politics

Abe, Okinawa governor fail to find common ground on U.S. base transfer

54 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© KYODO

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

54 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

Not unexpected really, the thing to pay attention to is what actions does he take now beyond filing a grievance, which will get turned down, as all previous one's have been as well.

This landfill at Camp Scwab will be completed within Tamaki's term of office, and once the actual landfill begins in earnest, I for one HOPE Tamaki will realize the futility of going against it and get the best deal possible from the central government!

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Think of the concessions he would be able to get from Abe for Okinawa if he would just stop wasting everyone's time and money.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

If I was a wealthy Futenma land owner, I’d do anything in my power to keep Futenma from relocating as long as possible as well.

But since the truth (we don’t want to lose the yummy US lease money) isn’t popular, paid agiatators and foreign influencers were brought into the mix.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

It seems Abe would never agree with Tamaki as long as looking at Abe's recent behavior/speech in the Diet. He seems like a little dictator who never listens to others. He doesn't like being told anyway.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Once again, we see the typical kabuki theater by the politicians, media, and academics on Okinawa – who rail against the bases in public, yet fight to keep them in-place behind the scenes. 

When will Okinawa have a Governor with the courage to say “let’s make progress on this issue” rather than continue to stall and hinder any reduction in the US military footprint on the island.

What’s worse is the duplicity – you have the local politicians who understand that no other issue can be better grandstanded and demagogued – if there were progress in reducing US bases, what would they talk about to get votes?  The media view it exactly the same way – what do you lead on the headline if you can’t sensationalize some minor US military related incident? Then you have the academics who know that no one would pay them any attention if they didn’t have the topic of US bases to wax philosophically on. Power, money and self-importance keep the bases where they are…

It’s an unholy trinity that keeps any progress from being made – such as return of Camp Kinser and Futenma, along with major portions of Camp Foster along Route 58. 

And the victims are the local Okinawa people who could have had these large areas of land returned years ago with schools, universities, businesses, etc., in their place, all contributing to the local community and culture. 

Its depressing seeing the status quo remain year after year…

4 ( +5 / -1 )

If the U.S. side simply said, "Yes, we'll return Futenma outright without any conditions attached, the issue could have been solved decades ago in 1996 when its return was promised. I've argued on various occasions that there's no strategic reasons why Futenma’s relocation site must be within Okinawa. The insistence by the U.S. side on Henoko is nothing but greed-motivated. Anyone against my claim, please counter it isn't so.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

IIf the U.S. side simply said, "Yes, we'll return Futenma outright without any conditions attached, the issue could have been solved decades ago in 1996 when its return was promised. I've argued on various occasions that there's no strategic reasons why Futenma’s relocation site must be within Okinawa. The insistence by the U.S. side on Henoko is nothing but greed-motivated. Anyone against my claim, please counter it isn't so.

All of the anti-base gang have lost this and all other battles with regards to the bases because of this very idea.

They keep thinking and arguing that it's between Okinawa and the US, and as anyone with even half a brain knows it's not, it's between the US and Japanese national governments, all other arguments obfuscate the issue.

Not to mention that the lack of any leadership among the Okinawan politicians themselves who could have, over 20 years ago, taken their case, with the same obstinate and stubborn approach to the Japanese people and forced the issue there, instead of continually going off half-cocked and thinking they can dictate international security agreements themselves.

Okinawa lost before it even began because it never has had any leaders.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Because abe represents USA interests and Denny represents Okinawa interests. Just finish with this democracy BS, allow corruption and move along.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Denny represents Okinawa interests.

Denny represents the interests of wealthy Futenma and Ginowan land owners who make billions of yen from land leases and the interests of the Chinese who want to do a “soft power” invasion of Okinawa.

Tell me why Chinese and Korean nationals have been identified at anti-base protests (in violation of the law that bans foreigners from political activities). Tell me why the protests are funded by communist lobbyists funded by the CCP. Tell me why the inside of the HQ tent of the Henoko protestors is plastered with communist slogans written in Chinese and Korean.

If Denny listened to the people, he would know that the Koza and Chatan store/bar owners plead with the camp commanders to loosen curfews and off-base restrictions.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Okinawa is Japan.

Japan has a government.

The central government decides where the bases go.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

You then continue to say, "Okinawa lost before it even began because it never has had any leaders." What's that have to do with my question? It's nothing but "obfuscation", to borrow your pet expression.

Read the reply by "thepersoniamnow", the 3rd line is my answer as well to YOU.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Yubaru,

Of course, the central government has authority over foreign policies. But the central government is composed of people like you and me. It's not infallible at all.

People have right to question what they are doing over them. Prove that the Japanese and U.S. governments have always been infallible in their implementation of foreign policies.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

People have right to question what they are doing over them.

Yes, and twenty years ago they were given an answer. It's long past time to move on.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Tell me why Chinese and Korean nationals have been identified at anti-base protests (in violation of the law that bans foreigners from political activities). Tell me why the protests are funded by communist lobbyists funded by the CCP. Tell me why the inside of the HQ tent of the Henoko protestors is plastered with communist slogans written in Chinese and Korean.

You'll never get a response to this because it forces them to acknowledge is true and once they acknowledge the truth about where the majority of the support comes from it completely removes the false notion that this is an all Okinawa movement.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Of course, the central government has authority over foreign policies.

Then you can put this issue to rest! You must agree, without any reservations, that Tamaki has no authority to go over the head of the national government and discuss this issue with the US government, neither did his predecessor.

You must agree that it's the right of the national government to enter into and maintain agreements.

You also must agree that the Okinawa base issue is between Okinawa and the Japanese national government and that anything decided upon there, then the national government will negotiate with the US, If it deems it necessary.

You must now agree to all this, because they ALL fall under the purview of foreign policy and they are under the authority of the national government

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Prove that the Japanese and U.S. governments have always been infallible in their implementation of foreign policies.

You are making the assumption that someone actually made this assertion, none have.

You must stop trying to put words into peoples mouths.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Yubaru,

I wrote, "Of course, the central government has authority over foreign policies. But the central government is composed of people like you and me. It's not infallible at all." I wrote this as a rejoinder to an opinion like "The central government decides where the bases go" which you say you completely agree with..

True, the central government agreed with the U.S. government as to where Futenma should be relocated. But that agreement was made over our heads. We are the party the most ill-affected by this agreement and yet you say we must accept it without any complaint because it's the government's policy. If the government's decision were always correct and infallible, there would be some truth in what you said.

But that decision is wrong in every respect to anyone's eyes.

First, there's no feasible reason why Futenma's function must be relocated within Okinawa, that is, to Henoko, by squandering taxpayers money and destroying pristine natural environment. Secondly, allowing this plan to go ahead means Japan has relinquished sovereignty over part or all of Japan to a foreign power.

The planned new base in Henoko is a white elephant not only budgewise but also strategically. And yet you tell us to accept it because it's the policy of the central government or, more concretely, of the Shinazo Abe government?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

There is an alternative that nobody want to consider. How about making Kadena Air Base a "Joint Base" moving the Futenma Air Station functions to Kadena. It will cost much less than reclamation in Camp Schwab.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I wrote, "Of course, the central government has authority over foreign policies. But the central government is composed of people like you and me. It's not infallible at all." I wrote this as a rejoinder to an opinion like "The central government decides where the bases go" which you say you completely agree with..

True, the central government agreed with the U.S. government as to where Futenma should be relocated. But that agreement was made over our heads. We are the party the most ill-affected by this agreement and yet you say we must accept it without any complaint because it's the government's policy. If the government's decision were always correct and infallible, there would be some truth in what you said.

But that decision is wrong in every respect to anyone's eyes.

First, there's no feasible reason why Futenma's function must be relocated within Okinawa, that is, to Henoko, by squandering taxpayers money and destroying pristine natural environment. Secondly, allowing this plan to go ahead means Japan has relinquished sovereignty over part or all of Japan to a foreign power.

The planned new base in Henoko is a white elephant not only budgewise but also strategically. And yet you tell us to accept it because it's the policy of the central government or, more concretely, of the Shinazo Abe government?

All of what you just said is made irrelevant by your own statement.

Of course, the central government has authority over foreign policies.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

extanker,

I'm taking issue with how OUR government in Tokyo has handled the relocation issue by agreeing with Washington on Henoko over our heads. It's none of your business to meddle in here and suggest we accept the Japanese government's decision without  any  complaint.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

All of what you just said is made irrelevant by your own statement.

Very well stated, and all this poster can reply with is;

It's none of your business to meddle in here and suggest we accept the Japanese government's decision without any complaint.

As you can see, he is arrogant in the extreme - he posts his far-flung conspiracy theories here but wants to deny you the right to reply or post your opinion.

The right to free speech only applies to his views...when you show that they are flawed, he tries to silence you.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

voiceofokinawa

I've argued on various occasions that there's no strategic reasons why Futenma’s relocation site must be within Okinawa.

No strategic reason? USMC aircraft stationed at Futenma, together with the Marine Expeditionary Unit stationed elsewhere on island, embark ships of the Navy's Expeditionary Strike Group based in Sasebo. Together their area of operations is specifically the Korean Peninsula and East and South China seas. You couldn't be more wrong.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

USNinJapan2,

Probably you could answer the following questions I asked another poster on another thread:

Why is it necessary to build a new base in Henoko, supposedly a replacement for USMC Air Station Futenma, (1) when the most active elements of Okinawa-deployed Marines are slated to relocate to Guam with transferring costs reportedly amounting to $8.6 billion, of which Japan is said to share $2.8 billion, leaving only support and command units in Okinawa; (2) when it was bilaterally agreed that primary responsibility to deal with contingencies involving territorial disputes rests with JSDF and not with USFJ,

Satoshi Morimoto, a former Defense Minister and now the President of Takushoku University, told a news conference just before his stint expired that there was no strategic reason why Futenma's function must be maintained in Okinawa. It could be moved anywhere in mainland Japan or to any place abroad.

I'm interested in hearing your opinion on it. But above all I'm interested in hearing your response to Gov. Tamaki's proposal at the UN headquarters that Okinawa be made a neutral buffer zone for the peace and security of this region

IMore often than not people who support the Henoko relocation plan emphasize Okinawa's strategically superior location. if an argument for Okinawa's strategic location holds, how do the above questions I raised fit in this claim?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

What happened to Denny's US trip?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

There is an alternative that nobody want to consider. How about making Kadena Air Base a "Joint Base" moving the Futenma Air Station functions to Kadena. It will cost much less than reclamation in Camp Schwab.

This has been discussed before and it doesn’t work. The Marine Corps wants to keep control of runway/air operation for their own aircraft. The Air Force would never share the flight tower or allow their aircraft to lose priority to the Marines. It’s like telling trying to get a bottle of water and oil to mix.. they’re not made to.

What happened to Denny's US trip?

It’s already over... he went to New York and talked to handful of sleepy hungover NYU students and then rolled down to D.C to talk to some Undersecretary’s coffee maker. A complete waste of OPG tax dollars but a damn fun vacation for him

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Gov. Tamaki's proposal at the UN headquarters that Okinawa be made a neutral buffer zone for the peace and security of this region

what does that even mean?

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Gov. Tamaki's proposal at the UN headquarters that Okinawa be made a neutral buffer zone for the peace and security of this region

what does that even mean?

It means that Tamaki wants the US out and to sell the vacated land to CCP backed investors who will use the land as a strategic reserve, as is already happening in Hokkaido.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

CyburneticTiger & BeerDeliveryGuy,

No doubt, the first nation that will react negatively to such a move would be the U.S. because that means the U.S. military presence in Okinawa will be nullified instantly and become meaningless. 

I assume both of you are all part of the same gang who would say "No" to such a move. If so, then this huge U.S. military footprint in Okinawa can be said to be not necessarily for the defense and security of Japan and its vicinity, the Far East, but, to our chagrine, for the sake of the U.S. alone

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

But above all I'm interested in hearing your response to Gov. Tamaki's proposal at the UN headquarters that Okinawa be made a neutral buffer zone for the peace and security of this region

Just like everything else, it's a prefectural Governor going over the head of the national government, attempting to influence and dictate foreign policy. He should get slapped down for it too.

Next, his "proposal" is the same as the fringe that call for a return to the Ryukyu Kingdom too

He can talk all he wants, no one is going to more than politely listen, and he has to justify, somehow, the use of taxpayers money, to make the trip.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Satoshi Morimoto, a former Defense Minister and now the President of Takushoku University, told a news conference just before his stint expired that there was no strategic reason why Futenma's function must be maintained in Okinawa. It could be moved anywhere in mainland Japan or to any place abroad.

So? He, can say whatever he wants, and just because he was defense minister does not mean he was "qualified".

The position of "Defense Minister" is relatively new here in Japan, and they ALL have a remarkable tendency to talk out of line, while exchange the foot in their mouths.

His opinions do not matter, he isnt in the US military, and he is just letting his ignorance show!

4 ( +4 / -0 )

I'm taking issue with how OUR government in Tokyo has handled the relocation issue by agreeing with Washington on Henoko over our heads.

If every decision here in Japan had to be made with the consent of the local governments NOTHING would ever get accomplished.

Proof...has taken over 20 years to get the construction moving along!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Okinawa be made a neutral buffer zone for the peace and security of this region

What does this mean?

What does it look like?

Can you even answer the question?

ive explained that Okinawa’s stategic importance is due to it being the perfect staging point to conduct logistical and supply support for defense or natural disasters anywhere in southeast and east Asia. You’ve never been able to counter this. Can you at least explain your quote from above?

5 ( +5 / -0 )

It's none of your business to meddle in here

I must have struck a nerve. It's a news website, not a protest march. I have about as much business here as you do.

suggest we accept the Japanese government's decision without any complaint.

No, I did no such thing. I suggested that 20 years worth of complaining was enough and it's time to move on to issues that matter.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Yubaru (Nov. 30 | 10:54 pm JST),

I've been saying Japan is still under pseudo-occupation by the U.S. as far as security matters are concerned. There's an already established mechanism in which Japan can't say "No" to what Washington dictates to Tokyo. This is the reason why Okinawa's voice always falls on Tokyo's deaf ears. And this is the reason why not only Tamaki but all his predecessors have had to go to Washington to directly appeal base issues vis-a-vis U.S. bases. You can't blame them for doing so.

Yubaaru (Nov. 30 | 10:58 pm JST),

You say a former Defense Minister's opinion can be disregarded as if you were a know-it-all authority in this matter, the Henoko relocation. Even so, can you answer the question I raised? Why is it necessary to relocate Futenmas function within Okinawa?

Yubaru (Nov. 30 | 11:00 pm JST),

A series of elections and polls have clearly shown the majority of Okinawans are opposed to the Henoko relocation plan. The central government must listen to this voice in earnest. The reason why this issue has become so complicated is because of this recalcitrance and obstinacy on the part of the central government with Washington always behind it.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Japan is still under pseudo-occupation by the U.S.

Occupation. No it's not. Virtual occupation. Not a thing. Pseudo-occupation. Still no.

I would suggest 'ersatz-occupation' for your next try.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Yea.. keep avoiding my queries and revert to your irrelevant ones so you can desperately cling to your pretend reality.

By the way, the landfill begins this week. Finally we’ll be on step closer to seeing reduction of the US bases in Okinawa.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

CyburneticTiger,

If you believe and emphasize that Okinawa's strategic importance is the reason why Futenma's function must be relocated within Okinawa, you must answer the question I raised above to USNinJapan2 (voiceofokinawa: Nov. 30 | 02:06 am UTC):

Why is it necessary to build a new base in Henoko, supposedly a replacement for USMC Air Station Futenma, (1) when the most active elements of Okinawa-deployed Marines are slated to relocate to Guam with transferring costs reportedly amounting to $8.6 billion, of which Japan is said to share $2.8 billion, leaving only support and command units in Okinawa; (2) when it's been bilaterally agreed that primary responsibility to deal with contingencies involving territorial disputes rests with JSDF and not with USFJ,

How would you justify your Henoko best argument under such circumstances?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

I've been saying Japan is still under pseudo-occupation by the U.S.

I stopped reading after this! There is no pseudo occupation, no virtual occupation, and no occupation of Japan by the US military.

Myself and others have pointed this out to you far too often.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Your questions don’t counter my position. You need to make statement that are legitimate counters. You’re losing this debate

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Yubaru,

As I said elsewhere, USFJ is a seamless carry-over from the erstwhile occupation forces with bases and areas kept intact, which is firmly guaranteed by the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, and with the perquisites U.S. service members enjoy remaining the same as before, which is firmly warranted by the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), an agreement concomitant to the Security Treaty.

I would call this a virtual occupation, which of course you may not like. But even if you don't like it, it’s a virtual occupation nonetheless. Address this smoke and mirrors situation right then and there. 

CyburneticTiger,

You haven't refuted my argument convincingly enough.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

I would call this a virtual occupation, which of course you may not like. But even if you don't like it, it’s a virtual occupation nonetheless.

Call it whatever you want, it does not make it a fact. Myself and others are here to keep you in line.

There is no occupation of Okinawa nor Japan by USFJ. You MUST admit to this fact .

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Yubaru,

There is no occupation of Okinawa nor Japan by USFJ. You MUST admit to this fact .

Certainly, there's no real occupation of Okinawa nor a broader Japan by USFJ, an "occupation" in the usual sense of the word. But there's no denying that the fact exists that I pointed out, due to which one can call it a virtual occupation. Do something about this extraordinarily huge U.S. military footprint if you want to deny my claim.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Certainly, there's no real occupation of Okinawa nor a broader Japan by USFJ, an "occupation" in the usual sense of the word. 

There is no "other" sense of the word, period,

Do something about this U.S. military footprint

Right, move Futenma to Camp Schwab, close Futenma, close Kinser, close Naha port, close a large portion of Foster, close Kuwae, and the foot print gets instantly smaller!

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Yubaru,

Right, move Futenma to Camp Schwab, close Futenma, close Kinser, close Naha port, close a large portion of Foster, close Kuwae, and the foot print gets instantly smaller!

Sounds like quite a number of bases will be closed and large areas of land returned. As for Futenma and Naha military port, replacements with many new functions added must be provided in exchange for their return. Except for Naha military port all these bases sit on private land which the occupation U.S. army requisitioned illegally in violation of international law. They must be returned without any conditions attached. 

Even if they were returned, large swaths of Okinawa's land mass would continue being occupied by the U.S. forces as their PERMANENT bases. Do something about it. Show us evidence that the U.S. doesn't intend to maintain teose bases forever; that the U.S. military presence is only temporary. Note that the Okinawa Marines have asked the service life of the new base in Henoko be more than 200 years. But once land were reclaimed in waters off the Henoko coast, it would remain thousands of millions years.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Dont need to show anything, dont need to "prove" anything, least of all to you.

SO the land stays forever, so what? If you claim to know about Okinawa there are other places as well, and not the one's you think you know about, that are actually landfills too.

You can not disregard the strategic location of Okinawa, you keep forgetting that!

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Yubaru,

SO the land stays forever, so what? If you claim to know about Okinawa there are other places as well, and not the one's you think you know about, that are actually landfills too.

The landfills you're talking about are Okinawa's own problems, nothing outsiders have to do with and complain. If there were no U.S. bases occupying so much prime land, there must been no need for such landfills.  The Seven Mile Bridge connecting the Florida Panhandle and the Key West was built in the U.S. territory because it must have been thought necessary. Can outsiders complain about it? 

But if some foreign country came out and asked a military base be built for them on one of the islands, saying the island is situated at a strategically very important location for the defense of the U.S. and their own country, would you not complain? At which someone from the said country sniffed, "So what?"  A caricature, don’t you understand?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

If you believe and emphasize that Okinawa's strategic importance is the reason why Futenma's function must be relocated within Okinawa, you must answer the question I raised above to USNinJapan2 (voiceofokinawa: Nov. 30 | 02:06 am UTC):

Ha. That’s not how it works, bud.

Your questions pose no relevance to Okinawa’s strategic location therefore there’s no need to answer them. The only reason you’re avoiding challenging my position is because there’s no logical argument to dispute it... it feels good to defeat you in debate once again. Better luck next time.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

But if some foreign country came out and asked a military base be built for them on one of the islands, saying the island is situated at a strategically very important location for the defense of the U.S. and their own country, would you not complain? At which someone from the said country sniffed, "So what?" A caricature, don’t you understand?

Evidently you are the one who doesn't understand. Japan offered to do the landfill after discussions with the US government and after other options were considered, the Okinawan government consulted and eventually passed over in favor of Camp Schwab!. You know all of this as well.

It's also one reason why Hatoyama had to resign as PM because he didn't keep his promise to move the base out of Okinawa and eventually he made a deal with Barack Obama to keep it here! Yes Barack Obama!

You keep obfuscating the situation. You must realize that by now!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

CyburneticTiger,

You're insistent on saying I haven't responded to your claim that "Okinawa's strategic importance is due to it being the perfect staging point to conduct logistical and supply support for defense" (your post; Nov. 30 | 11:10 pm JST). I think I have answered that on many occasions, here and on other threads..

Even if Okinawa has a strategic importance, as you say, why is it necessary to build a new base for the Marines in Henoko, supposedly a replacement for USMC Air Station Futenma, (1) when the most active elements of Okinawa-deployed Marines are slated to relocate to Guam with transferring costs reportedly amounting to $8.6 billion, of which Japan is said to share $2.8 billion, leaving only support and command units in Okinawa; (2) when it's been bilaterally agreed that primary responsibility to deal with contingencies involving territorial disputes rests with JSDF and not with USFJ?

Doesn't this military realignment mean the active combat units of the Marines can deal with any contingencies that may occur near Japan's territorial waters even if they are stationed more than 2,000 km away from Okinawa? Under such circumstances, what's the reason why the Henoko new base must be built? Answer, please.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

You still haven’t refuted that Okinawa’s key importance is its location making logistical and supply support effective throughout southeast Asia and east Asia. I no longer think you’re avoiding. I think you just can’t unferstand the elementary concept. If you did you’d understand that moving the combat elements to Guam is not relevant to its strategic role because every logistical element remains in Okinawa. You’d also understand that an air base exists as a logistical node and that enhancing its capabilities is because you recognize its importance (hence building a better air base on the expansion of Camp Schwab).

So simply put it’s not about how hard you can punch (having a combat element) it’s about how effectively you can maintain the punch (logistical and supply support). Strategically, Okinawa is what maintains the punch and it’s the most important place to have bases in the region.... I made this real simple for you now that I see you were truly struggling to understand this common sense approach that the two most successful nations in the world understand. Hopefully I helped you

3 ( +3 / -0 )

CyburneticTiger,

So simply put it’s not about how hard you can punch (having a combat element) it’s about how effectively you can maintain the punch (logistical and supply support). Strategically, Okinawa is what maintains the punch and it’s the most important place to have bases in the region....

Logistics is military operations for "the procurement, distribution, maintenance, and replacement of materiel and personnel". The Marines that remain in Okinawa after their combat units moved to Guam are the units that will be engaged in such support operations, aren't they? Explain then why under such circumstances the Marines need to have Futenma's function maintained in a new base; why do they need to have training bases like the Jungle Warfare Center and Camp Hansen, where urban warfare facility is also planted. 

If Okinawa's strategically superior location is so important, the active elements of the Marines must remain in Okinawa, but they will be deployed over 2,000 km away from Okinawa, that is, in Guam. So the explanation that Futenma's replacement must be built in Okinawa to deal quickly with contingencies, if there would be any, is nothing but shenanigans. Note also that the USS Bon Homme Richard that is supposed to transport Marine combat units is home-based at Sasebo in Kyushu. How does the touted Marines mobility fit in the theory of Okinawa’s strategic location and so Futenma’s replacement must be built in Okinawa?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Explain then why under such circumstances the Marines need to have Futenma's function maintained in a new base;

Reread his post he explained it in detail, I see you really don't get it, you only see the MARINE CORP and think combat and war,

why do they need to have training bases like the Jungle Warfare Center and Camp Hansen, where urban warfare facility is also planted.

Off topic and not related to the Camp Schwab issue.

How does the touted Marines mobility fit in the theory of Okinawa’s strategic location and so Futenma’s replacement must be built in Okinawa?

Reread his post, it's explained in detail.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yubaru,

His description may apply to the other branches of USFJ but never to the Marines.  Period.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Actually, CybernticTiger is absolutely right in the case. The majority of Marines that will remain in Okinawa are from the Marine Logistics Groups and Marine Aircraft Wing which fall into exactly the point he is making.

His description may apply to the other branches of USFJ but never to the Marines. Period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_air-ground_task_force

Its absolutely applicable to the Marine Corps, they are designed to be self sustaining and handle their own logistics and supply for a set period of time. By the way, your information is out of date, the USS Bonhomme Richard is no longer stationed in Sasebo so if you cant even get that right then it brings into question your whole argument's accuracy. Regardless the Marine Corps does not need the Navy's LHDs and LHA's to transport their units in mass. Those are more focused on the Marine Expeditionary Units design; which is just a patrol operation. The Marine Corps is designed to respond to anything within hours and day... that would take weeks to mobilize the Marine units if they had to rely on those ships for transport.

I think Yubaru and Tiger really have shown you do not understand any of this.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites