Latest news with #DouglasMacArthur
Nikkei Asia
3 days ago
- General
- Nikkei Asia
MacArthur's legacy weighs heavily on Japan -- 80 years on
U.S. Gen. Douglas MacArthur signs Japanese surrender documents on Sept. 2, 1945, aboard the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay. © AP ANDREW SHARP TOKYO -- Time has stood still on the sixth floor of the Dai-Ichi Life building across the moat from Tokyo's Imperial Palace. Behind heavy wooden doors lies an office, preserved since 1945, that houses the desk of Gen. Douglas MacArthur, the supreme commander of the allied powers that occupied Japan for seven years after its surrender in World War II. On a visit ahead of the 80th anniversary of the war's end on Aug. 15, the preserved room, which is not usually open to the public, appears like a snapshot of history, providing an insight into the powerful character of the general who played an outsized role in rebuilding a country from the ruins of war. His austere desk lacks drawers, and those facing him in the afternoons would have been met with bright sunshine pouring into their eyes.
Los Angeles Times
16-07-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Stunts in L.A. show Democratic states and cities that Trump's forces can invade anytime
Early this month, the U.S. military and masked federal agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement and from Customs and Border Protection invaded a park near downtown Los Angeles — ironically, a park named after Gen. Douglas MacArthur. They came ready for battle, dressed in tactical gear and camouflage, with some arriving on horseback, while others rolled in on armored vehicles or patrolled above in Black Hawk helicopters. Although the invasion force failed to capture anyone, it did succeed in liberating the park from a group of children participating in a summer camp. The MacArthur Park operation sounds like a scene from 'South Park,' but it really did happen — and its implications are terrifying. As Gregory Bovino, the Border Patrol agent in charge, said to Fox News: 'Better get used to us now, 'cause this is going to be normal very soon. We will go anywhere, anytime we want in Los Angeles.' And President Trump is sending the same message to every Democratic governor and mayor in America who dares oppose him. He will send heavily armed federal forces wherever he wants, whenever he wants and for any reason. The United States stands at the threshold of an authoritarian breakthrough, and Congress and the courts have given Trump a lot of tools. He's learned from Jan. 6, 2021, that he needs tight control over the 'guys with the guns,' as retired Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley put it. And that's what he got when Congress dutifully confirmed Trump loyalists to lead all of the 'power ministries' — the military, the FBI and the Department of Justice, the rest of the intelligence community and the Department of Homeland Security. As commander in chief, the president can deploy troops and, under Title 10, he can also put National Guard troops under his command — even against the wishes of local officials. Gov. Gavin Newsom challenged the legality of Trump's exercise of this authority in Los Angeles last month, and we will see what the courts say — but based on its initial rulings, the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit appears likely to defer to the president. Under the Posse Comitatus Act, the troops cannot currently enforce laws, but Trump could change that by invoking the Insurrection Act, and we have to assume that the current Supreme Court would defer to him on that as well, following long-standing precedents saying the president's power under the act is 'conclusive.' Trump could send the military into other cities, but the most dangerous weapon in his authoritarian arsenal might be the newly empowered Department of Homeland Security, which has been given $170 billion by Congress to triple the size of ICE and double its detention capacity. No doubt, this will put Trump's 'mass deportation' into overdrive, but this is not just about immigration. Remember Portland in 2020, when Trump sent Border Patrol agents into the city? Against the wishes of the Oregon governor and the Portland mayor, the president deployed agents to protect federal buildings and suppress unrest after the killing of George Floyd. Under the Homeland Security Act, the secretary can designate any employee of the department to assist the Federal Protective Service in safeguarding government property and carrying out 'such other activities for the promotion of homeland security as the Secretary may prescribe.' Under that law, DHS officers can also make arrests, on and off of federal property, for 'any offense against the United States.' This is why, in 2020, Border Patrol agents — dressed like soldiers and equipped with M-4 semi-automatic rifles — were able to rove around Portland in unmarked black SUVs and arrest people off the streets anywhere in the city. Trump could do this again anywhere in the country, and with the billions Congress has given to immigration and border agencies, DHS could assemble and deploy a formidable federal paramilitary force wherever and whenever Trump wishes. Of course, under the 4th Amendment, officers need to have at least reasonable suspicion based on specific, articulable facts before they can stop and question someone, and probable cause before they arrest. And on Friday, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued a temporary restraining order blocking ICE and Customs and Border Protection from making such stops without reasonable suspicion, and further holding that this could not be based on apparent race or ethnicity; speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent; presence at a particular location, such as a Home Depot parking lot; or the type of work a person does. This ruling could end up providing an important constitutional restraint on these agencies, but we shall see. The Trump administration has appealed the ruling. However, this litigation proceeds, it is important to note that the DHS agencies are not like the FBI, with its buttoned-down, by-the-book culture drilled into it historically and in response to the revelations of J. Edgar Hoover's abuses of power. DHS and its agencies have no such baggage, and they clearly have been pushing the envelope in Los Angeles — sometimes brutally — over the last month. And even if Frimpong's ruling stands up on appeal, ICE and Customs and Border Protection will no doubt adapt by training their officers to articulate other justifications for stopping people on the street or in workplaces. Ultimately, these agencies are used to operating near the border, where, in the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist's words, the federal government's power is 'at its zenith,' and where there are far fewer constitutional constraints on their actions. These are the tools at Trump's disposal — and as DHS rushes to hire thousands of agents and build the detention facilities Congress just paid for, these tools will only become more formidable. And one should anticipate that Trump will want to deploy the DHS paramilitary forces to 'protect' the 2026 or 2028 elections, alongside federal troops, in the same way they worked together to capture MacArthur Park. A fanciful, dystopian scenario? Maybe, but who or what would stop it from happening? Congress does not seem willing to stand up to the president — and while individual federal judges might, the Supreme Court seems more likely to defer to him, especially on issues concerning national security or immigration. So, in the words of Bruce Springsteen, 'the last check on power, after the checks and balances of government have failed, are the people, you and me.' Suit up. Seth Stodder served in the Obama administration as assistant secretary of Homeland Security for borders, immigration and trade and previously as assistant secretary for threat prevention and security. He teaches national security and counterterrorism law at USC Law School.
Forbes
08-07-2025
- Business
- Forbes
After Countries Go Broke
Ray Dalio, one of the most successful macro hedge fund managers of our era, released a new book this year, How Countries Go Broke. This is an interesting topic, but an even more interesting topic is: What countries should do after they go broke. It might be important someday. For a country like the United States, with debt denominated in a local currency, 'going broke' normally means that continued deficit spending can't be financed by the bond market. Governments could, at this moment, reduce spending dramatically and basically balance their budgets. Ha ha ha! Of course this never happens. General Douglas MacArthur chats with Detroit banker, Joseph M. Dodge at the Haneda Airport in Tokyo ... More while awaiting the arrival of U.S. Secretary of Treasury, John Snyder, for talks on Japan's economy. Mr. Dodge drew up the blueprint for Japan's budget-balancing economy. What they do instead is: print the money; or, one way or another, have the central bank buy the bonds or at least support the bond market somehow. Actually there is not so much of a clear delineation here. The US dollar has already been losing quite a lot of value vs. its old benchmark, gold. The Federal Reserve hasn't been 'printing money' to any degree, but the effect is similar – the existing debt is inflated away. This has already been happening. This money-printing is fun at first, but soon becomes unpleasant. Basically, it is hyperinflation, to a greater or lesser degree. Eventually, this becomes intolerable. Then, a government is truly 'broke.' Then what? It is good to have a playbook for that day, because it will be a time when you have to act quickly and decisively. It is not a time to debate various hypotheses and proposals. Both Germany and Japan found themselves in this condition in 1949. It was already well after the end of the war. Both countries were under US military occupation. But the focus was shifting toward preventing local communist movements (happens when the economy is in shambles), and containing Soviet Communism. The US decided that it had to help Germany and Japan recover. One aspect of this was the Marshall Plan of 1948. But, it went beyond that. In 1949, a Chicago banker, Joseph Dodge, was dispatched to help the German government get its act together. Working together with local leaders such as the exemplary Ludwig Erhard, Dodge made a simple plan. The government was to go cash-only. This is a little beyond a 'balanced budget.' The government would spend nothing unless it had previously received payment of tax revenue. This relieved the central bank from government financing pressures, and allowed the German mark's value to be fixed to gold. The hyperinflation ended immediately. Then, taxes were reduced dramatically. This did not take the form of a reduction in tax rates (although Erhard argued for cutting rates by 50%), but rather, by boosting the tax brackets by multiples higher. The highest tax rate of 95%, which was reached at an income of 60,000 marks, was boosted to 250,000 marks, more than 4x higher. The income for the 50% rate was boosted from 2,400 marks to 9,000. Erhard continued with this theme afterwards. By 1958, the top rate was 53%, and this was paid on income over 110,000 marks. The tax-free exemption tripled. With a sound currency fixed to gold, and lower taxes across the board, Germany's economy boomed. Tax revenues rose from 6.6 billion marks in 1949 to 36.3 billion in 1963 – all measured in marks fixed to gold. You can read about it in my book, The Magic Formula. This went well, so Dodge headed over to Japan to do the same thing. Ikeda Hayato was made Minister of Finance on February 16, 1949. On March 7, he announced the 'Dodge Line." Japan's government was to go cash-only – a policy that it actually maintained until 1965. This relieved the Bank of Japan from financing needs. The yen was fixed to gold. Just as in Germany, Japan's leaders reduced taxes dramatically. In consultation with US advisor Carl Shoup, a national sales tax was abolished completely. The top income tax rate fell from 85% to 55%, while the income at which the tax applied was bumped higher from 300,000 yen to 500,000 yen. By 1957, the threshold of the 55% tax rate had risen to 10 million yen – thirty-three times higher. In 1960, Ikeda Hayato ran for prime minister. He promised to 'double incomes" in ten years – and won. The actual result, during that decade, was even better than promised. During every single year of the 1960s, taxes were lowered. So we see a simple and proven strategy. It is: The government goes 'cash only.' This might mean huge spending cuts, and it might have to be done in a matter of a couple weeks – not after months of debate. Today, the sensible way for the Federal Government to accomplish this is to simply chainsaw all welfare-related programs, including Social Security, all healthcare, all means-tested Federal welfare programs, and a variety of other welfare-related programs such as in education. The Federal budget would be immediately in surplus. All welfare-related programs would be delegated to the State governments, to do as they see fit, which is the actual mandate of the Constitution today. Of course this is not politically possible today. But, it would be possible in a hyperinflationary crisis, as Germany and Japan faced in 1949, or as Argentina faced recently. Then, taxes should be reduced dramatically. In 1949, Japan threw out its national sales tax, and kept the income tax. Today, I think it would be best to do the opposite – throw out the Federal income tax, repeal the 16th amendment, and instead introduce a single Federal value-added tax of about 10%. This would be more than enough to pay for all the Federal Government's spending, after the welfare-related spending was terminated. Just one 10% tax would be easy to administer. And, nobody would evade it, since who wants to become a criminal just to avoid a 10% tax? Businesses would pay the tax (including self-employed), but regular employees would face no direct taxes at all. With the Central Bank now relieved of government financing pressures, it would be time then to again fix the dollar's value to gold – just as Germany and Japan did in 1949. (China also had hyperinflation in 1949, and also went to gold in 1950.) In more recent times, we've seen countries do almost exactly the same thing. In 1994, Estonia ended hyperinflation by fixing the value of the currency to the German mark (later euro) via a currency board – very similar to fixing the value of the German mark itself to gold in 1949. The government also introduced a 26% Flat Tax, which seemed radically low at the time. It later fell to 20%. Estonia's economy boomed, and others noticed. Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Slovakia and others followed close behind, ending hyperinflation by fixing the currency's value to the mark/euro (typically), and introducing a Flat Tax. Bulgaria has a 10% Flat Tax today, and so does Mongolia. The Flat Tax was a great idea for the 1990s, but today I think a wholly indirect tax, such as the Value Added Tax, is even better. Then we could eliminate Income Taxes entirely, returning to the original pre-1913 Constitution with no direct taxes at all. Technically, a 10% VAT and a 10% Flat Tax are almost the same thing. But politically, it makes a big difference to eliminate the Income Tax altogether. Drive a wooden stake through its heart so that it will never return.
South China Morning Post
16-06-2025
- Politics
- South China Morning Post
Can the island chain strategy contain China's blue-water naval ambitions?
China's navy is pushing past the strategic island chains that for decades have marked defensive boundaries for the United States and its allies in the Western Pacific. The deployment of two Chinese aircraft carrier groups in the open waters of the Pacific Ocean since late May has underscored a critical advance in Beijing's ambitions to become a blue-water navy by 2035. The Liaoning and Shandong have been on a routine training exercise to test their 'far-sea defences and joint operational capabilities', according to the PLA Navy. Notably, it is the first time a Chinese carrier has sailed beyond the second island chain. What is the island chain strategy? The strategy was proposed in 1951 by the then US secretary of state John Foster Dulles, as a way of using American-aligned island bases to contain the communist Soviet Union and China in the Western Pacific. Taiwan – famously described in 1950 by General Douglas MacArthur as an 'unsinkable aircraft carrier' – was pivotal to the concept. While the strategy became less prominent after the Cold War, it re-emerged strongly post-1991 as a way to counter a rising Beijing. The first island chain runs along East Asia's coastline, from the Kuril Islands through Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines down to Borneo. This marks the Chinese mainland's near seas from the wider Pacific. The second island chain is further east and includes the major US base at Guam. It extends through the Marianas to Palau and New Guinea.
Telegraph
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
General Trump has entered the fray and this is just the beginning
Donald Trump has long had a keen fascination with swashbuckling generals from the Second World War. His rally speeches are peppered with anecdotes about General Douglas MacArthur and he used a clip from one of his favourite war movies to open his event at Manhattan's Madison Square a week before last year's election. 'Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser,' says George C Scott, playing Gen George Patton in the 1970 movie Patton. What could be more Trumpian? The president's first administration was packed with generals and retired generals. Mr Trump made no secret of his admiration for their can-do attitude and straightforward command structure until, that is, he soured on their adherence to rules and legal norms. This time around, his flood-the-zone strategy of bamboozling the media and Democratic opponents with a constant stream of executive orders, public comments, and proclamations could come from one of Patton's real-life quotes: 'As long as you attack them, they cannot find the time to attack you.' This week, Mr Trump is leaning into his role of commander-in-chief in a much more literal sense. He has deployed active service personnel as an arm of domestic policy to back his massive deportation push. As protests grew in response to immigration raids around Los Angeles, he took the highly unusual step of deploying National Guard troops at the weekend despite the opposition of the California governor. On Tuesday he used a speech honouring soldiers to defend his decision against charges it was a politically motivated stunt. 'Generations of army heroes did not shed their blood on distant shores only to watch our country be destroyed by invasion and third-world lawlessness,' he said at the army base in Fort Bragg, North Carolina. A day later, the first of 700 Marines arrived in Los Angeles. And he has left open the possibility of going even further, using the Insurrection Act, which authorises the president to deploy military forces on American soil to suppress domestic violence in certain scenarios. 'If there's an insurrection, I would certainly invoke it. We'll see,' he said from the Oval Office. And then there is Saturday's military parade. More than 100 military vehicles and thousands of soldiers are set to roll or march down Constitution Avenue in front of the White House. Black Hawk and Apache helicopters will fill the skies. It will be the $50 million fulfillment of a dream Mr Trump has had since 2017, when he was a guest of Emmanuel Macron, the French president, at a Bastille Day parade. Hundreds of troops marching down the Champs-Élysées beneath plumes of red, white and blue smoke trailing behind fighter jets, left a deep impression on Mr Trump. 'It was one of the greatest parades I've ever seen,' he later said. 'We're going to have to try and top it.' A parade during his visit to China in 2017 also got the Trump seal of approval. He called it 'magnificent'. Then, he was quietly advised then that it would not be appropriate to parade the nation's military might through the capital. But like so much of his thwarted first-term agenda, he has spent the past four years staffing up with officials who can make his dreams come true. Officially, Saturday's parade will mark the 250th birthday of the army. And it doesn't hurt that it falls on the 79th birthday of Mr Trump. Critics say he is abusing the nation's armed forces for his own ends. 'He views the military as political props,' said John Bolton, who worked as Trump's national security adviser in his first term before falling out with him. 'He thinks they make him look good.' The event could serve another purpose, illustrating how Mr Trump is bringing the nation's biggest and strongest institutions into line. And as commander-in-chief he is the one to call the shots, illustrating his hold on power. Members of Washington's diplomatic corps will be in the audience on Saturday. 'He just likes the pomp and circumstance,' said one, speaking on condition of anonymity. 'I don't see an attack on democracy. Mr Trump looks around at other leaders and thinks that this is the sort of thing that a head of state gets.' In the meantime, polls suggest a limit to what he can do as commander-in-chief. A new YouGov survey found that 47 per cent of Americans disapprove of deploying the Marines to Los Angeles, with only 34 per cent approving, despite other polls showing that voters approve of the broader deportation operation. And while legal scholars will debate whether Mr Trump's decision to deploy troops stands up to scrutiny, and whether it breaches a federal law, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prevents the use of American forces to enforce domestic laws, the president sees things in black and white. He knows where the battle lines are drawn as he made clear in his Fort Bragg speech. He used highly partisan language to slam the Los Angeles protesters and to champion the armed forces. 'They're heroes. They're fighting for us,' he said. 'They're stopping an invasion, just like you'd stop an invasion.' His armed forces are all part of Mr Trump's us-against-them view of the world.
