Comments on: ROK troops to Iraq - One Marmot’s Opinion

By: Paul Edwards

Paul Edwards — Wed, 01 Oct 2003 11:23:16 +0000

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…

By: The Marmot

The Marmot — Wed, 01 Oct 2003 09:18:30 +0000

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).

By: The Marmot

The Marmot — Tue, 30 Sep 2003 00:53:24 +0000

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.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 29 Sep 2003 23:47:20 +0000

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.

By: Paul Edwards

Paul Edwards — Mon, 29 Sep 2003 14:23:21 +0000

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.

By: Randall Parker

Randall Parker — Mon, 29 Sep 2003 13:16:56 +0000

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.

By: Andy

Andy — Mon, 29 Sep 2003 07:33:58 +0000

Dang it Marmot! I said almost the same thing over at the GOP blog, but you said it better, as usual.

By: Paul Edwards

Paul Edwards — Mon, 29 Sep 2003 04:23:40 +0000

“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.