Replies

The sooner we fight the next Korean War, the less bloody it gets.

MacArthur was right when he said. "There is no substitute for victory."

But once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end. War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision.
In war there is no substitute for victory.
There are some who for varying reasons would appease Red China. They are blind to history's clear lesson, for history teaches with unmistakable emphasis that appeasement but begets new and bloodier war. It points to no single instance where this end has justified that means, where appeasement had led to more than a sham peace.

Sun Tzu's Art of War:

The military values victory.
It does not value prolonging.
The victorious military is first victorious and after that does battle.
The defeated military first does battle and after that seeks victory.
One who takes position first at the battleground and awaits the enemy is at ease.
One who takes position later at the battleground and hastens to do battle is at labor.
Thus one skilled at battle summons others and is not summoned by them.
Taking a state whole is superior.
Destroying it is inferior to this.

MacArthur's quote has been interpreted many ways based on his plans for attacking China, using atomic bombs if necessary, to his speeches in Congress and at West Point. For MacArthur, Korea became a battlefield to be won, with the defeat of the communists in China (and Russia given their involvement) necessary for complete victory in Korea. Korea also became a proxy for the larger struggle between communism and the West. Truman won public opinion and we substituted the Cold War for victory. Korea is the last vestige of that war. The Cold War Bushido hold outs, although I doubt they'd appreciate that analogy.

There were many Generals that felt the sooner we fought the Soviets, the less bloody the war would be. Turns out, we won without a direct confrontation. Were the proxy wars less bloody over 50 years than a direct assault in the late 40s early 50s? Would Machiavelli appreciate the reduced social impact of a limited war with the cost in lives and treasure spread over so many years? Did the consideration of a push through China in the 50s work in our favor? Would a push into Baghdad in 91 been less bloody than the war we fought, and the occupation/nation building today?

Of course, justifying war in Korea depends on whether you believe the Cold War is really over, whether the Russians are still a threat and/or the Chinese are the next guy on the block in our continuing fight against communism. Unlike Iraq, I do think jumping into a fight in Korea now is the wrong war at the wrong time. Regardless whether you think the Cold War is over or not, arguably we are engaged in a hot war against Islamists and can afford to put the remnants of the Cold War on the back burner.

BTW, I think MacArthur suffered the calamity Sun Tzu warned against:

And so for the general there are five dangers.
Resolved to die, one can be killed.
Resolved to live, one can be captured.
Quick to anger, one can be goaded.
Pure and honest, one can be shamed.
Loving the people, one can be aggravated.
All five are the excesses of the general,
A calamity in employing the military.