Every week, you study the Scriptures, analyzing a narrative’s movements or the structure of an epistle’s argument. You prayerfully consider each text’s meaning and application. Then you put pen to paper (or at least your fingers on a keyboard) and write what you’ll say to your congregation on Sunday. As editors who regularly work with pastors, we’re sometimes asked if writing an article differs from writing a sermon. Yes, it’s different, but most men already recognize that when they ask. As editors who regularly work with pastors, we’re sometimes asked if writing an article differs from writing a sermon. It’s really different. After all, in ministry, you don’t just write sermons. In a given week, you may write an email update for your elders and staff, a reflection for the church newsletter, and an encouraging note for a dedicated volunteer. You know intuitively that your writing style changes based on what you’re writing and whom you’re writing to. A sermon is more personal (and less formal) than a seminary paper. And a well-written thank-you note is more personal than a sermon. But what if you want to turn your sermon into an article or Substack blog post? Here are 10 tips to keep in mind if you want to do this well. Some are ways you should write like you preach, and others are ways you shouldn’t. Write like You Preach 1. Employ your best hook. Just as you want to grab your congregation at the beginning of a sermon, you also want to grab your readers at the beginning of an article. If you opened your sermon with a story, a counterintuitive fact, or something that happened in the news yesterday, that hook will likely work for your article too. No one is required to read what you’ve written, so use an opening that will make them want to. 2. Choose one clear point. The best sermons have one clear, main point. Bryan Chapell suggests finding the “fallen-condition focus” in the passage you’re expositing—the ways the people in the text need the good news—and then going on to explain how the gospel addresses that problem. You should do the same in an article. Find a fallen-condition problem in everyday life and explain how the gospel addresses it. 3. Develop that main point with clear subpoints. The main point of a good sermon is supported with a few easily identifiable subpoints. Do the same when writing, and mark them with subheads. For example, Nathan Sloan’s article about ordinary faithfulness presents a problem and then offers one gospel solution with several practical implications. Another approach, seen in an article from Davy Ellison, is to present a clear idea then illustrate it with several biblical examples. 4. Show. Don’t tell. Pastors use stories to illustrate their sermon points. Follow the same approach with an article, only make the stories short and punchy because you’re working in a smaller space. 5. Stick the landing. Sermon conclusions shouldn’t trail off randomly, introduce a new idea, or ramble on forever. Sometimes they swing back around to reference the introduction. Other times they repeat a truth from Scripture or give a final word of encouragement. Articles also need a clean ending. And yes, you can swing around to reference the introduction, repeat a truth from Scripture, or encourage. You shouldn’t trail off, chase rabbits, or ramble on. Close well. Don’t Write like You Preach 6. Lose the roadmap. In a sermon or an academic paper (or in a book), you lay out the roadmap by projecting where you’re headed at the beginning of the journey: “My three points for today are . . .” An article isn’t a journey; it’s more like a quick walk down the street. You don’t need a map. There’s no need to list your points in the introduction. Just get directly to your point. 7. Know that your audience is broader than your church. When you preach on Sundays, you’re addressing one local congregation in a specific cultural context (yours!). If you write for the general public in a Substack or through an outlet like The Gospel Coalition, you’re addressing a global body, most of whom aren’t under your direct care. So you can’t assume they heard the first three sermons in your four-part series, or that they share your church’s and denomination’s theological emphases. You’ll have to lean into explaining your assumptions and make the specific details about your context explicit when referencing it. You also may need to think more broadly when offering concrete applications. 8. Adjust the length. Some pastors prepare outlines, and some create a manuscript for their sermon. Articles are somewhere in between. If you’re used to outlining, you’ll probably need to add more connections and explanations to get a full-length article. If you’re used to writing manuscripts, you’ll need to cut your sermon down to what may feel like just the bones. 9. Don’t just exposit; persuade. In an expository sermon, the outline is derived from the text. You either follow a passage’s narrative arc or let the grammar and logic of an epistle drive your points. But in an article—even if it’s explaining a tricky Bible passage—you have to assume readers don’t have Bibles open on their laps. They haven’t spent the morning preparing their hearts for worship and the Word. Your job isn’t merely to exposit a text for a Sunday morning gathering, but to equip Christians who may be reading your article on their phone during their lunch break. As a pastor, you are a writer, and your writing skill is worth sharpening. It’s worth investing in. Why? Because God is a writer too. You must design your article’s tone and flow so it logically persuades. This may mean thinking more about your transitions. You can get away with fewer formal transitions in your sermons because your tone, a beat of silence, your body language, or even your slides signal to your congregation that you’re moving to a new point. In written content for public consumption, you typically need words to do that. It can be as easy as “Thankfully . . .” or “To understand that, we must . . . ” or “Because that’s true . . .” A good Pauline “Therefore” goes a long way when you’re working with the written word. To be clear, many sermons do seek to persuade. And many good articles are largely expositional (see Justin Dillehay’s piece on Mephibosheth for example), but as a general principle, it’s more necessary for persuasion to be front and center in written content. 10. Tone it down. It’s difficult to convey humor, sarcasm, or a hushed tone over an email or text message to friends. It’s nearly impossible to convey those tones in an article read by people who don’t know your personality at all. In your sermon, your personality does the work of connecting with your audience and giving life to your words. With the written word, your personality can be confusing and even offensive. Use it more sparingly. Instead, overbalance with gentleness and charity. Skill Worth Sharpening As a pastor, you’re a writer, and your writing skill is worth sharpening. It’s worth investing in. Why? Because God is a writer too. He’s written his glory into creation. Before time began, he wrote the story of redemption in his heavenly book. And in these last days, he’s spoken to us by his written word and by his Son, the Word. When a leader like you uses and develops your God-given writing talents, when you think of your gifts as part of your pastoral vocation, you can write in a way that both glorifies God and serves your neighbor. We hope you will.

Nonprofits have a long and storied history in the United States. When Alexis de Tocqueville visited this country in the 19th century, he intended to study its prisons. Instead, he wrote one of the most perceptive analyses of American political life. Among his many insights was an observation about what we now sometimes call “the third sector.” In France, citizens who encountered social problems tended to look to the government for solutions. Americans, Tocqueville noticed, were different. Rather than waiting for official action, they organized themselves. They had a talent for self-government. What Tocqueville observed has implications for the nonprofit sector today. Greg Berman warns about the evolution (or devolution) of the nonprofit sector from those Tocquevillian beginnings in The Nonprofit Crisis: Leadership Through the Culture Wars. But it’s also a book about liberalism, the political philosophy developed alongside the American republic. Liberalism here doesn’t mean left-wing politics; it refers to the pursuit of liberty itself. Limited government, consent of the governed, and freedoms of religion, speech, and the press are core liberal commitments. For Americans, these principles have been as invisible as water to a fish. Nonprofits play a straightforward role in such a system. Because liberal governments restrain themselves in the name of freedom, space opens for voluntary institutions to meet social needs in entrepreneurial and creative ways. That space has historically been filled by nonprofits in local communities, many born out of local churches. Berman, a longtime nonprofit executive with the Center for Court Innovation, shows that this role is now threatened. Writing from within the liberal tradition, he observes the weakening consensus, which has shifted the nonprofit sector’s center of gravity. In America’s past, nonprofits belonged to what sociologist William Swatos called the community “lifeworld.” Now, they increasingly resemble the bureaucratic “system” of government and corporations—a change with serious implications for society and potentially churches too. Changing Culture Berman highlights a generational change in the people who serve nonprofits. Nonprofits have always attracted young people who hope to bring change and prepare for leadership. Berman observes that over time, younger employees were arriving with less willingness to defer to age and experience. More importantly, perhaps, many young people also want to see the organizations of which they’re part reflecting a strong, left-wing social and political agenda. As one newly graduated and recently hired nonprofit worker declared, “There’s only one thing wrong with the criminal justice system and that’s systematic racism” (36). Such simplistic perspectives often lead to intolerance toward other views, which makes cooperation toward a common goal difficult. Simplistic perspectives often lead to intolerance toward other views, which makes cooperation toward a common goal difficult. This intolerance is illustrated in Berman’s story of a 90-year-old woman, who had served for decades with a multiple sclerosis charity, being forced out as a volunteer because she asked questions about the use of pronouns in the organization’s materials. No amount of faithful history could compensate for heterodoxy on an unrelated cultural issue. The story is a one-off, but it shows how the clear and distinct purposes that once animated such work have sometimes been subsumed beneath broader social movements. Mission Drift The heart of Berman’s worry is that nonprofits are becoming overpoliticized. He argues this shift erodes public support and distracts organizations from their core missions. As groups become coded as left or right, they lose touch with experts and donors motivated to solve the problems the nonprofits were created to address. He illustrates this concern well with an episode from his time as executive director at the Center for Court Innovation, when he invited a high-ranking NYPD official for a conversation. Some staff objected, with one worker asking why the “Center [was] partnering with a racist institution” (53). The idea of “platforming” such a figure was treated as unacceptable. Polarization also creates difficulties when issues defy clear ideological alignment, a scenario likely familiar to many within mission-driven institutions. The recent conflict in Gaza, for example, has effectively divided supporters and staff from each other within many nonprofits, particularly on the left. For Berman, it’s a sign of dysfunction that division over Gaza and Israel could distract his organization, which focuses on domestic criminal justice reform. Berman makes it clear he’s no conservative. He writes with greater familiarity about the influence of progressive politics on nonprofits, but he’s equally concerned that conservative politics is beginning to dominate the groups within that orbit. Find a Way Back The pressure to adopt stronger political identities is moving nonprofits toward a more conventional political mission. The kind of wholesome activism Tocqueville observed is an endangered species. Nonprofits, once dominated by membership associations and small donors, are increasingly driven by major donors and foundations. “Many of the most influential nonprofits,” Berman notes, “do not have significant membership rolls” (63). As a consequence, they become less of an independent force to address the problems the government isn’t handling or can’t handle well. Unfortunately, they’re also becoming more deeply embroiled in the field of politics. As groups become coded as left or right, they lose touch with experts and donors motivated to solve the problems the nonprofits were created to address. These shifts parallel those in other fields, such as journalism. There’s less interest in the work itself and more interest in scoring points for a side. The value of the activities that fall below the ideological confrontation seems to diminish. Bearman’s analysis highlights the value of sociopolitical views advanced by figures like Abraham Kuyper and Jacques Maritain, though he does not write with those sources in view. Kuyper kept politics in its place by reserving space for the many other “spheres” of human life, such as church, family, the arts, the sciences, and schools. He warned against allowing politics to turn government into a kind of octopus ensnaring everything around it. Similarly, Maritain imagined a “body politic” that encompasses the rich variety of life activities and institutions with only a thin overseeing layer, the state. In both cases, the Christian thinkers (one Protestant and one Catholic) sought to hold the temptations of politics at bay. Both Kuyper and Maritain offer a potential pathway for a more organic nonprofit sector. The voluntary sector occupied by nonprofit organizations used to be a real American distinctive. Once a major asset to American life, the independence of nonprofits is being eroded by politics. Their effectiveness is ebbing. There may be a lesson for the church in that story as well. The Nonprofit Crisis offers valuable insight into what we’re losing as polarized politics takes over our culture.

Courtney and Melissa talk with Christine Hoover about why we need friends and how to make them. They discuss how to get over the awkwardness of walking into a room where you don’t know anyone, why our friendships may shift in different life stages, how our friends shape us, and how an idealized view of friendship (where your friends never disappoint you) runs counter to the gospel. Resource Mentioned: The Hard Work of Lifelong Friendships Related Resources: Want to Grow in Wisdom? You Need Gospel Friends. Why Ministry Partners Are Better than Instagram Friends How to Be the Friend You’ve Always Wanted Messy Beautiful Friendship by Christine Hoover Discussion Questions: 1. How has your experience of making friends changed in different seasons of your life? Which seasons have been most challenging, and why? 2. In what ways are your current friendships gospel-centered? Where do you sense room for growth? 3. Where has God placed you—at church, at work, at home, or in your community—to notice and include those who may feel overlooked or alone? 4. What qualities of a faithful, Christlike friend are you asking God to grow in you right now? 5. How does the gospel speak to the fears or expectations that hinder our friendships? 6. How are you intentionally prioritizing fellowship with Christ? How does your relationship with him shape what you offer in your friendships? 7. What next step is God calling you to take in your pursuit of gospel-centered friendship?

Trump’s rescue mission

A lot of what we cover here at the Media Research center consists of bias by omission. Specifically, when media outlets omit narrative-unfriendly stories in their entirety, or omit selected details from within those stories that are inconvenient to liberal narrative. Tonight on NBC Nightly News, we saw the exact opposite. Watch as anchor Tom Llamas and law enforcement correspondent Tom Winter break down the sequence of events during the shooting of a woman in Minneapolis by an ICE agent: NBC Nightly News was the only legacy evening newscast to report that the woman shot by the ICE officer in Minneapolis was in fact obstructing ICE by blocking traffic pic.twitter.com/qQCjO5cShE — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) January 8, 2026 NBC NGHTLY NEWS 1/7/25 6:35 PM TOM LLAMAS: We want to now take a closer look at the videos we just saw of the shooting incident. And joining us to highlight key points investigators will be looking at is NBC's Tom Winter. He covers law enforcement for us. So Tom, we’re going to start the video here. We’re going to stop it quickly because there's stuff we are learning from the get go. Again, the police chief saying this vehicle was blocking the federal agents right there. TOM WINTER: That’s right, Tom. And a big caveat: we don't know what happened before this. But they’re definitely going to look at the fact, this is an unmarked vehicle. But the lights are on, these are clearly members of law enforcement. So that's at least known to this driver. LLAMAS: Let’s play the video because something happens right here. Those officers approach the vehicle. They try to open the door. Let’s stop it here. How will this help the investigators? WINTER: Whatever is said here, what these officers say, if the driver said anything or not, could really help them understand whether or not they thought there was some sort of an imminent threat. Was this person trying to listen to them? Were they scared? Was this gonna be a problem? LLAMAS: And then, of course, what the driver does next. Let’s play that video. Trying to leave there. One of the officers felt like they were forced to fire, and they do. We want to show another angle- a reverse angle. The same incident here. We will freeze it. This is that same angle here. And what does this show us Tom? WINTER: Well, this appears to show an officer right in front of the vehicle. That, in between the way the vehicle was moving and the timeline, how was the officer responding in that split second going to be critical for investigators. LLAMAS: Finally one more piece of evidence we want to talk about here. And it's the bullet hole in the front of the windshield. What will this tell investigators? WINTER: Well, you look this: you look at ballistics, you look at witness statements, you look at other video- all going to be a part of this investigation but Tom, it’s going to take some time. LLAMAS: All right. Tom Winter for us. Tom, we thank you for that. The natural media impulse is to report the story in a light most favorable to narrative which, in this case, means casting law enforcement in the worst light. That’s not what NBC does here. This is the only mention on the legacy evening news of the fact that the person who was shot was in the process of actively obstructing law enforcement from performing their duties- the law enforcement in this instance being ICE. Viewers got a dose of context and nuance that they do not normally get. We often point out the bad in the media. Here, we happily point out the good.  

Scott Jennings: Fatal Minneapolis ICE Shooting Is the Result of a Year of Dangerous Democrat Rhetoric

Credit: Jaimie Michaels/Flickr Something very sinister is happening at the supposed happiest place on Earth. A dead body was just discovered at Disney World and it’s the sixth one in just three months.…

Screencap of YouTube video. It has been a year since the wildfires in southern California and the almost total lack of rebuilding is not the only related scandal. Back in July, an independent journalist…

Foreign Affairs Frontline Okinawa The governor of the prefecture talks to The American Conservative about the first of Japan’s island groupings that would be drawn into fighting over Taiwan. On November 7, 2025, Japanese Prime Minister Takaichi Sanae uttered a few sentences during a debate on the floor of the parliament in Tokyo. That short set of phrases, regarding contingencies surrounding Taiwan and the possible effects those could have on Japan’s national security, set off a firestorm. Because Takaichi had uttered the words “sonritsu kiki jittai” (state of existential crisis [for Japan])—the magic words that, according to a 2015 legal framework, allow Japan’s Self-Defense Forces to be activated as part of collective self-defense—critics and pundits accused her of shifting Japan, suddenly, onto a war footing. The Chinese media was filled with over-the-top imagery and hyperbolic verbiage about a recrudescence of “Japanese militarism.” Xue Jian, the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) consul general in Osaka, went on a personal charm offensive in reaction to Takaichi’s comments: He threatened to behead her. Outrage aside, Takaichi’s comments were speculative, but hardly unfounded. War is in the air out here in East Asia. Invasion, blockade, communication blackouts, and a variety of other scenarios have been floated again and again in media outlets worldwide as tensions among Taiwan, the People’s Republic of China, Japan, the United States, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and other regional actors escalate.  The old order is fading; a new one, unformed, is taking its place. Who will control the South and East China Seas for the rest of the 21st century? As this question comes to a crisis, so too does the threat of all-out war loom ever larger. Missing from the debates and prognostications about Taiwan and regional security, however, is the group of islands closest to the main island of Taiwan. At just 60 nautical miles off Taiwan’s northeast coast, Yonaguni, the southwesternmost of the Okinawa islands, is much closer to Taipei than to Tokyo. Follow the string of islets further northeast, and you pass Ishigaki and Miyako until you reach Okinawa’s main island. Also in the mix are the Senkakus, a small outcropping of rocks incorporated into Ishigaki City to which the Chinese provocatively sent vessels nearly every day of 2025. In the event of a “Taiwan contingency” between Taiwan and mainland China, Okinawa Prefecture will almost certainly be the first foreign territory to be drawn into the fighting. Yet almost nobody is asking Okinawans what they think about it. On Christmas morning, 2025, we traveled to the city of Naha, Okinawa’s prefectural capital, to meet with the governor of Okinawa, Tamaki Denny. Ringed by American bases, Naha and Okinawa more broadly are living testimonies to the battles fought between American and Japanese forces on these islands more than 80 years ago. But Okinawa is, and long has been, on the frontlines of a new war, a century-long conflict between the rising power of China and the waning American empire. We asked Governor Tamaki what Okinawa was doing to prepare for a Taiwan contingency, and how Okinawa, long known as the independent kingdom of the Ryukyus, fits into Tokyo’s nationalist model today. We open by asking about Takaichi’s comments and how Tamaki, who was reelected as governor in 2022, understands those comments and their effects as the governor of Okinawa. Tamaki: The Asia-Pacific is in a state of military tension over national security issues. At the same time, however, the United States, Japan, and the People’s Republic of China rely on one another economically. Therefore, the current situation has become more complex. But this is precisely why the government must engage in level-headed, peaceful diplomacy in order to build up a relationship of mutual trust and work together, in good faith, toward a resolution. Not only for Okinawa, but also for our country of Japan as a whole, the peace and stability of the Asia-Pacific region, including the Taiwan Strait, are of great importance. Also, as it is my responsibility, as Okinawa’s governor, to protect the lives and property of the people of the Prefecture of Okinawa, I strongly believe that a Taiwan contingency should be avoided. I have long been of the position that we must all refrain from moving in that direction, and have been asking the Japanese government to act accordingly. Have you had any direct discussions with anyone from the American bases on Okinawa about a potential Taiwan contingency? No, not about a Taiwan contingency in particular, but when I have the opportunity to speak with base-related parties either in public settings or informally, I strive to convey that 80 years ago, during the war, Okinawa experienced unimaginable suffering, and that we must never allow Okinawa to meet the same fate ever again. It is from this position that I encourage the construction of peaceful relationships regarding Taiwan. My stance is to ask, continuously, that the American military remain in close dialogue with the Japanese government and seek a peaceful resolution to Taiwan-related issues. Some Americans worry that warmongers in Washington are trying to use the Taiwan situation to start a war. I think there must never be the creation of situations designed to lead to war. So, for instance, when the U.S. military and the Japan Self-Defense Forces do joint training exercises, this could have an undue influence on the wider region. Training at an elevated level could send the wrong message, which must be avoided. Training must be just that, only training, and it must be made clear that joint exercises are not being carried out in anticipation of certain developments or specific situations. Do the people of Okinawa also feel the heightened tensions over Taiwan? Yes, in particular, the people of the Sakishima and Miyakojima islands are geographically very near Taiwan and the Chinese mainland, and so are very highly attuned to what is being reported in the news. At the same time, the Japan Coast Guard is operating with calm and resolute professionalism on a regular basis around the Senkaku Islands, protecting the national borders in that area. In that sense, we are not aware of any particular crisis situation existing around the Senkakus. The situation in and around the Senkakus is stable and is being kept so. This is something that should also be conveyed to a wider public. In early December, the People’s Liberation Army Navy carrier Liaoning transited the Miyako Strait. On two occasions, Chinese J-15 fighters accompanying the carrier locked radar on Japanese F-15 fighters patrolling the area. This would seem to be a destabilizing move by the Chinese. We in Okinawa Prefecture do not get any information other than what is reported in the news. We attempted to confirm with the Ministry of Defense regarding the carrier and radar lock incidents, but were unable to obtain any information beyond what is in the press. In that sense, I am not in a position to comment on specifics. However, the radar lock incident is being described by both the Japanese government and the Chinese government in a one-sided way, with each side asserting only its own viewpoints based on its subjective understanding of events. There must be more, and more robust, dialogue along various channels so that mutual understanding can be built up and unexpected incidents prevented. Some are speaking of a heightened information warfare posture by the PRC, while others dismiss such concerns. We are aware that, regarding the current round of events, at the level of public discourse, there are many different views in the Chinese media about Okinawa. There will be a variety of aims behind these pronouncements, depending on the pundit or media company. We are continuing to gather information from various media outlets and other sources and will determine carefully what is being said. But our aim is not to clarify the motivations that might lie behind those pronouncements, but rather to understand what kinds of things are being said. However, we in Okinawa Prefecture are not going to change our long-standing positions or take any intentional actions based on what is being discussed in the Chinese media. Some people in Okinawa with whom we have spoken say that they want the U.S. bases out of Okinawa altogether. Others say they want Okinawa to bear less of the overall burden of having U.S. bases in Japan. In any event, though, it would seem that the voices of the people of Okinawa are not reaching the central government in Tokyo. There is a variety of views among the people of Okinawa Prefecture about the American bases. The reality is that people who live in the central area of Okinawa island, especially near Futenma [Marine Air Corps Station Futenma] and Kadena [Kadena Air Base], have a different daily experience—for example with the loud noises produced during take-off and landing of aircraft and the pollution of surrounding waters by PFAS released from bases—than do people who live farther away from the bases. Speaking of Okinawa Prefecture as a whole, I believe that people here wonder why the U.S. bases should be so lopsidedly concentrated in our prefecture, regardless of whether people have a direct or indirect experience of having the bases here. [Okinawa Prefecture hosts some 70 percent of U.S. bases in Japan, despite having less than one percent of Japan’s total population.] I accept the fact of the U.S.–Japan Alliance and support that alliance. It is in that sense that I say that the U.S.–Japan Alliance is for Japan as a whole to consider, and is not something that Okinawa Prefecture alone should undertake. The U.S.–Japan Alliance is between Japan as a whole and America as a whole. So, the people of Japan, all the people in the country, should be the ones thinking about the alliance and how it should work. But it is hard to convey to people outside of Okinawa Prefecture the difficulties of dealing with base noise and base-produced pollution, things with which we deal here on a daily basis, precisely because most people outside of Okinawa do not have to think about these things day in and day out. When I give speeches in cities and at universities and so forth in other prefectures outside of Okinawa, I stress that the U.S.–Japan security arrangement is not a burden that Okinawans alone should bear, but is something for everyone in Japan to consider. My hope is that media outlets nationwide will hear what I am saying and help spread the message. I invite those who hear my words to consider how they would approach the issue of U.S. bases if there was a giant U.S. base right next door to their home, with fighter jets taking off and landing at all hours, or if the military training exercises being carried out in conjunction with U.S. bases nearby were becoming more and more intense and thereby ratcheting up tensions in the surrounding Asian region. My belief is that the Japanese government should endeavor to provide information to the Japanese public about the U.S.–Japan security arrangement, letting everyone know that Japan’s peace rests on the ongoing efforts of those associated with the alliance. This will lead to better communication with people in other countries, too, helping to convey abroad that we in Japan are not preparing for war. The government must make a concerted effort to let people inside and outside Japan realize that the Japanese government is endeavoring for peace, and is not undertaking exercises and so forth in preparation for war. The Cold War seems to have ended everywhere but in Okinawa. The National Security Strategy document recently released by the Trump Administration focuses on the Western Hemisphere. Could this be a chance for Okinawa to finally effect the rearrangement of the U.S. base footprint in the prefecture? We are continuously asking both the Japanese and American governments to relocate US bases away from the densely populated southern and central parts of Okinawa, in accordance with the SACO [Special Action Committee on Okinawa] agreement. I think this broader agreement should be implemented, which includes base realignment beyond moving just the Futenma and Henoko bases. [The SACO agreement was made in late 1995 after three American servicemen raped a young girl on Okinawa, prompting outrage from local citizens. Construction is currently underway for the relocation of Marine Air Corps Station Futenma to a new site in Henoko Bay, Nago City, but local residents are roundly opposed to this plan.] It was just in the Okinawa papers today that the U.S. Marine Corps had canceled its plans to rearrange its forces on Okinawa. The Camp Blaz Marine Corps Base on Guam was constructed using funds from Japan. The U.S. and Japan agreed that 9,000 Marines would be transferred from Okinawa to Guam, Hawaii, Australia, or Honshu. The funding for Camp Blaz was disbursed from the Japanese side on the understanding that this transfer would take place. I think the realignment of bases must continue on the basis of the SACO agreement and other agreements, not only to reduce the burden borne by the people of Okinawa, but also in order to send a message to the surrounding Asian region that we in Okinawa are in no way hoping to take part in a war. Washington seems to be preparing to turn Taiwan and surrounding areas into the next Ukraine, starting and prolonging a war of attrition. Many American conservatives are resolutely against this, but there remains much work to do to bring anti-war citizens together across national borders. Do you have anything you would like to say directly to American conservatives in order to help avoid a repeat of the tragedy of Ukraine? I believe that the significance of the U.S.–Japan alliance in preserving security has been made clear in this region both during and after the Cold War. I think that the United States should work ever more diligently to build up diplomatic relations at a person-to-person and economic level in order to maintain the security preservation aspect of its presence in Asia as well as to show that war can and will be avoided. Japan, for its part, should continuously remind the U.S. that person-to-person diplomacy is the best kind [of state-to-state interaction]. The reason is simple. The closest country to the Asian continent is not America, but Japan. When Japan thinks about how best to make its position in the Asian region unambivalent, Japan should reflect on its experiences with war and work with the United States to make it known that those experiences should not and must not ever be repeated, that there is no place for ever creating the conditions for such experiences to be revisited. I think from a conservative position, countries should interact with one another on a basis of equality, and governments should not shed the blood of their own people, should never send their people out to be sacrificed for the state. I feel that conservatives in the United States would be open to this way of thinking. At the same time, that the United States should also commit to helping Asia as a whole build up sound relationships seems to me an idea that would be met with wide agreement with most people in America. It’s a conscientious position that most people will understand, I believe. Prime Minister Takaichi’s comments about a Taiwan contingency have been covered extensively in the foreign media. However, almost all overseas media reports have focused on political developments on Honshu, and have paid almost no attention to what people in Okinawa think about the prime minister’s comments. There are many different views about Ryukyuan independence and Ryukyuan ethnic nationality. However, in the prefectural government of Okinawa we have never had a discussion about the definition of Ryukyuan ethnic nationality or Ryukyuan independence. As for me personally, I identify more closely as a Uchinanchuan, a resident of the prefecture of Okinawa, than as a Japanese person. [Uchinanchu is a term used by Okinawans to refer to themselves as a cultural and ethnic group distinct from the Yamato people in the main Japanese islands.] The nature, culture, history, traditions, and human feelings of Okinawa—these are, for me, the most important elements of my identity. In a general, comprehensive sense, the most important task facing us in the Okinawa government is how to have Okinawa, the prefecture inside of Japan that is southernmost, comprising outlying islands, and geographically closest to the Asian mainland, make a significant contribution to the national interest of Japan. In the main islands of Japan now, there are big questions about how to handle foreign immigrants. We have many people from overseas in Okinawa too, people learning skills at Japanese companies, but I am unaware of any problems that they are causing. If so, Okinawa can build a supportive, thriving community where foreigners in Japan learning job skills can live and work in peace. As Japan’s society ages and fewer and fewer children are being born, the question of welcoming immigrants is coming more and more to the fore, but Okinawa can be the most suitable place where communities of foreigners can be formed, communities that are open to interaction with surrounding Japanese communities. Okinawa Prefecture can be a place where the prosperity of Japan and the effective employment of workers can be put into practice. Also, because people from surrounding countries are in Okinawa working and learning, it becomes known throughout the region that Okinawa is not an enemy, and thus regional diplomacy, good relations with surrounding countries, can be effected. This is our abiding diplomatic role as Okinawans. We must be grateful to those who have come here to work, and should be as hospitable as we possibly can be in welcoming them. This is one obvious way to overcome feelings of hostility and show that we in Okinawa are not anyone’s enemy. This kind of inclusion and tolerance have been built up in Japanese culture over the centuries. The Japanese people remain fully capable of putting these traits into action in interacting with people from other countries. Is the spirit of hospitality you mention not at odds with the U.S. bases on Okinawa, which are here in preparation for war? Militarily speaking, in order to balance out military power one side must constantly strive to develop and obtain that which the other side does not possess, while also rushing to catch up by getting what the other side already has. This is simply the nature of militaries. But one way of bringing peace to a region is by inviting a counterpart to think carefully about what would happen if a certain implement were to be deployed. Helping one another see things from various standpoints is a multifaceted approach that goes beyond the binary competition model I just described.… Japan should adopt an ASEAN model and deal, not one-on-one with South Korea, or China, or other states with which our relations are perhaps not now as good as they could be, but rather as part of a regional community of nations. Japan should work towards this communal, regional engagement. I would ask that the United States not become unnecessarily implicated in things such as the independence of Taiwan or possible Taiwan contingencies. Maintain the One China Policy, leave Chinese affairs to China, and, as a result, avoid having to build up restraint against China needlessly, provoking a situation where no need to do so exists. To lead with the military leaves no choice but for power to meet power in a clash. This is not at all conducive to citizens’ living in safety and peace. We all know that what results from this kind of power-on-power clashing is what we have seen in Ukraine and Gaza and elsewhere. This is one reality, but my unswerving position is that we must bring another, better reality to bear on this kind of thinking. The post Frontline Okinawa appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs After Venezuela, Realism and Restraint Part Ways  The intervention this weekend has met divergent reactions on the American right. The reaction to the U.S. raid in Venezuela this weekend has highlighted a divide on the American right between two groups that normally seem united: realists and restrainers. The former eschew global ideological crusades and believe the U.S. should exert power abroad only to advance the national interest. The latter advocate restraint in U.S. foreign policy and oppose military intervention except as a last resort. No Americans died in the operation, which resulted in the capture of the socialist strongman Nicolas Maduro and in the deaths of around 75 people, according to U.S. government estimates. White House officials said the raid was justified to gain access to Venezuela’s oil, remove an illegitimate leader with ties to “narco-terrorism,” and rob U.S. adversaries of a foothold in the region. Hours after the raid, President Donald Trump said the U.S. would “run” Venezuela “until such time as we can do a safe, proper, and judicious transition.”  Conservative realists are broadly supportive, or at least tolerant, of the intervention. Conservative restrainers are not—and many are profoundly anxious about what it portends for the remaining three years of Trump’s presidency. Of course, most conservative restrainers are themselves avowed realists. But they diverge, at this moment, from conservative realists less enamored with restraint. The intervention has exposed ideological and perhaps temperamental differences between the two camps and forced a reckoning over what conservative foreign policy should look like in the dawning era of multipolarity. The Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a Washington think tank, has become the main hub for restrainers since its founding in 2019. An official statement by Quincy published Saturday reflects the unequivocal opposition of many conservative restrainers to Trump’s actions. “The Trump administration’s attack on Venezuela runs counter to everything that we seek to achieve,” the statement says. It continues:  Military force is justified only in response to a clear, credible, and imminent threat to the security of the United States or its treaty allies. Venezuela, whatever its internal dysfunctions or connections to the international drug trade, does not pose such a threat. Using force absent that standard is not defense; it is aggression. It substitutes coercion for diplomacy and power for principle. Conservative realists whom I reached out to say that restrainers are exaggerating the downsides of this weekend’s military action. Daniel McCarthy—the editor of Modern Age and a board member at The American Conservative—told me that Trump’s Venezuela operation “is America First, in that it’s undertaken in America’s regional interests, not in the name of abstract ideology or foreign interests.” McCarthy observed that the operation, which lasted just two and a half hours, was limited compared to previous U.S. interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Panama, and even Grenada, and thus “restrained” in that sense. “Small-scale, short-term interventions with limited goals achievable by realistic means are ideologically unacceptable to the pure non-interventionist, but they don’t trouble a realist too much, even a realist devoted to restraint,” McCarthy said. John Hulsman, a conservative realist and geopolitical risk consultant, takes a similar view. While realists are “cautious about the use of force,” Hulsman told me, they “are not philosophically opposed to it in the way many restrainers are.” A fierce critic of neoconservatives, Hulsman said he supports military action to advance America’s “primary interests” but otherwise sides with restrainers. In Hulsman’s view, the operation in Venezuela advanced core U.S. interests by ousting from America’s sphere of influence a “pernicious actor” who exacerbated immigration crises, participated in narco-terrorism, and “was becoming a client of peer superpower competitor China and great power Russia.” Conservative restrainers disagree that the operation achieved the goals set forth by the White House. Since August, the administration has described an escalating military campaign against Venezuela as a counter-narcotics operation intended to prevent overdose fatalities in America. The raid this weekend was itself depicted as a “law enforcement” action to arrest Maduro for drug crimes. Yet the main drug that kills Americans is the synthetic opioid fentanyl, which comes mostly from Mexico, not Venezuela. The oil justification, which the Trump administration has emphasized in recent days, has also come under scrutiny by conservative restrainers. “I’m not even really sure it’s a war for oil as much as it’s a simulated war for oil,” said Curt Mills, the executive director of The American Conservative, during a discussion hosted by the Quincy Institute. While Venezuela has the world’s largest proven oil reserves, it lacks the infrastructure to produce it at scale. “There’s no real plan to get this stuff online,” Mills said. Mills also questioned whether militarism in Latin America would help Washington compete with other great powers, and he laid out one reason to worry it would do the opposite. “If you’re sitting in Mexico City or Brasília today, does this make you more likely to build up a medium-term strategy of engaging more with the United States out of fear, or with Beijing out of pragmatism?” Mills asked. “And I think the answer is clearly the latter.” Another leading conservative restrainer told me the Venezuela raid had created a “fracture” on the right, and that some antiwar conservatives were trying to rationalize the intervention even though it violated “core principles of restraint.” In a podcast conversation with me this week, Kelley Vlahos, a senior advisor for the Quincy Institute and contributing editor to The American Conservative, said the U.S. had violated Venezuela’s sovereignty by invading its territory and capturing its leader. She also cautioned against assuming the operation was “one and done.” Military intervention, she observed, often leads to unpredictable consequences and fails to solve the problems that ostensibly motivated it. And even if Trump doesn’t intervene again in Venezuela, that doesn’t mean the intervention was a one-off.  Conservative restrainers like Vlahos and Mills are worried the raid in Venezuela augurs a new, more militaristic phase of the Trump era. The president himself, seeming to ride high after the successful operation, raised the prospect of military action against Colombia, Greenland, Mexico, and Iran, and he said that Cuba was “ready to fall.” Early in his second term, Trump threatened to annex Canada and “take back” the Panama Canal, and in 2025 he bombed Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. “People voted for America First, but they didn’t necessarily vote for American empire,” Vlahos said. “And I honestly think, after what I saw this weekend, that the Trump administration is more interested in creating an American empire with him at the top as our first American emperor.” Several prominent conservative influencers do seem to be in an imperial mood. Even self-styled anti-interventionists were pleased that this weekend’s operation was grounded in American interests, rather than international law, human rights, or democracy promotion. “I’m as reflexively non-interventionist as anyone can possibly be, but Venezuela appears to be a resounding victory and one of the most brilliant military operations in American history,” Matt Walsh of the Daily Wire wrote on X Sunday. “As an unapologetic American Chauvinist, I want America to rule over this hemisphere and exert its power for the good of our people.” Whether the Trump administration can go down that path may depend on the support of an American public that seems skeptical of military action in the Western Hemisphere. Despite the tactical success of this weekend’s dramatic operation, a rally-around-the-flag effect hasn’t materialized. Only a third of Americans support the operation, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll. And while 65 percent of Republicans support it, that’s around twenty points lower than the number who approve of Trump. Moreover, a majority of Republicans—54 percent—said they were worried “the U.S. will get too involved in Venezuela.” Trump distinguished himself in the 2016 presidential campaign by lambasting neoconservatives and pledging to avoid wars that don’t serve the national interest. One decade later, Trump’s foreign policy program may depend on his ability to convince Americans that the national interest would be served by more wars. The post After Venezuela, Realism and Restraint Part Ways  appeared first on The American Conservative.