A Bolt Out Of The Blue

This is not usually the time for thunders in this country. But the description of Okinawa by a US State Department official which has just surfaced has terribly confused our people, to say the least. Are the policy decisions in the hands of such ignorant and insincere persons? The feeling aroused here is irrespective of views and ideologies.
It originated in the memorandum prepared by some of the American University students of the briefing by Mr.Kevin Maher, Director of the Office of Japan Affairs, State Department, that 14 students of American University were given on 3 December 2010.
There seems to be neither a beginning nor an end. Maher for instance says soon after he began that 'One third of people believe the world would be more peaceful without a military. It is impossible to talk with such people.' This comes from a State Department official, not the Defence Department.
Then he talks of Wa, a term often used rightly or wrongly to refer to the Japanese group mentality, which, in his opinion, leads to consensus, and it proceeds to extortion of money. One loses sight of a logic here. But Okinawans are called the 'masters of manipulation and extortion of Tokyo', which seems to mean the Okinawans approach the central government to get money as moderately and with as little quarrel as possible. The author of auch a wonderfully unintelligible understanding was a former US Consul-General(he speaks fluent Japanese).
He further says that the people of Okinawa are lazy and not able to grow goya, though as a Canadian peace organization says Okinawa is the formost goya producing Prefecture, the people there are fond of strong liquor, conveniently forgetting the high incidence of crime by the US military personnel, the Japanese distinguishes 'honne' and 'tatemae' and seldom speaks the truth, 'night training' is necessary, ignoring that the US presence is disturbing the life of the people day and night, and finally 'We've got a very good deal in Japan', meaning that the US government is literally begging money from their Japanese counterpart in violation of the statutory provisions to maintain their presence at a low cost.
We know that many Americans would definitely dislike those words used by Maher. But they are educative as long as they show us an insight into the thinking of the US decision makers. They also show that there is something fundamentally unhealthy and anti-human in military alliances.
Some US officials are doing their best at this moment to extinguish the fire, saying that those words do not represent the government attitude. But did they not represent at least one man's views who spoke the truth, not distinguishing honne and tatemae? Also what would be the government's view, then? Apart from the productivity of goya and so on, are there any real differences?