For one thing, we ought to use formal declarations of war again. We should have one currently against Al Queda. There should have been one against the Taliban (with a peace treaty and formal alliance then concluded with the current Afghan government, and the same with Iraq). One big advantage: getting bloviating US Senators on the record ahead of time, before they can acquire 20/20 hindsight.

And we ought to sign a peace treaty with North Korea and get out, now that South Korea has essentially recognized them as a separate country. Political actions ought to have real (and irrevocable) diplomatic consequences.

(Marmot linked to the formal text of the MDT a while back I failed to bookmark it, or the bookmark is lost in an endless sea somewhere on my computer. I need to go back and review it for myself, but I presume the language allows for both sides to be able to withdraw after appropriate notice is given).

IMO the US has “hyperinflated” the currency of a formal alliance with us by giving the world the impression that we are willing to do anything and everything. This has been a long time coming, but I think one key event in this development of this attitude post-Cold War was the sudden announced commitment by Bush 41 in early Aug 1990 that “this will not stand” (ref Iraqi invasion of Kuwait).

If I’m not mistaken, we had no formal alliance with Kuwait (a traditional ally of UK, prior to the UK withdrawal from “east of Suez”; if the UK had kept a battalion or two resident in Kuwait, it’s interesting to speculate on how current history might have turned out very differently). But the Kuwaitis were as content as anyone else in the Arab world to indulge in US bashing and to keep their distance from any defense relationship with the US — until suddenly they calculated wrong.

And then all of a sudden they can’t wait for us to get there fast enough. “Stay out of sight far offshore US, but oh by the way if we decide we need you we will want everything you’ve got and it better be here instantly.”

If you want to be a US ally there ought to be a cost. And that cost is: a country’s politicians and people don’t get to have their cake and eat it too.

I don’t ask for “kowtowing”, just a refrain from US-bashing for purposes of domestic politics. Prolonged indulgence in this exhilarating wine ought to produce severe consequences.

I’m working on a long post, but I am getting a strong feeling the anti-US civic leaders, with possibly some direction from Pyongyang, have played all this masterfully.

I couldn’t make sense of the promotion of the 9/11 protest and then the low turn out of even the core members.

Now, after watching the last few weeks, I think the professor coming out like he has works hand in hand with what we saw before and after the 9/11 protests.

I thought the groups might have made a big mistake by attracting the international press and driving Korean society’s anti-US activity by average Koreans into a period of turtle mode, but now I think they played everything right.

They have set up the interntional coverage and took the heat from the average Koreans, because they knew they were going to bury the violent Pyongtaek protests that have been going on for the last several months as well as the violent protests at Inchon, and they were going to highlight the nutty professor — who can say the same stuff, get as much rise out of conservative Korean society and possibly some in the press — but who can be easily dismissed as a wackjob — and even more easily defended outside of inside but more so outside Korean society for academic freedom.

The whole violence leading up to the 9/11 protest and that day

Rowan, I’m not sure where our views differ…

If (when?) US ground forces are gone, it will be a clarifying moment. US can support from offshore against the DPRK threat. With US ground forces gone, they will be removed as a convenient scapegoat in ROK domestic politics. It can’t come a moment too soon.

US airpower is immensely more accurate and powerful than it was in 1950. It’ll be up to the ROK administration whether they want to call it in or not.

China joined the world economy. However, that did not stop it from openly attacking Taiwan. You remember about seven years ago, China sent troops ships to Taiwan. The US Navy stopped the attack by blocking them.

When the US pull out, NK and China will attack together. SK military may(this is a big may) take care of NK but, when they see Chinese army, the white flag goes up. And, SK will be serving KJI from that day on.

virtual wonderer,

If one does not stop likes of Kang, more Commies will start talking. And, some innocent schoolboys may believe these fools.

The Uri party will be gone soon. It was fun to contact NK about four years ago, but KJI has been nothing but a gadfly who sucks up money from SKs. Nobody like extortion.

the difference now from 50 years ago:

the cold war has ended,
the USSR has broken up and russia has turned to the market system,
China has joined the world economy,
Sk has developed greatly,
NK has become poorer than ever,

The only neighbour that hasn’t really changed in a way that would affect the situation is japan. i’m sure there are many more but thos ealone change the dynamics so much that i can’t see a NK attack happening, and if it did certainly not being successful.

your point to VW, i have to disagree with too. just shutting people up is not the way to go. you have to show why they are wrong, give a counter arguemnt.