Japan says it won't help coalition troops under fire in Iraq

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=1&id=284665

LONDON — Defense Agency Director General Shigeru Ishiba said in a newspaper article published Monday that British forces in Iraq should expect no military help from Japanese troops even if they are under fire.

The Times of London quoted Ishiba as saying that Japanese troops to be sent to Iraq will be prohibited from helping coalition comrades under attack because of legal restrictions.

Under Japan's pacifist Constitution, Self-Defense Forces (SDF) troops are not allowed to use weapons except in defense of themselves or of civilians under their protection.

"It is impossible for the U.K. commander to rely on Japan's support in such a situation," Ishiba was quoted as telling the newspaper.

more

[KoKo]

1. I think the "Japanes Troops" were really just Toyta/Lexus Salespeople

who were brought there to advise the new US propped Iraqi Government with suggestions on the best vehicle to purchase. Also perhaps to give good deals to Bremer and the "newsfolk" so they can buy low and ship home their Lexus on US Transport. (sarcasm)

What they hell else are they going to do? Stand around and chat with the Iraqi's? What good are they unless it's for "Business."

[ConcernedCanuk]

2. "What good are they " ? - peacekeeping, and they CAN defend themselves

.
.
. and I suspect that if they HAVE to defend themselves

We will see leg and shoulder injuries on the Iraqis, not just "smoked"

I think it's a good move,

not all the "occupiers" hafta be trained killers. .

I mean, this IS supposed to be the "keep the peace" (I know - what peace) stage ?

PEACEKEEPERS,

Iraq desperately needs Peacekeepers

Not Warriors

[Kinkistyle]

11. They will do mostly infrastructure stuff.

Helping build pipelines to Samawa, which is where they are stationed, because they are having a serious water shortage there. Probably just going to help with the moving around of stuff, and of course providing security. That area is supposed to be a non-hostile area anyway.

[Art_from_Ark]

12. You don't know what you're talking about

The troops being sent to Iraq are self-defense forces based in Hokkaido, not civilians. There was no public outcry in Japan to send them to Iraq, and in fact most Japanese are still opposed to their going there. There was even a famous Japanese newscaster who stated, on TV, that he was against it. They are going only because of pressure from the Bu$h admiistration, and nothing else.

Iraq never was a threat to Japan, and most Japanese know this. Why the hell should Japanese forces be sent to help occupy a country that they never were at war with? Especially considering that their Constitution specifically prohibits such actions?

And if Japanese troops fire upon Iraqis, that will be taken by Japan's neighbors as an act of aggression, and could seriously damage their relations with Japan, which have been delicate enough since the war.

[Bonobo]

3. How embarrassing for Japan...

I'm quite certain that the average Japanese (although against the idea of sending troops) would be very embarrassed about this. They are expremely sensitive to public perceptions.

[Mikimouse]

5. I believe that their sensitivity is internally driven

and the external perceptions aren't any more important to them than international opinion of the US is to *.

[Art_from_Ark]

13. You have got a lot to learn about Japan

External perceptions are extremely important to the Japanese.

But in this case, they're damned if they do, damned if they don't.

It's a no-win situation for Japan.

[lebkuchen]

7. If only the US gave two cents about its own public perception

The Japanese' comment to this would be, "It's in the Constitution!" They understand it perfectly, and they are probably wondering what they are doing in Iraq in the first place. That their troops are in the vicinity of, at the very least, crossfire, is a stretch of the Constitution's intent.

[bushisanidiot]

4. What? Use of Weapons for Self Defense? What a novel idea

too bad president AWOL never thought of it.

[lebkuchen]

6. It's surprising to see the Japanese in Iraq at all

considering their constitution forbids that they be involved in a war, which Iraq still is.

The 17 Italians killed made a huge impact on the Italian population. I hope what happened to the Italians, Bulgarians, UN, et al doesn't happen to the Japanese, but if it does, the Japanese population will be in shock.

[Barkley]

8. This is a "coalition"?

"British forces in Iraq should expect no military help from Japanese troops even if they are under fire."

And I suppose that:

'Japanese forces in Iraq should expect no military help from British troops even if they are under fire.'

[BenFranklinUSA]

9. This guy is full of sushi >+++*(<

Japanese soldiers will fire -- 'cause it's more likely they'll be fired upon before any other situation arises.

[Ganja Ninja]

10. So does this mean we won't have to help them when...

they come under fire?