The government's inconsistent statements last week on the security situation in the southern Iraq city of Samawah, the destination of Japanese ground troops, has raised new doubts about a survey report that describes the situation as "relatively stable." This suggests, regrettably, that the government has not been doing a very good job gathering security intelligence.

Responding to questions in the Diet, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said the government's order to dispatch the main contingent of the Ground Self-Defense Force was based partly on reliable information supplied by a council of representatives in the Iraqi city. But he reversed himself after it was revealed that the municipal council had disbanded. However, the prime minister reaffirmed the report's finding, saying "the problem of the council has no direct effect on the security situation."

Meanwhile, the Japan Communist Party produced an internal government document indicating that the Foreign Ministry and the Defense Agency had drafted a report making the same conclusion as the final report even before the survey was completed. The document says allied forces in a southern province that includes Samawah were attacked six times between May and January. However, these incidents were kept confidential.

The survey report, prepared by an advance team after two days of field study in the Samawah area, supposedly provides a factual basis for the troop dispatch. But the conflicting comments made by Prime Minister Koizumi and other Cabinet ministers detracts from the credibility of that report. Indeed, it appears that the dispatch was a foregone conclusion rather than the result of a detailed survey.

At stake is the principle of civilian control. Obviously, any major troop movement must be based on a government decision that takes all relevant factors into account. And, of course, such a decision is subject to parliamentary approval. However, the superficial debate in the Diet, disrupted by uproars over the government's contradictory replies, suggested that the mechanism of civilian control was not working as effectively as it should.

If the troop dispatch is a foregone conclusion, Diet approval of it is effectively guaranteed given the majority held by the ruling coalition. A bill seeking approval cleared the Lower House early Saturday morning. But the debate sidelined fundamental questions raised by the dispatch, such as how it relates to the pacifist clauses of the Constitution that severely restrict the use of force by the Self-Defense Forces.

In his Jan. 19 policy speech to the Diet, Mr. Koizumi made a strong case for SDF deployment in Iraq, saying that as a responsible member of the international community Japan must help rebuild the country, and that the nation was acting in response to U.N. calls for international cooperation. Uncharacteristically, he made no mention of the "Japan-U.S. alliance." Still, many Japanese believe that the real reason is cooperation with the United States.

In the Diet last week, Koizumi spoke his mind candidly. Asked why he supported the U.S.-led war with Iraq, he singled out the Japan-U.S. alliance. "In the event of crisis hitting Japan," he said, "the United Nations will not send its forces over here to fight with us and prevent aggression." It was an open admission of the U.N.'s "limitations."

The troop dispatch, as well as the large reconstruction-aid package promised by the government, is a logical extension of that "prowar" position. The international community, however, remains divided not only over the legitimacy of the war but also over ways of supporting the reconstruction of Iraq.

Weapons of mass destruction -- the chief reason cited by the U.S. for its invasion -- have not been found in Iraq. In fact, there now seems to be little or no chance of finding those weapons. Mr. David Kay, who until recently headed the Iraqi Survey Group, says there is no physical evidence to prove the existence of large-scale WMD programs. If so, it will be difficult for Mr. Koizumi to consider reconstruction support simply as a "followup" to his decision for the Iraq war.

The war on terrorism -- another reason given for the military action -- continues, but as is the case with Iraq, the results have been mixed. In some respects the world is becoming more, not less, unstable as a result of the antiterror campaign.

Mr. Koizumi is right to say that we should not give in to terrorists, yet many Japanese worry that hand-in-glove cooperation with the U.S. in Iraq and in the fight against terrorism might lead this nation in a more dangerous direction. This concern, unfortunately, was left largely unanswered during the Diet debate.