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.
Where is all the Kimchi?
Ther is a serious kimchi shortage!
I'm sure they are. However, unlike Buchanan, most of them support the continued existence of Israel.
Prolly best to spend that money on GM and Obamacare.
Agreed.
Why cannot Japan defend herself?
Because S. Korea, N. Korea, China, the Philippines, etc. would have an absolute cow if Japan fully rearmed to defend itself.
Our presence there, and in Korea, is for the same reason we keep a presence in Germany, to keep everyone calmed down...
The SK military would need no help to fend off a NK invasion.
+1
I’ll throw my lot in with you on this one.
Frederick the Great said “he who defends everything, defends nothing.”
While this quote is not entirely applicable to the current situation, it’s one worth remembering. Because that’s the USA. Trying to defend everything, everywhere.
Pat Buchanan is correct. If we don’t pull back, we will bankrupt overselves. Add to that the danger of becoming involved in wars where our national interest is not at stake. Think Bosnia, for example.
Other folks here say a pullback will embolden tyrants, and they have a point.
But it is just as likely that a pullback will force our allies to step up and do more in their parts of the world. Think Japan, for example.
The only reason why SK would need help to fend off an NK invasion is . . . Chinese proxies.
A side note on #3:
America was threatened. The Zimmerman telegram was Germany’s offer to Mexico to invade America with their support should the US enter the war. They would reclaim territory lost in the Mexican/American war. This isn’t as silly as it sounds today because Mexico’s military was bigger than ours at the time. With German military aid it was not an outlandish idea.
However, Mexico passed. What they knew, and Germany didn’t figure in, was the the Second Amendment. That meant every armed American would be gunning for them. We’d been to Mexico City before, and they remembered that far more than the lost territory they never really governed in the first place.
The Germans and the French won’t stand up to increasingly re-invigorated (and frankly, fascist leaning) Russia.
If we are not the major player in continental Europe, Russia will be.
What we should do is stay in these places...and (somehow) make them pay for our peace-keeping there.
Honest to God.
I had an little discussion with my brother yesterday about all this stuff.
He was all disgusted with the USA “imposing” itself on the world.
I said JR. If we dont do it the Chicoms will win, and if you think they will be more benevolent masters than us, you are in for a shock.
All the blather about how we are imperialist SOBS LOL
You want to see Imperialist, Ruthless SOBs? Look to China.
Bingo
The reason for the buildup in guam is because japan don’t want our sh*t on their island anymore.
My old adversary Ivan.
“Ivan Attitude”
LoL He’s been trying to get folks to think he is reasonable these past 20 years, but he’s the same old bear.
Harry S. Truman?
But once Germany started moving the needle and it looked like they would be able to negotiate a favorable peace, something needed to be done.
“What we should do is stay in these places...and (somehow) make them pay for our peace-keeping there.”
If we stay, it will contribute to our economic collapse, which won’t be very much prettier than a military collapse.
...unless we are smart enough to take your suggestion and make them pay for our protection.
Perhaps NATO could assess some sort of fee on its members, based on the number of troops in their countries. The fees could then be transferred to the countries providing the troops.
Indirect enough not to cause nationalistic hard feelings, maybe.
So what if they don’t stand up to Russia?
They won’t stand up to the Muslims, either in their own countries or to terrorists.
It is their continent and if they want to self-destruct, let them.
The US can no longer run around holding everybody’s hand like they are some welfare basket case that needs to forever suck on the US tax payer’s and US military’s teat.
Public opinion is a fickle thing.
The Japanese Gov wants us there. The SK gov wants us there.
The public with all the freedoms we afford them tends to forget what things would be like if they had to fight.
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.