Skip to comments.
The Next Korean War
Using the military is an option. Here's how it can be done.
| Monday, August 4, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT
| JAMES WOOLSEY AND THOMAS G. MCINERNEY
Posted on 08/03/2003 9:22:57 PM PDT by BCrago66
Edited on 04/23/2004 12:05:45 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
The White House had a shape-of-the-table announcement last week: North Korea would participate in six-sided talks with the U.S., China, Russia, South Korea and Japan. This was welcome but it changes nothing fundamental. Kim Jong Il has clearly demonstrated his capacity for falsehood in multilateral as well as bilateral forums. The bigger, and much worse, news is the overall course of events this summer.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: korea; northkorea; southkorea
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-68 next last
posted on 08/03/2003 9:22:57 PM PDT
It sounds like a good plan...there can be no doubt what the outcome would be given a resolute United States.
But the probable cost to Korean civilians would be horrendous. The North has enough artillery pointed at Seoul to level it to the ground in very short order.
Not that they are worth spit, but where is the U.N ? Korea is a U.N. mission. The United States, once again, carries the worlds' water.
posted on 08/03/2003 9:31:19 PM PDT
(is it vietnam yet ?)
Loss of American lives would be great too - what with our deployment right accross the border. But at this point it's hard to see what choice we have; a nuclear explosion in New York City of Chicago would take millions of innocent lives.
I never served; I hope we get some military Freepers on this thread to access whether the strategy above sounds plausible.
posted on 08/03/2003 9:33:28 PM PDT
We are going to be very sorry that we didn't crush these bastards when we could have done it relatively easily. We were paralyzed by the fear of China, and now we are going to pay for that cowardice.
That said, I can see NO POSSIBILITY that we (or the South Koreans) would attack North Korea until AFTER they have struck the first, devastating blow- most likely at Seoul and Tokyo, as well as our bases on Okinawa. I suspect that our military casualties ALONE will exceed the total for the entire Vietnam War before the Second Korean War is a week old. This regime is actually the closest thing imaginable to one of those crazy, evil James Bond villains- even down to the hidden underground facilites that were so popular in the Bond flicks.
I would not be surprised by anything they do- there appears to be no effective internal opposition, and Kim himself is not sane.
We have such a tattered civil culture that editorialists are yelling Vietnam and Quagmire and politicians seek political advantage when we lose 1 or 2 men in Iraq every couple days. Can this nation hold together when it confronts the casualties of Korean War II?
posted on 08/03/2003 9:49:03 PM PDT
This isn't something we can do without South Korean approval, and obviously there's no enthusiasm among South Koreans for risking their own well-being to serve the security interests of a patron they no longer appreciate.
What the authors describe is essentially reiterating what our military planners already know: We'll beat NK easily in a full-scale war but won't emerge unscathed. Thousands of US and South Korean troops will die, and there's no guarantee that we'll hit all their missile sites before they unleash their chemical/biological payloads to Seoul and Tokyo. Acts of terrorism are very likely - NK's special forces are the largest in the world and have trained fanatically for their often suicidal missions. Forcing regime change in NK would make Iraq look like a picnic - and we're still losing a soldier a day in Iraq.
Why are so few people writing about the crisis in North Korea? It's a little more pressing now than gay marriage/Democratic commericals/Kobe the possible rapist and all the other crap pushed by the media.
posted on 08/03/2003 9:57:34 PM PDT
Even assassination is unlikely to help- Kim would just be replaced by the most ruthless of his Generals, and we might be be in a worse position (if possible) than we are now.
Americans do not have a great record for seeing big wars coming- in fact, I think we have never anticipated the outbreak of a major war. We want to be happy and carefree, and even now at least half of the population doesn't believe that there really are evil people in the world.
The article is correct, though, that if China decided to lean on North Korea, a very destructive war could be averted. Will they?
Spent 13 months in korea like many others years ago. Had an old E-7 point out places and tell me what it was like in early 50's; quite sobering then, 20 years later.
Guess I don't think its worth one American boy's life. I think Bush knows he can deal with this without a major action. Asian economics more important than war to many countrys.
posted on 08/03/2003 10:04:45 PM PDT
Depressing scenario. The general public has a long ways to go before it would support a preemptive strike against NK.
I think we should let Japan and Taiwan gear up nuclear programs. That will get China's ass in gear. The Chinese are probably enjoying the NK shenanigans. It distracts us and perhaps they desire a quid pro quo. They take care of NK we acquiesce on Taiwan.
posted on 08/03/2003 10:07:39 PM PDT
Why are so few people writing about the crisis in North Korea?
I think because Bush has made a conscious decision to accord lower priority to Korea than the Mideast for the duration of his term. The media would pounce on him like a pack of wolves if he expressed his urgency - you can imagine their glee over the fact that there's no easy military solution. Bush wouldn't want to play into their hands, would he? He has to appear calm while being prepared for any flare-ups.
If the war with Iraq was a game of Chess, our standoff with NK would be a game of Go - a classic Asian confrontation where detachment and patience, not headstrong force, are the key to victory.
Send in the human shields!
The Editorial writers do not accurately reflect the civil culture in America. The irony is that despite the hand wringing from the chattering classes, the people I talk to are still resolute. (although it is a self-selected group.)
This nation is stronger than many will believe.
I'm just hoping Kim's not as insane as he looks. He's gotta realize that if he intends to hurt us, he'll effectively remove his enemies' reluctance to depose him by force. As for China's lack of cooperation, what do you expect? Let's just be thankful that unlike in '94 they're at least mindful that somebody has to do something.
To: BCrago66; SAMWolf; ExSoldier; NMFXSTC; GATOR NAVY; AmericanInTokyo
>>>> Can this nation hold together when it confronts the casualties of Korean War II?
We must, we always must. We should first do whatever it takes to avoid the casualties, but if we reason that it can't be done any other way, then there needs to be an unleashing of force like we've never done before. I think we're very close to that moment now. In fact, we may possibly be able to avoid much greater calamity if we strike now.
My father, a WWII veteran decorated with a purple heart, has said that he thinks we should be thinking the unthinkable and considering the cost of not striking now. He's still alive to give that sort of advice. We're still alive to take it. So are our families. So are the families of one of our closest allies, Japan.
We can not live with allowing a North Korean nuclear weapon falling on an ally of ours that we asked not to maintain a defensive nuclear capability because we would protect it. We cannot live with an invasion of South Korea. Likewise, China should know that we will use force in Taiwan or in North Korea -- as needed to protect our interests and the freedoms of the people left in those regions who love liberty and economic freedom.
posted on 08/03/2003 10:19:26 PM PDT
Your father probably said the same thing about China when it got the bomb in '64. Sure, the costs of inaction are potentially catastrophic. But as long as the enemy doesn't strike first, it's always potentially catastrophic. On the other hand launching preemptive warfare guarantees heavy loss of life. It's not in anyone's nature to shed blood to prevent something that may or may not happen anyway.
Trading N. Korea for Taiwan would be a great trade for China: eliminate the threat from a one of the worlds poorest countries and gain one of the worlds richest...
Aside from the betrayal aspects, we already trade far too much with China, considering their continued theft of Intellectual property, use of slave labor ect.
During the first Korean War one of the options was to unleash Chang Kai-shek. I would rather have Taiwan and South Korea develop their own nukes than betray Taiwan like that.
posted on 08/03/2003 10:36:05 PM PDT
(I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.)
>>>> It's not in anyone's nature to shed blood to prevent something that may or may not happen anyway.
That's what we said before WWII. It's what we said before 9/11. We know better now. When a nation or rogue group credibly threatens Americans or our allies, that is when we should take action. Kim Jong Il knows this yet he persists. The important thing is to avoid playing into hands. He's a lunatic, so that shouldn't be too hard. The hard part is to keep Russia and China out of it, and I think that is possible too.
posted on 08/03/2003 10:42:05 PM PDT
posted on 08/03/2003 10:51:14 PM PDT
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-68 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson