newlogo.jpg
July 25, 2003
Tora Tora Tora

The Japanese Army, er, Self Defense Force, is heading to Iraq. Let's hope it works out better than it did with that Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere thing:

Japan Votes to Send Troops to Iraq

TOKYO - Lawmakers voted Friday to send Japanese forces to Iraq to help with reconstruction, despite delaying tactics by the opposition that deteriorated into a wild shoving match.

The passage of the bill was a victory for Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, who campaigned hard to send peacekeeping troops overseas as he seeks to raise Japan's profile on the world stage.

He also aims to distance his administration from the "checkbook diplomacy" for which Japan, the world's second-richest nation, was criticized during the 1991 Gulf War.

Opposition parties criticized the legislation, saying such peacekeeping missions could violate Japan's pacifist constitution and put troops in the line of enemy fire.

Note the Bill Thomas-like legislative tactics:

During the committee meeting, outraged opposition legislators shouted and tried to push their way through a ring of ruling party lawmakers to get at the committee chairman, who had cut short the debate. The chairman called a vote amid the grappling and tackling.

Yep. As I observed here, the LDP and the GOP sure are starting to look a lot alike.

Posted by billmon at July 25, 2003 02:04 PM
Comments

This move can bring down the Japanese gov't.

Why? If the SDF take any casualties from combat, it will cause a massive uproar at home. Lets not forget they are being tossed into the middle of the Iraqi summer with acclimation - this is going to be very tough on them.

But I'm wondering what kind of pressure did Shrubco put on Japan to pull this illegal stunt?

Ohh speaking of stupidity here's something:
Spanish troops&Cross

Posted by: Rodger at July 25, 2003 02:19 PM

why does it seem there is something they aren't telling us?

Posted by: Kristen at July 25, 2003 02:49 PM

It's not as though Japan's constitution is particularly ambiguous w/r/t war:
Chapter II Renunciation of War

Article 9

(1) Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.

(2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of aggression of the state will not be recognized.


So this must not be a war. I don't even think it's a "police action," but I don't know whether we made up that definition or the UN did.

How does one ask a foreign power to sign on to these hostilities? Or maybe we should start thinking of them as festivities; the administration told us months ago that this whole thing was all over but the shouting.

Is the US throwing a very-far-from-our-own-backyard BBQ? A (Texas) tea party? A prayer meeting?

I can grasp how our wacky fellow Americans might fall for this invitation to a quagmire; I fail completely to grasp how the Japanese people might.

Posted by: Matt Davis at July 25, 2003 02:57 PM

This doesn't make any sense to me. I lived in Japan for a year and a half (including during the Gulf War), which makes me very hesitant to say anything about Japanese politics (the more I learned, the more confused I got). But if Koizumi wanted to get brownie points for Japan, he should have joined the "coalition of the willing" at the beginning to the extent the constitution and public opinion allowed (e.g., by sending the kind of supporting non-combat personnel Japan sent in 1991). Now, he's going to get very little credit from the U.S. and U.K. and derision from other industrial powers.

He's almost guaranteed to have Japanese killed, which might have been tolerable in a "real" war that was justified by Saddam's (supposed) WMD--the Japanese public did manage to handle Japanese casualties when the SDF were sent to handle peacekeeping in Cambodia. But there will be little public tolerance for Japanese deaths, I would imagine, at a time when even Americans and Britons are voicing considerable doubt in their governments' honesty and the value of the entire mission.

Posted by: Publius at July 25, 2003 03:12 PM

And before the right starts to crow about this great new edition to their so-called coalition in Iraq, a graf further down in the AP story puts things into a little context:

"Military planners are reportedly considering up to 1,000 combat engineers and other troops for transport and construction duties in Iraq."

Undoubtedly, such a force will be very helpful. God knows we need all the help we can get to put the pieces back together in Iraq. But one thousand troops from a major ally like Japan only underscores how exposed we are in our, yes, largely unilateral imperial experiment. Just ask our guys in the 3rd ID - our problems over there require numbers division strength, numbers that we no longer have available and foreign nations are understandably uncertain about committing.
Bush, er, diplomacy once again yields only bitter fruit.


Posted by: Simplicissimus at July 25, 2003 03:51 PM

One other thing.

The U.S. gov't has not declared the war over.

So technically we are still at war with Iraq and as such the Japanese gov't are sending their forces into a country that currently is at war the U.S.

Posted by: Rodger at July 25, 2003 04:17 PM

It's not as though Japan's constitution is particularly ambiguous w/r/t war:

In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained.

Well, considering that Japan has something like the 3rd or 4th largest Navy in the world, and a respectable sized "army," you'd have to say they'be been dancing around that particular clause for a long time.

Posted by: Billmon at July 25, 2003 04:23 PM

Coincidence?

July 25, 2003 | TOKYO (AP) --

Suicides in Japan linked to job losses and bankruptcies hit a record high last year, police said Friday.

Kinda in bad taste. Sorry.

Posted by: aw at July 25, 2003 05:09 PM

Well, considering that Japan has something like the 3rd or 4th largest Navy in the world, and a respectable sized "army," you'd have to say they'be been dancing around that particular clause for a long time.

Oh, I'm sure they weren't planning to use that stuff for war, Billmon. Again, think of all the festive uses of all those boats and guns.

Posted by: Matt Davis at July 25, 2003 05:34 PM

I just found this picture from the Diet session today. Hoo, baby, they really know how to debate in Japanese politics...

Posted by: Scott at July 25, 2003 06:02 PM

RE: The LDP's motivation. This is just speculation, but. . Japan depends on Middle East oil. Neocon inspired Shrub&co has demonstrated a willingness to use any lever to get their way - plus, they have demonstrated a ruthless will to use military power, abrogate treaties and flip the bird to world opinion. A little sucking up might seem like a good idea to the party bosses. Too bad they don't realize that gratitude is not in the neocon lexicon.

Posted by: at July 25, 2003 06:08 PM

One other thing.

The U.S. gov't has not declared the war over.

Hell, the U.S. gov't has not declared war.

Posted by: Steve Jones at July 25, 2003 09:01 PM

Steve,

You nailed it.

Posted by: Rodger at July 26, 2003 02:04 AM

Let's see, the US (during the Clinton administration) transformed NATO from a defensive operation to an offensive one. Now the Shrub administration wants to use Japanese soldiers for purposes other than self-defense. What comes next?

Posted by: raj at July 26, 2003 02:06 AM

As might be imagined, there are 2 divides in Japan w/r/t its past. The largest group is of course the apathetic center. Then there's the jingoistic right wing, who are very strident about eg. getting Russia to hand over the Kuriles they stole at the end of WW2. Between the two is the intellectual Left, who don't forgive the Right for its ultranationalistic past that nearly destroyed the nation in WW2.

The bureaucracy has always been conservative right-wing, as the Occupation left it in place during the reconstruction. It's always trying to push the Left's buttons w/r/t military involvement missions, which of course the Left fights with all emotion possible.

This is very serious stuff to the people who care, which tends to drive the center into further apathy.

Posted by: Troy at July 26, 2003 03:47 AM

I believe the US had some allies involved in Vietnam in the initial phases.

A guy came back and told me that the Turkish troops were really scary for instance. However, the support faded as the war ground on and on.

So, as international troops arrive, who are support forces, not front-line fighting troops, they do face a lower risk of casualties but if they start taking them, they will leave.

And the kind of troops that can't fight and defend themselves are not going to be able to relieve the ones who can.

Posted by: heavenhelpus at July 26, 2003 05:42 PM