Samurai_Jerk wrote:There has been some talk among neocons of rethinking the relationship with Japan if they don't take on more responsibility militarily.
So I've heard.
There's no doubt that the U.S. really wants Japan to be ready and able to back them up militarily. That's clear enough. And I think it's safe to assume that at least part of all this is due to pressure from the U.S. But whether that is a viable reason to essentially change Japan's constitution is a question that should probably be given a bit more time. I don't know how hard up for help the U.S. is at the moment, but I kinda doubt they'd be able to just turn around and say "that's it Japan, we're not protecting you any more." It was the U.S. that forced Japan to accept a no-war constitution in return for U.S. protection in the first place. U.S. bases in Japan would probably become a major bargaining point in that scenario too, and we know that the U.S. wants (needs) to keep them here not just to protect Japan.
I can't help thinking that the problem is more how the issue is being handled than the end result.