US Dominance in the Far East?

Open Email to:
Rep. Ed Royce, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. 
Sen. Robert Menendez, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

Dear Rep. Royce and Sen. Menendez,
The Washington Times has the following headline: "Ominous warning: Admiral concedes U.S. losing dominance to China". The article goes on to say that Navy Adm. Samuel J. Locklear III said this week that U.S. dominance has weakened in the shadow of a more aggressive China. He said that. "Our historic dominance that most of us in this room have enjoyed is diminishing, no question”.
Let's look at the word "dominance". It means to hold a position of superior power over another individual or group. That power realistically means, "You do as I say or there will be consequences". Notice that this is also the definition of a bully. Adm. Locklear did not say we are losing "respect". He said we are losing "dominance", with the power to order other countries what they must do.
The advantages to a dominant person or group is to reap some sort of benefit. For example, the traditional bully walks away with the victim's lunch money. There is also the aspect of a dominant person or group using the guise of "protection", which is a traditional Mafia technique. It says that "if you pay me, I will see that no harm comes to you". The implication is also that "if you do not pay me, I will personally arranged to have my friends inflict damage on you".
Then, the question is whether we want to have dominance in the Far East? Why should we be telling Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Thailand, et al. what they must do? We have nothing to gain, other than a feeling of power. Conversely, they have something to gain in being victims; essentially military protection, trade benefits, and a few other things. In effect, it is a distorted operation of the "bully principle", wherein the bully only has expense, while the victims have all the gains.
If you want to look at it from a fairness point of view, why should a foreign and remote entity have control over another group, which can adequately take care of itself. The dominance aspect is only another ramification of British imperialism, which the world decided some years ago was inappropriate and basically led to the dissolution of the British Empire. On the same basis, the United States must give up its dominance in the Far East.
This is not to say that we should not be cooperative with the previous "victims", but we must give up our position to protect them and give them special trade rights, which work to our disadvantage. We can't afford otherwise. If we do this, we reduce our foreign expenses by requiring the "victims" to pay their own way and at least make a minor dent in our unbalanced federal budget.
China may be seeking to obtain dominance in its region and subsequently extract the benefits of the traditional bully, but there is no reason to believe that the other Far East countries must be willing to submit. They each and collectively have the possibility of military action against a developing Chinese bully, without US help. The US has standing armies in Japan, as a remnant of the Second World War, and in Korea, as a remnant of the Korean War. Those military people should been removed long ago. Their presence to deter the rise of a new militant Japan or a stronger North Korea has long been obsolete. Removal now is somewhat more conjectural, since it may give the Chinese a further incentive to develop dominance and extract the usual bully benefits. The solution probably is to leave US military personnel there for the time being, but to slowly pass military responsibility to the host countries, which would allow continuing US withdrawal.