from the article:
"...ongoing debate over the mission of the Japan Self-Defense Forces. Is their role truly one of self-defense, pure and simple? Or does the Japanese constitution allow for preëmptive strikes outside of domestic borders, in the manner of a traditional military?"
This is kind of shocking to read when you think about it:
1) militaries, historically, are for more than self-defense, even pre-emptive self-defense. The article leaves this out, casting the choice as "in-border defense vs out-border defense."
2) In a rare moment of visible doublethink, the article also implies plainly that it is in doubt whether Japan has a military at all: Traditional militaries are the only kind, folks.
How does Japan survive as a sovereign nation without a military? Answer: it doesn't.
Strange times.