War And Uneasy Neutrality Answer Key: Fill & Download for Free

Thanks Rohit Radhakrishnan for the questionWhy is Muslim League unhappy over Priyanka Gandhi's statement regarding Ram Temple Bhoomi Poojan?This incidents look like typical Sandhesam movie scenes to me. Malayalees have a peculiar habit. If they ran out stock of local politics to discuss and debate, they will take foreign topics and clash each other with hard discussions. After all, we are cool in debating, you see… So don’t talk about Poland!!! Oops in this case- Turkey and Ayodhya!!!I will explain in detail which is purely in perspective of Kerala political spectrum, not what how outsiders see itCongress leader Priyanka Gandhi essentially made a statement today that Ram Temple will be helping India for its national unity and integration."Lord Ram Is With Everyone": Priyanka Gandhi Ahead Of Ayodhya CeremonyCongress ends silence, Priyanka pledges support to Ram templeसरलता, साहस, संयम, त्याग, वचनवद्धता, दीनबंधु राम नाम का सार है। राम सबमें हैं, राम सबके साथ हैं।भगवान राम और माता सीता के संदेश और उनकी कृपा के साथ रामलला के मंदिर के भूमिपूजन का कार्यक्रम राष्ट्रीय एकता, बंधुत्व और सांस्कृतिक समागम का अवसर बने।मेरा वक्तव्य pic.twitter.com/ZDT1U6gBnb— Priyanka Gandhi Vadra (@priyankagandhi) August 4, 2020This message from Priyanka Gandhi is regarded as official message of Congress High Command as prior to this, no other senior leader of AICC made any statement over upcoming Ram Temple Bhoomi Pooja in Ayodhya tomorrow.This has made Indian Union Muslim League, the second powerful constituent partner of Congress led United Democratic Front- UDF in Kerala to express their anguish and uneasiness over Congress’s official stand. IUML has called a National Executive tomorrow to discuss on this and probably a resolution may be madeBut interestingly, when IUML calls National executive, it means all District presidents from 14 districts of Kerala as IUML has no more strong presence anywhere in India other than Kerala (it do have some namesake presence in TN and some other states where it wins one or two seats thro’ alliance powers)And essentially Ram temple is NOT a topic in Kerala. Hardly any Hindus in the state discuss on it and its just a small column news in some inner pages of newspapers. Majority of Hindus in Kerala aren’t even connected this issue and holds no major opinion about it (whether its going to construct or not construct is not our issue). The Ram temple in Ayodhya is as foreign as Hagia Sophia in Turkey for most of Malayalees.But like in Hagia Sophia, there can be a political narrative attached to it, not religious/emotional topic. I will explain that in detail later.In Kerala, most of the parties, including BJP has not spoken much about upcoming Ram Temple Bhoomi Pooja. As it doesn’t evoke any religious passion or interest, even BJP know its worthless to highlight the topic in Kerala. So as Congress leaders in Kerala haven’t spoke anything about it. The Left, particularly CPM has made some editorials about it, but hardly anything beyond.So why IUML is getting irritated? There is nothing of IUML’s interest involved here, as Ayodhya issue isn’t a topic in Kerala even for Hindus and IUML isn’t a national party, rather purely a Kerala party. Their leaders can’t even speak any other language other than Malayalam and thus mostly end up silent Parliamentarians while in Delhi.So that involves larger politics hereIUML generally represents Muslims of Malabar as its electoral vote bank. IUML has approx 19–20 seats (mostly based in Malabar) as a sort of fixed bank account for UDF which only they win for decades, that too mostly in record margins. Infact the funny part is that, IUML has become so confident that in these seats they fix a sort of challenge during every election where the IUML candidate is expected to break the predecessor's record of winning margin. In majority seats, the margin is always increasing, rather decreasing.I have explained IUML’s political strategy and ideas in detail in other answers of mine. So not repeating again.Arun Mohan (അരുൺ മോഹൻ)'s answer to What is your view about Congress making an alliance with IUML, whose ideology is communal?Arun Mohan (അരുൺ മോഹൻ)'s answer to If UDF will have won assembly election 2021 in Kerala, will the Muslim league demand the Chief Minister post of Kerala?IUML is always known in Kerala for its extremely moderate Islamic party. The word Muslims actually remains only in their party title, as its primarily an aristocratic party. Most of its Party leadership were part for Mappilla Nobility and aristocracy of Malabar and majority of them were business leaders. They never ventured into any sort of communalization/polarization attempt. Rather their entire aim is to win elections, hold positions of power and use that as a way to enrich their private business. So for IUML, politics is primarily a method to ensure the Muslim aristocrats of Malabar remain aristocrats forever.Traditionally IUML never used to fear their electorate, as the electorate blindly support IUML, because the supreme head of Kerala Sunnis- the Panakkad Thangal himself is the party president. Remember, Panakkad Thangal is a position much similar how Pope is for Catholics. He represents Prophet Mohammed’s lineage in Kerala and widely revered across the state for the position. So most of the Muslims in Malabar vote for IUML, which explains their huge margins of victory.But one thing IUML has noted in last few elections. Instead of increasing in vote margin, there is actually stall in the marginal growth. Its not growing as it used to grow in past and in some seats, it slowly started going down.The biggest reason for this is rise of few Islamic fundamentalists parties, particularly SDPI and Welfare party.SDPI is primarily the a mirror image of BJP in Kerala. They work in same fashion as RSS works, by spreading various communally polarizing narratives and trying to unite Muslims and vote for them in name of Islam. Unlike many outsiders think, Kerala’s Muslim society is heavily fragmented much like Hindu society. And the constant ego feuds and multiple power structure was one key factor, IUML always wins in Malappuram and Kozhikode areas as their community fraction represents the higher density in these regions. In other regions, Muslims vote for various parties including Congress or other parties, which eventually comes into UDF kitty.But the arrival of SDPI is slowly changing the dynamics. SDPI uses the same narrative which BJP tries. Creating a victimhood narrative for Muslims and trying to unite the multiple fractions, castes/sects etc in name of religion. They are effectively using the same polarization techniques which BJP employees. So far it hasn’t been successful, but IUML has started feeling the heat when they see a slight stall in their growth margin (remember, IUML is extremely obsessed with electoral winning margin, so even a small drop worries them).For SDPI, its not RSS/BJP their obstacle for growth (rather their presence helps SDPI to project an enemy and use typical polarizing drive in Muslim community just as BJP does projecting SDPI to Hindus- Both are complementary to each other). Rather they biggest enemy is IUML which keeps on holding majority of Muslims in Malabar linked to its party or other UDF Constituent parties, denying SDPI a space to grow. However IUML is extremely concerned whether SDPI will keep on flaming communal passion and try to unite Muslims which may prove death knell to IUML.But beyond that, they are now facing another bigger enemy- the LDF. The Communist led Left Democratic Front or LDF, traditionally never enjoyed Muslim support. This is because communism and Islam are regarded two opposite ideologies and never can’t support. For majority of religious Muslims, traditionally LDF used to be an anathema for them being an officially atheist party. And generally CPM is officially an Hindu party primarily as most of its members and voters are from Hindu community with very limited Muslim supporters.However for last one decade, LDF is seriously trying to woo Muslims to become its vote bank (with a hope that it may help to stop the traditional power oscillation and help LDF to have a second term in power). They tried all the tricks like accepting IUML splinter groups like INL etc to LDF or even making an electoral pact with more radical organizations like PDP etc. All these backfired terribly for LDF and the party leadership has decided to stop wooing Muslims thro’ short-cut method, rather aim directly.Since 2011, LDF has seriously started wooing Muslims of Malabar thro’ accepting rebels of IUML who has considerable influence among Muslims as well as directly entering talks with many moderate Muslim clerics and bridging connections with their followers etc.This has slowly impacted IUML as they observe LDF getting more vote share even in their strongholds and many Muslims have started accepting LDF. This fear increased radically after Anti-CAA protests that rocked Kerala. In Anti-CAA struggle, both UDF and LDF were spearheading the movement, but LDF’s measures looked much more appealing to Muslim community. This happened because LDF initiated a joint opposition to CAA along with UDF which initially was supported by UDF. But the opposition of KPCC slowly made UDF to go away from LDF sponsored agitations which has sent signals to Muslim community that UDF is not that serious as LDF is. Even UDF’s IUML also got confused as they find no reason to oppose LDF in this fight, unlike Congress.Leading stir, CPM gains support of Kerala MuslimsThe Unified Opposition to the Citizenship Law Is Losing Steam in KeralaAlong with Covid efforts, there is a serious political opinion that LDF has more chances to return back to power again which would spoil IUML’s ambitions if UDF couldn’t return back to power in 2021 (against the normal tradition).What disturbs IUML is a potential fact that both SDPI and LDF may slowly erode IUML’s base in opposite sides and in event of a division of vote, there is a chance of Left gaining their forts. To prevent this, IUML has initiated process of closing all the gaps to avoid any vote leakages.One of the first attempt is to make peace with SDPI, to avoid any attempt of vote erosion by making some strategic outside support SDPI in upcoming Panchayat elections.https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/kerala/muslim-league-s-alliance-with-welfare-party-cpm-demands-response-from-congress-1.4834971The second attempt is to join strongly with other UDF parties over various issues to push down LDF’s popularityWar of words between CPM, IUML over virus spread | Kozhikode News - Times of IndiaAnd there is a inherent 3rd attempt. To make LDF look anti-Muslim. One such was over the Hagia Sophia mosque conversion in Turkey. Most of the Malayalees, including Muslims have no clue where is this Hagia Sophia is located or its history. But IUML decided to lay a trap as they know well CPM has an ideological position that goes against Turkey’s right wing action. So Panakkad Thangal’s brother himself wrote an editorial in their party newspaper supporting Turkey’s action to convert the museum into Mosque. And CPM immedidately jumped upon it, criticizing IUML and highlighting how it is against Humanity and secular values. Once CPM said this publicly, IUML highlighted CPM’s stand to portray to its voter base that CPM is not in support of Muslim interests and value. So this political narrative is going on for last few days in Malabar between IUML and CPM.CPM questions Congress stand as IUML leader hails Turkey movehttps://thefederal.com/states/south/kerala/iumls-pro-turkey-stance-on-hagia-sophia-shrine-draws-ire-in-kerala/CPM now found a perfect weapon to use against IUML, in form of Congress leadership’s support to Ram temple. Last few days, many leaders of Congress like Kamalnath, Dig Vijay Singh, Kapil Sibal and Manish Tiwari etc issued public statements supporting Ram Temple.CPM knew if they use this issue, it can neutralize IUML’s score in Hagia Sophia issue. CPM made it a topic of discussion how Congress helped Ram Janmabhoomi and IUML find it hard to justify Congress action. For last few days, they were in defence mode citing, these opinions were individual opinions of few leaders and nothing to do with Congress as such.Now with Priyanka Gandhi herself supporting this and issuing an official letter, it has clearly signalled High Command’s opinion. Now its no more unofficial individual opinions, rather official opinion of party. It makes IUML more in stressed position as they have to find some way to neutralize this effect over its vote bank, knowing well CPM/LDF will use the opportunity. With Priyanka’s comments, Congress official stand is not in supportive of Muslim interests/feelings. Naturally its something LDF may be waiting to galvanize Muslim votes, which may not be in interest of IUML.So the major things to noteJust like how Hagia Sophia is irrelevant to Kerala Muslims, Ram Janmabhoomi is irrelevant to Hindu community to KeralaBoth the topics were used to have a political discussion and generate a feeling how opposite side is against some community.Congress at National Level is practicing Soft Hindutva so they need to talk in favour of something which has passions of Hindi Heartland, which KPCC or Kerala unit of Congress/UDF donot share. But since Congress is a High command following party, their High command actions is something with local KPCC is not in position to deny or reject.Neither Priyanka’s statement nor AICC’s opinion over Ram Janambhoomi nor CPM’s opinion against Hagia Sophia has any direct impact in Kerala politics, but used to build perceptionsIUML wants to ensure its vote bank remains strong enough and no leakages happen, CPM wants an erosion to happen and develops a breakout in the League Fortress. So IUML is desp to protect its fort using Muslim tag, while CPM on attack mode to penerate those fortress highlighting double standards of IUMLOther than this political perceptions, hardly anything of these issues matter Malayalees. These all are worth for a mere Chayakada talks in Kerala. And mind it, nothing is going to change. IUML will remain in UDF and LDF will keep on trying penetrating into League forts, while Allah and Ram play the role of cheerleaders!!!! And BJP as usual will be sitting in gallery and asking themselves- why they are not in the field?

Q. What was Japan's role in the Cold War?A.Japan always seems invisible within Cold War politics, what role did she play?? by m3ltd0wn02The Myth of the 'Pacifist' Japanese Constitution | The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan FocusJapan–United States relations - WikipediaThe United States Marines in the Occupation of JapanDomestic sources of Japanese foreign policyDon't Weaken the U.S.-Japan Alliance, Strengthen It5 Things You May Not Know About the End of World War IIJapan always seems invisible within Cold War politics, what role did she play?? by m3ltd0wn02Certificate of Surrender as a unit of the Third Fleet off Yokohama, Japan for the signing of the agreement. Occupation of Japan - WikipediaInvisibility is not an accident. Japanese involvement within the Cold War was often oblique, even though it was firmly in the US camp. This was in no small measure because of the nature of the US-Japan security relationship. The postwar US-Japan security relationship is one that emerged very quickly in the immediate postwar period, but also quite unexpectedly. Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP), the American occupation government, initially saw the end game for Japan was a demilitarized polity that would delegate security issues to the US. For its part, the emerging Japanese civilian government under the conservative LDP politician PM Yoshida Shigeru pursued its own agenda which intersected with American strategic thought in the evolving Cold War. This partnership though was not entirely free of complications and neither side truly got what they wanted out of their ally.The Dai-Ichi Seimei Building which served as SCAP headquarters, c. 1950"Formless" is the best word to describe American strategic thought with regards to Japan's immediate geopolitical future in the Autumn of 1945. SCAP generally did not envision reforming Japan with an eye to meet American needs. Article 9 in the Japanese Constitution outlawed war as a policy and there was a good deal of SCAP directives aimed at the demilitarization of Japanese society and culture. This was in keeping with much of the wartime planning for East Asia was predicated on both having a Nationalist China as well as Commonwealth forces form a bulwark for US interests, especially as the Cold War started to shape up. Events in China with the resumption of the Civil War as well as the general draw down of the British East of Suez almost immediately meant that the US was lacking a regional power partner in East Asia. This did not mean that American planners immediately considered Japan as the nation that could fill this vacuum. As late March 1949, SCAP chief MacArthur claimed in a newspaper interview that:Japan should be the Switzerland of the Far East and neutral for the same reasons Switzerland is neutral - no matter which side she might join, she would inevitably be destroyed.Pace MacArthur's public statements, both the State Department and the Pentagon were considering rearming Japan and having it as the central regional partner.It took the twin shocks of the victory of the Communists in China and the Korean War to transform these thoughts into action. The latter conflict opened up the frightening possibility that Japan could be invaded and the overstretched US forces would be unable to defend the islands. The Korean invasion alarmed the Japanese government as well and it led to the expansion of the National Police Reserve (NPR), a sort of ersatz military that the US armed with a variety of weapons.The NPR laid the foundations for the later Self-Defense Forces (SDF), but it was not a straight line. Yoshida pursued what later be known as the Yoshida Doctrine, in which the Japanese government would prioritize economic growth while relying upon US power for security. The role Yoshida envisioned for the SDF was one that would supplement the American defense network in Japan. Yoshida had both domestic and international motives for this limited commitment. Domestically, an open move against Article 9 would provide fuel for his left-wing opponents in the Diet. Moreover, Yoshida also recognized that economic growth was also more important for immediate domestic needs. And like his German counterpart Adenauer, Yoshida was adamant that civilian control over the military was essential. As one of the sidelined bureaucrats from the wartime government, Yoshida came from a political milieu that looked askance at militarist rule, especially given the scale of the defeat in 1945. Internationally, Yoshida also recognized that the US arguably needed Japanese bases and its geographic position far more than the US needed Japan to make a costly outlay for rearmament. This was one of the key differences between Yoshida and Adenauer as the German Chancellor and a number of his CDU-CSU allies were more leery of American commitments to West German defense.Thus although the common metaphor of the US-Japanese relationship was spear and shield- with the US able to strike out offensively while the SDF guarded US bases-the reality was often more complicated than such a symbiotic metaphor. Pentagon estimates in the late 1950s and early 1950s evaluated the SDF as a credible deterrence to the Soviets, but not a force that could neither project power abroad or be able to stop a Soviet invasion of Hokkaido if the Soviets pressed them. For these reasons, Washington often considered Japanese rearmament tardy and never as thorough to meet the needs of the Cold War in East Asia, despite the US signing Mutual Cooperation Treaties with Japan in 1952, 1960, and 1970. The escalation of the Vietnam War put a further strain on the US-Japanese relationship as both the Johnson and Nixon administrations expected Japan to act as a regional ally and send troops to South Vietnam as its other allies, South Korea and Australia. This was an issue which Tokyo would not budge on, and earned Japan a good deal of resentment in the US during the 1970s. Kissinger in particular was quite vocal in private with his deriding of the Japanese, at one point calling his Tokyo counterparts "small and petty bookkeepers." Such opprobrium was not limited to the corridors of power in the US as the declining American economy of the 1970s fueled resentment that Japan was profiting off of US defenses by not maintaining an army and instead investing the monies it would have used on defense into automobile and consumer electronics industries.Japan–United States relations - WikipediaThe United States Marines in the Occupation of JapanSuch complaints, which only grew during the Japan-bashing of the 1980s, were more than a tad unfair. Japan, despite its foot-dragging, was rearming and building up its own domestic arms industry, which was not only time-consuming, but expensive. The threat of a wide-scale US post-Vietnam draw-down in the region also forced a greater commitment on Tokyo's part to beef up the SDF. Although the naval and air components of the SDF had practiced joint operations with the US in the 1960s, the ground forces started to so in the 1970s. There was a fear within Tokyo that the Vietnam defeat, coupled with the domestic problems in South Korea during the Park dictatorship could have led to a domino effect in which Japan was isolated in the region. The Belenko MiG-25 defection also added urgency to defense expenditures as fears of Soviet retaliation or a commando raid to destroy the plane did concern SDF chiefs. One of the ironies of the 1980s was that despite the Japan-bashing tone of US domestic politics, the US-Japanese security arrangement was the closest it had ever been to reaching the shield-sword metaphor. The Japanese significantly expanded their air defense and ASW forces and the Japanese PM Suzuki in May 1981 actually called the bilateral relationship a military alliance.The cold war most influential defection: MIG -25 (bestchinanews.com)Suzuki's breaking of this taboo in 1981 underscores the real domestic costs of the Yoshida Doctrine and its various post-Yoshida iterations. In short, the alliance put the LDP in a very awkward position. While the Japanese nationalist right was staunchly anti-communist, ideologues like Ishihara Shintaro excoriated the mainstream LDP champions of the alliance as the lap-dogs of American power. This disgruntlement sometimes exploded into violence, such as the assassination of the left-wing politician Asanuma Inejiro by a right-wing nationalist on national tv or the seppuku of the author Mishima Yukio after his private army tried to take over a SDF military base. Such events, which were widely publicized around the world- the photo of Asanuma's assassination won a Pulitzer- created an embarrassing situation for the LDP. From the perspective of the Japanese left, this security arrangement was Japan being co-opted by American imperialism and militarism. While the extremes of left-wing disgruntlement likewise manifested itself in the terrorism like the Japanese Red Army on the extremes, there was always a danger that the Social Democratic Party could use the sotto voce US alliance as a wedge issue to unseat the LDP and unify the splinter-prone Japanese left. Adding to this, the presence of American forces and bases was incredibly unpopular within Japan. The transformation of Okinawa into a hive network of American bases, the perceived footdragging of US military justice to punish crimes committed on Japanese soil, the association of US bases with vices like prostitution and drugs, as well as the extreme unpopularity of the Vietnam conflict within a broad spectrum of the Japanese electorate also made the alliance a political liability for the ruling governments.Domestic sources of Japanese foreign policyYOSHIDA DOCTRINE (1950’S-1973)Economic Growth is Japan’s main objectiveInvolvement in international political affairs should be avoidedTo guarantee security, Japan will rely on US basesKeep military expenditures lowCOROLLARIES TO YOSHIDA DOCTRINE (OBSERVED FROM 1950’S TO 1970S)SDF will not be dispatched abroadJapan will not become a nuclear powerJapan will not export armsJapan will limit defense spending to 1% GDPWHAT IS NEW: HEISEI MILITARIZATIONHollowing out Article 9Shift from “defensive defense”/“comprehensive defense” to “threat-based defense”/”proportional defense”Upgrading and expanding military forcesWillingness to rely on military solutionsLegitimation of use of military force abroadClose operational integration with US forcesGrowing possibility of weapons of mass destruction“Great power realism”The new nationalismCOLD WAR AND US-JAPAN RELATIONSHIPSoviet Union and China take peace offensive to Japan.Indochina tail spinning caused US uneasinessPresident Eisenhower argues “domino theory”.Japan keystone in containment policy in the Far East.Japan Prepares for Soviet Attack | Cold War Era Documentary | 1954Although the mechanisms of the alliance were at their most functional in the 1980s, there were rumblings in political quarters that the alliance needed to change. Suzuki's successor, Nakasone Yasuhiro struck a more militant line versus the Soviets than his predecessors. While such a stance indicated a success for the alliance, it was also a sign that Japan was making tentative steps away from the Yoshida Doctrine's subservient position accorded to Japan. Greater stridency also indicated that Japan could toe an independent line and Gorbachev and his Foreign Ministry began to hold out the prospect of returning the Kuriles and a formal peace treaty with Japan. These feelers foundered for a number of reasons, not the least of which was still the importance of the alliance for Japan, but the fact that the Soviets made them suggests the new vulnerabilities of the alliance in the bubble economy.The alliance itself went into a form of stasis with the end of the Cold War and the bursting of the bubble in the 1990s. This has imparted a degree of inertia into 1990s and beyond; one of the cliches in news coverage of US-Japan relations is the question of whether or not the Yoshida Doctrine is still relevant. For example, contrast this 1993 NYT piece on Japan to this 2014 Japan Today opinion piece. Although over twenty years of history separates the two articles, they are still asking much the same questions.The Myth of the 'Pacifist' Japanese Constitution | The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan FocusThe US-Japanese alliance may have been born out of necessity, but its midwife was a very favorable geopolitical situation. Unlike German rearmament which had to take place amidst quite tense negotiations with Western European powers, the rebirth of the Japanese military was a bilateral affair. The Sino-Soviet split also allowed for a more quiet Cold War in the northern Pacific as the USSR and PRC were more leery of each other than Japan. At points in the 1970s and 80s, both Beijing and Tokyo could put aside wartime legacies to find common accord such as joint protests of Soviet deployments of SS-20 missiles in Siberia. Although there were persistent fears of Korean unification by the DPRK, such a scenario did not come to pass. As odd as it sounds in 2017, during the 1960s and 70s it looked to a good many outside observers in the West that Juche was a more successful model than the ROK's military dictatorship. Fear of Korean unification encouraged Tokyo to hew to the alliance, but did not provide enough of a pretext to radically modify it. Some of these conditions do still apply in post-Cold War East Asia, but others do not. US-Japanese relations now operate in a much more multilateral and interconnected world than the one that birthed it in the late-1940s. While current permutations of the Yoshida Doctrine are still alive, the endurance of the alliance itself should not be taken as a given.Japan record-high budget plan approved for 2018, defense spending swellsFor the first time in 70 years, the Japanese parliament has approved the use of its Military Forces, most notably its Navy and Air Forces, through re-interpretation of its pacifist constitution’s article 9, to allow for ‘pre-emptive’ strikes in the collective defense of its allies like the U.S. Navy’s 7th Fleet. It is interesting to note that the majority of the Japanese public oppose such a move, and as in the U.S., have no real say in the sway of its political power elite spear headed by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and the powerful LDP government.On the surface, the re-engagement of Japan with the world’s most advanced Aegis-class destroyers and F-22 raptors, will raise eyebrows of its Asian neighbors who were victimized by Imperial Japan’s WWII aggressions, and will understandably question what Japan’s true intent is in its sudden rush to loosen the self-imposed military restrictions since the end of WWII. Behind closed doors, this is but one part of the United States’ Asian Pivot strategy in using Japan’s advanced military forces as a proxy for the American containment plan of the rapidly accelerating ‘blue water’ PLA Navy plans for the rise of China and Russia in the Pacific theater. With the tight integration and coordination of similar war fighting ships and equipment, Japan’s Navy is in effect, the U.S. Navy’s 11th Fleet, and supporting the Japanese to allow the potential for foreign conflict involvement increases the containment capacity of the U.S. Naval Command, while allowing Japan to carry the cost of this additional fleet.While the U.S. is delicately balancing allowing its closest Asian ally to restore its full standing military to deploy overseas, after 70 years of suppression from being allowed to be a ‘normal’ country with a standing military, the cooperation and exercises between Japan and its Non-Chinese Asian neighbors should be closely monitored. Most ASEAN and smaller military budget countries in the Pacific and Southeast Asia welcome the counter weight of a U.S.-Australian-Japanese lead Pacific Asian Treaty Organization (PATO), an Asian equivalent of NATO, to form to come to the collective defense of smaller countries like the Philippines or Vietnam from unilateral Chinese Military moves to claim the entire South China Sea and eventually the straight of Malaca, which resource poor Japan finds unacceptable for safe Japanese oil and trade shipment passage.While fiery rhetoric will fly, and exhibits of naval and air military exercises and posturing will increase over the coming quarters, it is in the best interest of both Japan and China to continue to build trust, and grow their economic inter dependence for each’s own future prosperity. With the recent stock market crash in China from mid-June this year, we are seeing signs of economic weakness and correction in the mighty growth engine of China, and the overtures by top diplomats from both countries meeting, and announcing a potential ‘high level’ meeting later this year between President Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Abe, are more signs these complex military posturings may also have more than just an American mastermind dimension to them behind closed doors. Keeping America’s military planners appeased, while building on the strengths and trusts between old Asian rivals to pave way for a TPP busting East Asian Union (an Asian version of the EU), with China/Japan as the French/German equivalent on the European continent, will be an interesting development as the U.S. continues to show signs of empire fatigue.Watch for signs of detente in Japanese and Chinese cooperation, especially any form of military exercise cooperation, as critical signs of a move away from the uni-polar U.S. dominated geopolitical sphere we have enjoyed for the past 70 years.Related Article:http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/17/world/asia/japans-lower-house-passes-bills-giving-military-freer-hand-to-fight.htmlRelated Article:http://news.yahoo.com/top-chinese-japanese-diplomats-meet-beijing-100842916.htmlDon't Weaken the U.S.-Japan Alliance, Strengthen ItCOMMENTARY (The National Interest) August 14, 2017The RAND Blog by Scott W. Harold Photo by Viktorcvetkovic/Getty ImagesThe threat environment in Northeast Asia has been shifting in recent years as China's military modernization and assertiveness, North Korea's nuclear and missile provocations, and Russia's turn towards hostility against the United States are fueling a rise in the risk of armed conflict between major powers. Confronting threats as varied as ISIS, al-Qaeda, Iran, and Ebola, some might wonder if the United States has the resources and will to stay engaged and shape the future of security in the Asia-Pacific, including offering extended deterrent guarantees to its Japanese, South Korean, Filipino, Australian, and Thai allies. Others are asking whether U.S. allies are even worth defending. Are they?I believe that the answer is yes, the United States has the resources to shape the future of the Asia-Pacific, and yes, its allies are worth defending. To abandon U.S. alliances would not only be more costly but also ultimately make America less safe at home. While U.S. defense budgets will remain constrained for some years to come, the U.S. military still retains very substantial hardware, training, doctrinal, operational experience, and human capital advantages. In addition, the United States enjoys the support of major allies who provide basing and access, logistical support, and critical enabling capabilities that ultimately make them important force multipliers for the defense of the U.S. homeland as well as its overseas interests and core values.To abandon U.S. alliances would not only be more costly but also make America less safe at home.As the largest status quo power allied with the United States in East Asia, no country plays a more important role than Japan in supporting the rule of law-based international order. If the United States wants to meet the challenges posed by increasingly well-armed, hostile and autocratic governments bent on intimidating the free world, it needs to continue to broaden and deepen its defense cooperation with Japan and states like it. Below I suggest four urgent priority areas for continued improvements: planning and joint training for a variety of contingencies; additional types of military hardware to bolster deterrence; addressing the basing of U.S. forces in Okinawa; and closer cooperation on innovative thinking about deterrence and war-fighting concepts.Forward, TogetherTo date, the two allies have taken a number of important steps both separately and together, but much more work remains to be done. Japan, under Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, has reinterpreted Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution to engage in collective self-defense. The Abe administration has also established a National Security Secrets Act; set up a National Security Secretariat to assist with decisionmaking; lifted restrictions on defense exports; shifted the focus of defense planning scenarios from a ground invasion from the north to an air and naval threat from the southwest; and increased the country's defense budget to approximately $40 billion. It has added critical hardware to the inventory of its Self-Defense Forces, including RQ-4 Global Hawk high-altitude Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, and advanced F-35 Lightning II fighters. Tokyo has also inducted helicopter carriers into the Maritime Self-Defense Forces, brought on-line new P1 maritime patrol aircraft, and expanded its submarine fleet from 16 to 22 boats, all while developing a 4,000-man rapid reaction amphibious capability and emplacing radar and anti-ship cruise missiles along the coasts of remote islands in the country's southwest. In November 2015, it announced plans to send 500 Ground Self Defense Force troops to one of these islands, Ishigaki, and in March it activated a radar station on another, Yonaguni Island, to be staffed by 160 Ground Self-Defense soldiers. Both islands are close to the Senkakus that China claims and is seeking to undermine Japanese control over. Ultimately, Tokyo plans to station approximately 10,000 troops across the southwest islands chain to meet this threat.For its part, in 2011 the Obama administration announced that it would “rebalance” to the Asia-Pacific region (PDF), a policy whose military component aims to create a more geographically distributed, operationally resilient, and politically sustainable force posture across the region. The United States is also improving the capabilities it forward deploys in Japan, and has moved up many of its most advanced capabilities, including the F-22 Raptor, MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft to replace the more dated CH-46 Seaknight, an additional AN/TPY-2 radar, Global Hawk UAVs, and P-8maritime patrol aircraft for submarine tracking. In late 2015, the 7th Fleet replaced the aging USS George Washington with the much newer USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier.Bilaterally the allies have also taken important steps together. During his 2014 trip to Japan, President Obama noted that the United States would regard an attack on the Senkakus as triggering Article 5 of the U.S.-Japan mutual defense treaty. Following this, in April 2015, the United States and Japan signed new defense guidelines (PDF) that establish the basis for more effective coordination between the allies, including by establishing a new bilateral planning mechanism, an alliance coordination mechanism, and beginning discussions about cooperation in gray zones at sea, in outer space, and in cyberspace. And in December 2015, Tokyo agreed to increase its annual contributions in support of U.S. forces stationed in Japan, promising up to $8 billion over the next five years. The Department of Defense has calculated that this makes Japan the cheapest nation in the world in which to station U.S. forces, cheaper even than bringing them back to the United States…The remainder of this commentary is available at nationalinterest.org.Scott W. Harold is associate director of the RAND Center for Asia Pacific Policy, a political scientist at the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation, and a professor at the Pardee RAND Graduate School.5 Things You May Not Know About the End of World War IIWorld War II, fought from 1939 to 1945, was the deadliest war in history and involved more than 30 countries around the globe. More than 50 million people lost their lives during the war.TOKYO, Japan- Sept. 2, 1945- Allied sailorsand officers watch Army Gen. Douglas MacArthur sign documents during the surrender ceremony aboard USS Missouri. U.S Army photoHere are five things you may not know about Sept. 2, 1945:1. The Instrument of Surrender was signed in Tokyo Bay, Japan.The Instrument of Surrender was actually signed off the coast of Tokyo, Japan. On the morning of Sept. 2, 1945, Japanese representatives signed the surrender document during a ceremony on the deck of the battleship USS Missouri. This day marked the end of World War II.Japanese representatives on board the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay to participate in formal surrender ceremonies on Sept. 2, 1945. U.S. Air Force photo2. The document was signed one month after atomic bombs were dropped on Japan.On Aug. 6, 1945, a U.S. Boeing B-29 aircraft dropped the atomic bomb known as Little Boy on Hiroshima. Three days later, another bomb was dropped on the city of Nagasaki. This was the first time atomic bombs were used in military operations.3. Army Gen. Douglas MacArthur signed the Instrument of Surrender for the United Nations, and Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz signed for the United States.The rank of five-star, or OF-10, was first established in 1944 and is held during wartime. Gen. Douglas MacArthur and Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz were two of the nine five-star officers in U.S. military history.4. Commodore Matthew C. Perry’s original flag was present during the signing.On the USS Missouri that day was the original American flag flown in 1853 on the USS Powhatan by Commodore Matthew C. Perry (see in the background of the photo below). Perry flew the flag on the first of his two expeditions to Japan. Perry’s expeditions had resulted in the Convention of Kanagawa, which forced the Japanese to open the country to American trade.Surrender of Japan, Tokyo Bay, Sept. 2, 1945. Army Gen. Douglas MacArthur, supreme Allied commander, reads his speech to open the surrender ceremonies onboard the USS Missouri. Commodore Matthew C. Perry’s original 1853 American flag can be seen in the background. Photo from the Army Signal Corps Collection in the U.S. National Archives5. World War II did not officially end in 1945.Although Sept. 2, 1945, is known as the end of World War II, the state of war formally ended when the treaty of San Francisco came into force on April 20, 1952. It was a peace treaty with Japan.Source:Department of Defense BlogJapanese Military Power | Japan Self-Defense Forces 2017 - 2018SDFSDF: GroundJapan and Germany military expansionWhy China fears Japan’s military

Well, well, look what we have here, another history lesson. I happen to like history lessons, I don't mean the ones that make you feel like you haven't slept in 30 hours, NO.I mean well narrated stories, the ones that show events from the eyes of opposing sides, clashing beliefs and skirmishing cultures. Just to be clear, this is a long lecture to help us understand the Uchiha, but the fun part is that you get to be an Uchiha.Before I begin the possible lullaby, I want you to close your eyes, and feel all your hate, concentrate that anger on your eyes, and forcefully open... congrats, you have now awakened your sharingan.If you closed your eyes, when I told you to, I am not sure how you managed to read the rest of the paragraph.Welcome to the Uchiha clan, many generations after the feud of Hagoromo's seedlings, and many years before Ichiraku's founding. Welcome to the era of warring states...Because it is at this point that the events which would lead to the near extinction of a clan begin.First of all, we have Hashirama Senju and Madara Uchiha, at what age? Old enough to know that turning your underwear inside out doesn't make you a genius.These teenagers had been scarred enough by war, losing friends and brothers. They trained together, mourned together, laughed together and just to show you how tight they were, they even peed together.That's true friendship right there...These boys had a dream, to become strong, become leaders, and one day ally and end the wars; so they did. However, it was quite unfortunate that in truth, the opposing sides of the war were their respective clans. Just like saving to buy Mortal Kombat X, and after you do, Mortal Kombat XI is released the next day.In one of the several clashes, Madara, who was leader of the clan at the time, looses his younger brother, Izuna to Hashirama's brother Tobirama. Madara mourns his brother, and then rises. With anger flowing through his veins and vengeance as a cloak, he wages one final attack on the Senju; an attack that would end in his defeat.Lying there, Hashirama walks up to him and asks for an alliance. Madara accepts, but on the condition that Hashirama either killed himself or his brother. Hashirama, being the kind soul he is, chooses his own life.Just as he was about to drive the Katana through his gut, Madara stops him and agrees to the alliance. This event would lead to what is now konohagakure, the village hidden in the leaves.Now, as an Uchiha, what conclusions can you draw from this story?1. Among the many deaths, the brother of my leader was the major sacrifice for peace.2. Madara is a kind leader. Why? If he allowed Hashirama kill himself, there would be no alliance. Nobody would trust a leader that killed his own brother, and as such, the Senju may ostracize Hashirama. At the same time, by giving that test, Madara showed the his people that a Senju could be trusted.3. There would be a balance in power between us, the allying Nations.The last point would be very important as we move forward.HOKAGE SELECTIONThe second event in history we will be examining is the selection of the first Hokage. As we probably all know, after the alliance, the Sarutobi and Hyuga clans joined, together with other families. Hashirama offered the position of Hokage to Madara, but Tobirama protested, and asked that the decision be put to a vote.As an Uchiha, what would you read from this situation? There weren't many clans that liked the Uchiha, but for the sake of peace, a free and fair democracy must exist…Moving on, Hashirama wins, and Madara sees this as a subtle beginning for the suppression of the Uchiha, and asks his clan to exit the treaty with him.As an Uchiha, what do you read from this situation? Madara is a bitter loser, we have lost too many already, peace must be preserved, we are not leaving…True, this is exactly what the Uchihas thought.The problem didn't start until Tobirama, the second Hokage. Does anyone remember how he came to power? If you are thinking appointment, then yes. Tobirama was appointed the second Hokage.As an Uchiha, what do you read from this event? I thought we were running a democracy that was clean as a whistle…(By the way, clean as a whistle is a false expression, do you know how much dirt and saliva you can find in a whistle?)Besides, it was Senju and Uchiha, if a Senju was first, it follows that for power to balance, an Uchiha be next in line.Thoughts like that spread among the clansmen, causing unrest. However, the real kicker didn't start until Tobirama moved the Uchiha to the lateral-most boundary of the village, effectively isolating the them.As an Uchiha, what do you read from this situation? We've been pushed aside, we were the ones who signed the deal to stop fighting, and yet, we have been cut off and disregarded by the Senju and the village at large. This is unfair...More thoughts on the situation, thoughts big enough to provoke a protest, but what did the Uchihas do? They calmed down.Around that time, Tobirama (who by the way, held contempt for the Uchiha, emotional involvement that made him impulsive in judgement), decides to establish the police force, an act that in his vision would balance power, and raise the status of the Uchiha. They were seen as "elite shinobi who monitor fellow shinobi", except the anbu who reported directly to the Hokage.As an Uchiha what do you read from this situation? Being the police force, we have become neutral parties, unable to part in the governing process of Konoha, we are now officially cut off from the politics of Konoha...They were right, Tobirama's move wasn't a sign of good faith, or trust, it was a useless move, a tactic used to limelight the Uchiha. The reason being that, if the Uchiha rebelled after Tobirama's "kindness", they would be alienating themselves.Secondly, it was also evident in the fact that there would be several clashes between shinobi and police over jurisdiction and laws.Thirdly, being the police, the Uchiha were going to receive hate in exchange for their services. I mean how many people really like the police? I am not talking about your friendly neighborhood officer Johnson, who likes to buy doughnuts. I am talking about sharingan wielding war machines. Power causes fear, fear causes hate, it's how humans work. Tobirama put the Uchiha under lock and key in one fell swoop.As an Uchiha, do I really need to ask what you read?THIRD AND FOURTH HOKAGESAfter officially making sure no members of the Uchiha Military Police ever got to power, Tobirama could now comfortably pass the seat to Hiruzen. Democracy out, Appointment in; this ushered in a barrage of leaders who were students of previous leaders.With the uneasiness rising rapidly, Minato thought, "hey Kushina, let's make a baby who will become a pervert, shall we?", Obito attacks, and then there is the incident with the nine tails, the exact quantity of trouble needed for the Uchiha situation to reach critical mass.I will be honest Kurama needed some fresh air, I mean imagine all the weird stuff he experienced.Minato dies in one final heroic act, and then, all eyes fall on the Uchiha. The anbu is sent to spy, Itachi and Shisui are opposing the clan, Asuma and Kurenai are having an affair.As an Uchiha, what do you read from the situation? Asuma and Kurenai are a cute couple.I know right...Oh also, not only have we been stripped of a position among the villagers, we have also been stripped of any chances at ruling Konoha, and to top it off, our privacy is now being invaded by the leaders, who belong to clans, that were never present at the treaty…This unfairness in treatment, for me is more than enough reason to protest, I mean it's exactly why people protest right?Konoha's brilliant idea to dissolve the situation was to wipe them out, it was to make them disappear; Innocents and criminals alike, minors and minorettes, women and men. All because they wanted rights that they arguably deserved.A lot of people like to call Hiruzen the worst Hokage, but this is false. The Uchihas started to despise the government years before Hiruzen, from the very moment Tobirama seized power.The worst part is that people paint Itachi and Shisui saints, while the Uchihas were painted in black and red. What was supposed to be a peaceful coexistence became an avenue for oppression on one side. The final result was fatal, the Uchihas were unfortunate enough to become sacrifices for Konoha, but all they wanted was an equal treatment. Indirectly, the Uchihas were sacrificed because they were tired of being oppressed.(If I wasn't so tired, I would cry at this point. However, it's totally fine if you want to, here's a tissue)I hope this walk through history in the eyes of the Uchiha, has answered the question. The Uchiha revolt was the result of long years of oppression.