|
The
American people
are faced with the imminent prospect of sending their youth into battle
against enemies fought before, perhaps simultaneously. In each case,
the
first war was ended under circumstances that made the next war
inevitable.
How and why? The roots lie in a strategic shift from regime change to
‘containment.’
Some history:
Korea -
In the last days of WWII,
Stalin seized territory
from the Japanese, including what became North Korea. Unification
pressures
soon followed - the South preferring elections and the North favoring
military
force. Paranoia over growing Western influence and imperial designs
persuaded
an initially reluctant Stalin to facilitate Kim Il Sung’s attack in
June
1950.
Truman
preferred the UN to
Congress in seeking
a military mandate. The ensuing carnage was officially classified as a
‘police action,’ neatly bypassing any applicable Constitutional
stipulations.
The
invader was pushed to
the Yalu River within
five months. Truman then ordered the 7th Fleet to be interposed between
Formosa [Taiwan] and China for fear of a wider conflict. 300,000
Chinese
troops were thus freed-up to be deployed against an unsuspecting
MacArthur.
Truman’s
drastic post WWII
disarmament further
eroded his military options. Shifting forces to Asia would have left
Europe
vulnerable. Fear of a Third World War also loomed. One can only
speculate
how world history would have been altered by a demonstration of Western
resolve at that crucial moment.
People’s
Liberation Army
General Lin Piao provides
a clear indication of the opportunity lost: “I never would have made
the
attack and risked my men and my military reputation if I had not been
assured
that Washington would restrain General MacArthur from taking adequate
retaliatory
measures against my lines of supply and communication.”
The war was being micromanaged
from Washington:
“How do you bomb half a bridge,” wondered MacArthur. Stalemate was left
as the best possible outcome. His open protests and contrary
assessments
soon
cost the General his command. The war then needlessly dragged on for
more
than two years, finally pausing in an uneasy, two-generation armistice.
Viet Nam -
Bomb targets required prior
Washington approval,
continuing the micromanagement. Sources of enemy support and
consolidation
were typically declared off-limits. Ho Chi Minh was encouraged by the
increasingly
numerous and grotesque displays of self-loathing on our streets. Having
victory removed as an option from the start, the resultant war of
attrition
was to the enemy’s ultimate advantage.
Iraq -
There was considerable US
resolve to repulse
Saddam’s aggression without repeating the tactical errors of Viet Nam.
Accordingly, there was a clearly defined objective. Field commanders
would
be left to manage combate operations. Tragically however, critical
strategic errors
from
the Korean War were retained in policy:
Once
again, legitimacy for a
military response
was sought from the UN. The subsequent Congressional approval was
welcome,
but was of symbolic value only. Thus an international body composed of
mostly non-democratic governments was left to determine the final
objective:
The Iraqi armed forces would be evicted from Kuwait, but Saddam would
be
allowed to retain his dictatorship.
What
then, has been the
result of the policy of
containment? Certainly not peace or security!
- The Korean people
remain
unnaturally divided. Kim
Jong Il’s harsh dictatorship provides poverty domestically and weapons
proliferation internationally. The People’s Republic of China has
steadily
grown stronger and more hostile; its people are gradually being
acclimated
to the inevitability of war with the US.
- Abandoned to an
eminently
defeatable enemy, Viet
Nam fell into dictatorship. Blood-soaked despotism subsequently spread
throughout the region. The US was also shown to be an unreliable ally.
- Unable to have both
under
UN sanctions, Saddam chose
to continue his WMD program rather than care for his own people, who
continue
to languish in squalor. Aided by a compliant media, the US has
successfully
been tarred with the blame.
To expand on MacArthur’s famous
aphorism, there
are only three possible pursuits in an ongoing war: victory, surrender
or a continuation of war.
As
the Allies considered
their ultimate objectives
during the Second World War, there was no conception of leaving any
Axis
regime intact. It was then agreed that victory could only be defined by
securing unconditional surrender followed by an occupation that would
continue
until the last vestiges of the aggressor regimes were eliminated. The
job
would be completed by a deep commitment to nurture
popularly-legitimized
governments and economies based upon investment and hard work rather
than
cronyism.
History has repeatedly shown
that free societies
cannot ‘contain’ or otherwise peacefully coexist with dictatorship. The
Saddams and Kim Jong-Ils of the world recognize this – it is time we do
also and act accordingly. If freedom is to survive, diplomatic
pressure,
economic sanctions and/or military force must be judiciously and
methodically
brought to bear with the ultimate object being the eradication of
tyranny
wherever it exists. Then, and only then, will there be any prospect of
a lasting peace.
|