Why does U.S. need to keep troops ’round the world?
Twenty-six percent (26%) of Americans say the United States should remove all its military troops from Japan, a central issue in President Obama’s trip to that country Friday and Saturday.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 49% disagree and oppose the removal of all U.S. troops from Japan. Twenty-five percent (25%) are not sure.
I might have guessed such a result (after all, we still have troops there; it wouldn't stay that way for long if it was unpopular), but I did not expect such a wide gap. What drives people to think that U.S. military presence in Japan is beneficial for U.S. (or Japan, for that matter)?
I am guessing that the people answering that we need to keep some troops in Japan answer so because they think of it as supporting our ally:
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say Japan is an ally of the United States. Only 10% view the country as an enemy, while 24% think of it as somewhere in between an ally and an enemy.
Forty-six percent (46%) believe America should help Japan militarily if it comes under attack, but 41% disagree.
And, sure, as a strong democracy with capitalistic economy in the region (albeit with a hint of mercantilism), Japan can be a valuable ally. But what does not follow is that U.S. needs to keep a troop presence there, using our own resources for day-to-day protection of the islands. We have had a special relationship with U.K. for more than a century now—but we do not keep a troop presence there to protect them.
The fact that these countries are our allies—and that if they are attacked, whoever attacked them will live to regret the day—is protection enough. There is no reason to overstretch our military. We should be pulling all our troops from Japan and Germany—and given how strong these nations are, it will not be seen as a sign of weakness by our old (Russia) and current (North Korea and Iran) enemies either, unlike the cancellation of missile shield program in Poland.