bloody war that cost more lives than the Spanish American War, similar to events in today's world) the US was not about establishing a land grab. We did see benefits of coaling stations and rights of passage in places like the PI, but an effort to just expand our territory and make an empire has not been the US policy. Even after WW2, we had military presence in many places but that was just that, a military presence to thrawt potential enemies, not as an expansion of the Amerian Empire.

Japan has benfitted from the US presence here, letting China and Russia know that an eastward expansion was not a good idea, and they have had the ability to increas their infrastructure and domestic spending on other things, and not have to sink massive amounts into military hardware as the US has. But I do think that this "we can all resolve our differences through peace" is not an ideal situation. If I remember correctly, Japan walked out of the League of Nations when they felt that they were being hampered because of their ability to modernize thier navy at the time and the Washington Naval Treaty limited them. Nations will have differnces, we as humans can't all get along on personal levels ourselves. I am not advocating going out and killing when you have a dispute, but we should at least realize that we have a right to prepare to defend yourself.

Well, rjd jr, many of the opinions come because JT CONSTANTLY promulgates articles that are slanted against the US military with virtually every quote or ever contributor having a negative bias. You yourself have on multiple occasions slammed everything from US policy to military affairs in your own posts.

My angst is for the unchecked or unchallanged opinions being thrust forward as fact. In the above article, the "men" (loosely termed) she spoke with seem to be content with the blanket of security that they are provided with, then in the same sentence flip and criticize the very providors.

She is a retired RESERVE Colonel. A weekend warrior. Not once does it give and active campaign in which she participated, but her rank is being throw around like she is a dissedent war hero. Not so at all. She is a known anti-war activist. She had a large part in helping Cindy Sheehan (the wack job who used her sons death as a personal rally point, and in turn kept all the death benefits and didn't even put a gravestone over her fallen sons burial plot.)

Look at the places she has served as a diplomat! In many it was the policy of these "diplomats" working against military efforts which gave power to the warlords leading to additional deaths of military and civilian personnel. I was in Somolia and saw this firsthand.

Far be it from me to say she should't have her opinion, but can't JT post some commentaries from BOTH sides? We understand the left bias is popular here in Japan since they do not have to suffer the consequence of their actions in the past due to the support of the US.

Only so long can you bite the hand that feeds until you will be forced to go hungry.

Judging by the comments, I think a little bit of context of the Japanese men quoted was lost. That conversation took place in Okinawa, who was left very bitter against the Japanese government due to WW2 and post-war events. Whether you're from there or not, if you live there for awhile (or next to a foreign military base) you might start to understand the tone of the article, regardless of whatever faults there may be. As an American, sometimes I think my fellow countrymen equate advocates of peace, of less aggressive foreign policies, and so forth as unpatriotic because we have never had our homeland invaded and destroyed like the nations we occupy. I am for a national service for our youth, whether it be military or otherwise, providing troop aid to other countries, etc. I do not understand how this article and such sentiments can be perceived as anti-American. There are many ways to make your country better. If you serve your government and quit due to policy changes or disillusionment on some matter, it doesn't mean you're a traitor. These are simply musings on how a nation went from war to peace, why others are currently not at peace, and how could they move towards peace.

I can't understand why U.S. government supports LDP. Former Prime Minister Abe is typical reactionist. He has been glorifying military of WWⅡ. Ambassador J. Thomas Schieffer seems too close to them.

You know what Rjd, you're right. It isn't all Japanese that are saying this. What I am upset about, is that she is throwing around all these BS numbers as if they are fact. 80% PTSD rate? 1 in 3 women will be raped? Come on man. These guys come up with some crap numbers and neither she, nor JT lift a finger to actually try to put the truth out. So that is what I'm upset about. I like this website because it does put out some good and interesting reading, but I have noticed that they tend to be one sided quite often. Can you dispute this?

We did see benefits of coaling stations and rights of passage in places like the PI, but an effort to just expand our territory and make an empire has not been the US policy. Even after WW2, we had military presence in many places but that was just that, a military presence to thrawt potential enemies, not as an expansion of the Amerian Empire.

I don't believe it will divert from the topic to mention that post-modern American-style colonialism did not really involve land grabs. (Well, there WAS the Canal Zone...) For example, read of how the American Fruit Company (the Chiquita label) essentially colonized and formed the governments in Central American nations like Guatemala throughout most of the 20th century. It is simple hegemony despite attempts at "good neighbor" policies, which were really just window-dressing for the folks at home. Those countries weren't called "banana republics" for nothing.

What the US companies really wanted was to exploit the land to get as much export crop output as possible, and then move on to other lands when the soil became too depleted to grow much of anything.

One thing is for sure... those stupidly inflated numbers of 80% and 1 in 3 simply cause me (and maybe others) to discount ANYTHING she has to say.

On a side note, if you were against the Iraq war, why would you want to quit being a diplomat? Aren't they supposed to help governments get along through dialogue and understanding?

If a diplomat opposes the policies of his/her current leadership, they often resign. Many return when leadership changes to someone they can support. There are many organizations that help people from different nations get along better through dialogue and understanding -- and they are especially important when you've got a government that undermines its own best interests.

The current British government is about to suffer its biggest ever election defeat largely thanks to Blair's sycophantic and unquestioning support for Bush in Iraq.

Many in Britain would happily see Blair arraigned at the Hague on war crimes charges for the role he played in Iraq and the way he deceived the Westminster parliament and the people.

yabits, good points on the canal zone and the United Fruit Company (you may as well include the Dole family in Hawaii, they led the push for annexation of the islands), but by and large you would agree that post WW2 colonialism has not been so much about land grabs but economic grabs. Yes, US compaines have been leading the way in pressing for US govt to act in certain ways with foreign govts, just look at the Middle East. But, I think it is fair to say that Japan has done so too. Japan has been able to use her industrial capacity to make cars and put them onto the international market. Back in the 80's before the rise of silicon valley in the US, I believe Japan had the world market on chip production. They were able to concentrate their efforts in industry and other areas, with not having to really worry about defense since they fell under the US umbrella. If the US expanded in one area, and Japan was an ally and "favored nation status" with the US it could be assumed that they would reap benefits, without having to do the "dirty work."

I would just wish, that JT would be a bit more fair & balanced. She, using her title grants an aura of legitimacy to those of her thinking to others who may not be as well informed.

One thing is for sure... those stupidly inflated numbers of 80% and 1 in 3 simply cause me (and maybe others) to discount ANYTHING she has to say.

Regarding sexual assaults against enlisted women, the Los Angeles VA Healthcare Center reported the following:

The scope of the problem was brought into acute focus for me during a visit to the West Los Angeles VA Healthcare Center, where I met with female veterans and their doctors. My jaw dropped when the doctors told me that 41% of female veterans seen at the clinic say they were victims of sexual assault while in the military, and 29% report being raped during their military service.

Source: Rapists in the Ranks http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-harman31mar31,0,5399612.story

While the 80% PTSD rate is not supportable, more reliable numbers are quite shocking: "Evan Kanter, MD, PhD, staff psychiatrist in the PTSD Outpatient Clinic of the VA Puget Sound Health Care System, said that estimates are for a minimum of 300,000 psychiatric casualties from service in Iraq, to this point, with an estimated lifetime cost of treatment of $660 billion. That is more than the actual cost of the war to date ($500 billion)."

Source: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/565407

Multiple deployments to Iraq only increases the odds that the serviceman or woman will develop psychological problems.

Well, rjd jr, many of the opinions come because JT CONSTANTLY promulgates articles that are slanted against the US military with virtually every quote or ever contributor having a negative bias. You yourself have on multiple occasions slammed everything from US policy to military affairs in your own posts.

Matada - pretty much any Non-US media I follow is regularly anti-US military - maybe you don't read widely enough?

And Statistician - your comments about Blair are interesting, I think Howard's support of the US/Iraq war was certainly a factor in his losing last year's Australian election too (not to mention all the other 'factors'...)

Statistician - exactly right. I'm a Brit, and can't find a single other Brit who has anything positive to say about Blair at all. When askes to categorise him, the terms "liar", "traitor" and "butcher" are the most frequent (publishable) expressions that come out, although a colloquial term for the pudendum is the front runner by a country mile.

Ah Ms. Wright as a former service member you of all people should know that US would never be allowed to exist without a military. We've made too many enemies and face too many threats to have the luxury that Japan does (America defending it) As to Japanese who wonder "attack from whom" you are truly naive just look to your neighbors and see if Japan would be allowed to maintain independence with no army and no American defense. People like to bash the "right wing" politicians here but at least they get the fact that Japan has enemies apparentky something these citizens do not.

Yea but I don't think there's necessarily an anti American bias here on articles posted on JT. Don't many Americans themselves feel that the Iraq War was a terrible mistake based on lies anyhow?

I agree, matada. What Ms. Wright forgets to mention is that there are young men and women in the USA who join the military, not because its the only way for them, but because they want to. They actually want to spend time in the military to give them an edge on life, and to help them become more disciplined. Many join because they feel like it is the right thing to do, and feel like they ought to because they owe the US for the freedoms that she has given to them. The US Military is entirely volunteer, and men and women join as an option for a good life, choosign the military over a lot of other areas.

rjd jr

Can you recall even one positive JT news article or commentary piece about the US in general or particularly the US military? I certainly can't...

Yabits,

That study is extremely flawed:

The story says "one in three women in the military will be raped BY FELLOW SERVICE MEMBERS during their enlistment". The fact is that while that many may be raped, it is NOT always military members doing it. There were 2688 reported cases of sexual assault TOTAL last year, 70% of which were rape. This number includes male and female victims AS WELL AS perpatrators. This is not the number of victims only. And in any case, the number 2688 does not represent 1/3 of military women, nor does it represent 41% of military women. Either way, this obvious flaw in the presentation of the data makes the entire article suspect. THAT is the point I was making... not that it isn't happening, only that it isn't happening as they present it.

That study also points to a 73% increase in sexual assaults without explaining that 2004 was the first year DOD and the VA collected sexual assualt data for comparision. And EACH YEAR since then, the criteria has changed. It's gone from fiscal year to calendar year. In 2004 and 2005, crude behavior and language ("Hey babe.. nice rack!") did NOT fall under sexual assault, but some report it as such ("Yes, I've been sexually harassed/assaulted"). The goalposts have been moved several times.

And for further proof of flaw.... these statistics are the exact same ones, down to the numbers, that the hardcore feminist websites/lawyers use to press their point. The same group of people that believe ANY sex is rape are the ones that like these stats/numbers.

Whatta laugh. A brief search of the author Ann Wright and you find she is with Code Pink

http://www.codepinkalert.org/article.php?id=3564

and is a 9-11 Troofer.

Nope, no bias on this site.

<strong>Moderator: We can assure you that Japan Today is not biased and any suggestion to that effect is nonsense.</strong>

This is a "commentary" article and as such it is biased as a matter of course. Ann Wright is a left-wing anti-war activist. I disagree with her logic and her misuse of facts in this article but it is interesting to read her way of thinking. The bias here is in the lack of balance in commentary found on Japan Today overall. There is a definite anti-American, anti-war slant in my opinion. I am used to it but still visit this site because I want to read Japan related information. I do feel that all readers would benefit from a better balance though.

Loki:

I had to go back and read the article above more closely. Wright says that she received questions from the men she was having dinner with, and one of those men cited the "one in three" statistic in his question on rape. To her discredit, Wright makes no attempt in her article to provide a ratio based more on facts.

But shifting the focus to sheer numbers, which are very difficult in terms of rapes and sexual assaults since many go unreported, runs the risk of losing the spirit of the man's question. "Even if the odds that woman in the service will be sexually assualted or raped are one in ten, why would any woman subject herself to that kind of environment?" is essentially what the man is asking.

Naturally, those defending the military can be accused of their own kind of bias in wanting to play down the numbers, whatever they happen to be. The fact is that LOTS of rapes and assaults do occur.

Finally, there is in this quickness of some people to accuse bias the intent to want to silence anything that isn't pro-military or pro-American-policy. Coming from my perspective, I see lots of middle ground to discuss the problems with US policy and the military today that Wright points out. But I detect very little desire to seek middle ground from those who immediately set out to attack any messenger who doesn't toe THEIR line.

Yabits,

I think you've got it backwards. The pro-military groups are not going around doing anything other than DEFENDING ourselves against this currently quite common "sport" of turning everything into an anti-military and or anti-US, and at times even anti-Bush, rant.

THIS article was originally posted by JT, referencing numbers that any 12 year old with a bit of logic could see was flawed. But it was posted anyway. This study has less than 9000 women TOTAL in the military based on some 1 in 3 mythical figure. And EACH sexual assualt is done by FELLOW MILITARY MEMBERS.

Nobody is denying that these things occur. But if YOU, paid code-pink contributors, or JT are going to post obviously stupid commentary and present them as "fact".... all of you need to quite trying to back peddle when someone whips out the logic card.

"Naturally, those defending the military can be accused of their own kind of bias in wanting to play down the numbers, whatever they happen to be. The fact is that LOTS of rapes and assaults do occur."

Horsecrap. Look at it this way. Only 2688 sexual assaults last year. If we were to simply "buy in" to this study, that number becomes 75,000, based on current numbers of 229000 female military members.

All reliable reports say 2688 sexual assualts TOTAL occured (male and female). Your referenced study wants us to believe 1/3 of all females, which is 75,000. And you accuse me of "downplaying" the numbers. I accuse the author of deliberatly misleading everyone, and you for supporting it.

But let's look at the "spirit" of the man's question. If the odds are one in 10, that would be 22,900. Which is, I hasten to point out, almost 10 TIMES the actual reported figure. So, the environment that the women is subjecting herself to ACTUALLY is quite safe.

The spirit that is "lost" is not the mans question, or even the seeking logic that looks for a reliable study. What is lost is the sense of RIGHT and WRONG when it comes to reporting facts or at least being responsible with the numbers. And, to get back to your original point, that is what the pro-military crowd has to face CONSTANTLY with these "commentaries". We have no desire to seek middle ground with those who don't toe TRUTH. I'm happy to meet you half way if your numbers and my numbers aren't fabricated, misrepresented, and simply are presented in the correct way.

yabits

But I detect very little desire to seek middle ground from those who immediately set out to attack any messenger who doesn't toe THEIR line.

LOL. Come on! And this statement of yours isn't equally true about the generally anti-American posters? Look, I don't have any issues with the fact that there are those who post regularly here that have opinions and beliefs that are diametrically opposed to mine because that is precisely what creates healthy (and sometimes unhealthy) discussion. What I do take great issue with though is the fact that the actual articles, commentaries, etc on various American topics (particularly the US military) over which we have these discussions are without fail negative and critical. You never see the anti-US crowd objecting that the content or moderating is biased do you? Do you honestly think that this is because we pro-American posters are all simply unreasonable whiners by nature? Or could it possibly be that the choice of content on Japan Today simply isn't the balanced presentation that is to be expected from objective and unbiased media?

Yabits,

Let me clarify... In rereading my post, it appears that I have made it sound like I am questioning YOUR integrity for using these numbers. My apologies, that wasn't my intent. I was questioning your willingness to simply believe those numbers as reported without questioning the obviously bad math.

“Attack from whom? From those the United States threatens?”

Oh please. Lets break out the blankets, hold hands and sing Kumbaya!

The author is extremely naive. Yes it's fine to extoll the virtues of peace, and what sane person would not prefer a state of peace to war but she is completely sidestepping the harsh realities we live in.

There are some very fanatical, evil, unyielding people in this world who are not happy to be at peace, they crave conflict, domination over others whether they are coming from religious, economic or political motivations.

Sometimes one is forced into war. It is the lesser of two evils. I agree war should not be entertained lightly but it will come eventually.

The author is lucky to have lived a priveleged comfortable life. Let her go live in North Korea for a while and see if it is right that perpetual "peace" be maintained for another 60 years while millions are chewed up and destroyed by their regime. Let her be a Jew living in Poland or Germany in the 1940s about to have their whole society and culture and very lives be taken from them while the world sits back and Chamberlain chirps "Peace in our time!".

I believe she is well intentioned but she is falling into the simple minded narrative of "The big bad US is the real source of trouble in the war! Stop causing wars you big imperialistic, threatening bullies!"

The US is not interested in Empire building, if we were this could have easily been the United States continent instead of North America.

There is a price to liberty and the freedoms we take for granted. It has been paid for by the blood and service of many who came before us and although regretable and painful there will be times when war will again be necessary to stop evil in the world.

rjd_jr contrast postwar Germany's actions regarding the people they victimized with that of Japan's. The Japanese govt. refuses to acknowledge large parts of agreed upon history (by just about every reputable historian in the war whos studies WWII), they are publishing textbooks which deliberately are revisionistic and distort history, they even go so far as to blame the victims (Chinese, Korean, Philippinos, etc) and claim the Japanese Imperial Army did them all a great favor by liberating and helping them (vis a vis mass rape, torture, genocide, and general mayhem and destruction), Japan refuses to compensate a single Comfort Woman, they still claim they were "forced" into cowardly attacking Pearl Habor and killing over 3,000 US soldiers while they slept in bed and before a state of war was announced, they refuse to rigrously and sincerely apologize for their atrocious behavior against so many groups of people, look at the amount of education in Germany that ensures EVERY German child knows exactly what evil their country effected, look at how much money Germany has spent on memorial, museums, compensation to victims' families, etc. Japan is in total denial about how much harm it did. I have personally interviewed relatives who fought in the Pacific Theatre and all personally knew friends tortured (and not Abu Ghraib level "torture" I'm talking INTENSE torture that mutilates them for life if it didn't kill them!) and murdered while PRISONERS OF WAR by Japan. Japan also refuses to fully acknowledge the Bhatan Death March, crimes against humanity in China where they did the most heinous experiments on Chinese people (disecting them while they were still alive, infecting them with deadly diseases, and other stuff to horrible to even type), genocide in China and Korea and other places and one could go on and on. Japanese may love peace now but their grandfathers sure knew how to cause living Hell for millions of innocent people. And Japanese leaders still pay homage at the Yasukuni war shrine where Class A war criminals like Tojo are buried.

It seems like a strong debate has flared up about the defense policy in Japan this week. Let's say it first that the choice how to deal with that is the Japanese choice to make, for better or worse. It may help though to have an outside view of the circumstances that interact with this decision. As far as I can tell, there are three circumstances that are just there. 1) North Korea. We are talking about a very oppressive regime that lets it's own people starve and is likely to be capable of doing anything to stay in power, without so much as a second thought for their own people. With a military budget of only $6 billion in 2004 (http://borgenproject.org/Defense_Spending.html), and probably about the same in the following years, their ground and naval forces shouldn't be too much of a threat, even small countries like The Netherlands ($10 billion) shouldn't have too much trouble fending off a land or naval attack. But that regime does have ballistic missiles and a nuclear capability, perhaps not the most comforting sight to have next door. 2) Taiwan. The problem here is that China claims this country as a province. Should they act out on that, then for better or worse, Japan is the closest country remotely capable of doing anything about it, at the very least buy some time for other friends of Taiwan to arrive on the scene. People will generally look to what Japan is doing in such an eventuality, and governments will look in that way even before that happens. To a certain extent, Taiwan is under the massive military umbrella ($522 billion in 2004, or almost half the spending of the world), but what when their economy finally collapses under their enormous military burden (something economists are expecting to happen sooner or later)? 3) UN missions. UN missions allow for chances and risks alike. It has everything to do with helping other people and public relations. If one country helps other people, and they generally do it right (you know the story, fighting the bad guys, protecting the innocent, spreading justice, showing respect to other cultures, and so on and so forth and such like), that creates goodwill, people generally will tend to want to be your friends. How important goodwill can be is shown by Britain, where a very big part of their position in the world is caused directly by their large network of friends around the world. Goodwill, for Japan, is a scarce thing. Alright, in the western countries, people on average 'kinda' think that Japan is OK, but they're not entirely convinced. In the Asia-Pacific region, most people on average think Japan sucks (just ask the Chinese, the Koreans, the Thai, the Burmese, the Indonesians and so on). And what reasons should they have to think differently anyway, at least for now? In the rest of the world, it's more like: Japan who? We know of a country with that name, but we don't really see them. These are averages of course, people wildly enthousiastic about Japan in APAC or hating Japan in the west don't have to feel left out. These are the main factors you have to deal with. Any decision will affect all three of them one way or the other. There's no absolutely right way, there's no completely stupid way. But I would like to give one more thought into consideration. There's a lot of focus on the weapons as the cause of all the things that went wrong in WWII. But it sometimes looks like other factors, that are in many ways more important, are a bit overlooked. And I think it's important to especially look to fear or hate of other people, and also to unequal treatment (treating other people in ways that you would simply hate to happen to yourself, or finding it OK to do so). If you want to see those at work today, look to the United States, and you'll find more than enough examples. Half the world's defense money, anyone? Ever went into the country? Two fingerprints? Why not ten? There goes your $500 laptop, when do you get it back? Don't ask difficult questions or you'll end up in Guantanamo bay! Anyone a little coloured doing something unexpected? Send a small army to round him up (Bruce Schneier collects these examples on his blog, his collection of "the war on the unexpected" is great reading). Arabic sounding names? No way they're going to fly! There's someone with a gun, throw a bomb at him. O dear, it was a kid with a toy gun... See here what fear for anything different does... I think any way is a good way, as long as it's based on what I see here in this forum, that other people are your friends until (person by person) they prove otherwise.

Loki:

Horsecrap. Look at it this way. Only 2688 sexual assaults last year. If we were to simply "buy in" to this study, that number becomes 75,000, based on current numbers of 229000 female military members. All reliable reports say 2688 sexual assualts TOTAL occured (male and female).

Not quite. You are confusing "occured" with "reported." In a 2004 interview, David Chu, the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel had this to say: "Chu said those figures probably represent a small fraction of the number of assaults that actually occurred, because soldiers are often afraid or unwilling to report it to their chain of command." A small fraction. His words. (Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/07/national/main659704.shtml) Yes, I am aware that he is basing his statement on a ridiculously low number reported in 2002 and 2003, but that only led to revelations of serious problems in the military's reporting procedures.

When interviews are conducted with female officers and enlisted we hear things like the following:

What happened to Griffiths and other female veterans that Kroft talked to are typical of the complaints leveled against the military for more than a decade. "There’s a survey that found that 30 percent of female veterans said that they had either been victims of rape or attempted rape. Do you think the problem is that prevalent," asks Kroft. The group responded: "Definitely. Absolutely, if not more."

source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/17/60minutes/main674791.shtml

I am ex-military and understand how the culture often reacts when a charge is brought against someone and it's just "your word against the other person's." There is plenty of evidence showing how the military establishments have wanted to sweep this problem under the rug, often by treating the accusers as criminals or traitors in the ranks.

USNinJapan:

You never see the anti-US crowd objecting that the content or moderating is biased do you?

I think it is terribly inaccurate to refer to those who are against US policies when they are heavy-handed and quick to threaten military force as being "anti-US." We've got a candidate running this year who thought it was really cute and funny to sing about bombing Iran.

What I am "anti" is not the United States, but anti-trigger-happy and anti-"taking war as some kind of joke." I can live with the fact that people who genuinely look for peaceful resolutions to conflicts will be called appeasers, but let's not try to give moral equivalency to those who have led us into avoidable wars of complete choice.

I am ex-military and understand how the culture often reacts when a charge is brought against someone and it's just "your word against the other person's."

If you are really ex-military then you know all about the SAVI program and the SAVI rep that is attached to every major command. Could you tell us how they are in-effective by your post?

Yabits,

Here are the links as to how serious the Military takes this by the way.

http://www.cnrsw.navy.mil/fsc/savi.asp

Sailwind:

If you are really ex-military then you know all about the SAVI program...

LOL!!! Are you actually serious in suggesting that every veteran discharged in the 1970s, as I was, would know about this program, which came into being in 2004??!! I've been a civilian for over 30 years now; the Navy does not send out updates to civilians on its regulations and programs.

Here's an actual quote from a Navy site on SAVI: "Sexual assault is the most under-reported crime in our society AND in the military." [emphasis added]

Source: http://www.nascc.navy.mil/ffscAssault.htm

Programs are fine in intent and theory, and SAVI may be having a very positive impact in the Navy. The only way to judge how effective the program is would be to ask the population that represents the overwhelming majority of victims of sexual assualt. What data do you have from women leaving the Navy since the program went into effect? What data is there that shows an increase in victims reporting sexual assaults under the program?

Also, I'll bet if you look hard enough, you'll find a portion of the male military culture that is highly critical of SAVI.

asians are inherently in denial. it's a cultural flaw. supposedly harmonious, but not quite. at work in japan or at home everyone is acting out the 'perfect' person scenario.

this tends to break loose into a raging animal outside of japan. we say we can't help it, but that's what happens to a tight-knit society.

Yabits,

Ask and you shall recieve.

Your questions, would know about this program, which came into being in 2004??!!

The only way to judge how effective the program is would be to ask the population that represents the overwhelming majority of victims of sexual assualt. What data do you have from women leaving the Navy since the program went into effect?

The answers

SAVI started in the early 90's the Navy was one of the first organizations in both private and the public sector to tackle the problem head-on. Excerpt from a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the program effectiveness.

Program Effectiveness: SAVI is a vital and active program within FFSCs. In FY- 02, FFSCs reported over 107,000 SAVI-related contacts including awareness and prevention education activities, command consultation, victim assistance and advocacy, information and referral, GMT, and command leadership training. In a 2002 survey of SAVI patrons who received prevention training/GMT or advocacy services, there were no negative program ratings with respect to user satisfaction. Outcomes for those who received advocacy services were particularly striking. Over 95% of respondents indicated that SAVI showed concern for sailors and their families, while the program contributed to their overall quality of life and their readiness for 88% and 78%, respectively. All respondents who received advocacy services indicated that SAVI helped them cope at least somewhat with the sexual assault and 88% indicated that it helped quite a lot or more. Finally, I would like to mention that SAVI has been recognized for its efforts by several agencies outside of the Department of Defense. In 1996, the National Organization of Victim Assistance presented SAVI with a Distinguished Service to Victims of Crime Award. SAVI received a Certificate of Appreciation from the Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime in 1999, in recognition of the program's dedication to victims' rights.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/testimony/personnel/rau040225.txt

Your last question.

What data is there that shows an increase in victims reporting sexual assaults under the program?

In 2005 the program was modified to make it even easier for a victim to report an assault or sexual harrasment.

In an effort to improve the reporting rate for crimes of sexual assault, the Department of Defense has instituted changes in the reporting process, including implementing "restricted reporting."

Under the new, restricted reporting option, the chain of command will be informed of the assault and provided as much information as possible without identifying the individuals involved. This will give a more complete picture of the actual prominence of violent crimes in a given area, while still protecting the confidentiality of the victim.

“The Department of Defense is committed to forming policy that will provide a confidential reporting process for sexual assault victims,” said Dr. David Chu, Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel Readiness. “We want to create a different climate, where our people feel comfortable coming forward. If you offer confidentiality, you increase the reporting rate.”

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=18839

The reporting rate has gone up since 2005 a direct result of the change. The Media pounced on the higher reporting rate as some sort or rampant cover-up prior to this change, instead on the Navy being pro-active to get at the root of the entire problem to get the ones responsible identified and punished.

As a recent Vet, I honor your service though I have to point out the Navy today is not the same Navy you were in thirty years ago. It takes this very seriously and I'm glad that they do at all levels of the Navy chain of Command.

Well, I certainly do not have any criticism of the SAVI program, especially since the Navy instituted the restricted reporting option. I do not know why the other branches aren't following the Navy's lead in programs of this type.

I'm a member of AFCEA and we have monthly meetings at the local Army base. At our next get-together, I'll have to ask my Army friends about similar programs that they are aware of.

<strong>Moderator: Back on topic please.</strong>