JoongAng Ilbo senior columnist Kim Young-hie presents some very powerful arguments for sending Korean troops to Afghanistan:
The dispatch was approved by the National Assembly. Still, many Koreans may wonder why we need to send young soldiers to the harsh terrain in South Asia when we appear to have few ties to impoverished and war-ridden Afghanistan.
We can find the answer when we think back on our June 25 civil war 60 years ago. As the unprepared South Korean army was helplessly trying to defend the Nakdong River line, sending aides of President Syngman Rhee to discuss setting up a government in exile in Yamaguchi Prefecture in Japan, forces from 15 countries under the United Nations banner came to the rescue and helped to turn the tide of the war.
During the three-year war, 930,000 young men from 15 different countries fought for the lives of South Korean people and saved them from a communist takeover. To the families and countrymen of those young men, a small country in the far east of Asia would have seemed as distant and strange as Afghanistan is to us. South Korea then was a country taking baby steps as independent democratic state after a 35-year colonial rule by Japan.
Moreover, she argues, the deployment is an opportunity to train experts in the South Asian region:
But our venture in Afghanistan will end in a lost opportunity if we don’t repay old debts. We must generate greater value from our contribution. Only one out of 10 soldiers who wanted to go to Afghanistan were selected. These men together with 150 civilian aid workers of the Provincial Reconstruction Team should be encouraged to employ their expertise and language skills to become experts on the South Asian region. The gain to the country will be priceless if dozens of regional experts in diplomatic and corporate fields are born through this process.
[...]
Their eyes will be opened to an entirely new world and their hearts inspired with a pioneering and enterprising spirit. Their experience in Afghanistan and South Asia will be invaluable to them as individuals as well as the country if they can use it to seed their future.
Fair enough — you know what they say, of course, about war being God’s way of teaching Americans geography. Having regional experts — civilian and military — never hurts. But if the future they’ll be seeding is one of chasing goat herders around the the middle of Bumfuck, Afghanistan for nine years as Central Asian kleptocrats pillage your tax payers, all to fight terrorists who are just as likely (if not more so) to live in London as they do in Kabul, then best of luck to you.
{ 66 comments… read them below or add one }
Afghanistan…the graveyard of Empires
Kim Young-hie’s framing of Korea’s involvement in Afghanistan in terms of quid-pro-quo is essentially wrongheaded, particularly when she equates sending troops to Afghanistan with “seeding the future” with “dozens of regional experts in diplomatic and corporate fields.”
FYI, if you wanna seed Korea’s future with diplomatic and corporate savvy, it would be far better to send Korea’s top students to Harvard Business School or its JFK School of Government. On the other hand, if you wanna have a professional military with overseas deployment and combat experience, Afghanistan is where you need to be.
Despite having professional soldiers in among their officer and NCO corps., ROK Special Forces and ROK Marine Corps. who are chomping at the bit to get some action in places like Afghanistan, I don’t understand the Korean government’s reticence and hand wringing when it comes to living up to its international promises. One thing Kim Young-hie fails to mention is Korea’s responsibility vis-a-vis the Korean/U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty. Obviously, Korea will invoke this treaty to the nth degree on the day its invaded. However, in the interim, Korea has conveniently forgotten its responsibilities the other way.
I’d like to see at least one Korean leader or journalist with guts enough to demand that Korea start living up to its treaties and promises to the rest of the world. Without it, Korea will always lack the legitimacy and prestige that it craves.
Participating in Afghanistan with combat troops is just one of those things you have to do if you wanna be part of the international community. And sending troops to combat zones in godforsaken lands is rarely a quid-pro-quo deal.
It’s sacrifice — not that Korea should kow-tow to the U.S., but up til now, Korea has been terribly afraid of getting its hands dirty and its knuckles bloodied — more so in the fear of angering North Korea than anything.
All in all, the end result of sending professional soldiers does not result in creating “regional experts” for the future. You are however, creating a professional military with combat experience and a country with a firm footing and legitimacy in the international community that all Koreans can be proud of.
Isn’t Kim Young-hie (despite the name) a “he”?
@ 8675309
I generally agree with your points, but I disagree with one of your assessments. Korea is obviously a large enough nation to be able to both send some of its citizens to top universities around the world and others to war zones. And sending professional soldiers out to Afghanistan will create ample opportunites to gain expertise in the region. While Ambrose Bierce’s comment quoted above is satirical, whatever accusations are embedded in it contains a distorted truth. The Korean War produced American experts on Korea. The Vietnam War produced American experts on Vietnam. The war that toppled Saddam Hussein produced experts on Iraq. And we certainly have produced experts on Afghanistan. The ones gaining experience are not just military or mercenary, they include civilians who cover the war for media and others who are involved in reconstruction and aid.
But there is a caveat. If the Koreans largely limit their Afghan experience by staying hovelled in a small compound, then I think they should not insult the effort and should just stay away.
“One thing Kim Young-hie fails to mention is Korea’s responsibility vis-a-vis the Korean/U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty.”
Note your points 867…. and perhaps the treaty quoted is more wide ranging than the title suggests, but don’t mutual defense treaties come into play in case of defense, i.e when attacked, not when the aggressor.
Sending combat troops to Afghanistan will probably bring down Lee Myung Bak’s government with another Mad Cow like protests. Once Korean combat deaths are recorded, I wouldn’t be surprised if Prez Lee would be impeached. It’s a political suicide that few if any ROK politicians would want to sacrifice over Afghanistan, a god forsaken country in which the war will never end, and in which the United States will ultimately give up in the future. Combat experience is good to have, but the price is just too high.
Look at Canada, look how many combat deaths have occurred with their participation. How many Americans even know Canadians troops are there and have died by the hundreds? How many Americans even know that there were Korean troops in the Vietnam War, helping the Americans? Not many.
So if you’re the Korean politician who must make a decision, you ask yourself, what national interest there could possibly be to send combat troops to Afghanistan?
I have a question Robert. (Others may answer as well.) Put yourself in America in 1951. A little shithole that you have never heard of — Korea — is having a civil war. Would you be in favor of America’s military involvement in it?
I can totally see a very persuasive argument that America should not help. But America did, and it was for the better. No one knows what will happen in the next 50~100 years. If you were looking at the smoldering rubble that was Korea in the 1950s, would you have thought that it would be one of the leading countries in the world within 50 years? Afghanistan looks bleak now, but who knows what will happen in 50-100 years?
Barring disaster, Korea will be in the upper echelon of countries in the world by then. Projecting influence over an area that is currently a vacuum of power is a smart idea.
Fixed it for ya. You’re welcome. And an excellent point, btw. Shows Korea’s genuine motivation. Like a gushing 13-year-old girl: “Did he notice me? Do you think he likes me?” Whatever Canada’s (and Australia, UK, Denmark) motivation may be, it certainly isn’t “we need to be recognized by the Yanks”. They don’t have Korea’s self-esteem problems. Well, maybe the Canadians, but just a little.
Sure, especially for the Koreans who were able to get off the peninsula. Not such a great deal for all the other Americans. They got stuck with a bunch of fence sitting ingrates. The type of dopes who bring Taegukis to 4th of July parades.
Of course you could start that quest for legitimacy and prestige in the markets w/ the counterfeit and blackmarketed goods. Whoa! What am I thinking?! That would be far too dangerous; them merchants are right hostile pratts. Ok, send ‘em to Afghanistan, to a place far from the Pashtuns, and protect ‘em with some other nation’s security force. And ask the Yanks to fly ‘em over and give them MRAPs.
#8 “How many Americans even know that there were Korean troops in the Vietnam War, helping being paid by the Americans?”
Yes, they got paid for it, but the ROK also paid for it with 5000 dead and 10,000 wounded – which probably saved thousands of American troops from being deployed and thus saving them from battle deaths. That was a fair trade, don’t you think? Also, back then, it wasn’t always about money or trying to get on good side of America. ROK also genuinely tried to help, and many enthusiatically volunteered to serve in Vietnam. Synman Rhee, as far back as 1957, offered the French, Korean troops to Vietnam.
As for Canadians, this war is all about America. They’re the ones who started Iraq, Afghanistan, against international opinions, and expected everyone else to follow them. Iraq and Afghanistan weren’t a direct threat to the US, they never attacked the US soil.
Those enthusiastic volunteers were enthusiastic about the money. Nothing wrong about getting paid, but the motivation was money, and not being Mr. Helper.
You ought to reread your last paragraph.
#10,
you just can’t win. If they send combat troops and some of them die, Seouldout will just dismiss them as cowardly ROK clowns wanting money from rich Americans. If they don’t send them, it’s because they are ingrates. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. End of story, nothing more to discuss that I can see, other then:
Afghanistan is a lost cause, a quagmire, there’s no way America will prevail over this country who has different values about what they want out of life. They put more importance on Allah than anything else. Anyone who died in that conflict, died for nothing. Going on tenth year of the conflict with no end in sight.
We need to make sure to stay out of the Middle East. It’s not really a power vacuum. Big powers like the US, Russia, China and regional powers like Israel and Iran are involved. It’s a game for the big powers to play. And there is absolutely nothing worthwhile to be gained from the region aside from energy, and again, that’s for the big powers to seize and carve up. Even the US is having trouble getting real control over Mideast oil deposits, and may have to end up relying on Mideast countries and regional powers, and warding off the other big powers.
Also, as an environment relatively closer in ecological distance to human origins, the region and its deep cultures are very toxic to us in the most fundamental sense. Just as the Chinese wisely burned their merchant fleet after reaching Africa centuries ago, we should avoid getting entagled in the Mideast.
Imperialism is not our game. We need to focus on reunification and the changing power dynamics of Northeast Asia. That’s enough.
If Korea so chooses, send the troops w/o the demands, such as for money. Then you can use the h word. Do it for other-than-schoolgirl reasons. You can be pretty sure the Americans aren’t thinking about you. Get over yourselves. You haven’t been crowned prom queen. How much thought does Korea put in about all the nations other than the US that sent support for the UN effort? Little if any. Don’t hear the Ethiopians grumbling, do you?
Who get the pleasure of torpedoing Hanjin’s fleet?
@ cm
The objective truth of the matter is epiphenomenal. With groups relatively more distant involved, it’s about dominance. Especially if the group in question is more vulnerable ie less dominant, not memetically immune and dominant, etc.
I hope Afghanistan blossoms in 50—100 years. I really do, given the commitment and blood and treasure we’ve made. But this isn’t the Cold War, and the Big Red Dog isn’t threatening Western civilization. Moreover, if you’re going to make that kind of investment, I think you need to decide whether the country involved is a good investment or a bad one, and Afghanistan just doesn’t seem like a good one.
cm and all, the best way to handle soldout is ignore him. you can see he’s trying to anger. everytime you respond, he gets a little piece of his dignity back. i’d rather let him stew in his bitterness towards the han. it’s fun to see.
Can someone please translate #15??
They put more importance on Allah than anything else
They put more importance on tribal power than anything else, but it’s just a minor detail hence:
Afghanistan is a lost cause, a quagmire, there’s no way America will prevail over this country…Anyone who died in that conflict, died for nothing. Going on tenth year of the conflict with no end in sight.
You are completely right about this
“Put yourself in America in 1951. A little shithole that you have never heard of — Korea — is having a civil war. Would you be in favor of America’s military involvement in it?”
OK, first of all, there were substantial U.S. forces in the ROK at the time of the invasion. Few if any people at The Hole seem to know this. They (8th Army?) made stands at Daejeon (a certain Colonel Dean is a hero to be remembered) and Daegu while the ROK forces totally disintegrated around them, and made the Nakdong River or Daegu Perimeter (a more accurate name than Pusan Perimeter imho) possible.
Second, the U.S. acted to send additional forces to confront the invasion within hours if not days, in June 1950, not 1951. Perhaps that was just a typo on TheAmazingKorean’s part.
Third, the U.S. (led by MacArthur) decided to defend Korea because it was belatedly yet suddenly realized that a “communist takeover” would threaten the U.S.’s recent hard-won conquest of Japan. Red Korea would have been a dagger pointed at the heart of Japan. Sorry, but that’s the only reason why the U.S. against its wishes defended Korea.
From the JoongAng Ilbo:
“As the unprepared South Korean army was helplessly trying to defend the Nakdong River line, forces from 15 countries under the United Nations banner came to the rescue and helped to turn the tide of the war.”
Sorry, but this is utter revisionist bullshit. The U.S. 8th, and the U.S. 8th alone, defended the Nakdong or Daegu Perimeter during the summer of 1950 while gradually reinforced by additional U.S. forces and until the Incheon Landing forced the North Korean retreat. ROK forces had collapsed (or, as we now know, were otherwise engaged in slaughtering domestic leftists).
Taekgukgi was a fine movie, but the idea that ROK forces were of any use in the first, most doubtful months of the war is just not true.
P.S. Other forces — most notably the Brits, the French Foreign Legion, and the Turks, as well as ROK elements, were in place by the time of the race to the Yalu and the Chinese invasion in the winter of 1950-51. But they did not play a role in those first most doubtful months.
And finally:
I agree with our host: it’s not that Afghanistan is a lost cause. It’s that there is nothing to be won there. The West can (and, if U.S. Republicans have their way, will) keep armies there for 100 years, for training and to get combat experience or whatever, but in the end it won’t make any difference to anyone except the particular individuals involved.
#20, Americans made a stand at Daejeon in 1950, but like the ROK’s before them, they broke and ran and surrendered. The excuse was that Americans were poorly trained and poorly equipped at that time. But that same excuse doesn’t get applied to the ROK troops who were even more ill-equipped and untrained. And yes we know Americans didn’t save Korea out of goodness of heart. They did it to save Japan. Not a new revelation there.
“Broke and ran and surrendered”?
“Were defeated, some were killed or captured, while most regrouped at Daegu and the Nakdong, where in the end they held” would be a more accurate way to put it. American soldiers in Korea and Japan in 1950 were indeed poorly trained and equipped; yet the ROK forces around them, for whatever reason(s), consistently disintegrated and ceased to exist. The ROK forces didn’t achieve anything until much later in the war, and never earned the respect of their allies, sad but true.
P.S. I’ve had a devil of a time getting into The Hole this weekend. Each time I get a message that Windows Internet Explorer cannot open the site, and then Explorer crashes and I have to start again. I’ve achieved success (finally) by Yahoo-searching The Marmot’s Hole and entering thusly.
“ROK forces around them, for whatever reason(s), consistently disintegrated and ceased to exist.”
ROK disintegrated because they lacked good leadership, and were poorly trained. The most experienced were either captured or dead early in the war. ROK had to learn on the job by recruiting illiterate peasants or forcibly drafting them and rushing them off to the front. Some were old as 13 years old, some didn’t even have shoes. If Korean men are genetically cowardly as you seem to suggest (heard it all before), how is it that the North Koreans butt fucked the Americans at Daejon and almost drove them out of the peninsula without the superior air support that America had?
The West can (and, if U.S. Republicans have their way, will) keep armies there for 100 years
I don’t mean to be antagonistic all the time, but i was under the impresssion the Anointed One was always in favour of the Afghanistan war and he just reinforced his commitment to it.
I was also under the impression the US military budget keeps expanding, no matter who’s in charge. Which lead us to another problem: who nowadays can afford this kind of expenses ? Minjok is right, Korea should focus on a long term strategy to reunite with the North without going bankrupt (and in this case sure the East/West Germany precedent doesn’t offer great value) and avoid mimicking the West worst military adventurism
I think the reason few at The Hole know this is because you’re mistaken, I’m afraid. There were not substantial US forces in Korea when North Korea invaded on June 25, 1950, unless you consider KMAG “substantial US forces.” The first elements of the US 24th Infantry Division — who fought in Osan and Daejeon — didn’t begin to arrive in Korea until June 30. The first US engagement with the enemy — the Battle of Osan (a.k.a. Task Force Smith), took place on July 5.
It’s a bit more complicated that that. While the performance of the ROK Army in the first part of the war was hardly anything to write home about (neither was the performance of the US Army, for that matter), some units performed much better than others — the ROK 1st Infantry Division, for instance, acquitted itself quite well on the Nakdong Perimeter — and much of the line was, in fact, defended by intact South Korean units:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pusan_Perimeter.jpg
Now, for cm:
Two things:
1) The Americans did NOT break and run at Daejeon. The 24th was asked to hold out until July 20th to give the 1st Cavalry and 35th Infantry divisions time to deploy. This, they did. Their withdrawal from Daejeon was on orders from the division commander, Major Gen. Dean, who spent the latter part of the battle engaging in some personal tank hunting against North Korean T-34s. The 24th Infantry Division received the Presidential Unit Citation and the Republic of Korea Presidential Unit Citation for its service in Daejeon… not bad for “breaking and running.”
2) The US Army gets plenty of criticism for frequent “bug outs” during the first part of the war.
Will someone please shoot that weak analogy and put it out of its misery? The example of Korea gets dragged out every time the feasibility of continuing to fight in Afghanistan and/or Iraq is questioned as if differences in temporality, geography, culture, and religion are but small details that have little bearing on the outcome. I hope you don’t use the same reasoning in choosing financial investments. Well, Company A was a small start-up when I invested $1,000 in it, and now my stock is worth $10,000, so if I invest $1,000 in small start-up company B…
I don’t know what will happen in 50-100 years. But I know what won’t happen: Korea.
Amen. Amen. And also amen.
I would add another thing: Korea has enjoyed a strong business partnership with the muslim world, without having to pay a high price by turning into a major muslim immigration recipient.
Now what would be the benefits in jeopardising such a privileged position, seeking war with a muslim country, is unclear to me.
Korea biggest asset is her soft non-aggressive power, this strategy could really pay off in Africa, a place much more promising than Afghanistan
Caveat: I am far from committed on this issue. It’s just that I am not ready to dismiss it out of hand like many do. Having said that…
But wouldn’t you have said the same for Korea in 1950? (Yes that was a typo.) Korea was no more than a shithole at the time, and I really cannot believe that Korea in the 1950s was significantly better than Afghanistan in the 2000s.
And as a side note, I want to focus on Afghanistan, not Iraq. Iraq is a whole ‘nother can of worms.
Big difference here: we are a big component of running those start up companies, not some third party on the sidelines. We are not some random person choosing between companies A and B. We are major shareholders who can hire and fire the management in companies A and B. Then what it comes down to is Robert’s argument — the relative strengths and weaknesses of companies A and B, and what the experience of running company A could teach us about company B. (This, by the way, is the right way to discuss, not the pithy and disrespectful tone that you have taken.)
And in assessing strengths and weaknesses, I find repeatedly that the strengths of Korea in 1950 getting vastly overplayed now. Or, more accurately, while the strengths were indeed great with the benefit of hindsight, the current commentators do not seem to realize how truly, terribly shitty things looked at the time. For example, the “Confucian value” that the current commentators extol about Korea was considered to be one of the greatest hindrances on Korea’s path to modernity all the way up to 1970s.
That’s why I focus on that issue. Can we identify things about Afghanistan that, while it may appear detrimental at this time, may serve as a strength in the future?
Help me complete the analogy:
major shareholders : the US? the US, UK, and other Coalition members?
hire and fire the management : choose the president, his cabinet, and parliament?
Not sure whom you’re referring to by “many,” but the links in IHBB’s post indicate that the Korea:Afghanistan analogy has been considered carefully. No point in rehashing old arguments.
I still think she’s a he.
dogbertt’s right. Plenty of men with 희 ending in their names:
Here is the original Korean column. It’s just another 조중동 column, would it disagree with a decision made by the government?
@Yuna:
Why would an unpopular president who once barricaded himself behind containers and legions of riot police make a decision that is sure to be unpopular and provoke another round of demonstrations? I know there are reasons, but I don’t think I’ll find an honest examination in any of the major papers.
He is involved too in this short track skating shit ?
Getting involved in a war for economical or political reasons always end up bad for everyone involved.
Sonagi, are you saying that the SK president would have been against sending troops to Afg. because it might have been proven unpopular? He’s making WAAAY more unpopular decisions than this and sticking with them – I mean, that’s part of his charm – the Bulldozer.
This article is just a a shoddy justification.
I remember at some point, there was talk of “Could we not just pay the US instead? Contribute towards efforts in Afg. by giving some money to the US” but obviously that’s fallen through and is not considered enough. 350 troops seem piddly little anyway. It’s about the show of solidarity with the US, in their efforts in Afghanistan. Nothing too bad matching some Korean men itching to go get overseas international experience in hot zones, to the US demand for a keeping that extra flag in its collection of team flags, like an employment agency. However, it’s pathetic to link it to ideology, and this sort of flowery analogy to the Korean war is a remnant from a typical Korean textbook, which I grew up with.
“[Y]ou’re mistaken. There were not substantial US forces in Korea when North Korea invaded on June 25, 1950 …”
I stand corrected. I was surprised to learn that not only Dean (General)but even Smith (Colonel, as in Task Force Smith) were in Japan on 1950.06.25. It’s impressive that they were in battle ten days later.
“[T]he ROK 1st Infantry Division acquitted itself quite well on the Nakdong Perimeter — and much of the line was, in fact, defended by intact South Korean units …”
I stand corrected, especially in re the ROK 1st. (Was it led by the Gen. Paik I’ve seen praised so highly at The Hole?) Yet it’s also true that the brunt of the NKPA attacks that summer were made against the western or Nakdong side of the Perimeter, defended by the Americans (and the ROK 1st). The remaining ROK units were assigned to quieter sectors.
The big picture remains, however, that the ROK army was ineffectual (OK, mostly ineffectual) during the first years (not months) of the war. It never gained the respect or trust of its allies. For a Korean newpaper to now write that the ROK army (and only the ROK army) defended the Nakdong until the “UN” (presumably including the U.S., though it’s not explicitly stated) came to Korea’s aid and “helped” turn the tide is, yes, revisionist bullshit.
Ungrateful jerks.
Taekgukgi is an OK movie, but to see it you’d never know the U.S. (much less the UK, France, Turkey, etc.) was involved in the war.
No. I’m wondering what the president hopes to gain by sending troops.
So it’s all about solidarity. Hmmm. Why couldn’t the Korean government just refuse the US 요구? ( I use the Korean word deliberately, rather than “demand” or “request” because I think the Korean word most accurately conveys the nature of the communication from the US).
The U.S. And I am currently leaning toward the position that Korea should be a major shareholder as well.
President, certainly. Others are less important. The important part is that major shareholders can dictate the direction of the company if they choose to.
Actually, none of the links at IHBB speaks to Korea:Afghanistan. They all speak to Korea:Iraq. They are irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion. Furthermore, none of those articles are very convincing. Two of them speak about the distinction between justified v. unjustified war (which is meaningless at this point I think,) and one speaks about how Confucianism made Korea a better situation than Iraq. (Which is a point that I addressed already.)
First of all… US had the world’s support in attacking the Taliban in Afghanistan after 911. However, we screwed that up by spending all of our man power and resources invading a sovereign country under false pretenses. Giving the Taliban enough time to disperse into neighboring countries and making it harder for the men and women serving our country. This is not a war that could be won with more men… just ask the Russians.
But why should he refuse the 요구? It’s a right wing government we have at the moment, and that means we are friends with the US. Admittedly the love was sweeter when 2MB and dubya were chums sharing kodak moments in golf carts than now, nonetheless a right wing government in Korea equates to “US is our strongest ally”.
AAK wrote:
Taxpayers of participating countries are footing the bill for the war but do not have any direct input on choosing the management. Hamid Karzai was hand-picked by the US and nominally legitized an election that made the 2000 US presidential contest look squeaky clean. Moreover, large areas of the country are under effective Taliban rule. Collectively citizens of participating countries have no direct control whatsoever over what is happening in Afghanistan. At best, we can fire our proxies, the head of government and members of the legislature, by voting them out.
The articles address Snow’s analogy with Iraq, but most of the differences cited apply to Afghanistan, too, so they are relevant.
If you think Korea: Afghanistan, then support that with specific similarities, other than both being very poor and underdeveloped and underestimation of Confucianism (by inference, Afghanistan must have some cultural influence we are underestimating). What specifically about the country makes you think a gamble will pay off, taking into account the 9 years, 10,000 Coalition casualties, and $171 billion in US costs already invested?
Yuna wrote:
So far the right wing government appears to be as effective as its leftist predecessors in refusing or stalling in response to US military 요구s about cost-sharing, base relocations, and handover of wartime command. Your quick and easy answer is no more convincing than the 조중동 government propaganda and a sad indicator of a lack of candid and thougthful debates on national issues in a polarized media. 조중동: It’s good for the country. Hani and other anti-조중동: 2MB’s doing this ’cause he’s a right wing, chaebol-loving, Japan-born, US lackey, and all-around bad guy. No wonder I skip the politics section in the Korean papers.
LMB won’t face re-election but members of his party will, and sending troops to support a US occupation of a foreign country is not likely to be popular in Korea.
correction: nominally legitimized in an election
LMB won’t face re-election but members of his party will, and sending troops to support a US occupation of a foreign country is not likely to be popular in Korea
He wouldn’t feel confident enough even with a turbo economy ?
So? You are telling me that the Barack Obama can’t get rid of Karzai whenever he damn well pleases? The citizens of the participating countries are shareholders of a parent company, which in turn owns a subsidiary. Of course they can only exert influence by proxy, as they should. What matters is that the head of the parent company — far, far more informed than you and I can ever hope for — can direct the subsidiary’s actions.
I don’t know yet. That’s why I am not totally committed on this issue. But it is perfectly valid to wonder what we are not detecting. So far, I don’t think I have seen any serious effort of trying to find things about Afghanistan that could serve as a seedling for future prosperity. Instead, all the debates about Afghanistan I have seen so far are short-sighted. They are only interested in the petty calculation of the resources spent right now, instead of worrying about ensuring that the investment actually bears fruit.
Speaking of petty calculations…
I will first give an important caveat: our soldiers should never be sacrificed lightly. Several of my friends are in Afghanistan and Iraq right now. I pray for their safety daily.
But really, put America’s cost in perspective. For Korea (again, a piece of shit country in 1950s with no discernible merit,) more than 36,000 Americans died within four years. So far in Afghanistan, less than 1,000 Americans died within nine years. On the grand scheme of things, America’s investment so far has been relatively small.
So again, I reiterate my questions. In 1950, U.S. helped Korea at a great cost to itself, for… what exactly? What advantage for U.S. was readily identifiable in helping Korea in 1950? Can we now, with a benefit of the hindsight, identify the elements of Korea’s eventual success that were already present in 1950 (buried in the steaming pile of rubble)? Using that knowledge, can we identify the elements in Afghanistan that may possibly serve as a seed for future prosperity?
As I’ve said, there are other issues he’s likely to be losing sleep over than this. 세종시 is all over the news, has been dragging on and on. This (Afghan 파병) costs him near-nothing in the grand scheme of things. For example, I am not particularly against it. It’s not a great loss. While I do feel like it’s a mess started by someone else that doesn’t concern us and we have nothing to gain (this is where I diverge from the Korean), on the other hand, no man is an island, and there are worse things one could do than to contribute towards stability of a war zone.
Also, you are talking from the US point of view completely. I cannot help it nor do I care particularly if you feel the right wing Korean government done the US wrong. Tant pis.
I don’t know if the decision is not likely to be popular but it’s not likely to be unpopular either. There are always going to be dissenters. And outwardly it’s pleasing the US government, just not you. The government can go on holding hands with the US and say things like “US is our greatest ally”, pleasing drones of Baduks who came out to wave their flags when Obama came. I cannot help for the lack of thoughts in a guy’s head. Why should I try and invent a more elaborate reason on his behalf? i.e. invent a reason that isn’t there.
For example would you care to share why you think he’s doing this?
Yuna wrote:
Not sure where you got this idea.
As long as the US is not paying any of the costs of the Korean contingent, then I don’t care. I’m not complaining about Korea sending troops. I’m just wondering why.
I honestly have no idea. That’s why I asked. The idea that 세종시 is such a big issue that the Afghan deployment will not draw much attention makes sense and explains why LMB would go ahead. I’m still not satisfied with the explanation that Korea is just helping a friend. Does the Korean military see another deployment as an opportunity to gain experience? I don’t know.
I don’t think Obama can just wave his hand and be rid of a formally elected president, but if the US decides Karzai’s no longer their man, then the means will be found to replace him.
Even the wisest leaders make mistakes, so it’s perfectly alright for citizens who don’t have access to reams of confidential reports to question and oppose decisions made by the leader.
The boldfaced words are where your arguments fail. No one, not the Commander-in-Chief, not the Coalition forces, not the Afghan government can ensure success. Even in a lopsided contest, success is never guaranteed. One thousand dead in Afghanistan may seem trivial compared to 36,000 dead in Korea, but there’s nothing “petty” about noting their deaths.
Ok, I admit that my word choice can be better. So if you could, please change the word “ensuring” into “endeavoring” in the boldfaced language, and make a real argument against my actual argument instead of quibbling over word choices.
Hard to keep track of your arguments when you change them.
I gotta tell ya Sonagi, I am losing my respect for you really, really fast through this exchange. 심각하게 토의하려고 하는데, 왜 자꾸 말꼬리를 잡고 늘어지죠? 평소에는 이렇게 쪼잔하지 않으시던 분이?
My argument has always been clear: there are things to learn from America’s experience in Korea, and those lessons may apply in America’s (and possibly Korea’s) experience Afghanistan.
And like I said, I am far from committed on my position and am interested in hearing what I’m missing here. So I pose a question about the comparability between Korea and Afghanistan. In contrast, you seem pretty damn sure on your position that Korea and Afghanistan are not comparable, and there is nothing to be learned from Korea’s experience that justifies the continued involvement on the part of U.S. (and/or Korea.) Ok, so if you are so sure, tell me why you think so by answering my goddamn questions. I wrote them three times so far already.
“What advantage for U.S. was readily identifiable in helping Korea in 1950?”
Keeping the Red menace contained, considered of such import in the US during the McCarthy era that they were happy to go to war on their own too.
There’s an old German expression: “When two dogs are fighting for a bone, the third runs away with it.” I can’t think of a better way to describe the end result of the Korean War in terms of costs and benefits. In this scenario, obviously the two dogs represent the communists and UN forces, where after three years of fighting over a “bone”, basically get nothing out of it and end up almost exactly where they started — except with huge losses in human lives and materiel.
The “third dog”, however, was Japan: Unknown to many, Japan’s economy skyrocketed and took off during the Korean War, essentially pulling it out of poverty and setting it on its course to become a economic powerhouse directly as a result of the rapid build up in infrastructure, investment and use as strategic launching pad by U.S. forces.
In the same way — and as I previously stated — I believe it is essentially wrongheaded to frame our involvement in Afghanistan in terms of quid-pro-quo. I do not see U.S. or our coalition partners getting much of a ROI on their involvement in Afghanistan.
What I do see is another “third dog” phenomenon in Afghanistan, where the biggest beneficiary of the coalition’s work to date in containing the Taliban and the growth of Islamic fundamentalism will probably be Russia, a country that some 30 years ago sought to contain the growth of Islamic fundamentalism with a failed invasion of its own.
OK. But my current view is gaining or losing Korea would not have mattered much in containing the Red Menace one way or the other. America lost Vietnam, but won the Cold War regardless. (Again, this view is tentative and can be changed.)
So if we take away that rationale, is there anything else?
thekorean,
It’s surely like Arghaeri says. That’s what Acheson and Truman said was the reason after the war, that’s the argument that was made in the UN, exactly the same talk that was made about losing West Berlin, both before and after the blockade. That hindsight shows they were perhaps wrong doesn’t change the fact that that was the reason at the time. While it’s true that the US lost in Vietnam but still won the Cold War, this doesn’t show that losing Korea wouldn’t have mattered. We can only conjecture what might have happened had they lost Korea. Perhaps they would have lost Taiwan too, perhaps even Japan. Uncle Joe wasn’t around to draw conclusions from Vietnam.
Deep breath, Korea was a potential Japan. That wasn’t noticed then and it didn’t really matter at the time anyway, but it ought to be reasonably obvious by now. The Japanese had already shown after the Meiji restoration how quickly East Asian countries can industrialize and become as developed as the West, even without speakable natural resources. This may or may not be something that is special about East and Southeast Asia, but it seems to be a pattern that has played out in Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia and increasingly China itself.
Afghanistan is a potential Pakistan? Or a potential Tajikistan? Afghanistan surely has potential for something, but there are also reasons why it will struggle to follow Korea. No access to the sea being one obvious thing that makes export driven development difficult, not to mention shipbuilding. I also suspect that Koreans had a much stronger sense of nation in 1950 than is the current reality on the ground in Afghanistan.
8675309,
If Germans had any sense they’d know that there are more reasons to fight than just to get the bone.
The US was able to bring the UN onto their side and humiliate the Soviets (at least in the UN). They demonstrated that the free world was prepared to join together and put lives on the line to defend their interests. This for example, convinced the Europeans that the US was serious about their security. Several other nations were able to demonstrate explicitly their alignment with the US block by sending troops or assistance. Turkey for example was able to join NATO shortly after sending a sizeable contingent.
The communists threw the Americans back from the Yalu. If they hadn’t they might have been facing a MacArthur inspired insurgency in the Northeast. They also demonstrated to the Americans that they could not be beaten militarily despite the US’s superior technology and gained useful experience fighting such superiority. Any ideas about landing from Taiwan were put to rest.
Similar benefits might accrue in Afghanistan, both for the US and the Taliban.
both for the US side and the Taliban side
Many, many thanks eujin, for finally providing some meaningful chunks to discuss.
And your point is very interesting. Let me try to follow along… what about Afghanistan as a potential India? India is not Korea, but getting Afghanistan to be at the level of India would be an achievement in and of itself.
I don’t profess to have any more than superficial knowledge about both Afghanistan and India, but India also has decentralized population (which internally do not even share the same language or religion,) a weak sense of nationhood at the start (which manifested itself when Pakistan and Bangladesh split,) etc. Thoughts?
“So if we take away that rationale, is there anything else?”
How you take away pretty much the only rationale for the allied participation. With the hindsight logic, quite possibly wrongly that it made no difference by comparison with another war some 20 years later when the climate had shifted somewhat? It’s telling that the USSR never missed another meeting on the UN Security Council, and the Korean War while it may have done little else showed the resolve of the non-communist powers which may very well have held them in check from further rash moves in the ensuing years. Difficult to say with any real confidence that it made no difference!!!
You are absolutely correct. I am just trying to explore more about whether Korea itself, and not Korea’s placement on the map, had anything to do with American help during the Korean War.
“a weak sense of nationhood at the start (which manifested itself when Pakistan and Bangladesh split,) etc. Thoughts?”
Not a good example, Pakistan was separate from India at inception, the split was East Pakistan (Bangladesh) from West Pakistan in 1971 which given the inherent weak link only of faith and huge geographical separation was not really surprising.
As far as I recall no part of India has from its inception in 1947 split, but parts have been added that were initially apart. e.g. Goa (by force), and Sikkim.
“Whether Korea itself, and not Korea’s placement on the map, had anything to do with American help during the Korean War.”
An isolated desperately poor country, with little natural resouces (no oil
) etc… the only reason other than geopolitics, and this would be an additive factor rather perhaps than sufficient cause by itself, I can think of would be the loss of face having brokered the divide and the NK invasion occuring just after the US withdrawal.
You must log in to post a comment.