The following is from the serial column of Ms.Yoshiko Sakurai, who brings the weekly Shincho released today to a successful conclusion.
This article also proves that she is a national treasure, a supreme national treasure defined by Saicho.
My respect for her is even greater today, especially since I started reading her paper after sending out my rough draft earlier today.
The people who control NHK's news department may be beyond repair, but they need to read this paper and recognize real thinking, the opposite of the kindergarten level.
Japan Needs a Correct Political-Military Relationship Today
The closer we get to an emergency, the more critical it becomes that the relationship between politics, the military, and politicians and military personnel be kept regular and sufficient communication.
However, since Japan's defeat in the war in 1945, it has come to loathe almost everything related to the military, and what can be called normal political-military relations have disappeared.
After the Russian invasion of Ukraine, many began to wonder if Japan's defense would be sufficient.
It cannot be safe if Japan and the Japanese people believe that the U.S. will protect us and have thus far considered security to be someone else's business.
We Japanese, who have become peace idiots, think little about military affairs and do not understand them.
Even the politicians in charge of national politics are at a similar level.
It is not good enough.
What kind of tragedy will happen if the political-military relationship is not well maintained and functioning?
The case of Russia's invasion of Ukraine is a clear example.
Why did President Putin initiate such a war of aggression?
At the Munich Security Conference in Germany on February 10, 2007, Putin's speech provided one clue.
In front of representatives and experts from more than 40 countries, Mr. Putin spoke frankly about his strong dissatisfaction with and rejection of the one-power U.S. system and his antipathy toward the West, which teaches Russia about democracy in a "condescending manner.
Mr. Putin's ego is also on display in his opposition to NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) and the European Union (E.U.) and his support for the United Nations, which he has veto power. The following is an example of a case in point.
Ego and pride were mixed in the discussion of the Berlin Wall.
He said, "The fall of the wall was due to the decision of our people and the Russian people. The Russian people chose the fall of the historical fence to hope for democracy, freedom, openness, and sincere relations with all the countries that make up the Great European family.
So Putin believes that the fall of the Berlin Wall is an achievement of the Russian people.
On the other hand, he declared that international relations are mathematics.
"There is no room for human factors [in international relations and security]. To respond to the West's military buildup, Russia can either invest vast sums of money to build a missile defense network, as the West has done, or take asymmetric measures, taking into account Russia's economic and financial prowess. "
He also said that disabling the U.S. missile defense network in a cheap way is the right path for Russia to take. "We cannot agree on many things, but I am not afraid to say that I consider the President of the United States my friend," he said. He [son Bush] is a good guy. "But I reiterate that there is no room for personal factors [in U.S.-Russian relations]. There is only one calculation."
Mr. Putin is correct when he says that international relations and security policy are determined after cool-headed calculations.
But the man who said so has misread the situation in Ukraine.
Why did he misread?
On March 30, Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said, "Putin may not have been given the correct information about the situation in Russian troops and Ukraine" based on intelligence information.
A Case of Contrast
To begin with, Mr. Putin is not a military man.
The Russian military must assist him by reporting correct information about its own forces and the Ukrainian army.
But Mr. Putin has become an authoritarian dictator who does not listen to the words of others.
As a result, his immorality has caused Russia's political-military relations to become dysfunctional, and Mr. Putin has made the wrong decision.
Ukrainian cities were destroyed, and many lives were lost.
What a big and tragic thing the price is!
The breakdown of political-military relations can destroy a country.
We can find a contrasting case in the relationship between Churchill, who served as British Prime Minister during World War II, and General Alanbrooke, who supported Churchill as Chief of the General Staff of the British Imperial Army.
Based on Alanbrooke's diary, the two men were in remarkably close contact.
For example, on June 14, 1942, he wrote: "It is Sunday, but the Prime Minister has frequently interrupted my calls. The Prime Minister was very much distressed by the sudden turn of the war situation in the Middle East campaign,".
The diary entry for February 26, 1943, describes this exciting scene.
"The Prime Minister called me during a meeting. When I went to his place in the next wing, he took a bath. He was wearing nothing but a large bath towel wrapped around his body, like a Roman centurion. He shook my hand warmly as he dressed and told me to sit down while he dressed."
Churchill then put on a white silk undergarment and white silk pants.
He also had lengthy discussions with the bedraggled Prime Minister in Churchill's bedroom. However, Allanbrook depicts him putting on his shirt, sprinkling incense on his handkerchief and putting on his jacket.
Self-defense officers come and go in and out of the Prime Minister's office.
Although the two communicate so closely, heated arguments are not uncommon.
As prime minister, Churchill had the authority to make political decisions. He argued with Alanbrooke, responsible for military strategy as chief of staff, while raising his clenched fist in the air.
In this way, they would have challenged each other's analysis and judgment, criticized each other, reconsidered, and arrived at a better conclusion.
As a result, they won, and both Japan and Germany lost.
The Chief of Staff must never fail to advise the prime minister. Instead, the prime minister must be able to ask the military for necessary information, analysis, and opinions.
How important it is to meet and converse frequently.
Churchill and Alanbrooke maintained a close relationship as the two top leaders in the United Kingdom during World War II, and the political-military relationship functioned soundly.
What about Japan?
I was astonished to hear Mr. Katsutoshi Kono, former Chief of Staff of the Joint Staff, speak at the Institute for National and Fundamental Studies, a think tank, recently.
Kono, who served as the top commander of the Self-Defense Forces for four and a half years, had never once met one-on-one with the prime minister during that time.
Whenever he goes to the Prime Minister's residence, he is accompanied by a group of people seconded from other ministries to the Ministry of Defense, known as the "suits.
Not that there is anything wrong with accompanying them, but it would be a problem if there is any sense that the Self-Defense Forces personnel are not allowed to advise the prime minister without permission.
In the past, the Self-Defense Forces officers did not even have access to the Prime Minister's residence.
This harmful practice was changed when Shinzo Abe became prime minister, and senior officials of the SDF were now allowed access to the Prime Minister's Office.
It is a step forward, but the next challenge will be to ensure a vigorous exchange of views between the political and military branches.
The threat from China looming over Japan is not half-baked.
It is crucial for politicians to fully understand the military, have accurate information and develop their judgment.
From Putin's failures and Churchill's successes, we can learn what the ideal political-military relationship should be.
