Talk:United States Forces Japan

Untitled
I believe Kishine is mistakenly listed as a former navy facility. During the Viet Nam war Kishine (Yokohama) was the site of the 106th General Hospital, an army installation that occasionally had patients from other branches of the service. The 106th had the burn center for the Far East, so it handled everything from civilians burned at barbecues in the Philippines to helicopter crash survivors.

More information needed
US military personnel deployed in Japan are required to be proficient in the Japanese language and certain customs. There are also deeper and more controversial issues with regard to the friction between the locals and US servicemen. If you know more about these, please provide the information. --222.165.171.64 14:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

-I'm stationed here and there is no requirement to learn the language, though it is encouraged to do so. The same goes with cusotms. As far as friction goes, it is mostly generated in the newspapers, the tv news, the Prefectural government, and the Japan Communist Party and it's associated organizations. I don't have the crime statistics readily available, but the percentage of crimes commited by SOFA personel are extremely low compared to the local population. Also, it is very competitive for local residents to get jobs on base, so I guess that can create a different kind of friction! --Okinawa Matt 11:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This article has a heavy focus on controversy rather than history or geopolitical rationale. This is a leftist, antimilitary focus rather than the neutral content an article should have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.238.77 (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Sources in "Controversy" Section
"As a direct result of the recommendations of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Task Force, US Marines will be relocated from Okinawa to Guam" This claim made in the controversy section says that the SAPR was directly responsible for the decision to remove the Marines from Okinawa to Guam. It also says they were created in 2008. The decision to move from Okinawa to Guam was made officially in 2006 at the request of the Okinawan people. The Japanese government agreed to pay for most of the cost of relocation. This had absolutely nothing to do with the SAPR Task Force. http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15356 I'm sure there are many other sources, this was headline news in 2006. The real reason the Okinawans kicked out the Marines is that they never forgave the 1995 incident. Relations grew worse over the years, including citizens banning U.S. Military from entering businesses. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I added the minutes of the Lower House Foreign Affairs Committee as a more reliable source. Check the next Qs and As.

赤嶺委員　日本の警察の捜査権は及ばない状態が一年近くにわたって続き、そして、米軍が再発防止だのあるいは責任者の処罰だのと言ってきたその中身も、一年近くなろうとしているのに皆さんはまだ説明を求めている最中. これでは、ああいう事故というのは本当に何だったのかということが、私、問われると思うんですよ. それで、あの事故は、市民生活を恐怖に陥れた事故なんですよ. 二度と起きてはならない. そのための事故調査報告じゃないですか. それでさえも中身ははっきりしない. 私、そういう土台にあるのが日米地位協定の問題だと思います. ことしは戦後六十年という節目の年ですが、米軍の事件、事故、この問題についてさらに突っ込んで聞いていきたいわけですが、今回の事故の場合も、第一次の裁判権は米軍が握っている、こういうところから全くあいまいな世界になっている. それでは、旧安保条約を締結して以降、現在までに起こった米軍による事故の件数、あるいは死亡者数、これを全部示していただけますか.

土屋政府参考人　お答えします. 米軍の事故についての件数、死亡者数についてのお尋ねでございますが、防衛施設庁が知り得ました昭和二十七年度から平成十六年度までの在日米軍による事件、事故の件数は、全国で二十万一千件でございまして、そのうち、公務上のものが約四万七千件、公務外のものが約十五万四千件となっております. この件数は、結果的に賠償に至らなかったものも含んでおりますが、九割以上が交通事故ということでございます. それから、死亡者数についてお尋ねでございますが、被害者側の死亡者数につきましては、昭和二十七年度以降でございますが、全国で約一千八十人でございまして、そのうち、公務上の被害者側の死亡者数は約五百二十人、公務外の事故によるものが約五百六十人というふうになっております.

赤嶺委員　今の資料を確かめたいんですが、その数字の中には、復帰前の沖縄で起きた事件、事故も含まれていますか.

土屋政府参考人　お答えします. 復帰前の沖縄の事件、事故の数字は含まれておりません.

Ryuji Tsuchiya, high officer in the Defense Facilities Administration Agency answered that there were 201,000 accidents and crimes committed by the US military personnel from 1952 to 2004, and the death toll was 1,080 and these figures don't include the cases and the victims in Okinawa before the reversion to Japanese administration. Amagase 13:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The 'communist party' is the main source for this outrageous excuse for a crime rate. There is no way that there have been that many crimes committed. Self proclaimed communist groups aren't known for their honesty. There needs to be reliable source on this, not political lies. They make it sound like ethnic cleansing! I am sure there are many websites that say the holocaust was a myth, that doesn't mean it's true. Contralya 21:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Contralya, check the source and my above comment once again. These figures are not from original researches by the Japanese communist party, but official statistics showed by the Japanese government in the Lower House Foreign Affairs Committee. If you doubt this account, you should show more reliable sources than official statements by the Japanese government, which negate these figures.
 * And I recommend you to use words and terms with more deliberation. I think many users question the appropriateness of your words such as "ethnic cleansing"(which you misused), "communist party propaganda" and "USSR sympothisers".
 * If you can not pose other sources, I remove the tags in the head of this article and controversy section. Amagase 10:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't do sourcing, I am mostly just a reader at wikipedia and put tags up when I find something wrong. The killing of 200,000 people would be just like ethnic cleansing. And if the information which I know to be incorrect is kept, I would say that there is limited evidence or SOMETHING. What is described is NOT the sort of thing the U.S. military does. I believe that there were probably crimes, especially in the period just after the war, but those numbers are at the VERY LEAST exaggerated. You can't trust all sources, and you have to remember, different political parties have conflicting views on all kinds of facts. And I was right about the communist party thing, they cause nothing but trouble. If you are going to remove the factual accuracy, I would keep the neutrality tag because there is nothing challenging it. I am certain the U.S. military has records somewhere, and they DO NOT lie about such things, not of that scale anyway. I am sure the military could provide the facts, though it would be hard to find information. And if you are an anti-American fool, than it should definitely have a POV tag. The U.S. military has standards and ethics. Just because nothing has been found doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Besides, that source could easily be errant or forged. I don't see anything indicating that it is valid, like a connection to an official government page. Contralya 14:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I just stumbled on this page, so I don't know really know anything about what's going on, but I do see that the house notes state (and is translated above and in the article) that there were 201,000 accidents and crimes, not number of people killed. 50 years for 201,000 crimes with 1000 deaths seems very possible — 4000 crimes a year. I'm not sure what crime statistics are like for Japan in general, but that seems like it could be quite a small percentage. Megaversal (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems rather important that if you include those huge numbers you also include the bit "この件数は、結果的に賠償に至らなかったものも含んでおりますが、九割以上が交通事故ということでございます. " which states that over 90% of these incidents where traffic accidents/vehicle related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.17.69.239 (talk) 05:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Much of this discussion seems to be because of confusion over accidents versus crimes and number of incidents over deaths. 200,000 accidents and crimes seems reasonable for the entire history of USFJ occupation, especially if one includes traffic accidents (including presumably fender-benders). 1000 deaths may be ok too. Nonetheless, given that more complete information is included in the source (as mentioned right above, over 90% of the incidents are traffic related), the inclusion of just saying 200,000 accidents and crimes, I suspect, is misleading (perhaps on purpose). Therefore I will add that to the article. Those seeking to remove this clarification should justify their reasoning, as I see no good reason not to mention it.

Also, perhaps this is in bad taste, but I cannot help but wonder why the people like Amagase that can clearly read Japanese and added the material, did not think to mention this additional clarifying content. Did they not realize that conflating accidents and crimes together would give a false impression? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.120.178.36 (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the edits done were brilliant. The current controversy section looks NPOV to me. Thanks to your contributions. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Abbreviation
Isn't USAF usually reserved for the United States Air Force? I'm aware that the abbreviation is defined to mean "armed forces" in general in the opening paragraph, but perhaps one could still find a better abbreviation in order to avoid confusion? Vargher (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Map of facilities on Okinawa
The map of the facilities on Okinawa appears to be incorrect or possibly dated. This is a much more accurate map of the US military facilities on Okinawa.SquallyZ06 (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Deadlink ref and what the sources actually say
I removed one ref that lead to a "404 Page Not Found". I also replaced it with a similar link to a BBC article. I then realized that the first sentence in the Controversy section said the exact opposite of the source given. The source says: "この日米安全保障条約は日本の平和と安全に役立っていると思うか，役立っていないと思うか聞いたところ，「役立っている」とする者の割合が73.4％". That says that 73.4% of those polled believe the treaty between the U.S. and Japan is "Useful" in protecting Japan. It goes on to say that only 13.2% feel the treaty is "Not useful". There are various other figures about the feelings of those polled but nowhere dose it say, or even imply, that "a large portion of the population demand a reduction in the amount of U.S. military bases in the region" or that only "some" Japanese appreciate the mutual security treaty. I have reworded the article to accurately reflect the source cited. Colincbn (talk) 06:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"Controversy" section is not neutral.
The controversy section is not neutral, instead focusing on the US faults instead of placing it into perspective. While the statistics are accurate, it fails to inform the reader that the US personal and families living in Japan are the least likely to commit crime if you divide by group. Percentage of crime out of 1000 people National crime rate (includes foreigners)　　　　0.30%　　←　this means 3 people out of 1000

Okinawa people (except US soldiers)　            0.30% US soldiers in Okinawa                                  0.14% The Chinese (both short, and long term stay)   1.57% North and South Koreans (the same)              1.94% Brazilians (the same)                                      0.52%

http://d.hatena.ne.jp/reservoir/20080214/1202958732

76.181.114.227 (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Jade Rat

This article seems to be very inactive, my source is coming from the police of Okinawa and since no one else is taking an active role on improving the quality of information, i'll revise the controversy section to somthing more appropriate if none is available for discourse.76.181.114.227 (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Jade Rat
 * US personal and families living in Japan are the least likely to commit crime, you say ! but just because they are a small part of the population does not mean they will not commit more crimes or more hideous crimes than other groups. And the fact that they are extraterritorial military personnel aggravates the numerous and constant cases...--5.249.14.10 (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Crime rates
I think the section on crime rates is applicable to the article and especially the controversy section. The material is presented in a factual and statistical manner with no commentary, thereby confirming to the WP:NPOV policy. Colin Cbn (talk) 07:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It acually was, the controversy is that US personal commit crimes, however according to the Okinawan police they commit crimes as a disproportionately lower rate (0.3% of all crimes) than their population makeup (3%)would suggest. Therefor it was the factual statistics for the accusations levied against it in hopes it would not leave the reader with a non-neutral assumption.

I think the Crimes section should be nested under the United States service member behavior section as section 2.3.1 and a separate subsection 2.3.2 should be made for any notable positive behavior. I do not have an idea for the name, maybe Notable behavior or Positive behavior. This way both can be listed and the reader can determine how to weigh the sections against each other. I also think the title "United States service member behavior" should be changed to "United States personnel behavior" if the Crimes section is nested underneath it to account for the 2016 incident with the murder of a Japanese woman by a civilian base worker.

-18:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

List of former facilities
I'm dubious as to whether this section actually contributes much to the article as opposed to just being an exhaustive list of stuff. That notwithstanding, I certainly think that there's an argument for breaking it out into a separate list article as it makes this one unnecessarily long. d a n n o 23:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed without explanation
The following section was removed completely by User:Mkonji128 in this edit without explanation. Haven't read it carefully, but proposing it be added back? Computermacgyver (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Added back for now and suggest that issues/problems be edited in the article rather than just deleting it. Please try not to delete text without explanation, and if text is referenced another reference should justify removing it. Computermacgyver (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I changed the name of the section to Crime issues. Controversy does not apply here, does it?--5.249.14.10 (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Controversy over Sexual Crimes
At the commencement of the occupation of Japan, many U.S. soldiers participated in the Special Comfort Facility Association. Japanese government recruited 55,000 women to work providing sexual services to US military personnel. The Association was closed by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers. However, John W. Dower, Pulitzer Prize-winning historian, alleged that many U.S. troops committed multiple rapes of Japanese women during the occupation and that press censorship led to under-reporting of these crimes.

In 1995, the abduction and rape of a 12-year-old Okinawan schoolgirl by two U.S. marines and one U.S. sailor led to demands for the removal of all U.S. military bases in Japan. Other controversial incidents include helicopter crashes, the Girard incident, the Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident, the death of Kinjo family and the death of Yuki Uema. In February 2008, a 38-year-old U.S. Marine based on Okinawa was arrested in connection with the reported rape of a 14-year-old Okinawan girl. This triggered waves of protest against American military presence in Okinawa and led to tight restrictions on off-base activities. Although the accuser withdrew her charges the U.S. military court-martialed the suspect and sentenced him to 4 years in prison under the stricter rules of the military justice system. U.S. Forces Japan designated 22 February as a Day of Reflection for all U.S. military facilities in Japan, and established the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Task Force in an effort to prevent similar incidents. In November 2009, Staff Sgt. Clyde "Drew" Gunn, a U.S. Army soldier stationed at Torii Station was involved in a hit-and-run accident of a pedestrian in Yomitan Village on Okinawa. Later, in April 2010, the soldier was charged with failing to render aid and vehicular manslaughter. Staff Sgt. Gunn, of Ocean Springs, Mississippi, was eventually sentenced to 2 years and 8 months in jail on October 15, 2010. In 2013, 2 U.S. Military Personnel Seaman Christopher Browning, of Athens, Texas, and Petty Officer 3rd Class Skyler Dozierwalker, of Muskogee, Oklahoma, were found guilty by the Naha District Court of raping and robbing a woman in her 20s in a parking lot in October. Both admitted committing the crime. The case outraged many Okinawans, a number of whom have long complained of military-related crime on their island, which hosts thousands of U.S. troops. It also sparked tougher restrictions for all 50,000 U.S. military personnel in Japan, including a curfew and drinking restrictions.

On 13 May 2013, Toru Hashimoto, co-leader of the Japan Restoration Association said to a senior American military official at the Marine Corps base in Okinawa “We can’t control the sexual energy of these brave marines.” and told United States soldiers should make more use of the local adult entertainment industry to reduce sexual crimes against local women. Hashimoto also told the necessity of former Japanese Army comfort women and other countries military prostitute existence.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States Forces Japan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101022060139/http://www8.cao.go.jp/survey/h14/h14-bouei/2-6.html to http://www8.cao.go.jp/survey/h14/h14-bouei/2-6.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Removed section
See : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Forces_Japan&diff=820391355&oldid=820390974 I know AA 13:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality of the "U.S. service member behavior" section
Hi everyone. I can see with a glance at the talk page that this has been a neutrality issue before in this article. Yet, the way it is written now (A statistic description intended to demonstrate how cool the U.S. Marines are, compared to the local population) looks like a big POV, borderile brainwashing. I don't argue that the fact is not true, I'm sure it is, but the way it is written gives the exact opposite sensation, imho. I suggest borrowing from Okinawa_Prefecture the following sentence "Between 1972 and 2009, U.S. servicemen committed 5,634 criminal offenses, including 25 murders, 385 burglaries, 25 arsons, 127 rapes, 306 assaults and 2,827 thefts" (and its The Guardian reference) and putting it at the beginning of the section, and continuing with a "Yet,...." and the cool statistics. And I would suggest doing the exact opposite in the other article, to be fair. What do you think ?Alexandre Hocquet (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, so without further notice from anyone, I am proceeding with the change I suggested above.Alexandre Hocquet (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: War and the Environment
— Assignment last updated by Karanaconda (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)