“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 then raises the question, as retired UK Forces General, Lord Dannitt queried: “Is it right to fight, and are they fighting right?” From that perspective, one might argue that war cam be likened to a game of moral jeopardy, wherein players not only expose themselves to ethical compromise and the very real possibility of being used as a tool in the greater game at play; a game whose objectives are often obscure and its methodology questionable. Conversely, engaging in war as a means of self-defense or in defense of others is not only permissible, but often praiseworthy. In that 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 something more in common. Both countries share similar principles of religious conviction and accountability. Yet, while one could argue that the evolution of those similarities was quite different, the emphasis that both placed on moral integrity and martial duty was not only parcel to their belief-systems, but intrinsic to their common development and identity. An identity so fundamental and characteristic of both cultures that if neglected or thwarted by some other means, would not only lead to moral atrophy, but lawlessness and the eventual criminalization of those societies as well.