President Bush might not have saw it fit to mention Korea as a U.S. ally in Iraq, but not everyone has forgotten Seoul’s contribution to rebuilding the war-torn country:
An audio tape calling for a worldwide resistance against ”crusader America” and its allies, including Britain and Korea, presumed to have been recorded by Al-Qaida?????s number two Ayman al-Zawahri, was broadcast by al-Jazeera television Friday.
Though al-Jazeera television identified the speaker as Zawahri, it?????s not yet confirmed whether the claim is true.
”We should not wait until U.S., British, French, Jewish, South Korean, Australian or Polish forces enter Egypt, the Arabian Peninsula, Yemen and Algeria before we resist,” said the tape, attributed to Zawahri. The tape called for indiscriminate attacks against the U.S. and its allies, saying ???Let us start resisting now. The interests of America, Britain, Australia, France, Poland, Norway, South Korea and Japan are spread everywhere????
”They all took part in the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq or Chechnya or enabled Israel to survive. We can’t wait or we [Muslim nations] will be eaten up country by country ….” the tape said.
More evidence why Bush’s acceptance speech ommission of Korea was completely inexcusable. Korea may have been left off Bush’s list, but it sure as hell wasn’t left off al-Qaeda’s.
25 Comments
Further proof that Korea needs to get off it’s duff and start killing lots and lots of Islamic terrorists.
Marmot,
Bush also failed to mention the French when thanking coalition forces, yet the tape also mentioned French interests as targets of attack. My point is that when you start using an al-Qaeda tape to support an argument on what Bush should or should not have done, then you start sounding a little silly, at least in my book.
His point was, Gerry, eventhough Bush purposely left off S.Korea in his list (by doing so, he wanted to put a message across saying S.Korea’s contributions are worthless crap), there is a high probable chance that S.Korea will neverthless suffer terrorist attacks. Even just by giving moral support to the US, you are exponentially increasing the chance of inviting terrorist attacks on your citizens. Isn’t that a huge sacrifice in itself?
Koreans take over in Northern Iraq
Korean troops in a handover ceremony in Irbil, Iraq. (Reuters/Sasa Kralj photo) South Korea has taken command in the area of Iraq around Irbil from the US Styker Brigade, according to the KTimes: The Zaytun Unit, South Korean troops
Gerry, don’t you think it’s pushing it when we compare France, which did just about everything short of sending troops to Iraq to help Saddam Hussein, and S. Korea, which might have been a pain in the ass but ended up sending 3,000 troops to Iraq anyway?
To be fair marmot, France did send crack battle troops to Afghanistan to hunt for Bin Laden. That’s probably why they have been included in the list by Al Q.
Marmot,
Even though France did not support the US war in Iraq, she was still put on al Qaeda’s hit list. That shows pretty clearly that it is not just the war in Iraq that drives these terrorists, and it also shows that countries can become targets of terrorists in spite of their best efforts to remain neutral. Many of the world’s democracies have a stake in the outcome of this war and should be doing more to help fight it, including Korea, instead of just freeloading off the US.
Yes, Kimbob, Korea sent 3,000 troops to Iraq, but let’s not jump to the conclusion that Korea did it to show “moral support” for the US. In fact, Korea has gone out of its way not to offend the terrorists by saying that she was sending troops, not to support the US, but to support Iraqi reconstruction. Even when President Roh announced he was sending Korean troops to Iraq, he made a point to say he was against the war and was only sending troops for “realistic reasons,” which included hopes of winning contracts in the reconstruction of Iraq and hopes of keeping US troops in Korea.
Koreans are not battling terrorists in Iraq; they are building a school, a bridge, or some other symbolic structure in a relatively safe region of the country. The Kurds are protecting the Korean troops, many of whom are probably there more for the extra pay and the career opportunities than for their concern for the Iraqis.
No, Kimbob, Koreans have not been giving “moral support” to the US, and the reason they sent troops to Iraq was because they thought their “sacrifice” would be more “huge” if they did not send troops.
If Korea had sent troops to Iraq because of a real commitment, instead of just for “realistic reasons,” then I am sure Bush would have listed Korea among the war’s supporters in his speech at the Republican National Convention.
Simply, Al Q is full of crap and it’s good for the world that everyone of them be exterminated. Their logic sucks, their ideology harmful to the world, and their religion harms people who don’t believe in it.
There is absolutely no chance that there will be a draft for the military in the US. This is Democratic party spin, propagated as an election year ploy by a couple of Democratic members of Congress and abetted by political activists working to unseat the Bush administration by scaring ignorant people.
You damage your otherwise credible argument by using this Kimbob. I recommend you drop it. Having been subject to the draft myself, and having had a career in the US Army, I’ve paid attention to this as an issue for many years and I think I know something about it. The US military is meeting its recruiting goals; speculation to the contrary is just that, usually made by reporters who are buying into this “spin”.
If things go to hell completely in Iraq the US will withdraw from there before resorting to a draft. It just isn’t going to happen — neither the Pentagon, the Congress, nor the American people want it.
And who doesn’t base their foreign policies on ?€œrealistic reasons?€??? Name one country.
I disagree with you Gerry. What Korea did was to support the US - as done in Korean War, Vietnam, Afghanistan and now Iraq. You have to acknowledge the fact that the US has tremendous influence over the lives of Koreans (while not much the other way around) so therefore it’s perfectly natural for Koreans to be careful not to be seen disagreeing with America on foreign policies too much - despite heavy internal oppositions.
France was included in Al Qaida list because they have combat troops in Afghanistan not just because Al Qaida felt like doing it. So you’re wrong there too.
It looks like most if not all of the troops who are doing the combat are either American or occasionally British. For instance, I don’t see anybody accusing the 600 odd Japanese who are sitting nice and tight confined to their bases in peaceful and stable Nasiriya?
Dunno… I think Nom Hyun and party’s interests were very (and typically) short-sighted and tactless. All we heard for months was blabbing about whether it was “in the national interest” (a phrase usually followed about how SK would get priorities on construction bids in the unsettled country). Well, you can talk political realism all you want, but when this is the way a president sells inserting combat troops into a torn area, it is just called merecenary — and it worked — so make what you want out of the state of ROK society from that….
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t France distinctly threatened by Zaraqawi and friends over the veil/school incident vice sending peace keepers into Afghanistan???
I’ve been away from the ROK for a while, but if things are anything like they were six months ago, expect another politically expedient flip-flop from Nom over the issue of being threatened — always a good reason to change policy when u have no backbone.
…we are talking about the same country which “accidentally” forgot to check the presumed dead list along with the mia list from the Korean War for one of their soldier who turned up at their Embassy in Beijing after escaping (after 50 years) from one of the Jongster’s death camps, right??? You know, the ROK citizen, who sacrificed his life for his country and then suffered a hellish existence for fifty years only to be turned away by the ROK govt for fear of upsetting the tyrant of North Korea.
Don’t forget the obvious — true ROK patriots don’t.
The Kurds are protecting the Korean troops, many of whom are probably there more for the extra pay and the career opportunities than for their concern for the Iraqis.
3,000 Korean troops volunteer for duty in Iraq, and you essentially call them mercenaries. Sheesh, Gerry.
Moreover, your “real commitment” argument seems a bit spurious. Let’s look at the list of countries that got mentioned: United Kingdom, Poland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, El Salvador and Australia. Now, excluding the U.S. and Australia — both of which have rather particular relationships with the United States — most of those other countries made very careful cost-benefit analyses before they decided to go along for the ride. That’s not a slam on their motives — or to put it better, to claim a lack of idealism on the parts of Mssrs. Berlusconi and Koizumi — but you can’t argue that “realism” was any less a factor in their decision to send troops to Iraq than it was in Korea’s case. Heck, even Roh made repeated references to “helping the Iraqi people” and “bringing stability to Iraq” in arguing for the troop deployment.
As for Korea “going out of its way not to offend the terrorists,” I think we need to make a distinction between the Hankyoreh et al. and the gov’t. To the extent that the gov’t has shown considerably less enthusiasm for Iraq than, let’s say, Japan, that hasn’t been because Roh has been pandering to terrorists (who couldn’t have cared less how Roh described the dispatch), but to his own political base, one which is considerably different from Koizumi’s. Pandering to the terrorists would have been to pull a Manilla and cancel the deployment during the Kim Sun-il kidnapping. As it happened, the gov’t declared it would send troops anyway and got a Korean national killed as a result. Roh sent troops to Iraq knowing full well that a) Korea was going to be made a target of terrorism; b) he was going to piss off a large portion of his political support base; and c) the people who supported the troop deployment to Iraq would never vote for Roh or his people, regardless of what he did. You’d have thought a politican like Bush would have appreciated this.
The standard of comparison, M, should be with that of the active offensive combat assistance for GW II, provided by the UK, Australia, and I believe Poland (in spite of the flurry over the debate remarks by Bush, I think I specifically remember that Polish Special Forces type troops were involved in capturing an oil terminal facility by storm, in the opening days of the war).
The French “crack troops” mentioned by Kimbob above are part of the ISAF Bde which I believe is specifically restricted to patrolling only the immediate environs of Kabul. I suppose they’re in some danger there from car bombs etc., but that’s not too different from what they’d face in a similar mission, in other overseas environments where France has committed troops independently of NATO/US involvement. The official NATO web site has some interesting info on ISAF, but for the specific current troop levels there, they refer you to the contributing countries’ military web sites. A link is given for France (Defense Ministry?) but I don’t read the language. Maybe someone else can read it and see what they say; I’m sure it’s interesting.
My point is that I’m sure that the private marching orders given by the national command authorities of both France and Korea, to their combat commanders on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq, respectively, is for them to patrol in a defensive mode only and under no condition go on the offense with the American cowboys. The local commanders violate this at the peril of their careers.
I’m wiling to accept that this is the political realities for these countries, but pardon me if I don’t go into a paroxysm of gratitude and prostrate myself at the entrance of their respective embassies. Wars aren’t won by sitting on the defense.
The equivalent posture by the US in Korea, to what ROK is doing in Iraq, is to pull back from the front line and take up a defensive position around Pusan. Well lo and behold, look at the upcoming change in US ground forces posture in ROK, as recently announced by DoD. But I gather the ROK has just asked (and been granted, by an understanding Uncle Sam) a further 2-year delay in this change.
Tell me, has President Roh properly and publicly expressed his gratitude? Or was he personally silent, mindful of his electoral campaign promise to “never kowtow” to the USA?
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. What’s the equivalent idiom in Korean?
Exactly, Marmot.
No arguments from me about the Korean government’s badly handled Iraq troop dispatch. But to be fair, they had to battle the stubborn violent lefties like the Hankyoreh, the DLP, the Hanchongryon ( a big percentage of Roh’s political base) who were threatning to start a massive civil disobediency revolt. In the end, the ROK government did the right thing by clamping down a temporary news blackout and sending in the troops. At least they got that part right eventhough they may have mishandled the case from the start. If you condemn their mishandlings, you should be fair enough to acknowledge them that they did the right thing when they did not give into terrorist demands.
3000 troops volunteered for Iraq (actually 16 times more if you count those who didn’t get picked). As I understand it, many of them have expressed regret that their main mission isn’t combat. Is it a fair presumtion that ALL of them are doing this to only further their careers? And if every one of them have this same motive, and as long as they serve their country with honor, so what?
If Koreans are mercenaries then what are all the recruits in the US army with poor family backgrounds who essentially joined the military for economic opportunities including free education and big signing bonuses? Aren’t they mercenaries too? Did they all join the army to fight in Iraq? Why is it that the US military is right now having a serious problem recruiting and is now seriously considering a military draft? Come on, not everyone is going to be that football star who gives up a lucrative pro career to go to Iraq and get killed in battle.
It doesn’t matter if they are from the US or from Korea, I say give people their credit if they volunteer to go into a dangerous area thereby risking their lives. Whether they be from America or Korea, they shouldn’t be called ‘mercenaries’.
Giving any credit to an Al Qaeda list that claims the given countries are ready to enter and take over Egypt and other countries in the Middle East is ridiculous. I really don?€™t think France, Korea, Japan, and Norway will be conquering Saudi Arabia anytime soon.
That said I didn?€™t say it is not a fun topic to debate???
There are many countries not on the Al Qaeda list.
Where is Italy on this list? Will they whine to get on the Al Qaeda list? Will any of the countries not on the list whine about not being on the list? To my knowledge Bush didn?€™t mention over 20 countries?€™ contributions to the fight on terror and only Korea whined about it.
Lets not forget Russia. Yes they are not in Iraq but Chechnya is considered a major battle ground for Al Qaeda. Why are they not on the list?
The Jews are not in Iraq or Afghanistan but hey throw them into the mix to drum up the hate. Showing the list is more political than anything factual as if we couldn?€™t tell from the allegations of invading countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Why put Norway, Korea, Japan, and France on the list? Al Qaeda thinks they might be able to scare and influence these countries.
Lets also remember that at the time of the Bush speech, 1 1/2 years after the war in Iraq, Korea still did not deploy its troops yet. Korea has finally deployed most of its troops since the Bush speech and is now getting credit for what it has done. I am sure that if Korea had deployed the troops even a year after the war but before the Bush speech, Korea would be in the Bush speech and credit would have been given.
Actually, Norway has been a favorite of al-Qaeda. We all remember this from May:
Qatar’s Jazeera television aired on Wednesday what it said was an audio tape by top Qaeda official Ayman al-Zawahri urging Muslims to strike the embassies and commercial interests of the United States, Britain, Australia and Norway in their own countries.
Iraqis were “not alone” in fighting what he called the US occupation of their country, the tape also said.
“Attack the missions of the United States, the UK, Australia and Norway and their interests, companies and employees. Turn the ground beneath their feet into an inferno and kick them out of your countries,” said the tape.
“The crusaders and the Jews only understand the language of murder, bloodshed … and of the burning towers,” he said referring to New York’s World Trade Center twin towers, leveled by suicide plane hijackers on September 11, 2001.
“Know that you are not alone in this battle. Your mujahideen brothers are following the enemies as well and are lying in wait for them.”
Now, we all know why the other three were on that list, but Norway? Well, as another blogger I was chatting with pointed out yesterday:
Norwegian special forces are still helping hunt al-Qaida and Taliban forces in Afghanistan, and newspaper VG cited an “intelligence source” as saying Norwegian forces and fighter jets in Afghanistan “had clearly hit the terrorist network, directly and hard”.
The Norwegian Defense Intelligence Service (FO/E) has also played an active role in aiding US colleagues, VG reported. The newspaper also speculated that the death of al-Zawahri’s wife and three daughters in a bomb attack on Kandahar might have some links to Norwegian efforts in Afghanistan.
Yeah, I could see how that might reserve a special place in al-Zawahri’s heart for Norway.
“I am sure that if Korea had deployed the troops even a year after the war but before the Bush speech, Korea would be in the Bush speech and credit would have been given.”
You are wrong there, non korean. Korea already had a base in Naseriya with 600 men peace keeping battalion. The 3000 troops are just additions to what was already there.
Illegal Residents Engaging in Anti-Korean Activities to Be Deported
http://english.chosun.com/w21d.....30003.html
hmm… I wonder what they mean when they say “anti state activities”? Does this mean if some Sri Lankan 3 D workers stage a protest with Korean trade unions, protesting new immigration policies will be considered an “anti state activity”? I understand this is in response to a direct threat of terrorism but this is very dubious and dangerous.
Kimbob. Yes Korea did have 600 engineers and doctors which is nice. Does that warrent a mention in the speech by Bush? Maybe maybe not. But an additional 3000 troops on the ground a year ago would have put Korea on that list.
Asia by Blog
Asia by Blog is a twice weekly feature, posted on Monday and Thursday, providing links to Asian blogs and their views on the news in this fascinating region. Please send me an email if you would like to be notified of new editions. Previous editions ca…
WJK:
I would agree with you that Al Qaeda is crappy, if it weren’t downright so dangerous.
Firstly, the fundamentalist leaders are very skilled at brainwashing its followers.
Osama bin Laden, I’m sure you already know,is from a well-to-do family, and fond of the life of wine and women, before he became a radical.Al Hambali, the pseudonym of the operative who led the Jakarta and Bali bombings, is a British-educated professor who was also converted during regular visits to Indonesia from Malaysia. Only today, a friend emailed me a story about two young Indonesia fishermen, simple and poor but carefree, until the fundamentalists got to them - and in less than a year, they became suicide bombers.
As for your comment that `their religion harms others who don’t believe’: I also disagree. All terrorists are Muslims, but not all Muslims are terrorists.
While I disagree with Bush on the Iraq war, one good thing he did after 9/11 was to distance the terrorist and Arab connection, and kept Arab-Americans, from harm. This would just have led to a more vicious cycle everywhere.
Simon’s E. Asia Briefing: 2004-10-27
The following is a digest of highlights from the past month’s Asia by Blog series over at simonworld.mu.nu. The round-up has four key areas of focus: China, Taiwan Hong Kong (Politics, Economy lifestyle, History sport culture, Information), Kore…