Clarify Futenma's military role

The March 7 article "Emotionalized debate blurs valuable functions of Futenma," by Dan Melton and Robert D. Eldridge, characterized my statement that the U.S. Marine Corp Air Station at Futenma, Okinawa, "has not been operational since the termination of the Vietnam War" (from the Feb. 14 letter "Air base mystifies, not the alliance") as an example of the "wild" statements surrounding the Futenma controversy.

I am happy to concede that my statement could be construed as incomplete — though it is clear enough from context, one would think. By "operational," I meant that no U.S. Marines have been dispatched from Futenma into Asian theaters of war for the past 35 years. The statement was worded on the premise that, given the present realities within Okinawa, the air station needs to fulfill its primary function of enabling, resisting or deterring attack, to justify a replacement on Okinawan soil.

I had suggested that scenarios from which the base acts as a deterrent do not exist. Melton and Eldridge counter by claiming that the base deters North Korea. This is nonsense. North Korean leader Kim Jong Il is deterred by missiles, not marines. They further reject my assertion that "the base would not be a factor" in a war against North Korea.

Let me simply say that whatever role marines based in Okinawa could play after the "shock and awe" could just as easily be played by marines based elsewhere.

Melton and Eldridge point out the role that Futenma plays in disaster relief. Granted. But again, why Okinawa and not elsewhere? It is no longer enough for the United States to justify the retention of its air station on Okinawa simply because it is an agreeable locale.

Specific scenarios need to be forwarded that explain how these marines can play a role that cannot be played by marines based on Guam, Hawaii or the U.S. mainland. The people of Okinawa — and others — are clearly not prepared to accept anything less.