Originally posted by idkew
all these example you guys are using are either accidents or actions of a single person, not state policy.
Of course it is not the United States' policy to have its soldiers run over Korean girls or rape Japanese women in Okinawa. But does this mean that the US military shouldn't do more to prevent such incidents from happening in the future? And does this mean that the United States should continue to allow its soldiers to be above the laws of the host country?
To borrow another analogy, should we just shrug when we hear about the molestation cases in the Catholic Church? Of course, since it's not the policy of the Catholic Church to have their priests molest children, these incidents are indeed "actions of a single person." Nonetheless, does this mean the Catholic Church should continue to operate as it always does? Or should it identify some of the root causes and strive to never allow such incidents from happening in the future?
In the incident in Italy, the Italians had complained many times about how low the jets were flying. Their complaints were ignored. An incident finally occurred, and although the act was of a single person and was an accident, doesn't the United States military hold some responsibility for the incident considering how many times they've been warned? Before the Okinawan gang rape incident a few years ago, the Okinawans had long complained about how US servicemen were (and still are) responsible for alot of the crime on the island. Their pleas were ignored. Is the United States completely blameless?
while those incidents were bad and probably preventable, **** happens. sorry people. there are bigger things to deal/complain about.
The grand strategy of the United States is to maintain a military presence around the world for commerical and geopolitical reasons. These incidents unnecesarily damage the prestige of the United States, and tests the goodwill of the host countries. Though I was born in another country, I am a proud to consider myself an American, and I think the United States has a lot to offer to the rest of the world. However, such incidents unnecessarily soils the reputation of my adopted homeland and also unnecessarily imperils its military flexibility. Maintaining a forward presence is especially important in this "War on Terrorism" that requires the United States military to respond quickly around the world.
Look, there are always "bigger things to deal/complain about", but this doesn't mean the United States can continue to let its servicemen act in such a manner overseas. The United States needs to have its soldiers act in a responsible manner--if not for the goodwill of the host country, then at least for its pride and self-interest. What other countries do is a
non sequitur with respect to this problem.
What distresses me is how many Americans seem to have this attitude that the rest of the world owe us something for protecting them, and that incidents like these--while certainly regrettable--is just the price of the protection of the United States. But I have already shown in this thread that it is also in the interests of the US to have its soldiers stationed abroad and that such ugly incidents threatens the position of the US and did not have to occur.