Is China the regional power?

[blueranger]

Why do you think the troop movement is temporary? In 2004, Richard Lawless announced that US troop presence in SK would be decreased by 1/3 over the next few years. For sure Yongsan's move away from the demilitarized zone is not temporary. And in May, Condi and Aso negotiated a plan to move 8,000 marines out of Japan. But even if some troop withdrawals from SK were intended to be temporary, they will only be so as long as they aren't needed in that other place - and despite the democratic wins, I don't believe we'll see withdrawal of forces *there* any time soon.

In a way, we're already seeing the effects of a power vacuum. If NK's test had taken place before 2003, I would think we'd have seen the US moving more forces into SK, and not the reverse . China's special relationship with NK increases its relative political power in light of the new circumstances. I would be surprised if their military reaction to the test wasn't relatively bigger than the US's, but maybe someone here on the forum knows better how the PRC's responding militarily? Or maybe it's too soon to know?

The marines from Japan are moving to Guam, where they'll be out of the faces of the big East Asian powers.

 

[Finn McCool]

Why do you think the troop movement is temporary? In 2004, Richard Lawless announced that US troop presence in SK would be decreased by 1/3 over the next few years. For sure Yongsan's move away from the demilitarized zone is not temporary. And in May, Condi and Aso negotiated a plan to move 8,000 marines out of Japan. But even if some troop withdrawals from SK were intended to be temporary, they will only be so as long as they aren't needed in that other place - and despite the democratic wins, I don't believe we'll see withdrawal of forces *there* any time soon.

In a way, we're already seeing the effects of a power vacuum. If NK's test had taken place before 2003, I would think we'd have seen the US moving more forces into SK, and not the reverse . China's special relationship with NK increases its relative political power in light of the new circumstances. I would be surprised if their military reaction to the test wasn't relatively bigger than the US's, but maybe someone here on the forum knows better how the PRC's responding militarily? Or maybe it's too soon to know?

The marines from Japan are moving to Guam, where they'll be out of the faces of the big East Asian powers.

This does not contsitute a decrease in American miltiary power in the region. The movement of troops in Korea was mostly a redeployment away from the DMZ in order to increase their survivability. The US did move quite a few troops out of Korea, but as I said many of them are in Iraq, which is temporary, and many others have been moved to Okinawa and Guam which is still in East Asia and overall increases their capability to deploy throughout the region. As I said earlier, the US is moving more technological assets in to the area. And the fact that Marines are being moved out of Japan and the in the Okinawa base areas are being downsized is if anything an increase in American influence in Japan as it removes one of the major irratants in the US Japan relationship.

 

[blueranger]

Why do you think all the movements are temporary? Do you have any reason to believe that the statement by Lawless was inaccurate/untruthful? Please provide sources.

Your last point is a misreading of the situation. The movement of troops out of Japan is not a signal of increasing US power in the region, but of increasing Japanese willingness to shoulder the burden of self-defense. This is borne out by significant increases in its military expenditure, and movements to amend article 9 of its constitution.

It is true that the US-Japan alliance is strengthening, but this is in concert with its changing attitude re: role of Japanese military in the region, and is a reaction to China's military power increases and the NK threat. The movements to Guam should be seen in this context. Here's the official word, if you're interested:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Scratch]

I somewhat support Finn's opinion here.
The Japanese take over self defence responsibility from the US, true, therefore the US can reduce troop size on japanese soil. It also indicates increased japanese self-esteem. The US only decrease their ability to defend the japanese homeland a bit, but this task can be fully transferd to the SDF.
The realignment of troops in that region doesn't diminish their deployability. Now with that and new technical advanced assets repositioned to that area, the ability of power projection won't decrease IMO in general.
The removement of troops out of Japan or SK doesn't mean to withdraw them from the whole region.
The fact that the US is bound somewhere else with lots of their capabilities may present a lack of credibility if immediate action would be requiered, but I think the US will close this gap ASAP.

 

[blueranger]

Hmm. You have a point. But it still seems to me that plans to remove troops from SK on a permanent basis have been in effect for a while. The announcement in 2004 was for 12,000. And I'm still not convinced that the US has resources or political will to return to and maintain pre-2003 deterrent strength.

Would you agree, then, that US *relative* power in the region is declining? That is, Chinese and Japanese military power in the region is increasing at a rate higher than the US's (assuming that it's increasing at all), and since power is a zero-sum game, it tallies as a loss for the US?

(A loss in relative military force only, since the US supports increased defensive responsibilities for Japan in the region, and considers it an important strategic ally).

 

[Scratch]

Well makes sense, I think part of US's influence will in the future be transmitted through their ally Japan. I also think that in the medium and long turn troop numbers will decreas due to a shift it political-military stratigies, I believe you're right there.
But then I don't really think that would mean lesser influence, it can be achieved in other ways now.
Truely, chinese, japanese and indian influence are growing faster making for a shift in influence spreading. Though now is the question: if all these new powers' influences are similar in future, will they neglect each other ? And wich alliances could effact that in what way ? China and India are coming closer together and may be a antipol to a US-Jap axis. On the other hand, the US tries to establish good relations with India as well.

 

[Deleted member 675]

China and India are coming closer together and may be a antipol to a US-Jap axis. On the other hand, the US tries to establish good relations with India as well.

The idea that India would form an "alliance" with China against the US and Japan is a joke. For one thing India sees China as a long-term rival, so why would it make life easier for the PRC by opposing the US or Japan? For another it has good relations with Washington and Tokyo - it has no reason to ally itself against them.

 

[crobato]

Russia-China axis is the one most possible, then drawing N. Korea, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan into the orbit.

 

[Deleted member 675]

Russia-China axis is the one most possible, then drawing N. Korea, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan into the orbit.

I severely doubt that North Korea would be brought into an alliance with the Russians (even the Chinese) in it, until it had hugely reformed itself. And although the Russians see China as a very useful partner, a military alliance where Russia would actively leap to support China would also not be likely - unless China was attacked directly and without provocation as part of a massive military operation.

 

[crobato]

North Korea is considered an ally even though it is an unfit ally. An ally does not necessarily mean it goes hand on hand agreeing with you on everything. Kind of like France and Canada is to the US.

Russia-China axis is the one I still see the most possible, and the one current trends seem to point the most.