Korean Brinksmanship

[Grim Reaper]

My son is up at the border (DMZ) guarding demoncracy so I sure hope it all just blows over

I was stationed over there back in '02 and really hoping nothing happens. The US forces there are basically a speed bump to ensure American support if North Korea tries anything.

[dales]

My ex-wife (a Korean from Pusan) believed American troops should get the hell out and let the Koreans settle it themselves.

I tend to agree.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Only if China stops propping up NK.

[Lord Jim]

I think that would be a terrible mistake with horrendous repercussions...

Not to mention the message of complete fecklessness on our part that it would send all around the globe, to friend and foe alike....

[dales]

The ROK is more than able to take care of itself.

Using American weapons and technology, they are more than a match for PDRK forces.

And why the hell do we still have troops in germany ferchrisakes?

[Lord Jim]

We've had this discussion before around here, and I simply cannot buy into this whole neo-isolationist thing, that some on both the left and the right (from Pat Buchanan to Dennis Kucinich) want to embrace....

I think it's foolish and dangerous and would ultimately result in our paying a much higher price then if we remain globally engaged....

We tried this with the original isolationism; the result was Pearl Harbor....

[dales]

Jim...

Can we continue to be the world's policeman?

With so many problems here at home?

Pearl Harbor did catch us with our pants down, I'll conceed that.

But do we have to stick our big nose in everyone's problems throughout the world?

Is there a middle ground somewhere?

Yes, I tend to be somewhat of a neo-isolationist/populist but from what I've seen in the last couple of decades with trillions down the toilet in Iraq/Afghanistan while our nation crumbles around us, many Americans agree.

Kristonafreakingkrutch, we can't continue down this road.

[Lord Jim]

Dale, one of the primary reasons we need to remain militarily engaged on a global scale, with forward positioned forces, (in places like Germany) and a forward leaning policy against threats, is in order to avoid future Afghanistans....

To help prevent situations where anti-Western forces are able to metastasize to the point where they represent a serious danger, and large scale military intervention is required..

We also need to take this posture to provide deterrence against malevolent nations acting to fill up power vacuums that would be inevitably created if we simply withdrew from the world...As the power of these nations expands and our own influence wanes, the threat to us grows, and the likelihood of us paying a price, (both economically and ultimately militarily) much higher than the cost of deterrence also grows...

Whatever problems we have domestically, it's fallacious to think that we're going to be in a better position to solve them if we live in a world of increased threat and diminished influence.

150 years ago we could get away with it. But today the world has grown too small and inter-connected for this approach to possibly end in anything but tears, regardless of what sort of visceral appeal it might have.

[dales]

I say we let Australia do the heavy lifting.

[Lord Jim]

many Americans agree.

I know that, and I find it very worrisome. I've remarked before about the un-holy alliance between the pacifist left and the neo-isolationist right, (as well as the anti-engagement Libertarians) on this issue...

And I fully understand the appeal that the neo-isolationist approach has, particularly in tough economic times, (it's no coincidence that isolationism originally reached it's greatest level of popular support in the 1930s)

But I fervently hope and pray, for my country and my children's future, that support for this approach never reaches the level where it actually becomes policy. I am convinced that it would not accomplish what well meaning folks like yourself and others believe it would accomplish, but that it would in fact make our domestic situation worse, not better.

It seems to me we've already done all the withdrawing (I support at this point the planned withdrawal from Afghanistan, though that will mean we will have to keep a close eye on the country and be prepared to launch appropriate strikes if we see the Islamo fascist terrorists beginning to represent a new threat. We'll have to treat it basically like we do Pakistan, ) and made all the reductions that are prudent.

At the height of the Cold War, we had nearly 500,000 troops deployed in Europe. Today we have fewer than 100,000; this represents an 80% reduction. This may be appropriate, but that's certainly as far as we should go.

Big RR talked about the US having a "large standing army" but the fact of the matter is that for a nation of 300 million plus people, we really don't.

The proof of this is Iraq. We didn't have sufficient forces to do the things that needed to be done initially, (like provide security after we had taken down the regime.) And in order to keep just 150,000 troops in the field for more than just a few months, we had to extend duty tours, shorten home rotations, and call up less trained reserve units by the thousands to serve for months on end. (All of which had a terrible affect on morale and readiness)

In addition, we were still so short handed that we had to pay a huge amount for thousands of private security forces from companies like Blackwater...forces that we had little control over.

A nation of our size that truly had a "large standing army" would have been able to keep a relatively modest troop level of 150,000 in the field without having to resort to any of those things.

And now they're planning a further cut of 72,000....(Meanwhile the staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff since 2006 has ballooned from a little over 1000 to over 4000...If they want to make some cuts there's a good place; we don't need any further reductions in combat troop levels, in fact we ought to be looking at increasing them.)

[Grim Reaper]

And why the hell do we still have troops in germany ferchrisakes?

Places like Landstuhl are the nearest hospitals that military troops in Iraq or Afghanistan can be flown to for emergency medical treatment.

And we've been scaling back in Germany, a lot of bases have already been closed, with 16 more closures scheduled over the next few years.

[Econoline]

I don't know why we aren't doing more to communicate directly with the people and the middle-leadership in N. Korea.

The answer to the first part of your question is, "because it would be pointless", and the answer to the second part of your question is, "because no such group exists."...

Glad I could clear that up....

Actually, I think you're right about the first part but probably wrong about the second part, Jim. He didn't say middle-class (which I agree doesn't exist in NK) but middle-leadership--which has to exist, even if it's a relatively tiny group, and even if it exists entirely within the military. There have to be levels of command in between Kim and the average North Korean worker: no army can function with nothing but generals and privates.

Now, trying to communicate directly with this middle-leadership might be just as impossible/pointless as trying to communicate directly with the general NK population, but that's a different question, and the answer is not so obvious.

[dales]

An open letter to Kim Jong-Un:

LETTER TO KIM JONG UN

(Please feel free to copy, edit if and as desired, sign and send this letter to Kim Jong Un of North Korea.)

Kim Jong Un
Chairman
Chosun Communist Party
Kumsoosan, Miam-dong, Daesung district
Pyongyang, Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK)

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The best-case scenario according to your generals - to rule over a re-unified Korea - would put you where Nicolai Ceausescu, Moammar Quadaffi, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak were before they were toppled and imprisoned or killed by popular uprisings.

Having been educated in Switzerland, you know perfectly well that North Korea is not the workers' paradise your father's generation claimed it to be.

That truth is now reaching your people, who listen to radio broadcasts and watch DVDs from abroad, cross into China, and trade markets that your government now has to tolerate across North Korea.

Juche failed because it is a fake imitation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the power of which your grandfather witnessed and wanted for himself.

If you try to perpetuate Juche, you and your people will perish. If you instead turn to and rebuild your nation on the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, you and your people will live, now and forever.

Christians in and outside your nation are praying for you to be a visionary leader who leads his people out of darkness and into prosperity empowered not by America or China but by the omnipotent power of Jesus Christ.

I am one of those Christians.

Sincerely,

(Signed)

Your name
Address

[Gob]

That's him told then!

[oldr_n_wsr]

Dennis Rodman has a better chance.

[rubato]

Jim...

Can we continue to be the world's policeman?

With so many problems here at home?
... " .

By taking the leadership role in Libya and doing nearly all the heavy lifting in Mali the French have signaled that they are able, and have the will, to do a lot of the work. If a few more of our partners grew a set and followed their example it would be a lot cheaper and easier for us.

I think we'll be fine if the rest of NATO and SEATO get off their asses and do their part.


yrs,
rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

I think we'll be fine if the rest of NATO and SEATO get off their asses and do their part.

I cannot, and do not,disagree with that statement.
It would be nice if other nations stepped up.

[Big RR]

Jim--I don't entirely disagree with you, but I do think we have continually suffered from a lack of a cogent foreign policy; we are usually much more reactive than proactive, and will take whatever position makes sense in the short term rather than look at the bigger picture. Take Afghanistan; what was our objective? Did we achieve it? All I can see is we put a buffoon in charge of the government who is much better at feathering his own nest, than in forging a nation which adheres to any principles which I think we would find attractive. We've dumped money down a rat hole for what? To defeat the Taliban and eliminate nests of terrorists--many other countries are just as big havens for them (hell, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia still are pretty good havens--bin Laden was even found in Pakistan, but what's our policy there?), and it won't be long before they are back in Afghanistan, likely with the blessing of the then-current government). And from what I've seen, that's been the nature of our post-WW2 (really post-Marshall plan) foreign policy. We, as a nation, used to stand for something, for freedom and self determination of peoples, e.g., that we abandoned again and again; and so we dump money and lives into an ill-defined plan, punctuated by reactive ventures that do little to increase our security. IMHO it behooves us to try and determine what we, as a nation stand for and how we should use our force and power, but we really don't seem to want to do that.

As for a standing army, while we can disagree as to what the [proper level of a professional army is in a stable democracy, I can say history has taught us one thing--the larger/stronger a standing army is, the more likely it is to be used. And without proper leadership, it is far more likely to be used for ill than for good.

[oldr_n_wsr]

We, as a nation, used to stand for something, for freedom and self determination of peoples

I think the problem is the "peoples" have not stood up. If they wanted it we were there to give it to them. Iraq, Afgan, are too tribal to become what they might want. I am of the opinio that onlyn a dictator like Saddam could hold that country together. Once allowed to self rule, they seem to fall apart.
But I am open to other opinions/options.

[Econoline]

Dennis Rodman has a better chance.

If we're going to enlist the aid of a former Chicago Bull to solve the problem, hell, let's go all the way and call in Michael Jordan!