By
David Kailer
http://thediplomat.com/2014/04/unintended-consequences-of-us-alliances-in-asia/

Most of the articles I review here have to do with specific current events, which has been an easy task to accomplish with the developing tensions with Russia and the Crimea controversy. This week, I want to take a look at an interesting article I came across that analyzes an element of American national security at a much more strategic level.
In “Unintended Consequences of US Alliances in Asia”, Robert E. Kelly digs below many of the assumptions he believes support continuing to project a significant American presence in the Far East.
It is almost impossible to study law or government for very long and not run into the theory of cost-benefit analysis. Essentially, when trying to review a choice or action, the decision-maker looks at the benefits to be had by doing a certain thing, and the costs associated with doing it. A simple example is going to an amusement park. You have to pay for a ticket in order to get into the park. That, along with any other expenses such as gas to travel, food in the park, and souvenirs, is going to account for your costs. But if you love rollercoasters and carnival games and other sorts of rides, you’re likely to have a great time. Cost-benefit analysis says that if the benefits outweigh the costs, the choice is probably a good one. In his article, Robert Kelly essentially uses cost-benefit analysis to suggest that the U.S. presence in Asia is not as critical as we might think.
Kelly begins by listing the assumed benefits of American presence in Asia, though he makes sure to articulate that he is not necessarily convinced conventional wisdom holds true. Allegedly, our presence keeps China from controlling the entire region, provides a deterrence factor against North Korean aggression, and protects the democracy currently growing in South Korea while keeping the region from developing its own nuclear arms race.
The author then spends the remainder of the article fleshing out what he believes are the costs of our presence within the region.
First, American forces in South Korea could actually be a driving force behind the tensions in the region. North Korea’s oppressive government is allegedly reacting to American ideology when it isolates its people. The alliance between the United States and South Korea also reinforces the relationship between China and North Korea, which the author believes would not survive if the United States pulled out of Asia. According to Kelly, a trickle down effect of this decision would be the eventual reunification of the two Koreas.
Second, American political entanglement “freeze[s] the Japanese-Korean conflict, encourage maximalists and zealots on both sides not to compromise, and give Japan regular political cover for not coming clean about its past imperial behavior.” My understanding of this argument is that American forces in the region keep the two cultures from airing their differences and allowing the resulting “dust” to settle into a more beneficial landscape.
Third, according to Kelly, our presence in Asia goes a long way to heighten the existing tensions between the United States and China. He suggests that our continued interest in the region might actually lead to a cold war with China if the United States does not back out of the region or at least come to terms with China’s power as a nation.
His final point is more domestic and economic in focus. Kelly points out that because both South Korea and Japan are under our “military umbrella” because of current alliances, they benefit tremendously from our military protection and the exorbitant amount of funding America puts into its military in comparison to two countries who have serious potential enemies on their doorstep.
After going through these issues, Kelly seems to lean in the direction of our Asia presence being less useful than we expect it to be, and strongly advocates that policymakers take a closer look at the actual benefits and costs of our continued involvement.
Where do you think this article is flawed? Are there considerations the author overlooked in coming to his conclusion?