“Risky Business”

To engage in war for all the wrong reasons is not only counterproductive, but can have negative consequences for all those involved. This raises the question, as retired UK Forces General, Lord Dannitt put it: “Is it right to fight, and are they fighting right?” From his perspective, one could then argue that war could be likened to a game of moral jeopardy, wherein players expose themselves to ethical compromise and the very real possibility of being used as tools in the greater game at play; a game whose objectives are often obscure and its methodology questionable. Conversely, engaging in war as a matter of self-defense, in defense of others, or to right the wrong of injustice, is not only permissible, but often praiseworthy. In the same token the same can also be said for personal responsibility, as Japanese author Noburu Yamaguchi noted: “In Japan, people do not respect a person who will not assume responsibility for their own protection.”

This then is of some importance, as US Security of Defense, Pete Hegseth recently observed: “Japan and America share a warrior ethos that defines our two forces.” While true, they also have more in common, in that both countries share similar principles of religious conviction and personal accountability. Yet, while one could argue that the evolution of those perspectives was quite different, the emphasis both placed on moral integrity and martial duty, was not only parcel to their beliefs, but intrinsic to their common development and identity. An identity so fundamental and characteristic of both cultures that if neglected or thwarted by some means, would not only lead to moral atrophy, but lawlessness and the eventual criminalization of their societies as well.