Why Are We Still in Korea?

[Danno 1,228]

Why must we be involved in every corner of the globe?

Why Are We Still in Korea?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

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.

http://vdare.com/buchanan/101124_korea.htm

[luckytxn 2,264]

Bring all troops worldwide home NOW. Let others expend their fortunes and let us come home and rest and recuperate. We are not needed anymore to handle others problems. Europe is wealthy enough to raise the fortune needed to handle their own defense. Japan and Korea is wealthy enough to be able to expend the fortune needed. The middle east can fight each other and let the best man win. If Russia or China wants to go in and feel that vacuum then so be it and they can expend fortune needed. As for us here we will be OK and just fine. With the savings we will have from the lessened military we will have enough to pay down our debt. Our dollar would be strong then we can actually afford some social programs.

[mawilson 2,133]

Bring all troops worldwide home NOW. Let others expend their fortunes and let us come home and rest and recuperate. We are not needed anymore to handle others problems. Europe is wealthy enough to raise the fortune needed to handle their own defense. Japan and Korea is wealthy enough to be able to expend the fortune needed. The middle east can fight each other and let the best man win. If Russia or China wants to go in and feel that vacuum then so be it and they can expend fortune needed. As for us here we will be OK and just fine. With the savings we will have from the lessened military we will have enough to pay down our debt. Our dollar would be strong then we can actually afford some social programs.

Sounds like a good plan... but is it?

A diminished US military presence will not be without consequences - other countries, some of them our enemies, will inevitably fill the power void.

[Danno 1,228]

Sounds like a good plan... but is it?

A diminished US military presence will not be without consequences - other countries, some of them our enemies, will inevitably fill the power void.

Which enemies did you have in mind?

[mawilson 2,133]

Which enemies did you have in mind?

China and Russia.

[lostinblue 1,989]

China and Russia.

The question is "what is the cost of conflict".Do we pull out of Korea aand Japan? How many hours after we leave Korea would you see an attack by the north?. Most westerners have no idea of the fear by both korea and china of a japanese military complex. If we pull out of Japan .How would Japan react.Tension in that part of the world would be raised a great deal.

[luckytxn 2,264]

China and Russia.

I say let them have a go at having fun in these regions and spend a fortune doing so. The world hates us being a policeman well then wait until they get the alternative. Fun times had by all.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I say let them have a go at having fun in these regions and spend a fortune doing so. The world hates us being a policeman well then wait until they get the alternative. Fun times had by all.

Isolationism is naiive.

[Pooky 3,804]

The question is "what is the cost of conflict?" Do we pull out of Korea and Japan? How many hours after we leave Korea would you see an attack by the North?. Most westerners have no idea of the fear by both Korea and China of a Japanese military complex. If we pull out of Japan, how would Japan react? Tension in that part of the world would be raised a great deal.

And how long after the South is overwhelmed by the sheer number of North Korean troops would China make a play to annex both Koreas? And if the USA withdraws from South-East Asia, how long would Taiwan last before the Chinese intervene to reunite the Chinese people? Then what?

Japan is still bound by international treaty to hold only a defence force. China's military is already superior in numbers and not far behind in technological parity and closing fast. What would they be able to do with the American hardware that would be the inevitable bounty from South Korea and Taiwan?

Having American forces in Europe is getting hard to understand, or justify, other than a symbolic presence, or maybe a staging post. But South-East Asia? Pull out of there and there will be a dramatic shift in the balance of power.

So, do you really want China in a position to be world policeman?

[DEDixon 39]

i've always thought the US should bring troops home in favor of building a bigger navy. send carries to trouble spots, a carrier group is very scary especially knowing nukes are on the subs below the surface.

side note: bring back the draft! every single person coming of age in the US should finish basic military training at a minimum, especially since population growth in the US is more and more through immigration. too many people in the US hold more allegiance to their homeland rather than the US. too many are here for a job and the gov't benefits - i see this everyday.

[SuperDuper! 230]

Isolationism is naiive.

Once again, RB brings sanity to the discussion!

+1

[Pooky 3,804]

i've always thought the US should bring troops home in favor of building a bigger navy. send carries to trouble spots, a carrier group is very scary especially knowing nukes are on the subs below the surface.

side note: bring back the draft! every single person coming of age in the US should finish basic military training at a minimum, especially since population growth in the US is more and more through immigration. too many people in the US hold more allegiance to their homeland rather than the US. too many are here for a job and the gov't benefits - i see this everyday.

A carrier? Really?

A modern nuclear attack submarine is a very good reason not to send a carrier up against a technologically sophisticated adversary. US anti-submarine tech is good, but the Brits, the French, the Russians and the Chinese have nuclear subs that could get close enough to a carrier to send it to the bottom without warning. Not smart.

Carriers are great for sabre-rattling weaker nations. They do nothing against contemporaries.

[Danno 1,228]

China and Russia.

I thought China was our "Most favored trading partner" and is bank rolling a large portion of the Big-Gov dream..... you call that an Enemy?

While it's true we bumped heads with the Soviets, that era is long over..... what Has Russia done to garner them "enemy Status"?

[Pooky 3,804]

I thought China was our "Most favored trading partner" and is bank rolling a large portion of the Big-Gov dream..... you call that an Enemy?

While it's true we bumped heads with the Soviets, that era is long over..... what Has Russia done to garner them "enemy Status"?

Naïveté - you has it.

[Danno 1,228]

And how long after the South is overwhelmed by the sheer number of North Korean troops would China make a play to annex both Koreas?

You could not be more wrong on the facts.

North Korea.

Population

- 2009 estimate 24,051,218

South Korea

- 2010 estimate 48,875,000

Noth Korea

GDP $28.2 billion

South Korea

GDP $1.457 trillion

SOuth Korea has twice the people and many many times the resources to defend it's self.

Wars are a reality of life, how much American Blood and treasure (credit) are we willing to burn up to create the Perfect world.

After we run our Nation into the dirt.. who will take up the cause then?