where were you in '52?
some things don't change. i've always found it rich that the korean war was officially declared a "conflict" here in the US so as not to require a congressional declaration of something more substantial. but, you tell me--tens of millions of men under arms, in the field for over three years, resulting in multiple millions of deaths--what, exactly, is that supposed to be called??? (that such dodges are allowed to continue to this day insults the memory of those 55,200 american dead as much as anything i could name).
i was closest to that "conflict" via my only uncle, who had served there, but who never felt like talking about it all that much. the impression i took from his silence was of something terrible and necessary, and perhaps deserving of better recognition, though far be it from a soldier to ever complain publically about his (or her) lot. the difference in the magnitude of honors freely bestowed on veterans of WWII (e.g. my father) were obvious even to me as a small child, and it was something that i sensed contributed to my uncle's rancor against opposition to our involvement in vietnam--that the memory of the 58,000 who were to die there was being diminished in a very familiar way--while my father was perhaps freer to achieve a more liberal point of view. (which is to say, neither of them cared much for protesters, but my father could at least speak eugene mccarthy's name out loud).
either way, i never got the idea that either of them ever had gone to war with an expectation that it was guaranteed to turn out well for them or their side. oh, surely they had confidence and commitment that it would, and a firm belief in the just nature of their cause, but they never showed anything so arrogant as expectation. war, to them, did not seem to be like that, or at least that's the way that i remember my impressions of it when i was a small boy. yet, today, i wonder at how supremely confident we have become, and expecting of our success and superiority. does anyone who remembers '52 see it differently?
the reason i'm compelled to ask is that i'm seriously fearful for the potential of mayhem on the korean penninsula these days. this is no cowboy's escapade, to be undertaken (or not) on a whim, without much for real geo-political consequences. (can you imagine the US invading anything in the 50's or 60's without immediate russian and/or chinese deployments in opposition?) no, this one is much larger than that, and for much bigger stakes, with actual nuclear warheads on the other side, and the ever-clear potential to drag all the classic bogeymen into the fray. we've got, what, a few hundred thousand troops in iraq and afghanistan, and it's taxing our armed forces pretty heavily. yet, it took 6.8 MILLION servicemen just to keep korea at a stand-off back in the day. somebody, somewhere, has to be doing some very quick math, and talking about all sorts of tactical possibilities, and that's a very sobering thing to contemplate.
i find myself falling easily into the blind confidence of my generation. i know we have to draw the line with north korea, and my only regret is that our prior presidential administration wasn't clear-eyed enough to see the vast difference in the magnitude and importance between kim's north korea and hussein's iraq. here is a conflict that MAKES a difference in more than just the polarization of islamists against "the west". (which is bad enough). here is a conflict that draws dangerous men, with true and vast deadly force at their whim, into making rash and nothing-to-lose decisions that can immediately impact BILLIONS of innocent people, depending on where they target their warheads. of course we will prevail--we must--but it's the cost that puts the knot in our guts this time.
my uncle fought for what he knew was right, in a time when there were no expectations of prevailing. today, we have to decide if we have that same kind of courage.
i was closest to that "conflict" via my only uncle, who had served there, but who never felt like talking about it all that much. the impression i took from his silence was of something terrible and necessary, and perhaps deserving of better recognition, though far be it from a soldier to ever complain publically about his (or her) lot. the difference in the magnitude of honors freely bestowed on veterans of WWII (e.g. my father) were obvious even to me as a small child, and it was something that i sensed contributed to my uncle's rancor against opposition to our involvement in vietnam--that the memory of the 58,000 who were to die there was being diminished in a very familiar way--while my father was perhaps freer to achieve a more liberal point of view. (which is to say, neither of them cared much for protesters, but my father could at least speak eugene mccarthy's name out loud).
either way, i never got the idea that either of them ever had gone to war with an expectation that it was guaranteed to turn out well for them or their side. oh, surely they had confidence and commitment that it would, and a firm belief in the just nature of their cause, but they never showed anything so arrogant as expectation. war, to them, did not seem to be like that, or at least that's the way that i remember my impressions of it when i was a small boy. yet, today, i wonder at how supremely confident we have become, and expecting of our success and superiority. does anyone who remembers '52 see it differently?
the reason i'm compelled to ask is that i'm seriously fearful for the potential of mayhem on the korean penninsula these days. this is no cowboy's escapade, to be undertaken (or not) on a whim, without much for real geo-political consequences. (can you imagine the US invading anything in the 50's or 60's without immediate russian and/or chinese deployments in opposition?) no, this one is much larger than that, and for much bigger stakes, with actual nuclear warheads on the other side, and the ever-clear potential to drag all the classic bogeymen into the fray. we've got, what, a few hundred thousand troops in iraq and afghanistan, and it's taxing our armed forces pretty heavily. yet, it took 6.8 MILLION servicemen just to keep korea at a stand-off back in the day. somebody, somewhere, has to be doing some very quick math, and talking about all sorts of tactical possibilities, and that's a very sobering thing to contemplate.
i find myself falling easily into the blind confidence of my generation. i know we have to draw the line with north korea, and my only regret is that our prior presidential administration wasn't clear-eyed enough to see the vast difference in the magnitude and importance between kim's north korea and hussein's iraq. here is a conflict that MAKES a difference in more than just the polarization of islamists against "the west". (which is bad enough). here is a conflict that draws dangerous men, with true and vast deadly force at their whim, into making rash and nothing-to-lose decisions that can immediately impact BILLIONS of innocent people, depending on where they target their warheads. of course we will prevail--we must--but it's the cost that puts the knot in our guts this time.
my uncle fought for what he knew was right, in a time when there were no expectations of prevailing. today, we have to decide if we have that same kind of courage.
Labels: politics
posted by kad barma at 4:07 PM
3 Comments:
My memories of the 1950s were not as depressing as yours. I wasn't as worried about "the bomb" as my younger brothers seem to be, looking back. The term "duck and cover" was not in my lexicon.
On the other hand, my Father spent his "summer vacations" out west, leading a team that emplaced and retrieved devices for collecting data at the various "shots." I guess they thought a Safety Engineer would be a good person to head one of the teams at the nuclear test sites. He even brought me back a few small pieces of the "green glass" produced by a shot over sand. Those were the days when we did nuclear testing in the open air. If we still did today we would have a better idea of what the North Korean's actually did in the last test. One of our WC-135s would fly through the down wind plume from the test and get the data needed to know.
One of the things about the Korean "Police Action" is that when the balloon went up we called up the Reserves—and sent them to Europe. DC screwed over Doughlas Macarthur one more time. Our Government saw Korea as the canary in the mine; an early indication of Soviet aggression in Europe.
And Korea is a terrible place to fight. It is really cold in the winter. I remember seeing the feet of some friend's father at the lake and he had some toes missing from Korea. My Father told me that this chap had been part of a team to retrieve some KIA and lifting up a body which was was frozen saw it snap in two.
You mentioned the previous administration, but I am not sure there is real blame for Bush, Clinton or Bush. The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK) is its own strange place and maybe never was going to agree to stopping the development of nuclear weapons. The present succession crisis just makes it worse.
It is interesting that the day after the last DPRK nuclear test the South Koreans were consumed by the suicide of their former President and not what was happening in North Korea. Somewhere Michael Yon made the comment that he walked into a Korean Airlines office in Thailand and the Koreans were all very quiet and in mourning. I offered my sympathies at the Korean Cleaners I frequent and the lady thanked me in a very subdued manner.
Even if there is no war, the reaction to the activities out of the DPRK could have long term ripple effects. If Japan gets nervous and reactivates its own nuclear weapons program (yes, they have thought about it in the past and their Constitution does not bar the production of nuclear weapons), then China would get nervous and a bunch of smaller nations may align with China over it. But, some will go with Japan. That wouldn't be good.
From a US perspective, the South Korean Army is strong and our contributions will tend to focus on ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance), air defense and air offense and seapower.
It is a mess.
Regards — Cliff
I was reading some EMails after posting my previous comment and came across one where the author said something that, taken with a certain spin, may have been not what he intended.
The gist of it was that the real problem is not North Korea, but South Korea. If it wasn't for South Korea, prosperous, democratic, attractive and just across the border, North Korea would be, geopolitically, more like Burma, oops, I mean Union of Myanmar. If North Korea was more like Burma it would show up in the "Daily Briefing" portion of The Globe and not as its own story. It wouldn't feel the need for nuclear weapons, since there would be no South Korea and no US forces on South Korean soil. Well, there would still be Japan, but that is not on the same landmass.
There you have it. (TIC)
Regards — Cliff
That's a pretty interesting (and reasonable) premise, though I'd hesitate to take the suggestion that dismantling and relocating civilization to suit the uncivilized is quite the way we'd want to go. As for "there would still be Japan", I think history shows that such has been plenty to start something in the past, and not hard to expect it might happen again, South Korea or no. The other wild card would be the colonial tendencies of the neighboring Chinese, who could quite easily foment something worse than the geopolitical equivalent of Myanmar/Burma.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home