PDA

View Full Version : Japan may delay Iraq force



Ironduke
22 Aug 03,, 07:42
Japan may delay Iraq force

The deployment of Japanese troops in Iraq may be postponed, following the recent bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad.
Last month the Japanese parliament approved plans to despatch up to 1,000 personnel to help with post-war reconstruction in Iraq, in what would be the largest deployment of Japanese troops overseas since WWII.

But Defence Agency chief Shigeru Ishiba warned that it might not be possible to send troops to Iraq this year, given the dangerous security situation in the country.

"If you look at the current situation, common sense says we cannot send them right away," Mr Ishiba said late on Wednesday.

Japan is not alone in having doubts as to whether to go ahead with its peacekeeping mission to Baghdad.

Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra said on Wednesday he might cancel plans to send 400 Thai troops in the wake of Tuesday's bomb attack.

Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has been determined to keep a promise to the United States to participate in Iraq's reconstruction.

The deployment of an expected 1,000 Japanese troops had been widely expected to take place as early as November. The reconnaissance mission had been expected to start this month.

Pacifists' concerns

But many Japanese voters were opposed to the planned intervention, even before the bomb attack on the UN headquarters in Baghdad.

Mr Koizumi has repeatedly pledged that troops would only be sent to "non-war zones", but Tuesday's truck bomb attack, which killed the UN envoy to Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello, and 23 others, has highlighted the danger to foreign personnel in the country, even those in strictly non-combat roles.

Some members of the electorate are not only concerned both about Japanese casualties, but also about the possibility of the troops getting drawn into a combat role if fighting continues.

Japan's strictly pacifist constitution prohibits troops from being used for purposes other than defence. Japanese soldiers have not fired a shot in combat since 1945.

Small military contingents have been sent to take part in several UN peacekeeping operations, most recently in East Timor, but only one serviceman died on these missions, and that was from a heart attack.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3169401.stm

ChrisF202
22 Aug 03,, 14:57
Are the 1,000 *** troops going to be combat or support troops?

Stinger
22 Aug 03,, 15:22
They can't send TROOPS because they might get shot at? What the fuck, I didn't think we pussy whipped them that bad!

ChrisF202
22 Aug 03,, 16:06
apparently we did 8)

bigross86
23 Aug 03,, 18:55
Some dudes named Little Boy and Fat Man might have something to do with that...

Ray
12 Sep 03,, 08:58
MacArthur died in vain!:brick

TopHatter
12 Sep 03,, 16:36
I think that they are concerned about sending troops to combat areas when Japan's constitution specifically forbids combat unless in defence of Japan. I can't say I blame them for being reluctant. It's their law and they are following their law. There is no reason IMHO to be critical of them for that, and don't forget, they at least pledged to send help in the reconstruction of Iraq. They are staunch US ally and should be treated with respect. They may not have come clean on their role in WWII, but they are trying to prevent ANYTHING like that from happening again. They know how raw the wounds still are from the thought of "Japanese soldiers in combat", especially far away from Japan.

Ray
04 Oct 03,, 14:20
I don't think that China or for that matter any East Asian countries will be overjoyed at Japan's slowing moving towards militarism. It may still be far from the Shinto variety, but then it will ring alarm bells.

It would not matter whether it is combat, combat suport or merely support troops.

Leader
06 Oct 03,, 22:41
Originally posted by TopHatter
I think that they are concerned about sending troops to combat areas when Japan's constitution specifically forbids combat unless in defence of Japan.

I was under the impression that they had just changed or amended that law.

Bill
07 Oct 03,, 04:22
IF they send troops at all they are a better ally than i would have thought.

There is really little at all in it for them.

Leader
07 Oct 03,, 15:45
Originally posted by M21Sniper
IF they send troops at all they are a better ally than i would have thought.

There is really little at all in it for them.

Like most nations, Japan has only one interest in the middle East OIL

TopHatter
07 Oct 03,, 16:54
You could say that Japan and the US have "mutual strategic interests in the Middle East" and well they should. Japan has no oil, none whatsoever. The United States at least has some oil if it absolutely had to get at, it could.
With regards to Japan's amendment change, I havent heard about it but I have no reason to think otherwise. It makes excellent sense. Japan is vulnerable to a crippling attack and it doesnt have to occur right off the coast of the Home Islands. The oil terminals of the Persian Gulf are thousands of miles away and oil is the absolute life-blood of Japan.
The JMSDF needs to have some of it's shackles removed so it can protect these sea lanes. The US can certainly help (being an ally and depending on that oil as well) but when you get right down to it, Japan will feel better if her own ships are doing the job too.