# Japan to pull troops out of Iraq



## big bad john (20 Jun 2006)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5097148.stm

Japan to pull troops out of Iraq  

The Japanese deployment has been unpopular at home 
Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has announced plans to withdraw his country's troops from Iraq. 
Mr Koizumi said Japan's presence had been "highly appreciated by the Iraqi government and its people". 

The 600 non-combat troops have been working on reconstruction projects in southern Iraq since February 2004, protected by UK and Australian forces. 

The decision was unpopular with the Japanese public, many of whom said it violated Japan's pacifist constitution. 

It was Japan's first foray into an active foreign war zone since World War II. 

 JAPAN'S MILITARY 
Japan's constitution currently renounces the use of force
This has been stretched to allow self-defence troops
1992 law allowed troops to join UN and relief work overseas
2003 law said troops could go to non-combat zones in Iraq
PM Koizumi wants to give Japan even greater powers 
Drafted by the US in 1947, the constitution bans the use of force to settle international disputes. The troops in Iraq have been barred from using force except in self-defence. 

Mr Koizumi said in a televised address that Japan would still provide "as much support as possible for the nation's reconstruction efforts". 

The Japanese troops have been based in the city of Samawa, engaged in work such as repairing buildings and providing medical training. 

Japanese media reports said the last troops were expected to leave by late July. 

International role 

The decision to withdraw is likely to have been prompted by plans for the UK and Australia to hand over responsibility for security in the area around Samawa to Iraqi forces. 

  
The Iraqi forces will take over Muthanna province next month, in what will be the first such handover since the US-led invasion. 

Japan has gradually been expanding its role on the international stage in recent years. 

It deployed nearly 1,000 troops to Indonesia to help with humanitarian aid following the December 2004 tsunami 

But the deployment to Iraq - which began in late 2003 - drew criticism from many Japanese, who said it would be impossible for the troops not to get drawn into the fighting. 

Mr Koizumi won warm praise for the deployment from US President George W Bush, but he was criticised at home for overriding the constraints of the constitution to serve his own political purposes. 

No Japanese soldiers have been killed or wounded in Iraq, but Mr Koizumi faced a political crisis in 2004 when three aid workers were taken hostage by Iraqi insurgents, who demanded that Japanese troops withdraw. 

The three were eventually released unharmed, but another five Japanese citizens have been killed by militants. 

Mr Koizumi is due to visit President Bush at the end of this month. He is due to leave office later this year.


----------



## Cloud Cover (21 Jun 2006)

And in a related story, several GI's serving in the triangle of death were asked what they thought of the Japanese withdrawal.

'Withdrawal? Hell, we didn't even know they wuz here. Sheeeit, ain't they some luckie mo-fo's."


----------



## Red 6 (21 Jun 2006)

Not to slight our Japanese allies at all, but that's the trouble with strings attached to military committments like this. It was one of the critical shortcomings in our invasion and subsequent occupation. There weren't (and still aren't) enough true coalition partners with large combat formations in Iraq.


----------



## Trooper Hale (21 Jun 2006)

The public (everywhere except the US) hate a war nowadays, especially with journalists firing off reports and footage of blokes getting killed. The US is the only country on earth i reckon that can still get away with a large war, in Australia the public wouldnt allow much more troops, the government back home are always treading the PR line and they wouldnt risk it. The Japenese are doing as much as they can (like you said, they've strings attached) and we should be thanking them. No one wants to get stuck in Iraq sp theyr getting out, and thats what the Italians and others are doing right now, their governments are trying to save themselves for the next election or at least so that history will say they were popular with the people. No one is going to look back 50 years from now and say that Japan or Italy had great leaders because they satayed on in Iraq, they'r going to say that getting out of there gave them more popularity. No politician wants to be unpopular, even if it means they do good things for the world.
I hate politics.
And that of course is my unthought out opinion, i just sat down and wrote what i've been thinking tonight, i'll probably have gaping flaws for you to pick out. Feel free and go ahead.
Ta,
Hales


----------



## Red 6 (21 Jun 2006)

Trooper Hale: Most countries are ready to fight for a just cause, but it has to be a well grounded campaign with strong public backing. If you think back to the coalition that fought the Gulf War in 91, to my mind at least, this was an example of how to do it. In regard to the current sit in Iraq, we screwed the pooch from the start. We built a _coalition of the willing_, not a true alliance. Now, we're paying the price for it.

Exactly _because_ we are the sole superpower remaining; for that reason alone, we have an extra obligation to build alliances for both war and peace. There is an entirely separate argument whether or not war is feasible in the modern world. Nations still go to war, so to me, it's clear that we (ie NATO, ASEAN, etc) must have strong alliances that provide a credible deterrent and response capability.

Historically, nations band together to confront big powers. That's what happened to France in the 19th century, and to Germany twice in the 20th. Politically, nations build power blocks to confront unchecked power int heir neighbors, etc. I can't think of any specific references, but you know what I'm talking about. That's what's happening now.

The American public doesn't hate war, but it is completely disconnected from the events in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unless you have family members in the service there, it doesn't mean much. (Except to folks like me.) We're told the Nation is at war, but there's no sacrifice for the common good, no nothing that makes people understand the gravity of the sit. It's a shame really, since our military services are so dedicated and professional.


----------



## ExSarge (21 Jun 2006)

Red 6, 

Well stated. I believe that your last paragraph holds equally true for the Canadian public. They don't hate war, they are disconnected from it. Speaking as one who has had a family member serve in Afganistan, and who will soon serve there again (my niece, an Infantry Officer) 
I could not agree more with your point. Again well said sir!


----------



## Trooper Hale (21 Jun 2006)

Spot on mate, you said it well, but what do you mean about the nations banding together to confront big powers? Do you mean that nations are getting out of Iraq as a way of showing the US they disagree or are you referring to the big power in this day and age being terrorism? Both make a bit of sense to me, although I'm more sure your referring to Terrorism.
I agree with what you say basically, especially the point about the Coalition of the Willing, that is what you meant about strings in your first post isnt it? I thought you were refering to the Japenese not being able to take more of an active role. And "screwing the pooch from the start" (nice phrase) is exactly the way it worked out, so again your spot on there, you cant get people to support a war if they dont support it at the start. 
In regard to the Coalition the US dont really have any other country locked in there with them, even Britain and Australia, who gave there support from the start, are feeling the pressure of this conflict. What they'r doing is a great job, the south of Iraq has been a success but a large part of the public and media have been successful in turning people who supported it at the start away from it now.
I've got a fair few mates who are heading over soon and couple who have just got back and Australia have been very lucky. We'r yet to lose anyone bar Pvt Kovco. But when we do its sure to turn the apathy into something a bit different.


----------



## Red 6 (22 Jun 2006)

Trooper Hale: As I'm discussing it, I mean the United States. I heard yesterday that more Europeans consider the US a threat to world security than Iran & North Korea. Should we in the US care about what people in Europe think? Yeah, we should. People are afraid of the country that led the crusade which liberated Europe from the yoke of oppression twice. That's a shame.

The thing is, the Global War on Terror isn't really a war at all. Hell, at first the administration refused to strike a separate campaign medal for Iraq and Afghanistan. It took Congress to force DoD to create the medals. The administration (SecDef Rumsfeld on point) had to be forced to recognize these campaigns. They keep trying to link Iraq, Al Qaida and Afghanistan in the public conscience as if all are one and the same.

There are military components to the campaign against terror, but as a whole it isn't like World War II. I remember after 9-11 when millions of people wanted to do something to help, President Bush gave a speech where he said something like, "If you want to help America, go visit New York to show the terrorists we're strong." Here we were after the Pearl Harbor of our time and I was supposed to be part of the war effort by taking a vacation.

This idea of perpetual war scares people. (It does me anyway) Unilateral action against sovereign countries just doesn't work when the aggressor is the one with nukes. People in the US are always debating whether or not the UN is relevant anymore. It seems like the administration is spending most of its efforts to build coalitions outside of the UN framework. I'll admit I'm confused about the legal status of the war in Iraq. President Bush says we have the legal authority to enforce UN mandates in Iraq, but the UN says, "No you don't."


----------



## Koenigsegg (23 Jun 2006)

Ummm...The USA did not lead the war effort in World War 1...
They came in the last year, and had a whole bunch of their men killed doing the things the Europeans learned not to do in 1915.  But later in their service they became a dynamic fighting force, and threw a whole crap tonne of men at the German lines and kicked them out.  Sure they saved us in the end, but they did not lead.  They still respected that the war meant more to the Europeans than to themselves, and left the reigns in European hands.  Integral, and invaluable part?  Yes definitely.  Did they lead the war?  No.  But they were often the forces that were in front on a wide front.

The Europeans are now affraid partly because the USA does not go about things the way they used to.  It used to be very hard to rally the support of the American people, but once the people were won, there was no stopping the United States in their quests.  Now, the president lies (not all the time of course), does a little underhanded stuff, and the people follow him.  but when things go badly, the people want out.  That partly scares Europe because the American people, from a foreign perspective, do not have the same resolve, and don't seem to make the right choices.
This maybe one reason, however I they are not my views, and I am just trying to put together what Europeans may get from their sources. (should this disclaimer go before the statment?)
I still think that some European countries still have their heads up their butts, I seriously don't know how they come to that conclusion...

Just so you know, I support the war in Afghanistan, but oppose the war in Iraq.  However, I put my full support behind the soldiers in Iraq.  I just think the USA should not have gone in there in the first place.

Well, If it is between the UN and the USA...The UN supposedly "runs" the show, so I would think that what the UN says is mandated or not is correct.  I am not even sure, I just think that is the way it is.  If you are interested to know if it is or not, try looking for the books by Gwynne Dyer.  He covers all the stuff on the war on terror and such.


----------



## Trooper Hale (23 Jun 2006)

I'm holding myself back here. I dont want to get into American bashing but your line about the US being the country that "led the crusade twice" is a sore point for a lot of people. My grandad joined the army in 1938 and drove tanks in the second world war, a war that for us started on the 3rd September 1939, by the time the Americans showed up we'd been fighting for 2 very long years. The same with the first world war, how many Americans helped "lead the crusade" against the Turks in the middle east? How many Americans landed at ANZAC Cove or the Gallipoli? Or were part of the attacking of Gaza or Beersheeba? How many Americans fought with British troops at Passchendael or Poziers? 
How many Americans made millions out of both wars?
The answer is of course a damn site more then fought at the tiny list of our battle honours.
Its that whole "we won World War One and World War Two for you" attitude that scares and annoys Europeans and the rest of the world. While they are greatful to the US for what they did all those years ago, they did it well after the wars had started. It upsets Europeans and Commonwealth countries that the US waited and got rich off the blood of Frenchmen, Englishmen, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Gurkhas, Sikhs, South Africans, Belgians and all the other races and cultures that answered the call from the very start. Its that attitude that makes the US unpopular and reverses that gratitude into something more like disdain. We think "If you dont appreciate what WE did then why should we appreciate what YOU are doing?".
The US were a large cog in a huge machine no doubt (a machine that was probably partly built in Detroit! Bad time for a joke) and despite all the money and weapons they poured into Britain during both wars, to say they "Led" is both disrespectful and shows disdain for the tens of thousands of men, women and children who died while the US waited and made money off them.
When they did finally get involved they did a steller job, and at least the second world war would have been very different without there intervention. I'm not taking anything away from you, but your wars lasted from 1917-1918 and 1941-1945. Ours lasted almost 6 years longer.
Like Koenigsegg said without your help we couldnt have won, all i'm saying is please dont _ever_ think that you "led the crusade".


----------



## Red 6 (23 Jun 2006)

Trooper Hale: I apologize for applying my own national filter to my post. I definitely did not mean any disrespect to our allies in either of the world wars. Nor did I intend to slight the sacrifices made by people around the world in victory. I probably could've stated it better, and I won't enter into a debate on the subject because my feelings about Iraq and Afghanistan mirror yours. Thank you for sharing your thoughts about why people disdain the US.


----------



## Trooper Hale (25 Jun 2006)

No worries mate, i completely understand and i didnt mean anything against you. Your views are well thought out and articulate and its great to hear an opinion that does indeed mirror mine. Hopefully i didnt offend you in my anti-US rant. Yanks as a general rule are good people, its the _idea_ of the US that people dislike, not the actually people there.
Have a good one


----------



## paracowboy (25 Jun 2006)

Trooper Hale said:
			
		

> its the _idea_ of the US that people dislike,


correction: that *SOME* people dislike. Usually weak-willed people with serious inferiority problems.


----------



## Red 6 (25 Jun 2006)

Thanks fellas. I appreciate that. I stumbled across Army. ca and I've really enjoyed the level of civility here.


----------



## Red 6 (25 Jun 2006)

Trooper Hale: I've thought a lot about our dialogue. To be completely honest, your posts about the US upset me at first. But then I got to thinking about it, and realized how easy it is to have an insular outlook on what goes on, history, etc. Especially in regard to the First World War, you were absolutely right about the sacrifices of UK, the Commonwealth nations and France. Americans do tend to think of the world as being "us" and 'everybody else." That's not a good way to think of the world. Places like this (Army.ca) are an outstanding way to help change that way of thinking. It definitely has been a learning experience for me.

In a wider sense, this illustrates for me what a great site this is.  Having spent time on several web forums (military.com, etc.) I find Army.ca to be a classy and intelligent place to express views, have constructive debates and say what you think without getting nuked.


----------



## Trooper Hale (25 Jun 2006)

I want to apoligise to you anyway Red, I didnt mean to upset you or insult you but looking back i realised how ignorant and stupid my post about the US have been. I just dont have the articulate way of saying things that i really should and i'm reading my posts to _you and disappointed in myself for how i've come across.
I dont know about being weak-willed or having a serious inferiority complex but i have been stupid and should get into making sure i make it clear that my opinions are my own and toning it down a bit. What i mean with the "Idea of the US" is kind of complicated but what i noticed at home and when i've been in Europe is that some people are jealous of the success of the US and the way anything good is probably American (movies etc). It the tall poppy syndrome all over and its so easy to get away with being anti-American these days that people do it without even thinking about it. We want to see ourselves as being special but to do that we need to bring down the US.
While i disagreed with the original invasion of Iraq, i support being there completely now and have a big sense of respect for the American blokes over there, they're creating a new country that (hopefully) will be an example for others to follow if they can get rid of all the foreign fundamentalist there who think that they have a right to kill innocent Iraqi and anyone else with no consequence. Its a war that looking back on will we should be proud of what we'r doing and helping the Iraqi's to be themselves and have their choices.
As for Army.ca and the experiance, i can again completely agree with you there! I've learnt a lot about quite a number of things, I'm living in shacks over here, learning a lot from the boys about how they see the world and the huge impact that they'r having on it. You can always learn i suppose.
Sorry if i insulted you again Red, i've been a bit stupid with some of the stuff i've written._


----------



## paracowboy (25 Jun 2006)

> some people are jealous of the success of the US and the way anything good is probably American...We want to see ourselves as being special but to do that we need to bring down the US.


 my point exactly. A strong-willed, self-confident individual doesn't feel the need to tear down anyone else's accomplishments or good fortune, in order to feel better about themself.


----------



## big bad john (30 Jul 2006)

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060730/japan_iraq_060730/20060730?hub=World

Japanese troops hail end of Iraq mission 
Updated Sun. Jul. 30 2006 7:44 AM ET

Associated Press

ASAKA, Japan -- The first Japanese troops deployed to a combat zone since World War II marked the end of their mission Saturday by celebrating the return of the army flag that flew over them for more than two years in Iraq. 


About 500 troops who recently returned from the humanitarian mission attended the ceremony at the Ground Self-Defense Forces Asaka training grounds just north of Tokyo. The last batch of Japanese troops returned home Tuesday. 


"The troops did an admirable job in the most difficult of conditions," Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi told a crowd that included about 1,000 well-wishers. "This mission will remain in the memories of both the Japanese and Iraqi people." 


Col. Toshihiro Yamanaka carefully handed over the pale blue flag to Defense Minister Fukushiro Nukaga. "I am relieved to have brought the flag back safely," he said. 


A total of 5,500 troops were deployed to Iraq during the 2 1/2-year mission, Yamanaka said. 


The mission to the southern city of Samawah boosted Japan's international profile and strengthened its ties with the United States, but also tested the limits of the country's pacifist constitution and was widely criticized at home. 


The troops were dispatched to Iraq under a special law and their activities were greatly limited. They were heavily dependent on Dutch, Australian and British forces for security, and suffered no combat-related casualties. 


Tokyo is not completely withdrawing from the Middle East. Government officials have said Japan plans to expand its Kuwait-based air operations to ferry U.N. and coalition personnel and supplies to Iraq. 


Koizumi, a strong backer of U.S. operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq, has made clear he hopes the Samawah mission will lead to more overseas deployments. 


Foreign Minister Taro Aso said earlier this month that Japan is open to sending peacekeeping troops back to Iraq, but only if the security situation improves there.


----------

