Col. (ret) Robert Killebrew suggests that Korea, not Vietnam, is the best parallel for the U.S. situation in Iraq. Read the whole thing on your own; here just a sample:
There are, of course, many dissimilarities between the Korea of 1953 and the Iraq of 2006; history repeats itself only in outline, not in detail. But the similarities are also striking. Both countries endured a long prewar period of oppression that retarded their political maturation — Japanese occupation in one instance, homegrown tyranny in another. In neither case had the population ever known self-government. Both newly hatched governments had, and are having, to master new arts of politics, build an army and all the infrastructure of modern governance under fire and face protracted campaigns against implacable foes. There were those in the West in 1953 who doubted that Asians brought into the modern world only recently could master democracy and free-market economies. A half-century later, we hear echoes of this regarding Middle Eastern people.
(Hat tip to Budaechigae)
27 Comments
Take over Iran as well. Then, the situation is different from Korea.
And, about Korea. If that little man, Truman, had allowed Gen. McArthur to do what was necessary (drop nuke bombs in Manchuria in 1953), the U.S. would not have been in this situation.
Penny wise and Pound foolish. Little man, Truman.
For now, attack Iran. (I bought some Oil stocks).
And, that little man, set a bad precedence which led to the defeat in VietNam.
He told Gen. MacArthur to fight a limited war. The aim was not to win at all cost. Rather, it was ______________ (I don’t know what the aim was). Do you know?
The VietNam. F***ing same thing. Jane Fonda went to Hanoi. WTF! Are those troops in VietNam fighting for victory? Truman shit.
Some liberals are doing the same f***ing thing now. Troops are dying daily in Iraq. Meanwhile, these jerks are saying that Iraq was a mistake? Truman shit.
Fifty years of keeping sunnis and shiites and kurds and Iranians and so on separated…brilliant. Or maybe he meant that the U.S. should let Iraqis stage a coup and set up a military government.
“In neither case had the population ever known self-government.” Uh, Korea’s dynasties don’t count as self-government?
Many, many differences exist between Iraq 2006 and Korea 1953.
First of all, there is “one” Korea, while there are at least three “Iraqs.”
Also, I would say that historically life was valued a bit more in North East Asia and than in the Middle East. (But I must stress that’s just my personal opinion.)
I’m afraid a horrible, horrible civil war is going to suck the United States in a vortex we are not prepare to either leave or stay in for five years, much less 50.
I’m afraid a horrible, horrible civil war is going to suck the United States in a vortex we are not prepare to either leave or stay in for five years, much less 50.
The far left (”Oh, this situation has no solution at all! Let’s run away!”) is just as bad as the far right that thought invading Iraq and setting up a US-friendly, democratic government would be a cakewalk.
The solution exists, but it’s going to be formulated by folks somewhere in the middle, run by pragmatic people who recognize all the folly committed by the Bush Administration as they made plans in their right-wing echo chamber to waltz into a country the size of California and the population of Texas with a force similar in size to the population of Huntington Beach.
We broke it, we bought it. We have to do what is necessary to fix things, whatever that entails. If we’re lucky, it will only entail leaving Iraq to a UN force led by the Brits, but I’m not holding my breath on that one.
I will have to take an unpopular position and agree with Mr. Bumgarner. Indeed, the differences are more salient than the similarities.
I found this comment downright hilarious:
“Iraq, with its comparatively enormous advantages — above all, its oil wealth — may well make comparable or even better progress.”
I suppose men like Park Chung Hee or Lee Kuan Yew grow on trees (or better yet, are autochnous or grow from soil)?
Or perhaps the good colonel believes that economic development is oh so easy, simply faxing the Iraqis the U.S. Constitution and sending Jeff Sachs over for a “shock therapy,” eh?
Wow, I should re-read before I post. I write and speak like a FoB, but that post was simply too much.
I meant to say:
“…(or better yet, are AUTOCHTONOUS or grow from THE soil)?”
&
“…simply A MATTER OF faxing the Iraqis…”
My additional excuse is that I am slightly dyslexic
WJC, I must be dyslexic, too, because your post made perfect sense to me.
Yeah, the problem with Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore, is that they made post-war development under an autocratic government look like a no-brainer foregone conclusion.
Park, for example, had a Japanese economic model to follow, and a workforce that could be willingly channeled into extremely long and productive hours or labor in order to achieve something for the national good. His own predecessor in the same country couldn’t even do that.
These are things to do and not to do.
1) Don’t say that Iraq was a mistake. What good does it do?
2) Don’t say that the U.S. should just quit Iraq. That is so irresponsible. Just ask any VietNamese. I mean a freedom-loving and non-Commie(any left) VietNamese.
3) Stay the course. Everybody supported Bush when Iraq kicked out nuclear inspectors and start flying in the “no-fly” zone. It is so hypocritical to say that Bush started the war.
4) Attack Iran. Might as well get rid of Double Trouble of the Middle East. Iran is causing much unrest in Iraq. Get to the source.
Micahel:
No, I don’t think Korea’s centuries of dynastic oppression constitute the sort of govt. “of” and “by” the “people” as well as ostensibly “for” the people, which is what Killebre seems to have in mind.
BTW I wonder if he’s related to Harmon?
Sperwer: I know, I know, I was thinking of “autonomous” gov’t, not democracy–OK, not totally autonomous, but, uh, skip it.
Shelton-baduk,
The split at that time between Communist Koreans and non-Communist Koreans is comparable to the split between Sunni Iraqis and Shiaa Iraqis.
Baduk-baduk,
What is with your sudden hate-on for Harry Truman? Does that come from a new book you’re reading?
dogbertt,
All Koreans hate Truman. You are in McArthur country. With the exception of some Incheon Commies.
Korea loves Gen. McArthur, their hero. Just ask any Korean older than forty years old.
baduk,
I thought you said the Commies came from Cholla province.
Baduk is right: Truman may be the most hated white man in Korean history, esp. for those who are from the generations before mine.
i can vouch for baduk. Although I am under 30, I hate Harry Truman, too. This is a product of systematic government initiated education in the public school system. I am quite shocked about how South Korea is now, but when I was in public school, MacArthur was the savior of South Korea. Either the school texts or popular autobiographies or (gasp !) school teachers themselves either told us straight up or indirectly that Harry Truman is basically the reason why MacArthur was not able to finish the job in the Korean War. Harry Truman was the reason why the 38th parallel is still there. Harry Truman is the reason why Kim Il Sung (who was still alive and long rumored to be possibly be entitled to be living on to 100 years of age, thanks to having sex with virtually anyone he wanted, and eating the best, getting the best medical care man has ever dreamed of…there is a strong conspiracy theory that says Kim Jong Il killed his own father because Kim Il Sung was thinking about meeting Kim Yong Sam for possible unification) …anyway Kim Il Sung was still king of North Korea.
Needless to say, we didn’t care much about the Chinese deaths. We wanted the Chinese out of North Korea and a complete book-jin course (South to North), ending the war at the Yalu and the Tumen river.
Like Baduk says, people in that era thought very highly of the US and General Douglass MacArthur.
Needless to say, I was quite shocked when I came back to the US a 2nd time and found out that the US considered MacArthur a lunatic who basically disobeyed or was willing to disobey Presidential orders.
You couldn’t find an autobiography of Harry Truman in South Korea, and as usual, I am telling something that is the truth from the best of my recollecting abilities.
Shelton-baduk,
The split at that time between Communist Koreans and non-Communist Koreans is comparable to the split between Sunni Iraqis and Shiaa Iraqis.
I don’t agree at all. The Iraqi split is deeper historically and culturally, more personal than political, and far more historic.
Baduk-baduk,
What is with your sudden hate-on for Harry Truman? Does that come from a new book you’re reading?
This is Korean Society 101, going back to the days of Rhee. In the Korean War, MacArthur was the Great American Savior who was all set to knock out the reds and kick them off the peninsula, but it was Truman who held him back and kicked him out, allowing for the war to end almost where it started and for the peninsula to remain divided.
I think WJC is right that WJC is (one of) the most hated White man in Korea.
BTW, more than a few Korean War vets I know (Americans) felt much the same way.
although the Republic of Korea seems to have gotten more casualties over fewer years and only half of Korea after the Korean War, I’d take that anyday to what Vietnam is now.
Vietnamese people fought for nothing, basically. Look at them. They love living in America, getting their US higher education degrees, and they’re really eager to have trade with the US. Basically they love living better, too. Look at all the recent Vietnamese immigrants to the US, via families already in the US and so forth. They’re willing to leave Vietnam in their 20’s and take up a whole new language.
Someday Iraq and the Middle East will be like that. This is my opinion, by the way. Hack it all you want.
Muslim kids in the US probably wouldn’t be accepted in certain parts of the Middle East.
dogbertt,
But the whole situation is different.
In 1953, the United States was dealing with the southern half of “one” nation (the whole two countries, one nation thing), while in Iraq, we pretty much have three different nations who only are in one “country” because that’s how a bunch of punch drunk Europeans felt like carving up that part of the defunct Ottoman Empire.
The gates of hell are on the cusp of opening up on Iraq, and God knows where everything will endup.
and to even it all out, half or more than half of Korea also fought a delusional war against the US, all for nothing. Now, they’re eager to live in any captialistic country. Problem with the North Koreans was that, they didn’t get communism. They got a king. A very, very, fat, ugly, and selfish one.
Kim Il Sung seems to be of the Jun Joo Kim family. I’m sure though no one in that region wants anything to do with him.
Tacticly, the best model for this is actually Japan.
Forget about all this insurgent stuff, and break it down to the most two basic elements “What’s good for America” and “What’s bad for America’s enemies”
America arrived in Japan because it wanted to win the war. It planned to put a submissive governemt in place and then leave. However, it found that it Japan was in striking distance of all of Americas communist enemies except France. So it decided to stick around.
Having troops in Japan was “good for America” because it allowed the US to nuke commies without getting out of bed in the morning, and “bad for America’s enemies” because it meant that America could bearth an invasion fleet off of their shores and there was nothing that they could do about it.
60 years later, Yokohama is still full of drunken GIs looking for beer, sex and cheap porn.
Now, look at Iraq. Iraq. Not only is Iraq rich in oil, but it puts America in striking distance of just about every Muslim in the world country except France.
I predict that in 2072, there will be more American ex-pats in Iraq than in Saudi.
ACB wrote:
However, it found that it Japan was in striking distance of all of Americas communist enemies except France.
It doesn’t count against my one-comment-per-post average if I simply say this sentence made me nearly laugh some sort of liquid through my nose.
By the way, I agree with most of what you wrote. Time to start planning more television spots for AFN-I.
Korea had one huge natural resource advantage over Iraq in its recovery from the Korean War and that natural resource was their people. The people of Korea sacrificed and worked hard to rebuild their country where Iraq has very little culture of hard work and oil only helps to keep people that way due to the free hand outs from the government.
In fairness Iraqis do work much harder compared to other countries in the middle east but are no where near the diligence of Koreans. When I was over there sheiks kept looking at Americans to rebuild the country for them instead of them rebuilding the country for themselves. This caused a lot of friction initially but Iraqis are beginning to rebuild things on their own with their own government’s money which will cause them to take more ownership in the country.
It tooks years after the Korean War for Korea to get a leader (Park Chung-hee) to harness Korea’s potential and may take years in Iraq for a real leader to emerge as well.
“There are, of course, many dissimilarities between the Korea of 1953 and the Iraq of 2006″
Of course, the biggest difference is that Iraq was a SOVEREIGN nation. It wasn’t divided. It wasn’t recovering from a terrible colonial occupation. It wasn’t shattered. You just don’t go invading sovereign nations unless you’re asking for trouble, and the USA got it.
“History repeats itself only in outline, not in detail.”
Yeah, and like Vietnam, the U.S. will de defeated, once again, because you can’t invade a nation of people bonded by whatever bonds they might have–language, religion, food, music, etc, and expect them to love you more than their neighbors, who, although they might be hated, aren’t as hated as much as the dreaded invaders toting TV sets and cheeseburgers.
I like the article. Well written. But the guy is wrong. The USA is NOT the cat’s meow. The world is enjoying a new paradigm shift, and it’s away from materialism, mass consumption, and the rich getting richer, if only for the fact that we are finding out there are barriers to these trends.
“The world is enjoying a new paradigm shift, and it’s away from materialism, mass consumption, and the rich getting richer,”
Where does this world exist, besides in the minds of rich westerners and other naive idealists who already have plenty of everything they need? If anything, the world is heading towards all-out materialism, mass consumption, getting richer (not just the rich getting richer). Indians and Chinese want more of what the west has and why shouldn’t they? How many of these people want to hear rich westerners telling them about the ‘evils’ of consumerism, etc?
Iraq is a great social experiment. It is of course a great gamble. If you can get the Shiites and the Samsonites to unite under a coalition demogratic form of govt, the reparcussions to the region are tremendous. Right now, all we’ve got there are potentates and cabbages.
One Trackback
Korea, American Steadfastness and Iraq…
The Flying Yangban links to an interesting article in The Washington Post by a retired Army colonel who persuasively suggests that American intervention in Iraq should be seen as analagous to its role in Korea.
UPDATE: Marmot, thanks to Budachi…