Japan could have Afghanistan role

#1
There is an interesting article on the following thread=

Thread = Afghan fighting - the latest reports. Thread page 322.

Aticle from = The National Post

Article title = Japan could have Afghanistan role
 
#2
If they will be as productive as they were in Muthana on Telic, then to be honest not worth having them there. They just created more FP issues as they were under orders not to open fire as they were on reconstruction duties, therefore everybody else picked up their FP for them.
Hopefully though, they will be there with relaxed RoE as they can be nasty little fcukers when they want to be.
 
#3
Their Constitution does not allow them to deploy anything even remotly like an offensive force out side Japan. That's why they had little self defence in Iraq.

Thank the Yanks for putting that clause in there for them. Seemed like a good idea at the time. They do make very good troops though, so maybe a change might help, it's being called for in Japan anyway.
 
#4
bobath said:
Their Constitution does not allow them to deploy anything even remotly like an offensive force out side Japan. That's why they had little self defence in Iraq.

Thank the Yanks for putting that clause in there for them. Seemed like a good idea at the time. They do make very good troops though, so maybe a change might help, it's being called for in Japan anyway.
Up to the point where they capture you at any rate.

There were moves under the last PM to overturn the pacifist part of the Constitution but that seems to have gone on the back burner for a bit (albeit in a very 'EU Constitution' manner). The main driving force was a very nationalist interpretation of Japanese interests from Shinto Abe's party. It had people sitting up in alarm all over Asia and for damn good reason. You have no idea the level of paranoia that Koreans and Chinese in particular have about a militarily resurgent Japan.

Look out for all kinds of political pressure on ISAF not to use Japanese combat troops.
 
#5
Thats history though. They may have made things very difficult for themselves with their actions in the past, but they should have a chance to redeem them selves.

Lets not forget that they fought on our side in WW1 and had such a good reputation with German troops they captured that many stayed in the country after the war. Which is why there are Stainhouses in Japanesse cities (which look odd).

That have one of the highest rates of military spending in the world and I'm sure if they were providing CAS in the Stan the lads wouldn't mind if they were Jap, Yank or Brit.
 
#6
smartascarrots said:
bobath said:
Their Constitution does not allow them to deploy anything even remotly like an offensive force out side Japan. That's why they had little self defence in Iraq.

Thank the Yanks for putting that clause in there for them. Seemed like a good idea at the time. They do make very good troops though, so maybe a change might help, it's being called for in Japan anyway.
Up to the point where they capture you at any rate.

There were moves under the last PM to overturn the pacifist part of the Constitution but that seems to have gone on the back burner for a bit (albeit in a very 'EU Constitution' manner). The main driving force was a very nationalist interpretation of Japanese interests from Shinto Abe's party. It had people sitting up in alarm all over Asia and for damn good reason. You have no idea the level of paranoia that Koreans and Chinese in particular have about a militarily resurgent Japan.

Look out for all kinds of political pressure on ISAF not to use Japanese combat troops.
Agree. The Chinese has some sort of complex over the japs - not helped by the japs refusal to properly acknowledge history.
 
#7
bobath said:
Thats history though. They may have made things very difficult for themselves with their actions in the past, but they should have a chance to redeem them selves.

Lets not forget that they fought on our side in WW1 and had such a good reputation with German troops they captured that many stayed in the country after the war. Which is why there are Stainhouses in Japanesse cities (which look odd).

That have one of the highest rates of military spending in the world and I'm sure if they were providing CAS in the Stan the lads wouldn't mind if they were Jap, Yank or Brit.
I agree but realistiically speaking, the Chinese really are pushing the anti-jap paranoia perhaps in part to distract attention from how sh it they actually are.
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#9
In Iraq, their ROEs were so strict that on occasion they would not return fire as they would have got into trouble. And as for their problems with the Dutch, these are best left alone.

Still, they did hve very good kit indeed, very nice nurses, massage chairs, Tea ceremonies, and the most vile Manga/Hentai porn I have ever seen (and that's saying something).

Oh, and of course, bloody ginormous pots of money to spend on reconstruction. given the state of Afghani infrastructure, they are to be very much welcomed. On the other hand, as Afghanistan has a) no Oil, and b) a land border with China, I can't see them setting foot in the place :)
 
#11
Could China not play a role in Afghanistan? They have plenty of troops and a land border (all-be it small). If they had decent ROE they could help (in theory), particularly if they was used to "hold ground" rather than capture it.

I doubt that this is possible but should be worthy of consideration.
 
#12
Perturbed said:
Could China not play a role in Afghanistan? They have plenty of troops and a land border (all-be it small). If they had decent ROE they could help (in theory), particularly if they was used to "hold ground" rather than capture it.

I doubt that this is possible but should be worthy of consideration.
Personally, I'd like to see the Chinese getting out into the world a bit more. I certainly think they could do a lot of good - outside their own borders, at any rate - and the PLA/PAP have gained themselves a good rep in their other overseas deployments (Sudan, Haiti, etc.)

I doubt very much it will happen, though. For one thing they and the Yanks will never cooperate in combat ops as the fear of espionage is too great on both sides. Also, despite what you might hear, the Chinese as a whole aren't really that bothered about what a bunch of foreigners get up to. If us non-Chinese want to go about slaughtering each other in AFG, that's our business as far as they're concerned. They're not going to risk people's only sons if it ain't immediately in their national interest.
 
#14
RFUK said:
Why are you trying to get people onto the Afghan thread? Just post the article here as well...
That means I have to do it twice and of course there are lots of other good articles on the thread which are of great interest. It seems that there is a good chance that extra British troops will deploy next year and of course the thread is a good source of pre deployment information so the interest should be in the thread!
 
#15
Skynet said:
RFUK said:
Why are you trying to get people onto the Afghan thread? Just post the article here as well...
That means I have to do it twice and of course there are lots of other good articles on the thread which are of great interest. It seems that there is a good chance that extra British troops will deploy next year and of course the thread is a good source of pre deployment information so the interest should be in the thread!
I'm a big fan of the Afghan thread, but it's a ballsache to go sifting through the forums to find the discussion topic.
 
#16
The British and the Americans worked with Japanese troops immediately after WW2, a little known fact that was hushed-up at the time:-

Between September 1945 and November 1946, up to 35,000 surrendered Japanese troops were assimilated into Lord Louis Mountbatten's South East Asia Command in the Netherlands East Indies. Although under the ultimate control of British officers, the Japanese retained their wartime unit structures, were led by their own officers and remained armed. As a measure of their acceptance by the British, one of them was recommended for the Distinguished Service Order in November 1945, only three months after the war's end. The Japanese fought alongside the British despite the anger felt against them as the perpetrators of wartime atrocities and as a former enemy. These sentiments, however, did not prevent senior military personnel and politicians from using the Japanese to assist in the restoration of pre-war European empires in Asia. Crucially, the United States government tacitly supported the use of the Japanese. Aware of the sensitivity of using former enemy troops, the British and Americans tried to conceal the extent of Japanese involvement. Their success in achieving this hid not just their own hypocrisy but also the important part played by the Japanese in securing Allied post-war aims in Asia.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1468-229X.00223?journalCode=hist
The above is ironic given US State Department insistence in 2003 that the Iraqi army be disbanded. If 35,000 Japs could serve under Mountbatten in 1945/6, a few thousand Iraqi boys with AKs could easily have taken orders from the Seps/Brits in 2003. Might have saved a bit of trouble, eh?
 
#17
smartascarrots said:
Perturbed said:
Could China not play a role in Afghanistan? They have plenty of troops and a land border (all-be it small). If they had decent ROE they could help (in theory), particularly if they was used to "hold ground" rather than capture it.

I doubt that this is possible but should be worthy of consideration.
Personally, I'd like to see the Chinese getting out into the world a bit more. I certainly think they could do a lot of good - outside their own borders, at any rate - and the PLA/PAP have gained themselves a good rep in their other overseas deployments (Sudan, Haiti, etc.)

I doubt very much it will happen, though. For one thing they and the Yanks will never cooperate in combat ops as the fear of espionage is too great on both sides. Also, despite what you might hear, the Chinese as a whole aren't really that bothered about what a bunch of foreigners get up to. If us non-Chinese want to go about slaughtering each other in AFG, that's our business as far as they're concerned. They're not going to risk people's only sons if it ain't immediately in their national interest.
You are probably right and that is a shame. China is a permanent member of the UN security council is it not? They are huge and could be a force for good. After all Afghanistan is a UN backed operation. It is in the interests of us all that Afghanistan becomes a stable country with the best interests/quality of life of the majority of it's citizens improved.
 
#18
RFUK said:
Skynet said:
RFUK said:
Why are you trying to get people onto the Afghan thread? Just post the article here as well...
That means I have to do it twice and of course there are lots of other good articles on the thread which are of great interest. It seems that there is a good chance that extra British troops will deploy next year and of course the thread is a good source of pre deployment information so the interest should be in the thread!
I'm a big fan of the Afghan thread, but it's a ballsache to go sifting through the forums to find the discussion topic.
You can watch the afghan topic and receive emails when it is updated.
 
#19
RFUK said:
Skynet said:
RFUK said:
Why are you trying to get people onto the Afghan thread? Just post the article here as well...
That means I have to do it twice and of course there are lots of other good articles on the thread which are of great interest. It seems that there is a good chance that extra British troops will deploy next year and of course the thread is a good source of pre deployment information so the interest should be in the thread!
I'm a big fan of the Afghan thread, but it's a ballsache to go sifting through the forums to find the discussion topic.
I'm open to ideas
 
#20
OldSnowy:
On the other hand, as Afghanistan has a) no Oil,
Perhaps not quite no oil, OldSnowy.
I dont know. You go round the world fighting 'terrorism' and every where you go you keep stumbling over the black stuff. Makes you wonder doesn't it?
Oh alright, perhaps it doesn't. :)

Scientists Find Big Afghan Oil Resources
By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer

Tuesday, March 14, 2006

Two geological basins in northern Afghanistan hold 18 times the oil and triple the natural gas resources previously thought, scientists said Tuesday as part of a U.S. assessment aimed at enticing energy development in the war-torn country.


Nearly 1.6 billion barrels of oil, mostly in the Afghan-Tajik Basin, and about 15.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, mainly in the Amu Darya Basin, could be tapped, said the U.S. Geological Survey and Afghanistan's Ministry of Mines and Industry.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/03/14/national/w142914S66.DTL

Which makes it so fortuitous that Karzai, a CIA contact and oil man is the current president of Afghanistan, doesn't it.

Afghanistan, the Taliban and the Bush Oil Team

by Wayne Madsen

democrats.com, January 2002

Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), globalresearch.ca, 23 January 2002

According to Afghan, Iranian, and Turkish government sources, Hamid Karzai, the interim Prime Minister of Afghanistan, was a top adviser to the El Segundo, California-based UNOCAL Corporation which was negotiating with the Taliban to construct a Central Asia Gas (CentGas) pipeline from Turkmenistan through western Afghanistan to Pakistan.

Karzai, the leader of the southern Afghan Pashtun Durrani tribe, was a member of the mujaheddin that fought the Soviets during the 1980s. He was a top contact for the CIA and maintained close relations with CIA Director William Casey, Vice President George Bush, and their Pakistani Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) Service interlocutors. Later, Karzai and a number of his brothers moved to the United States under the auspices of the CIA. Karzai continued to serve the agency's interests, as well as those of the Bush Family and their oil friends in negotiating the CentGas deal, according to Middle East and South Asian sources.

When one peers beyond all of the rhetoric of the White House and Pentagon concerning the Taliban, a clear pattern emerges showing that construction of the trans-Afghan pipeline was a top priority of the Bush administration from the outset. Although UNOCAL claims it abandoned the pipeline project in December 1998, the series of meetings held between U.S., Pakistani, and Taliban officials after 1998, indicates the project was never off the table.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai described the estimates as "very positive findings," particularly since the country now imports most of its energy, including electricity.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD201A.html
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads