Will it be regarded as a 'guarantor of peace' or threatening to the stability of the region?
In my opinion, I certainly don't see it as a destabilizing force. In fact, I think an increase US presence will substantially offset the fears being generated by an 8000 pound gorilla like China, as well as the uncertainty as to whether in Japan's future potentially lurks the possibility of renewed militarism (certainly far in the future).
Either way, the only way the US can increase its presence is through the use of its blue water naval assets and air power. That article makes some key points about how the US is re-approaching its allies/partners in the region with a different attitude towards obtaining basing and docking rights, as well as a change in the Status of Forces agreements we negotiate with them.
Also, there is a big discussion going on now with regard to how the Army will restructure its forces to be more deployable to regional hot spots without losing the ability to fight a large formation land battle.
As the US switches emphasis to Asia, we'll see more importance placed upon Marine and Naval capability which, as any historian will tell you, carried the main brunt of fighting Japan. (Btw, a trivia question.... which service branch carried out the most amphibious operations during WWII, the Marines or the US Army?)
Regards,
Ron |
