The argument for US military presence abroad is its provision of stability in regions; military in Germany to stabilize central Europe, military in Japan to stabilize Eastern-Asia, etc. etc. I decided to use Japan as the reference because Americans can tend to think the troop placement in Germany as silly, and subsequently think that of Japan. I, however, say the deep seated hatred of nations around that Asian-Pacific Rim, have an obvious and good reason to hate Japan, and that subsequently is equally powerful a motivator in relations in Central Europe and thus military involvement there is equally justified. For most Asians, they understand Emperor Showa, (Hirohito) was largely responsible for WW2. He was not some figure led around by militarists, but rather was an opportunist who used the militarist hardliners when he felt the military was needed, and toward the end of the war used the civilians against the militarists, and ordered the hardliners arrested when he felt the war should be ended. When commenting on whether to continue the war or not (after the 2 Atomic Bombings); he suggested the war should be stopped, but if it meant a dramatic change in the national polity, the war should be continued at all costs. Basically the Emperor was not willing to sue for peace, even after the atomic attacks, unless his own position was protected. Numerous war crimes were committed because of the Emperor. And the Emperor was never punished by others. It is as if Hitler continued to occupy a seat of importance in Germany's government after the war. Because of all these deep seated envies and hatreds, it will be necessary for the US to provide a military presence, not necessarily just a diplomatic one, if it is to keep the peace.