War on Terrror -- Will Ozawa opt out?

How will the recent election affect US-Japan relations? I hope to have a lot to say about this in the future, but for now just a little bit regarding the war on terror ... Japan has been a strong ally of America in the war on terror. While Japan only sent a minimal contingent to Iraq, Japan's real support has been in the Indian ocean where they have provided vital and necessary refueling for ships and have assiduously patrolled the waters inspecting well over 10,000 ships. While I could be in error, I do not think America even pays for this fuel. I have seen quotes put the amount of refueling at between 30 to 50 percent. The loss of such support would certainly be a great blow to George Bush and the war on terror. However, as I understand it, the DPJ have pledged not to support this operation. Now that they essentially control the upper house, what will they do? A recent Reuters article notes:

Japan expert Michael Green of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said Abe would in particular have a hard time renewing legislation that allows Japanese ships to work in the Indian Ocean to support allied war efforts in Afghanistan. That legislation, which expires in November, as well as year-end negotiations on the billions of dollars Japan pays to host U.S. troops "are going to be very ripe targets for the opposition" Democratic Party of Japan, Green said.

I think this will be a great test to determine how serious the DPJ is about their election pledges and whether they can hold together as a party. Will the hawks defect? Will Ozawa decide to support America? As an aside, I'll note that Japan's presence and activities in the Indian Ocean are clearly unconstitutional. In a 2001 article where Gavan McCormack questions the international legality of American actions in Afghanistan after 9/11, he notes about Japan's Self-Defense Force:

Whatever the legislation, however, the engagement in joint military operations in the Indian Ocean, Pakistan and Afghanistan of forces whose only justification is 'self-defense' surely stretches the self defense principle to the limit. Secondly, whatever else they are doing, as Japan rushes to dispatch forces, including (if Prime Minister Koizumi has his way) its Maritime Self Defense Force missile and torpedo-equipped, state-of-the-art, Aegis frigate, to the Indian Ocean, it is plainly engaged in the 'threat or use of force as a means of settling disputes', which is proscribed by its constitution.

I agree with this. I'll note that as far as engagement in Afghanistan, I think America moved far too slowly. I think America should have acted immediately to go after the primary target Bin Laden. I don't think America should have bothered with the Taliban any more than necessary. I don't want to cause too many chuckles, but I seriously think Ron Paul's idea about Letters of Marque is something that deserves a bit more serious thought than it has ever been given. Links: Japan's Indian Ocean Naval Deployment U.S. Envoy Praises Japan's Support for Terror War