Well you guys have been at each others throats for a long time. It didn't serve the west much 150 years ago so who are you going to point as the "chief benefactor" back then...Korea maybe? You gotta be kidding me. So the "it only serves so-and-so" thing is about as far from being part of the core problem as saying bad economic planning in the US only serves Pakistan's interests (say what??).
Buddy ,
The United States' prime foreign affairs strategy is centered on hegemony over the pacific , which is the springboard from which she is to exert and interject her influence into the Asian mainland, particularly in reference to East Asia, and Southeast Asia (continental & insular). Prior to the onset of the Pacific War that begun in 1941, the United States actually had a checkered control of the pacific and was largely limited to the Philippines and the Hawaiian Islands. The core of the western and central pacific was under the Japanese Mandate. This domination by Japan in pacific waters as far north as Sakhalin and contiguous waters of the Sea of Okhotsk, as far south as the coast of Papua New Guinea and as far east as Marshall Islands. This was a strategic barrier for the United States, which had always seeked hegemony over the entire pacific from the coast of california to the coastline of Japan & beyond (Korea, China). In fact it is mentioned as part of the American Manifest Destiny and Mandate to be the 'Pre-eminent Pacific Power'.
Let's take a look at the role of Japan and how Japan's Pacific Mandate & Empire had proved an obstacle for American Pacific Hegemonistic designs:
Now, let us fast forward to 2016, this is the extent of America's Pacific Mandate & literal hegemony over the entire expanse of the Great Pacific Ocean:
The key forward deployed bases of the United States' Pacific Command (USFJ; US Forces Japan) and (USFK; US Forces Korea) places close to some 75,000 men in the two countries (53,000 in Japan, and some 25,000 in South Korea). To support this logistic chain, the United States has a secondary island chain that centers in Guam and Palau , and to support that , she maintains a constant VFA with the Philippines and access to 8 major Filipino bases. Has access to Thailand, Vietnam, Bruneian, Indonesian, Indian, Australian and New Zealand ports for strategic resupply and strategic defense partnership(s). If that is not hegemony, my friend, then I don't know what is.
The loss of Korea and Japan to the United States is a breach of US Pacific Command's Mandate and a severe loss of American Domination of the Pacific, which is a core defense "non-negotiable". Since to the American Naval Command Brass, Domination of the Pacific is a "Right" and a hard "won" one -- afterall the United States, particularly the Navy, pride itself in winning the Pacific from the Japanese Empire by rules of war.
American domination is no more different than former European imperial powers who had designed such spheres of influence in the area, centuries ago. The difference? The individual European states of Britain, France, Netherlands, Spain -- did not and does not (still) have the industrial complex and capacity / potential to become a global hyper hegemon like the United States did as it exemplified in the 2nd World War and through her shear economic clout. Had it not been to their limitations, European countries would have hardly rescinded their imperial possessions had it been put down. Afterall did we not see the French and Dutch forces moving back to Cochinchine (French Indochina) and the Dutch Malaccas immediately after the liberation of France and Netherlands from Nazi domination in Europe? Yes they did, and in fact, both (French and Dutch) waged a brutal war of repatriation and attempt at pacifying their colonial possessions for daring to stand up to European supremacy. It was only after (and only) that they were defeated, that they accepted terms of surrender and agreed to granting independence (as if that was their right to give). In the regards to France, however, she merely gave the mantle to the United States after the catastrophic loss in the Battle of Dien Bien Phu , wherein the US took over French area of responsibility. 10 year later and some 55, 000 American lives lost --- then did the US abandon South Vietnam --- and removed its anti-historical role. Then and only then did Vietnam (through the Army of North Viet Nam) become unified again as a nation state. It had been close to a century since Viet Nam was united as an independent nation state (before the French came in and imposed their suzereignty).
Compare that to the situation in Korea. In fact Korea is divided still and is similar to how both Viet Nam was divided into North and South Viet Nam some 60 years ago. So long as the US is in South Korea, there can be no unification (since a unification might undermine US interests and influence in the region, which clearly the US does not want to lose, its simply contradictive to American strategic global interests; we are afterall talking about a hegemon here). The same, i suppose, in regards to Japan. So long as Japan remains a "host" to American military forces (some 53,000) , there can be no independent foreign policy. And Japan's foreign policy directives will remain under the surveillance and influence of American political machination(s).
Regards.
Kenji.
You gotta be kidding me. So the "it only serves so-and-so" thing is about as far from being part of the core problem as saying bad economic planning in the US only serves Pakistan's interests (say what??).
The latter comparison and correlation does not make sense, and does not come close to describing the vital interest of Korea and Japan to USNPC's mandate. In fact this mandate is the very pillar upon which various strategies and contingency plans have been built on.
