Saddam Hussein is in custody but the struggle to suppress Iraqi
insurgents remains. Washington needs allied help to lighten its
burden, and the most generous aid should come from nations the U.S.
has defended for decades, particularly Japan and South Korea, with
which America has long maintained “mutual” defense treaties.
The Bush administration attacked Iraq with meaningful military
support from only two nations, Britain and Australia. Thus, it
comes as no surprise that just a few countries, such as Italy,
Poland, and Ukraine, subsequently offered troop detachments worth
counting for garrison duty. Most nations had little inclination to
bail out America and have grown less willing to help as violence
has spread in Iraq. Indeed, with the deaths of allied soldiers in
resistance attacks, Denmark has said no to sending additional
troops and the Netherlands and Spain are rethinking their existing
commitments.
Both Japan and South Korea promised cooperation in the midst of
America’s swift victory. But as the situation in Iraq turned ugly
both began a backward tango over troop contributions and spent
months watching from the sidelines. Tokyo twice postponed any
deployment. “We would like to do it as soon as possible,” Japan’s
Defense Agency Director Shigeru Ishiba told Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld during his recent visit to Japan, as if some
mysterious force prevented Tokyo from acting.
Japan has finally begun sending its first units to bases in
Kuwait and Qatar. Alas, though the move has been politically
divisive at home, it is mostly symbolic. There will be only 1,000
Japanese soldiers, engaged in humanitarian work, not security
duties. In early December Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said
that Japan’s forces would not transport ammunition or weapons for
coalition forces. And Tokyo has asked for U.S. military protection
for its personnel.
This is help?
EQUALLY FRUSTRATING HAS BEEN South Korea’s hesitation. The
government of President Roh Moo-hyun has engaged in months of
anguished internal debate. At one point, President Roh rejected any
deployment until there is “a positive outlook for and conviction in
peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula.” Which could take
decades or more.
Now Seoul appears to have decided to send 3,000 soldiers,
perhaps including combatants, but not yet. Maybe April, if the
National Assembly approves — which is uncertain, given popular
opposition.
Officials from both countries have waxed eloquent on why
Washington shouldn’t push too hard. South Korea is worried about
the North Koreans. Japan is still dealing with the ghosts of
militarism. The proposed deployments are wildly unpopular in both
nations. And, goodness, Iraq is dangerous. Some of their soldiers
might die, as Americans are doing on a daily basis.
Publicly, at least, Bush administration officials have been
polite. “We are confident that our friends here will make decisions
that are appropriate to them,” said Secretary Rumsfeld. But the
decisions “appropriate to them” obviously are to do as little as
possible, while remaining subsidized, coddled, and protected by
America. In Seoul and Tokyo, the “mutual” in Mutual Defense Treaty
is for appearances only.
THIS TEASE IS NO LONGER acceptable. Japan is the world’s
second-ranking power. It has globe-spanning economic interests,
security concerns throughout East Asia, and will be most threatened
in the future if a growing China turns aggressive. Tokyo should
start recruiting soldiers in Japan rather than relying on those
from America to see to its defense needs.
South Korea vastly out-ranges the North in economic strength,
technological prowess, and population size, yet lags in military
power because it prefers to rely on the U.S. At the same time,
anti-Americanism has flared and leading South Koreans whine about
the lack of “equality” with Washington in the two nations’
relationship. A good start toward achieving equality would be for
Seoul to make its own assessment of the threat posed by North Korea
and build up its military forces accordingly.
More insulting than both countries’ continuing defense
dependence on America has been their reluctance to risk blood for
the U.S. After all, thousands of Americans have risked, and
continue to risk, their blood for Japan and South Korea.
In the case of South Korea, 34,000 died to defend that nation
during the Korean War. When a South Korean reporter asked Secretary
Rumsfeld why Seoul should send troops to Iraq, he responded: “I
suppose for the exact same reason that the American people sent
their young men and women over to Korea 50 years ago.” In fact,
U.S. casualties did not end with the armistice; another 1,500 have
been killed in firefights and attacks in the ensuing years. Now the
U.S. is asking for help. And months of asking have produced a pair
of mice.
Both countries are entitled to respond that deploying forces in
Iraq isn’t in their interest. They can argue that America is
engaged in a fool’s errand trying to reshape Iraq. They can even
say the commitment of even several thousand troops wouldn’t make a
difference.
All those arguments may be true but they are, by now,
irrelevant. Instead of bemoaning the lack of shared interests, and
badgering Tokyo and Seoul to ante up small detachments for Iraq,
the U.S. should simply begin removing forces from those countries
for duty in Iraq. “We could send the troops if circumstances
permit,” said Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukudo at one
point. And America could bring its forces out of Japan and South
Korea if circumstances permit. As they do.
The U.S. is busy dealing with terrorism and the aftermath of war
in Afghanistan and Iraq. Washington no longer has the forces,
resources, or time to protect populous, prosperous states that are
capable of defending themselves.
