Most scholars agree that the Japanese amphibious strategy is fundamentally flawed by the lack of cooperation between the Japanese Self Defense Forces’ (JSDF) ground and maritime branches, as well...Show moreMost scholars agree that the Japanese amphibious strategy is fundamentally flawed by the lack of cooperation between the Japanese Self Defense Forces’ (JSDF) ground and maritime branches, as well as the latter’s lack of dedicated amphibious capabilities. However, while the struggles of the Japanese Ground Self Defense Force (JGSDF) have been extensively documented in papers and interviews by academics, retired JGSDF and United States Marine Corps (USMC) officers, research on its Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF) counterpart has lagged behind. The JMSDF’s amphibious warfare unit, counterintuitively or perhaps fittingly called the Mine Warfare Force (MWF), is only mentioned contextually, and portrayed as an inadequate JMSDF counterpart to the JGSDF’s marines. Yet, the archipelago nation, standing as the greatest obstacle to China's seaward expansion, cannot afford to possess ineffective amphibious forces. Whether it is from the perspective of containing, deterring, or fighting the People's Liberation Army (PLA), for Japan, the ability to quickly deploy and sustain forces on its islands is essential. Why was arguably the most professional Navy in Asia unable to develop an effective amphibious counterpart for Japan's naval infantry? By conducting a comprehensive analysis of Japanese naval literature from official and quasi-official sources, this thesis aims to demonstrate that, contrary to common wisdom, neither Japan's pacifist nature nor a preconceived lack of JMSDF interest in amphibious capabilities shaped this result. Instead, the deeper reasons for this failure must be sought in intra- and inter-organizational politics within the JSDF. To prove this point, the thesis will analyze the MWF's evolution from its inception to the present day, focusing on three transformational moments that occurred in the periods of 2011 to 2013, 2014 to 2017, and 2018 to 2023.Show less