Wednesday, November 15, 2006
The defense of South Korea was viewed by many, including Joe Stalin, as a war between the US and Russia. He had taken Eastern Europe and all of China. How far could he push the US before we pushed back? We pushed back hard. There was never another conventional invasion of a non-Communist country. Besides, the North Koreans killed US soldiers in combat. To have NOT whacked them back would have been VERY bad form, tit for tat-wise.
On the Shiite thing, the US is blamed for Pol Pot's genocide in Cambodia, as little sense as that makes. If the Sunnis are massacred in Iraq, we will be blamed for THAT, too. The American Right Wing will sit there and tick off a string of factoids that prove we were not directly responsible. The entire rest of the world, starting with the American Left Wing, will just keep shouting "post hoc, ergo proptor hoc".
But I think we should cut and run as efficiently as possible now. Once you have made it clear (e.g., by having the Opposition Party win the national elections) that you don't intend to continue the war to a successful conclusion, you have no hope of saving face. You just REALLY want to avoid more photos of panicky soldiers fighting to get on the last helicopter out of town.
Oh, I keep meaning to mention this. The Strike and Retire approach to military intervention that you keep proposing has 1 big operator: the French. If you are an ex-French colony and you develop an unstable situation, the 2eme REP (Regiment Etranger Parachutist) will be there tomorrow to settle your hash. NOBODY messes with the Legion. And the government in Paris makes it clear that the troops are there ONLY to prevent unnecessary bloodshed. No free Hershey bars. No new plumbing. As soon as the local forces are back in control, the troops get back on their planes and LEAVE. But everybody understands this, and there are NEVER any complaints about French intervention. Even without air support, a few companies of Legionnaires can whip a few thousand armed thugs. Are you sure you're talking about American forces and not the French?
Back in Gulf 1, Classic, there was 1 brigade of French in the Coalition. They were given the far left flank, out in the middle of the desert. I kept expecting them to just disappear for a few days and then show up in Baghdad. I considered them to be the real threat to Saddam's army.
2. Liberty or Death Reply
There is a time to hold them and a time to fold them. Korea was the wrong battleground. Why? Because Uncle Joe had maneuvered us into fighting surrogates with American lives and treasure, while the real enemy was untouched. Never fight the other guy’s surrogates on their own ground. Use asymmetric warfare. Don't pit America's finest against peasants. That is what I keep harping about in the use of military force. There has to be a legitimate military target. North Korean and Chinese peasants are not a legitimate military target.
If they attack Korea hurt them somewhere else like food embargoes or naval seizers. Take every one of their cargo ships and kill any combatant that came out in blue water. We had overwhelming naval superiority in 1951. Don't fight on land against their strength. Fight on the water with NATO's strength.
With regard to Iraq you have only two choices. Regardless of which you chose, the Sunnis are toast. Nothing you or Pelosi can do about that. So help the Shiites and move them away from Iran. Or cut and run and have the Shiites solidly in the Iranian sphere where they can threaten the rest of the Middle East through a new surrogate. Your choice.
Strike and Scoot is pure punishment. Who cares if we leave a mess behind, that is not our strategic objective. Our strategic objective is to live up to our cowboy super power image. Mess with us and one bad guy goes back to the Stone Age. How many bad guys do we have to trash before the other bad guys leave us alone? It also cheap in lives and treasure.
Right now the Chinese are shooting lasers at our satellites. We are doing nothing. How about stop it or no trade. Asymmetric warfare.