What is the problem with 'Issa'? Before changing it to 'Taisa', do something about the Self-Defense Forces' equipment
Talk of changing the rank names of the Self-Defense Forces is underway. A proposal to change the current 'Issa' (First-class) to 'Taisa' (Colonel), 'Nisa' (Second-class) to 'Chusa' (Lieutenant Colonel), and 'Sansa' (Third-class) to 'Shosa' (Major) has been reported, and the coalition government agreement between the Liberal Democratic Party and Nippon Ishin no Kai also explicitly states that the 'international standardization' of the Self-Defense Forces' 'ranks,' 'uniforms,' and 'job categories' will be implemented within fiscal year 2026. Following this agreement, the government is also proceeding with considerations regarding the change of Self-Defense Force ranks.
◆ Introduction
I do not dislike the word 'Taisa' (Colonel). I also do not oppose properly positioning the Self-Defense Forces within the Constitution as a national defense organization responsible for exclusively defense-oriented policy. In fact, as an organization that protects the country, I believe it is better to clarify its authority, responsibilities, and limitations. Therefore, I have no intention of arguing that 'Taisa sounds like the old military and is unacceptable.' What I want to know is something much simpler: What exactly is the problem with 'Issa'?
Just to be clear, I am not glorifying war. It goes without saying that it is better if war does not happen. However, I do not believe that simply eliminating militaries or weapons will make war disappear. That is because it does not erase conflicts between nations or the intent to invade. Therefore, I believe that in order to avoid war, it is necessary to have the required defense capabilities and to properly support the Self-Defense Force personnel who carry them out. I have no intention of debating here with people who deny this premise itself and claim that 'war happens because there are militaries and weapons.'
◆ Was there any trouble with 'Issa'?
Actually, this question has already been asked of the government by members of the Diet. Are there any concrete examples of problems arising in international missions, joint training with other countries, or command and control systems due to the current English notation of Self-Defense Force ranks? The government's answer was that they 'are not aware of any at this time.'
So, are there any concrete examples of problems or inconveniences in the operations of the Self-Defense Forces or their activities at home and abroad caused by the titles 'Issa' or 'Nisa'? Regarding this as well, the government is not aware of any. What does 'international standardization of rank titles' even mean in the first place? What are the defense or administrative necessities for it? They say it is difficult to answer at this time because the change in Self-Defense Force ranks is currently under consideration.
In other words, they are not aware of any concrete problems. They cannot yet answer what they will 'internationally standardize' or how, or even the necessity for it. On the other hand, the coalition government agreement states that 'international standardization' will be implemented within fiscal year 2026.
◆ Saying 'Taisa' to foreign militaries won't make it understood
Since they call it 'international standardization,' I would think that the current titles are causing some kind of trouble overseas. However, in practical work with foreign militaries, a First-class Ground Self-Defense Officer does not insist on speaking Japanese to the other party, saying, 'I am an Itto-Rikusa.' If they are a First-class Ground Self-Defense Officer, they replace it with a designation the other party understands, such as Colonel, or if they are a First-class Maritime Self-Defense Officer, Captain. Materials from the House of Councillors Research Bureau also summarize that past government responses have stated that this has not caused any particular problems in the field overseas.
Rank titles of various countries' militaries are not unified internationally in the first place. Even in English-speaking countries, the titles differ between the Army and Navy even if they are of the same rank. The Russian military uses Russian, and the Ukrainian military uses Ukrainian to call their respective ranks. If necessary, you translate it into a language the other party understands and confirm the corresponding rank. That is all there is to it. NATO also has a system called OF/OR that maps the ranks of each country, but it does not unify the unique rank titles of each country themselves.
Even if you change 'Issa' to 'Taisa,' it does not mean that if you say 'I am a Taisa' in Japanese to a foreign soldier, they will suddenly understand.
You translate it anyway. If so, isn't it the same even if it's 'Issa'?
The clues to knowing the other party's rank are not just the title. There are also rank insignia, and there are materials that show the approximate correspondence of ranks between various countries' militaries. However, since the military branches and systems are different, it is not possible to strictly map each country's ranks one-to-one.
You don't learn the knowledge necessary for activities with foreign militaries for the first time on-site without any preparation. At least for Ground Self-Defense Force personnel dispatched to international peace cooperation activities, the International Peace Cooperation Activities Training Unit at Komakado Garrison provides training and support for personnel. Activities with foreign militaries are not something where you arrive on-site, look at the other person's shoulder, and start by saying, 'Oh, there's a star. I wonder if this person is important?'
Even so, when asked what exactly was troublesome with the current rank titles, the government says they are not aware of any.
◆ Is 'Taisa' easier for the public to understand?
There is also the point that 'it is difficult for the general public to understand which rank is higher between Issa and Nisa.' This point is also taken up in this written question.
I don't really understand this either. If you are a person who is not interested in the military, it is not strange at all if you don't know which is higher, a Captain or a Colonel, let alone a Colonel and a Lieutenant Colonel. In the sense that you won't know if you don't know the rank system, it is the same whether it is 'Issa' or 'Taisa.' In fact, if it is only within the same 'Sa' (Field Officer) category, one could even say that the current system, where numbers are lined up as Issa, Nisa, and Sansa, is easier to understand.
In the field of disaster relief, it is even simpler. What disaster victims want to know is not whether the Self-Defense Force member in front of them is an 'Issa' or a 'Taisa.' It is, 'Is this person the person in charge from the Self-Defense Forces?' In coordination with local governments, police, and fire departments, what is necessary is to know that person's position, responsibilities, and authority. If changing it to 'Taisa' made disaster response smoother or improved communication in joint activities, I could understand if there were some such concrete problems.
However, the government itself has not grasped any concrete problems caused by the current nomenclature. If that is the case, I wonder if the argument that it will become 'easier for the public to understand' is a sufficient reason to change rank names that have been used for over 70 years. The current rank designations have been in use since the Self-Defense Forces were established in 1954.
◆ So, why change them?
There is no grasp of any practical problems. The government has not yet clearly answered what the specific content or necessity of 'international standardization' is. Even so, the policy to implement 'international standardization' by the end of fiscal year 2026 is already in place. If that is the case, the question becomes, 'Then, what is the point of changing it?'
Looking at the Ishin 2026 Policy Collection, along with the difficult situation surrounding the recruitment of Self-Defense Forces personnel, improvement of their treatment, and strengthening of the human resource base, it advocates for the necessity of measures to improve the 'pride of Self-Defense Forces personnel as Self-Defense Forces personnel,' and in the same section, it states that international standardization of ranks, uniforms, and job categories will be implemented by the end of fiscal year 2026.
Furthermore, in the '21st Century National Defense Concept and Constitutional Amendment' compiled by Ishin before that, it was stated that regarding the ranks and uniforms of the Self-Defense Forces, it is essential to 'unify them into internationally standard designations as a military.' It even gives examples of changing the rank of General, who is the Chief of Staff, to General, other Generals to Lieutenant General, and Major Generals to Major General.
Reading this far, it looks to me like they want to bring the Self-Defense Forces closer to a 'more military-like name' rather than fixing some practical problem. That said, there is no need to jump to the conclusion that 'this is a revival of the old military' or 'it is for the sake of waging war.' If there is meaning in changing to military-like designations itself, they should have explained it that way from the beginning.
When people say 'it will be easier to understand overseas' or 'it will be easier to understand domestically,' I inevitably return to the initial question. So, what was the problem with 'First Colonel'?
◆ What is wrong with keeping 'First Colonel'?
Even when the Defense Agency became the Ministry of Defense, I thought it was fine to just keep it as an 'Agency.' It would have been enough to make people overseas think, 'It's a Defense Agency, but is this its level? What will happen if it becomes a Ministry'?' I thought that would be more of a deterrent. While saying, 'We are the Self-Defense Forces, we are not a military lol,' if they actually looked into our organization, equipment, and capabilities, they would think, '...Is this really a Self-Defense Force!?' I thought that would be much more eerie and better.
The same goes for ranks. If there is no practical problem with keeping it as 'First Colonel,' then that is fine. Changing it to 'Colonel' will not increase our defense capabilities.
◆ Before calling them Colonels, give them decent equipment
There are other places where money should be spent first.
At the House of Representatives Committee on Security in December 2024, it was revealed in a survey conducted by the Ministry of Defense regarding Self-Defense Forces personnel's clothing that many personnel answered they were purchasing work gloves and socks at their own expense. After that, the Ministry of Defense proceeded with quality improvements and a review of the issuance quantities for work gloves and socks, and the number of gloves increased from two pairs to three, and socks from four pairs to six.
This is very welcome. I want them to put more effort into these kinds of things.
Ground Self-Defense Force bases have stores that are like PXs. I have actually seen them at multiple bases and the National Defense Academy, and they have FamilyMarts, where not only bento boxes, drinks, and ordinary daily necessities are sold, but also items used for training and duty, such as leather gloves, camouflage T-shirts, and flashlights, are sold as a matter of course. Even insoles for half-boots for the Self-Defense Forces can be purchased as personal items.
When you say insoles, ordinary people might think of them as just 'something to make walking a little more comfortable.' However, for ground soldiers, walking is everything. This has not changed since the days of the foot soldiers in the Sengoku period. No matter how magnificent a weapon you have, if you cannot walk, that is the end of it. For Ground Self-Defense Force personnel who walk long distances, socks and insoles are not just comfort items. They are equipment to protect their feet.
A product introduction for insoles for half-boots sold for the Self-Defense Forces includes examples of use by Self-Defense Forces personnel during long-distance marches. The price is about 6,000 yen, and it is stated as a personal purchase, not an official item, and the sales page says 'Also on sale at the PX.' However, this is not a performance evaluation by the Ministry of Defense, but user feedback posted in the product introduction.
I do not intend to deny that Self-Defense Forces personnel choose their own equipment. Shoes and insoles have a lot to do with compatibility with the body. The shape of the feet and the way of walking are different, and the performance required depends on the mission. The problem is whether it is a 'choice' or 'making up for a shortage out of one's own pocket.'
The state should ensure sufficient performance and quantity of equipment necessary for the mission. On top of that, within the permitted range, the individual chooses what suits their body and mission from commercial products, etc. That I can understand. The problem is that it becomes a matter of course to pay out of one's own wallet to make up for the fact that official items are not enough, or because something else is needed to continue the mission.
Furthermore, apart from the problem of making up for the shortage of official items out of one's own pocket, personal equipment also has the problem of suitability as equipment. There is a difference in nature between items chosen based on compatibility with the body, such as shoes and insoles, and gear that involves compatibility with camouflage and equipment systems.
I have seen Ground Self-Defense Force personnel using foreign military equipment many times. I have seen items from several foreign militaries, but the ponchos and ammunition pouches of the Swiss Armed Forces left a particular impression on me. Since this was some time ago, I cannot confirm what kind of regulations or unit-level operations were in place at the time. Therefore, I do not intend to conclude that it was a violation of regulations.
However, when I saw it, I thought, 'Is this okay?' A poncho covers a significant part of the body. Moreover, the camouflage pattern of the Swiss Armed Forces has different colors and patterns from Japan's vegetation. When it comes to ammunition pouches, one must even consider compatibility with the equipment system. Why was it necessary to use foreign military equipment? That is what I am concerned about. The state should sufficiently provide the necessary equipment, and if personal items are used, the scope of that should be clearly defined. Isn't that what it means to organize equipment, including those aspects?
Regarding how much money will be spent on education, rule revisions, and public relations to change the rank titles, members of the Diet have asked the government. However, the government has not provided any cost estimates, citing that the rank change is under consideration.
The government says it has not grasped any specific problems caused by the current titles. It has also not yet answered what the specific meaning of 'international standardization' is. No cost estimates have been provided either.
If that is the case, shouldn't we prioritize doing something about the Self-Defense Forces' equipment before talking about changing it to 'Taisa'?
◆ If you talk about 'pride', first cherish the Self-Defense Force personnel
I have no objection to the 'pride of Self-Defense Force personnel as Self-Defense Force personnel' that the Ishin party talks about, or to the idea of enhancing that pride itself. However, is pride something that is born from changing the way ranks are called?
The state should provide what is necessary for the mission. Do not make Self-Defense Force personnel fill in the gaps with their own money. Make the systems that support the individual and their family in the event of injury, death in the line of duty, or other incidents sufficient and ensure they function reliably. Isn't it only in such a country that pride as a Self-Defense Force member is born?
That is why I would rather have a country that can say, 'The state will provide everything necessary for your mission. If something happens, the state will support you and your family. So, please devote yourself to your mission with peace of mind,' than one that says, 'From today, you are not an Issa, you are a Taisa.'
If you tell Self-Defense Force personnel to risk their lives for the state, the state must also take responsibility for the Self-Defense Force personnel and their families to the very end. This is not a reward. It is a natural responsibility as a state.
However, that does not solve everything. Human life cannot be converted into money. No matter how sufficient the compensation provided to the bereaved family of a Self-Defense Force member who lost their life during a mission may be, it is not the 'price of a life.' You cannot put a price tag on a human life.
The work and dedication of those who have fulfilled their mission must be properly evaluated. Do not abandon those who are wounded, do not forget those who have passed away, and let the state and the people convey, 'We know what you did. We will not forget.'
Providing necessary equipment and supporting the individual and their family is the responsibility of the state. Apart from that, I believe that those who have risked their lives to fulfill their mission should receive honor and praise befitting their work. How the state treats Self-Defense Force personnel—the accumulation of those actions is what supports their pride as Self-Defense Force personnel, isn't it?
What was the problem with Issa? The government says it has not grasped any specific problems. What exactly is 'international standardization'? The government has not yet answered, saying that the rank change is under consideration.
If you are going to spend money on such things, please use it for the Self-Defense Force personnel and their families.
Isn't Issa fine as it is?
◆ Finally, one song
Finally, I would like to introduce one song. Alexander Buinov is a famous Russian singer who has been active since the Soviet era. The song he sings, 'VDV — s neba privet!', is a song about the Russian Airborne Forces, the VDV.
In this song, the following words are repeated.
'SLAVA DESANTU! CHEST I KHVALA!'
Glory to the Airborne Forces. Honor and praise.
I am not praising the Russian military or the Russian Airborne Forces. What I want to highlight here are the words 'honor and praise'.
It is the state's responsibility to provide soldiers with the necessary equipment and to support them and their families. However, human life cannot be bought with money. That is precisely why those who risk their lives to fulfill their duties must be given something that money cannot buy.
That is honor and praise.