The US should withdraw from all of it's non-essential military bases in Japan

It's not a topic that I normally would have thought about debating--it's definitely a topic that's got me thinking. I will present my arguments first, and then address Pro's points. CON's CASE The argument for maintaining U. S. presence in Japan's military bases is that these bases are becoming more vital as Sino-Japanese tensions increase. Japan and China have been in an increasingly tense spat over the ownership of the Senkaku (Diaoyu) Islands. [1] China has even taken the incredibly bold step of encroaching into the islands, which are under Japanese governance, with fishing and military vessels. [2] Japan's Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, has taken an increasingly aggressive stance on pushing back China's maritime ambitions. [2] However, Japan has a pacifist constitution [3], meaning that it requires U. S. military presence if it is to ensure its territorial integrity. Japan fears that the U. S. might shy away from entangling itself in a conflict with China [4], and therefore, the U. S. needs to show solidarity with its key ally. "Okinawa remains one of the largest US air and marine bases anywhere, one of the 'three pillars' of its global defense posture. Also, it is very close to Senkaku, which is why these islands are a focal point for security. For all these reasons, the U. S. and Japan cannot just stand by as China becomes more aggressive. Unless China backs off, the US will at some point be obliged to intervene or force Japan to act on its own. But at what point, in what way? The situation is truly perilous. This is not just Japan and China fighting over some rocks in unknown waters; it is the heart of the U. S. military alliance system. If the U. S. does not act robustly enough in defense of Japan, then its commitments anywhere will be called into question. Its credibility as an ally will be fundamentally undermined. " [4] Okinawa (Kadena Airbase) also allows the U. S. to deploy forces nearly anywhere in East and Southeast Asia [5], and therefore it's crucial to keep up this platform as a means to support allies in the region. As this evidence analysis goes to show, maintaining key strategic partnerships is not only beneficial for the U. S. , but also for Japan, from a security perspective. Consequently, I submit that we need to sustain U. S. military presence in Japan, including so-called "non-essential" installations. While these bases are non-essential know, they will be in the future. Therefore, it would be shortsighted and foolhardy to leave and/or dismantle these bases. REBUTTALS C1: U. S. GI's AP1: This is a single example of extreme misconduct. In fact, this has been the ONLY rape to occur at the base, as far as I can ascertain. [6] Pro's source here does not even mention rape; it's about a helicopter crash. One rape is not enough to outweigh the strategic interests that the U. S. has in the region and the security implications for Japan. Moreover, Pro notes that the U. S. military courts are harsher in penalizing GI's for rape than the Japanese courts are. AP2: Again, noise pollution is hardly a sufficient objection to warrant this kind of drastic action. C2: Courts Pro fails to point out how many "voluntary retirements" are occurring, or how many GI's are committing crimes. Without this information, Pro's arguments are impossible to weigh, and Pro's impacts are nebulous at best. Moreover, Pro's impacts are diminished by the fact that military courts are very strict on rape cases, and by the fact that the option for voluntary retirement is dependent on status, service record, wishes of the complainant, etc. Therefore, it seems unlikely that if a victim wanted to press charges that "voluntary retirement" would be on the table. Finally, with serious crimes, GI's can be prosecuted in Japanese courts. [7] C3: Defense Unfortunately, the JSDF is woefully unprepared to take on its defense responsibilities yet. U. S. forces leaving at this juncture, or even in the foreseeable future, would leave Japan exposed to Chinese aggression. Furthermore, Japan's constitution is inherently pacifist, meaning that it would be unable to engage in sometimes necessary preemptive measures. It needs the U. S. presence, for these reasons. It may be commonsense to let Japan govern itself, but it is also common sense to not let allies fall prey to potential enemies. FINAL NOTE Pro's C1 and C2 are both fixable issues. Steps could be implemented in the status quo to reduce noise pollution and to increase judicial accountability of GI's without having to withdraw from the bases. A more strict censure policy, for example, could ameliorate some of these issues; the U. S. could compel military prosecutors to cooperate more with local authorities, and negotiate a means of increasing penalties for GI's who break local laws. Whatever solution is undertaken, however, these problems Pro outlines are remediable. In other words, I can eliminate or reduce these problems in my world, while still having the bases in Japan. This takes care of Pro's objections, while reaping the benefits that the basis provide. This is a clear reason to vote Con today. Additionally, it shows that Pro's C1 and C2 are non-unique points that do not clash with my case. Thus, I rest. SOURCES 1 - . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2 - . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 3 - . http://en.wikipedia.org... 4 - . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 5 - . http://en.wikipedia.org... 6 - . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 7 - . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Thanks! Over to Pro. ..