Mike over at Seeing Eye Blog discusses the potential dispatch of South Korean combat troops to Iraq, and rips a number of writers for their rather myopic view of the situation in the Middle East. I figure at this point, with the debate over this issue heating up, I should contribute a couple of thoughts of my own.
Firstly, let me say that unlike a number of pundits (including MF at Seeing Eye Blog), I have no problem with Seoul considering, first and foremost, its national interests when it finally decides on whether to send troops or not. The interests of the people of Iraq and world peace are all well and good, and definitely something we should strive for, but they are not something you base critical national decisions on, unless you are looking to court disaster. Yes, the people of Iraq need help, but so do a lot of people in the world - the security situation in the Congo is equally shitty, but I don’t see anyone (besides those parties with an expressed interest in being there) rushing to send troops. The cold, hard fact is that nations do what’s in their best interests, and that’s especially the case when military options are being considered. I argued against the deployment of American troops to Liberia, and I still question the presence of American troops in the Balkans because I feel that the US has few interests to protect in either region that are worth placing American troops in harm’s way. I have also argued in this blog - quite consistently - for the withdrawal of American troops from South Korea because I felt that their presence here served no appreciable American interests. So I am not going to argue that South Korea should send its young men and women to Iraq for either Middle East peace, “the children,” or any other reason - no matter how admirable - other than that it’s in Seoul’s national interest to do so.
Likewise, I’m extremely uncomfortable with arguments to the effect that South Korea should dispatch troops to Iraq out of feelings of loyalty or gratitude to the United States. Whether or not South Koreans should feel such feelings about their Number One Ally is beside the point; like I stated above, sentiment is a very dangerous thing to base foreign policy decisions on, especially those with life and death consequences. Like any nation, South Korea needs to approach this issue with a cool-headed realism and ask itself whether or not the benefits of sending its forces into a hot situation like Iraq outweigh the drawbacks, not the least of which is the very real possibility that some of its young people will be coming home from the desert in body bags. With this in mind, I should also say that I do not resent the fact that Seoul is taking its time with this decision. Noh Mu-hyeon, after all, is ultimately responsible to the South Korean voters, not the US, the UN, or “world opinion.” Now, statesmen often act contrary to domestic opinion when vital national interests are at stake, but those decisions are rarely easy or quickly arrived upon. To expect South Korea to make up its mind immediately on an issue like this is neither realistic nor fair. I’m not saying that Seoul should drag its feet on the issue - time is a factor, after all - but we should allow the South Korean government some space to both consider its decision and sell that decision to the public to which it’s ultimately responsible.
Now that I’ve said that, let me say that I’m of the opinion that South Korea SHOULD send combat-ready forces to Iraq. First off, South Korea has as much interest in seeing a stable, democratic Iraq as the United States. More so, actually - unlike the United States, which has sizable oil reserves of its own, South Korea is almost entirely dependent on Middle Eastern oil imports, and I can’t see how letting the region go to shit would be in South Korea’s national interests. Instability in the Persian Gulf could very well strike at the heart of South Korea’s economic lifeline, and it’s of utmost importance to not only Washington, but also Seoul and Tokyo to see the American mission in Iraq succeed.
Of course, Korea may choose to play “free-rider” in Iraq - enjoying all the benefits of America’s involvement there without actually having to get its own hands dirty, but doing so carries very real risks. Frankly, the US-ROK relationship is in a hole, and despite the constant calls from the South Korean public for a “more equal relationship,” the biggest danger facing the alliance is that the US will eventually realize that the American-South Korean relationship, as it is currently structured, brings no benefits to the United States worth the costs of maintaining it. Right now, South Korea is not an “ally” in the commonly understood meaning of the word, but a protectorate - and a costly and potentially dangerous one at that. For the South Koreans, however, the US-ROK alliance is their only real security guarantee; no multilateral security organization like NATO exist in Northeast Asia, and the Peninsula is surrounded by more powerful and potentially hostile neighbors with long histories of imperial dominance over Korea. Of course, Korea could evolve itself into an Asian Switzerland - a neutral state that enforces its neutrality by arming itself to the teeth - but to do so would be costly AND there is no guarantee that its neighbors would respect its neutrality should a Great Power conflict erupt in the region. An alliance with the United States would seem to make sense, but to maintain the US-ROK alliance would require a transformation of the relationship from one of patron-client to that of a true alliance between equals. For that to happen, there need to be attitude changes in both Washington and Seoul. For South Korea, it must ween itself off the teet of American power and show Washington how the ROK can be a useful ally, both regionally and globally. And if Seoul needed incentive, it should be kept in mind that Japan seems to be willing to tranform itself into just such an ally, and I’m positive that getting stuck between China on one side and a Japan-US alliance on the other can in no way be in South Korea’s national interests.
There are also more mundane issues that can be addressed. South Korea has bragged about the prowess of its special forces, but frankly, the only way one can know for certain just how competent they are is to use them. In Korea, one often hears reference to “showing the world Korea’s power,” and here’s a perfect opportunity for Koreans to do just that. The South Korean military has skills that may be useful in Iraq, and by exercising those skills, South Korean leaders and military officials can better gauge the effectiveness of the ROK’s fighting men AND make adjustments in doctrine should changes prove to be necessary. Moreover, by accepting such a high profile assignment, barring a major disaster, Korea’s international standing cannot help but improve. South Korean influence in both Washington and the UN stands to increase dramatically, influence which in turn could be used to decide issues of even greater importance to South Korea’s vital interests. And in the Middle East - both sole source of South Korea’s oil and a major target of South Korean investment - Seoul would gain a louder voice over how events played out (and not to be too blunt, but also a louder voice in how contracts for post-war reconstruction projects are parcelled out).
In power politics, you got to pay to play. South Korea, on the face of it, appears to have all the goods required to be a major player in world affairs. But if you’re not willing to use those goods, you can’t complain when other powers cut you out of the loop. A major project in currently underway in Iraq, a project that will impact Korea regardless of whether it succeeds or fails. An American defeat in Iraq carries with it profound dangers for Korea’s economic well-being and security, while an American success in Iraq without South Korean support would not only be an opportunity wasted for Seoul, but call into question the utility of the entire ROK-US alliance. If South Korea truly wishes to have an “equal relationship” with the United States, then Iraq is the perfect place to prove it.
8 Comments
“The cold, hard fact is that nations do what’s in their best interests,”
I guess this depends on what your “interests” are. Personally, I’d like to live in a world where it is completely unacceptable for my neighbour to rape his daughter, regardless of whether I happen to live 200 metres away from a recognized nation’s border. It’s more a question of cost/benefit as to whether it should be done or not. Even forgetting human charity, war is sometimes revolutionary, and someone who makes slaves out of his own people, would certainly enslave me if by good luck he’s the one who develops the next advance in warfare.
“and that’s especially the case when military options are being considered.”
The military options should be part of the cost/benefit analysis. I wouldn’t sacrifice Seoul in order to free North Koreans from their gulags, but add nukes to the equation and Seoul will pay the once-off cost of a final war. The people can be evacuated, it will be expensive moneywise, but again, it will be once-off.
“I argued against the deployment of American troops to Liberia,”
This one to me was a no-brainer. The cost of sending a few ships a few hundred km, asking them to wait for a few weeks, then turn around and go back, is an extremely small price to pay for triggering off a chain of events that is going to replace a dictator with a liberal democracy, who will most likely be a future ally.
“and I still question the presence of American troops in the Balkans because I felt that the US had few interests to protect in either region that were worth placing American troops in harm’s way.”
The actual Kosovo war cost 0 allied combat lives. The few lives that were lost outside of theatre is just a glorified form of training - accidents happen, but don’t prevent future training.
That set of a chain of events that now has Yugoslavia replaced with a new state Serbia-Montenegro, which is one of the few countries talking about sending troops to help out their US allies in Iraq. This turnaround happened in the space of 4 years. If they don’t make it to this war, they’ll make it to the next.
If you don’t consider it to be in your nation’s interest to have as many allies as possible, I certainly consider it to be in mine. I can’t tell you how happy I am that Serbia-Montenegro is now a budding ally. Incidentally, get the lastest map from http://www.freedomhouse.org/pd.....ap2003.pdf and find out what colour Serbia & Montenegro is.
When you’ve got a war that’s going to cost more military lives than civilians were lost on 9/11, I’ll hesitate about the use of military force. Korea is an example of that. Until then, the fear of military casualties is a no-brainer. In actual fact, I consider the hesitance to use military force a threat to western security. We’ve become so scared to see any military casualties at all, that it has been misinterpreted as fear (rather than be acknowledged as care for human life), and the result was 9/11. The western military was well-armed and well-trained to stop these things at source, not be hidden behind civilian shields.
If the US was going around beating up peaceful nations to steal their oil, I’d consider that to be unjust. If the US is merely attacking governments that are chanting “Death to USA”, e.g. Iran, or sponsoring terrorism (or quibbling about the definition thereof), like Syria, it’s a complete no-brainer. The failure to act is not just crazy policy, it’s criminal negligence.
(Disclaimer) I’m not actually military myself, so maybe my views are hipocritical or repugnant to military personnel. But then personally, I consider that I’ve used my skills in what I’m actually good at (which isn’t shooting straight) to increase my nation’s GDP, so that it can actually afford to equip our soldiers with the equipment required to completely demolish any enemy. Did you see what happened in the Solomon Islands? They just rocked up and the guy who had terrorized the nation for years just gave up. Another no-brainer, should have been done years ago.
By the way, if the military does think that those who aren’t personally at risk (incidentally, I work in a high-rise, I am at risk, we don’t even have a radar system where I work) shouldn’t have the right to send in those who are at risk, then I’d rather replace our militaries with Afghan mercenaries, who won’t lay a guilt trip on me when I want them to do something I consider to be in my (possibly “national”) interest.
Dang it Marmot! I said almost the same thing over at the GOP blog, but you said it better, as usual.
As long as people compare the number of soldiers lost in a military operation to the number of civilians who died on 9/11 that means we will have to wait till terrorists kill a much larger of American civilians so that we will have a newer high point to compare to. This backward-looking approach sets us up for bigger civilian losses in the future. We ought to act to prevent larger future civilian losses.
I actually said “When you’ve got a war that’s going to cost more military lives than civilians were lost on 9/11, I’ll ***HESITATE*** about the use of military force.”
I didn’t say I wouldn’t do it. It’s just that it’s a no-brainer for the low cost wars we’ve had for the last 30 years. But a war that costs 10,000 is a small price to pay compared to the price our ancestors paid in WWI and WWII, and if that’s what it takes to help ensure my city of 3 million doesn’t get nuked 5 years from now, you can bet I would send in the military.
I never really expected Korea to consider anything past its national interests when making the dispatch decision - I just wanted to point out the hypocrisies involved.
The point is that these politicians and pundits are rattling off lists of the factors to be considered before making the decision. Naturally, Korea’s national interest is at the top.
But nowhere on the list are the three most important things (not to Korea, but overall): 1. Is Korea’s dispatch in the world’s and world peace’s interests? 2. Is it in the interests of the people in the Middle East? 3. Is it in Iraq’s national interests?
The closest anyone in Korea has got to including one of those factors on their list is “considering the international situation.” But that probably means “Will Kofi and Jacques frown at us at the UN?”
And for more hypocrisy, think back a ways to before the war. Back then, Korea was supposedly thinking about the well-being of the Iraqi people - the National Human Rights Commission was crying out about Iraqi human rights being violated, though Iraqis enjoyed none at the time.
Now, though, when the Iraqis have finally won some measure of human rights and the hope for more, this commission hasn’t raised a peep about protecting them.
Why? Because the Iraqi people’s interests are now known to be mostly the same as America’s (and Bush’s) interests.
Sadly, I think there are quite a few of those ostensibly anti-war people (in Korea and out) who would like to see another war, however bloody and destructive, and however much it would hurt the future for ordinary Iraqis and world peace, just to see George Bush fail.
No argument from here concerning the National Human Rights Commission - that had to be one of the most sickening displays of anti-Americanism for anti-Americanism’s sake I have ever seen. And as you recall, the head of the commission followed that up by pleading ignorance of North Korean human rights abuses in front of the National Assembly - hypocracy at its finest.
Coincidentally, I also agree with you on your last point, as sad as that may be.
Thanks for the commentary, Mr. Edwards. BTW, if you get a chance, do yourself a favor and pick up a copy Kennedy’s “Rise and Fall of Great Powers” - yes, a number of his conclusions have been questioned (or proven outright incorrect), but few works of history have inspired more discussion, and his ideas are widely referred to by even by people who disagree with the guy (and if it means anything to you, I found it to be a great bathroom read). Besides, if you’re into international relations - and you definitely appear to be - it’s kind of a “must read” - right up there with Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” (BTW, if you’re unfamiliar with Huntington’s work, then I suggest you drop what you’re doing now, go to the bookstore, and buy it - I have a feeling you’d enjoy it immensely).
Hi Marmot. No I haven’t read either of those books, but I’ve made a note of them. One book that I am waiting for is this one:
Breaking the Real Axis of Evil: How to Oust the World’s Last Dictators by 2025
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obi.....p;n=507846
By the way, I only actually need America’s pseudo-empire to last long enough to democratize the remaining countries of the world. After that, if the US wants to become isolationist out of deference to Paul Kennedy, I don’t particularly care.
So long as every country is as peaceful as say Norway, with the territorial ambitions of say Norway, mission accomplished.
Mark Palmer thinks it can be done by 2025. That is the approximate time frame that I think is imminently achievable too. All it needs is the current Whitehouse to remain there for that length of time and not get cold feet.
Korea is certainly a bit of a speed bump, but the likes of Iran and Syria can be walked right over. Failing to use the overwhelming force available to the west is not just bad policy, it is negligence.
BTW, I enjoy reading your analysis of the Korean situation - thanks for going to the effort to maintain your blog, it is appreciated.
PING:
TITLE: Korea Briefing: 2003-10-14
BLOG NAME: Winds of Change.NET
OCT 14/03 TOPICS INCL: Must-read article; Asian values; Total Recall in SK too?; Wider regional role for USFK; NK Developments; Nukes updates; What to do about NK?; Lifestyles of the Rich and Stalinist; ROK forces to Iraq?; Food aid to NK; NK’s economy…