Constructive gadfly
Published on December 11, 2005 By stevendedalus In Politics

At the outset of the Korean War, President Truman labeled his decision “police action” in the hope that “UN” troops police the incursion over the 38th Parallel on the part of the North and restore peace to South Korea; he, like Bush, was stunningly wrong. To approach internal political and ideological strife as it were a crime wave is unwise. Though the Iraq War was hailed as a no-bars invasion, it was in fact an exaggerated swat team operation freeing hostages from the grasp of a dictator. Neo-cons wildly speculated that the action would be a quick mop up while grateful Iraqi citizens cooperated fully. Thus, mission accomplished.

But as Truman, Johnson, Nixon learned, ideologies — Bush in particular, when to boot religion rears its head — run deeper than rooting out a godfather from his spider hole. There is no controlling enemy reaction to war when the invading forces meddle in internal affairs inevitably resulting in occupation. Fighting criminal organizations which, however brutally enterprising, still consider themselves citizens subservient to the flag and when not violating its laws, rather than disrupt, partake of its nation’s infrastructure. On the other hand, a nation that violates sovereignty without provocation no, matter how gross that sovereign be, suddenly the dreaded word nationalism — or in the case of our own civil war, sectarianism — takes hold out of perverse pride and even ironically when the violators are liberators perceived as occupiers.

The wars in Vietnam and Korea had built into it the domino theory tentatively to justify somewhat its initiatives, which soon, was disclosed for what it was, ideological and unfortunately totalitarian nationalism; nonetheless, the US in both instances stayed the course for years while attempting nation-building for the areas under protection. In this respect, Truman and Eisenhower at least were successful but paid the endless price of a 50 year occupation but unmarred by insurgency because lines of defense were sharply defined by the truce. Johnson and Nixon failed miserably because they were unable to draw a line of substantial defense and effect an impasse.

The war in Iraq, too, is tainted by dabbling in nation-building — more accurately democratization — rather than accept the faith of grateful leaders and people who trust that only an adjustment is necessary for a nation, or at least its culture, centuries old. The most the US can do to save face is to protect the borders from foreign incursions and let the Iraqis deal with the insurgency; and if they should fail, which is remote — though, surely the Kurds would not tolerate defeat — at least a semblance of democracy would materialize as the people would never again, for which we must thank Bush, return to Saddam-Baathism.

Copyright © 2005 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: December 11, 2005.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com


Comments
on Dec 11, 2005
Perhaps you should make sure that your subjects in each paragraph agree. South viet Nam is not on the 38th parrallel, and Truman had little to do with Viet Nam other than ignoring OSS agent 047's (Ho Chi Mihn)
declaration of independence.
The war in Korea was caused by a number of reasons, with A lack of Political vision on the part of FDR and Truman's State Department being the major causes. Your use of the term Police Action has nothing to do with stated reasons for our support of the Republic of Korea. It was a nifty UN thing.
on Dec 11, 2005

Reply By: SSG Geezer

I was going to point out that typo, but Geezer beat me to it.

Truman, Johnson, Nixon

I would add Kennedy to that as well.

on Dec 11, 2005

Your use of the term Police Action has nothing to do with stated reasons for our support of the Republic of Korea. It was a nifty UN thing.
It was not my term but Truman's in order to avoid UN objections to invasion; and for American consumption that it would be a very limited war.

OSS agent 047's (Ho Chi Mihn)


declaration of independence.

Then it was France's problem.

I was going to point out that typo,
I'm glad you saw it as a stupid typo and not as Geezer perceived that I was a moron to prove his hostile viewpoint. Thanks, and I have edited it. 

on Dec 11, 2005
Actually a "police action" was a designation of an official UN action. The Korean War was a "Police action" because the UN Embassadore to the Soviet Union was absent during the vote... during the UN vote over the same question concerning The Vietnam War, the Soviet embassadore was there to block it... if it went the other way the Vietnam War would have been a "police action" also.
on Dec 11, 2005
Actually a "police action" was a designation of an official UN action. The Korean War was a "Police action" because the UN Embassadore to the Soviet Union was absent during the vote
You're right, but it was highly criitcized here as Truman's farce for not calling it a war.
on Dec 13, 2005
The reason I mentioned Ho and his declaration was because we had a lot to do with France's return to colonial rule. We supported them to try to keep them in NATO.
The Korean war could have been successfully completed with a unified Korea after Macarthurs Inchon landing except for huge miscalculations on the part of the State Department on possible Chinese responses to us moving north of Pyongyang.
Macarthur's mistakes, (of which there were many) made it much worse. His political posturing in Taiwan did little to make the Chinese comfortable with the possibility of US troops on their border, in fact I suspect that it was near the top of their reasons for intervening. His failures to believe his intel and lack of common sense dealing with his supply situation were just supporting factors in the resulting back and forth and eventual stalemate and armistice.

I am sorry you took my comment as hostile. If you took it that way, please accept my apologies as it was not intended to be.

As someone who has done more than a little research on the Korean situation, I don't actually see it as having any parallells with the current situation.
(But The Republic of Korea's amazing growth in business and quality of life should bring hope for the future if we hold to our promises to the Iraqi people.)