Posted on 11/26/2010 8:45:17 AM PST by Kaslin
This writer was 11 years old when the shocking news came on June 25, 1950, that North Korean armies had crossed the DMZ.
Within days, Seoul had fallen. Routed U.S. and Republic of Korea troops were retreating toward an enclave in the southeast corner of the peninsula that came to be known as the Pusan perimeter.
In September came Gen. MacArthur's masterstroke: the Marine landing at Inchon behind enemy lines, the cut-off and collapse of the North Korean Army, recapture of Seoul and the march to the Yalu.
"Home by Christmas!" we were all saying.
Then came the mass intervention of a million "volunteers" of the People's Liberation Army that had, in October 1949, won the civil war against our Nationalist Chinese allies. Suddenly, the U.S. Army and Marines were in headlong retreat south. Seoul fell a second time.
There followed a war of attrition, the firing of MacArthur, the repudiation of Harry Truman and his "no-win war," the election of Ike and, in June 1953, an armistice along the DMZ where the war began.
Fifty-seven years after that armistice, a U.S. carrier task force is steaming toward the Yellow Sea in a show of force after the North fired 80 shells into a South Korean village.
We will stand by our Korean allies, says President Obama. And with our security treaty and 28,000 U.S. troops in South Korea, many on the DMZ, we can do no other. But why, 60 years after the first Korean War, should Americans be the first to die in a second Korean War?
Unlike 1950, South Korea is not an impoverished ex-colony of Japan. She is the largest of all the "Asian tigers," a nation with twice the population and 40 times the economy of the North.
Seoul just hosted the G-20. And there is no Maoist China or Stalinist Soviet Union equipping Pyongyang's armies. The planes, guns, tanks and ships of the South are far superior in quality.
Why, then, are we still in South Korea? Why is this quarrel our quarrel? Why is this war, should it come, America's war?
High among the reasons we fought in Korea was Japan, then a nation rising from the ashes after half its cities had been reduced to rubble. But, for 50 years now, Japan has had the second largest economy and is among the most advanced nations on earth.
Why cannot Japan defend herself? Why does this remain our responsibility, 65 years after MacArthur took the surrender in Tokyo Bay?
The Soviet Empire, against which we defended Japan, no longer exists, nor does the Soviet Union. Russia holds the southern Kurils, taken as spoils from World War II, but represents no threat. Indeed, Tokyo is helping develop Russia's resources in Siberia.
Why, when the Cold War has been over for 20 years, do all these Cold War alliances still exist?
Obama has just returned from a Lisbon summit of NATO, an alliance formed in 1949 to defend Western Europe from Soviet tank armies on the other side of the Iron Curtain that threatened to roll to the Channel. Today, that Red Army no longer exists, the captive nations are free, and Russia's president was in Lisbon as an honored guest of NATO.
Yet we still have tens of thousands of U.S. troops in the same bases they were in when Gen. Eisenhower became supreme allied commander more than 60 years ago.
Across Europe, our NATO allies are slashing defense to maintain social safety nets. But Uncle Sam, he soldiers on.
We borrow from Europe to defend Europe. We borrow from Japan and China to defend Japan from China. We borrow from the Gulf Arabs to defend the Gulf Arabs.
To broker peace in Palestine, Obama began his presidency with a demand that Israel halt all new construction of settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
Today, as his price for a one-time-only 90-day freeze on new construction on the West Bank, but not East Jerusalem, "Bibi" Netanyahu is demanding 20 F-35 strike fighters, a U.S. commitment to a Security Council veto of any Palestinian declaration of independence, and assurances the U.S. will support a permanent Israeli presence on the Jordan river. And the Israelis want it all in writing.
This, from a client state upon which we have lavished a hundred billion dollars in military aid and defended diplomatically for decades.
How to explain why America behaves as she does?
From 1941 to 1989, she played a great heroic role as defender of freedom, sacrificing and serving mankind, a role of which we can be forever proud. But having won that epochal struggle against the evil empire, we found ourselves in a world for which we were unprepared. Now, like an aging athlete, we keep trying to relive the glory days when all the world looked with awe upon us.
We can't let go, because we don't know what else to do. We live in yesterday -- and our rivals look to tomorrow.
It is working real well.....
How is it possible people can't see this?
Who's war? It was a U.N police action and the U.S. never declared war on NK.
You might be living in some 1950s dream world, where all these other countries once respected the U.S. and were our allies... Those days are LONG over, as most of the world looks at us with utter contempt.
Get yourself updated.
As for Korea, we never declared war with them. It was a UN police action that got us involved.
We would have gotten involved anyway. Domino theory and all that. It's just that back then the other members of the UN cared about things other than bashing Americans and Jews.
No it is you who needs to live in the present.. Not the Isolationist 30’s period... Oh by the way I’m sure Congress also approved of the Korean Conflict.. We did stop the Reds in their tracks..
Touche.
True.
“We would have gotten involved anyway. Domino theory and all that. It’s just that back then the other members of the UN cared about things other than bashing Americans and Jews.”
Gung ho Kevin!!
China would hate this.. but first the Americans would have to completely GET OUT...
We stay there because it is the only footprint we have left anywhere in continental Asia. I'm sure that you can see the value in that.
The roks have carried that burden for years.
______________________________
Please provide a detailed scenario.
“Dont be shocked if the Chicoms try to retake Taiwan on Obamas watch”
If we are in a position of helping South Korea stop a major invasion attempt....I expect Red China to sit passively until we are fully engaged and then attack and take Taiwan while we are too busy to do anything to stop it.
The United States is engaged in a police action with north Korea that is in a state of cease fire. It never officially ended. It is ongoing.
Foot print in Asia is not the reason. We are there as part of the UN mission in the ongoing police action mission. Negotiations are still in progress at Panmumjon
We have major troop and air deployments in Asia..... in Afghanistan
When will Pat admit why he is ignored so much and so often - because he’s so often wrong.
It's just silly to think of Afghanistan, which we can barely keep supplied, in the same vein.
Yep, I was just thinking the same thing.
Doesn’t take long for Pat to get around to sounding all
his old themes, even when we do understand the obvious points he’s making. But just what exactly are N. Korea’s designs? To destroy S. Korea or (chuckle) ‘take it over’?
Does anyone think N Korea could do any more than it’s currently doing, just do it over and over until some combined force of S Korea and the USA have to respond?
And is the next development seen to be North Korea’s apocalyptic use of nuclear weapons on S Korea, and by extension, US?? Someone please clarify. Tell me if this is anything more than the new, young lunatic in charge just making his bones.....
No real ally of our would undervalue their currency to gain a trade advantage. Japan, Korean and Taiwan surely do.. , For the shame of all of them and our shame for accepting this.
I wonder what would have happened if the Kaiser had won WW1. No Nazis in Germany would be a good guess. Also possibly no Bolsheviks taking power in Russia?
The Mexican government itself didn't think that much German aid would make it to Mexico through the gauntlet of the Royal Navy.
I wasn't referring so much to religion as to ethnoculture. The Mexican government of the time didn't want to go to the trouble of assimilating by-now Anglo Texas.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.