Yet the administration must guard against allowing a diplomatic irritation to escalate into a major crisis with the most important U.S. ally in Asia. Though he has catered to Okinawans who oppose the U.S. military presence, and to nationalists calling for a more equal U.S.-Japanese security relationship, Mr. Hatoyama so far appears committed to the alliance.

I’m still educating myself on policy vis a vis Japan in advance of my trip, so my opinions are relatively uninformed.  But, on the surface, this approach does seem to contradict Obama’s lighter touch on international relations.  It would be ironic if we are, according to Secretary Clinton, “keeping the door open” with respect to talks with Iran, which generating new friction with our long time friends in Japan.

In the end, as we know, the DPJ prevail and took the majority for the first time in many decades.  Interestingly, the new Hatoyama administration in Tokyo is being criticized for being insufficiently “Obama-esque.”  A Wall Street Journal op ed by Ian Bremmer and Nouriel Roubini on December 30th advanced this view, saying that Hatoyama is too ideological and should be more pragmatic, as Obama is.  They point out that, unlike Obama, Hatoyama is unwilling to incur the rath of his own supporters. They say, “[T]he risk remains that he will try to keep too many of his campaign promises, deepening Japan’s debt without actually spurring growth.”

Today, a blog post on Observing Japan offers a rebuttal, pointing out that Hatoyama faces big challenges and doesn’t have the luxury to limit his ambitions.  I found the post persuasive and would even add that, to the extent Obama has disappointed his supporters, it has been mostly because of the need to compromise with some powerful adversaries, both within and outside his party.  It’s what he’s had to do to get things done.