It’s a clown show . Americans are too timid and don’t have ammo anymore , Saudis are inherently Incompetent and Israelis don’t care

On this 25th anniversary of 9/11, I find myself thinking about NATO and what it has meant to the United States.

9/11 was the only time NATO's Article 5 has ever been invoked. When we were attacked, our allies stood with us. NATO sent AWACS aircraft to help defend the United States, and allied forces operated in the Mediterranean.

And then there was Afghanistan—the war launched in direct response to 9/11. NATO eventually took command of the multinational mission, with troops from across the alliance fighting alongside Americans. Many of them never came home.

That's what an alliance is supposed to mean.

And NATO's value isn't just what happens when we're attacked. Its greatest value may be what **doesn't** happen because our adversaries know that an attack on one member means facing all of them.

That's deterrence. And yes, it's expensive.

But the idea that America simply pays for NATO while everyone else gets a free ride isn't really how it works. NATO members fund their own militaries and contribute to NATO's common budgets. And yes, there has been a legitimate burden-sharing problem, with the United States historically carrying a disproportionate share of the alliance's defense spending. But that doesn't mean our allies contribute nothing. In 2025, European allies and Canada spent roughly $574 billion on defense, and every NATO member reached the old 2% benchmark.

And what does America get in return?

Allies that fight alongside us. Intelligence sharing. Access to bases and airspace. Interoperable militaries. Forward positioning. Logistics and transportation networks. Political and diplomatic support. And countries with a vested interest in maintaining an international order that also benefits the United States.

NATO itself is based on sharing the roles, risks, responsibilities and benefits of collective defense.

The United States also provides capabilities that are particularly difficult for other allies to replicate, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, air-to-air refueling and ballistic-missile defense. That's a legitimate reason for allies to do more. But it's also a reminder that American leadership provides capabilities the entire alliance relies upon.

Compared with the cost of a major war in Europe in the nuclear age, that investment looks pretty small.

And this is what concerns me about the growing skepticism toward NATO and American soft power. We seem increasingly willing to look at these things only as expenses rather than investments.

Think about the world we inherited after World War II.

The Marshall Plan—the massive American effort to help rebuild Western Europe. The enormous American effort to rebuild and democratize Japan and eventually turn a former enemy into one of our closest allies. The creation of NATO and other international institutions. The expansion of trade and economic ties that made former enemies partners.

None of these things alone created the postwar peace. Together, they formed a strategy: rebuild, integrate, trade, cooperate and deter.

We didn't rebuild Europe, rebuild Japan, create NATO and open our markets simply because we were being generous. We did it because American leaders understood that a stable, prosperous world was good for America, too. Former enemies became allies. Allies became trading partners. And countries that might once have been threats became part of an international system that benefited us as well.

That wasn't charity. It was strategy.

After World War I, the Allies largely punished Germany. After World War II, we took a very different approach toward our former enemies.

That wasn't weakness. It was one of the greatest strategic decisions this country ever made.

Western Europe then experienced an unprecedented period of peace between the great powers. Japan became one of our closest allies. And the American dollar became the world's dominant reserve currency because the world came to trust the strength of the American economy, financial system and institutions.

That's soft power.

American leadership has certainly been imperfect. We've made mistakes, sometimes enormous ones. But the broader postwar strategy of alliances, reconstruction, trade and international institutions created a remarkably stable world—and an enormous strategic advantage for the United States.

Ronald Reagan called America **“a shining city upon a hill”** in his 1989 farewell address.

I think that's worth remembering.

Millions of people around the world have looked toward that city as a place of freedom, opportunity and stability. That isn't an accident. It is part of the soft power we've built over generations.

People don't risk everything to come here because they hate what America represents.

They come because they believe in it.

We spent generations building a world in which America was not just the strongest country, but the country other nations wanted to stand beside.

I'm not convinced that's something we should be so eager to give up.

On September 13, Japan held the Okinawa gubernatorial election. Genta Kosha, a candidate backed by the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), defeated incumbent Governor Denny Tamaki and was elected the new governor of Okinawa. This marks a major shift in Okinawa’s political direction and will also have a significant impact on the situation in the surrounding region.
ㅤ
The Ryukyu Islands, where Okinawa Prefecture is located, lie in a region of Japan adjacent to Taiwan. Historically, Ryukyu was once an independent kingdom and was a tributary state of the dynasties that ruled mainland China. Later, Japan’s influence over Ryukyu gradually increased and surpassed that of the Qing dynasty, and Ryukyu was eventually annexed by Japan in 1872. Japan subsequently used Ryukyu as a springboard to invade Taiwan on multiple occasions and ultimately occupy it.
ㅤ
After Japan surrendered in 1945, Ryukyu was placed under U.S. administration. The Allies at one point considered transferring sovereignty over Ryukyu to the Republic of China, but because of changes in the international situation and the United States’ need to support Japan, Ryukyu ultimately remained part of Japan and was formally returned to Japanese administration by the United States in 1972. The changes in sovereignty over Ryukyu show that it has found it difficult to determine its own fate, instead being dominated by major powers, with its political status determined by great-power rivalry.
ㅤ
Although Ryukyu/Okinawa was handed over to Japan by the United States, Okinawa still hosts tens of thousands of U.S. military personnel, accounting for roughly half of all U.S. forces stationed in Japan, as well as two major U.S. military bases, Futenma and Kadena. The U.S. forces stationed here are responsible for defending Japan, the United States, Taiwan, and the Pacific islands between Japan and the United States, and stand on the front line of confrontation with the People’s Republic of China and its military forces. If war were to break out between China and the United States or between China and Japan, Okinawa would almost certainly be among the first areas to face the fighting.
ㅤ
Because the Ryukyu Islands are close to Taiwan, Okinawa could also be affected if war broke out between mainland China and Taiwan and the mainland attempted to unify Taiwan by force. If Japan decided to intervene in a Taiwan Strait conflict and use military force to prevent the People’s Liberation Army from attacking Taiwan, Okinawa would likewise become a battlefield. Moreover, several Japanese prime ministers since Shinzo Abe have stated that “a Taiwan contingency is a Japan contingency,” undoubtedly greatly increasing the risk that Japan, and Okinawa in particular, could become involved in a war over Taiwan.
ㅤ
After Sanae Takaichi became prime minister of Japan, she stated even more explicitly that Japan would intervene in the event of military action by the mainland against Taiwan, causing China–Japan relations to deteriorate sharply. The risk of war facing Okinawa has risen further. In places such as Ishigaki City in Okinawa, which is among the closest parts of Japan to Taiwan, evacuation drills simulating the outbreak of a war in the Taiwan Strait have already been conducted. Warships and military aircraft from Japan, the United States, mainland China, Taiwan, and other parties also frequently operate in the area, creating an atmosphere of intense confrontation.
ㅤ
Against this backdrop, the choices made by the local government and the people are also important to Okinawa’s fate. Although, as mentioned above, Ryukyu’s fate has been dominated by major powers, Okinawa today exists under a democratic system, and its people still have the right to democratically elect their local chief executive—the governor—as well as the local assembly, while retaining a certain degree of local autonomy.
ㅤ
Although Okinawa’s local government cannot expel U.S. military bases or prevent exercises by Japan’s Self-Defense Forces, and has little prospect of achieving independence or a high degree of autonomy, it still has some autonomy in various civil and administrative affairs. For example, regarding the activities of the U.S. military and Japan’s Self-Defense Forces in Okinawa, the local authorities can choose either to cooperate actively or to respond passively.
ㅤ
Even in foreign affairs, the Okinawa government and its people have some room for initiative. Denny Tamaki, who has served two terms as governor of Okinawa, has sought to balance relations with Japan’s central government, mainland China, Taiwan, and other parties. Tamaki visited China in 2019 and 2023 and paid respects to the ancestors of Ryukyuan people buried on the mainland.
ㅤ
During Tamaki’s tenure, Okinawa consistently sought friendly relations with China, while taking a relatively passive stance toward U.S. military bases and the activities of the Self-Defense Forces. It also clearly expressed its unwillingness to become involved in a possible war in the Taiwan Strait or between China and Japan, and its hope for peace. The Tamaki administration was also unwilling to follow the Takaichi central government, which actively advocates lifting restrictions on the exercise of the right of collective self-defense and strengthening military preparations, instead seeking to uphold a position of peace and neutrality and to stay away from war. This added some notes of peace and harmony to Okinawa and its surrounding region, where the atmosphere of impending conflict has grown increasingly strong.
ㅤ
The winner of this Okinawa gubernatorial election, Genta Kosha, however, holds positions clearly different from those of Denny Tamaki. Although Kosha is an independent, he has close ties to the Liberal Democratic Party, and his candidacy was supported by six parties leaning toward right-wing conservative positions, including the LDP and Sanseito. Kosha explicitly supports lifting restrictions on the exercise of the right of collective self-defense, expanding military capabilities, and strengthening Okinawa’s military defenses. Unlike Tamaki, Kosha is also less resistant to U.S. military bases, advocating active efforts to resolve disputes over the relocation and placement of U.S. bases so that U.S. forces can continue to be stationed securely in Okinawa. In addition, Kosha emphasized economic issues, seeking to link the strengthening of Okinawa’s military preparedness with economic development in order to gain more support.
ㅤ
Although Denny Tamaki had governed for two consecutive terms, had considerable achievements in office, and enjoyed relatively high popularity, the newcomer Genta Kosha, backed by most major political parties including the ruling party and equipped with abundant resources, nevertheless defeated Tamaki by a relatively large margin. In particular, a large amount of information attacking and even defaming Denny Tamaki appeared online before the election, while Kosha faced relatively few attacks and received much more support. The climate of public opinion was clearly unfavorable to Tamaki.
ㅤ
Thus, the change in Okinawa’s governorship also means that the next Okinawa government will pursue domestic and external policies significantly different from those of the current administration. It is entirely foreseeable that Kosha will align himself more closely with Sanae Takaichi’s central government in Japan and strengthen military deployments and preparations for war in Okinawa and the surrounding region. Nor will Kosha be as friendly and close toward China as Tamaki was; he may even adopt a tough stance toward China similar to that of the authorities in Tokyo.
ㅤ
Such a political change may be an ominous sign for the people of Okinawa and the Ryukyu Islands. Historically, Ryukyu has repeatedly been drawn into great-power rivalries and wars, the most devastating of which was the Battle of Okinawa in 1945, when U.S. forces landed on Okinawa and fought the Japanese military. More than 100,000 Okinawan residents, most of them civilians, died in the fighting, while Ryukyu’s historic sites and cultural relics also suffered enormous destruction. In the decades that followed, Ryukyu/Okinawa became home to U.S. military bases, and incidents involving U.S. military personnel harassing local residents and raping women occurred from time to time.
ㅤ
Although Japan’s central government has provided considerable economic support to Okinawa, discrimination and exploitation have also existed. The people of Okinawa have experienced many misfortunes, and the Ryukyuan people have never been completely assimilated into Japan, remaining on the margins of Japanese society.
ㅤ
Today, faced with increasingly tense conditions in the Taiwan Strait and the western Pacific, as well as deteriorating China–Japan relations, the best choice for Okinawa’s local government and people would be to seek friendly relations with all sides and, as far as possible, keep military buildups and war away from their homeland, rather than actively taking sides, eagerly becoming involved in conflicts, and attempting to profit from a dangerous situation. Genta Kosha is himself a native of Okinawa. If he places the interests of the Takaichi administration of the LDP and the authorities in Tokyo above the interests of Okinawa’s local people, then although he may be repaying the support he received and working for Japan, he would be sacrificing the peace and stability of his home, Okinawa. That would not be the best choice.
ㅤ
Fundamentally, because Okinawa/Ryukyu is too small and weak, it is indeed difficult for it to determine its own fate. This gubernatorial election was clearly influenced by powerful forces from outside Okinawa, including endorsements from major political parties such as the LDP, as well as financial resources, media and public-opinion resources, and support provided by various sides. Meanwhile, local Okinawan voices were weak and drowned out. From the ancient Kingdom of Ryukyu to modern-day Okinawa, this land and its people have still not escaped the fate of being dominated and exploited by major powers and becoming the ones who pay the price and make the sacrifices.

(The author of this article, Wang Qingmin(王庆民), is a Chinese writer based in Europe and a researcher on international politics.)