Someone please tell me Iraq has nothing to do with this

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Korea Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: Someone please tell me Iraq has nothing to do with this
eu4ea 10/10/2006 12:54:12 AM

Pretty please. I need some reasurance here... Maybe something about how having 140,000 troops tied up fighting an arab civil war really and truly does nothing to hamper our ability to realistically threaten these guys. Perhaps a reflection about how dictators *across the world!* are all now quaking in their boots after seeing how easy it was for us to do saddam in and how much we love having 140,000 troops tied up for at least 5-6 years. Maybe more, if we're lucky. Perhaps some insight about how this actually all vindicates the Iraq "strategy" - see, that Kim guy now has nukes and he's thus hard to get at. If Iraq had gotten them, they would be real hard to get at, too, except that they never had them, we never found them, but ..ummm Nigerian yellowcake! Or something. Anything at all, really Heart eu4ea

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2

VelocityVector Troops of the EU Nations 10/10/2006 1:09:24 AM

EU warriors: Where are most of them situated today? What percentage currently stationed inside EU borders as compared with those outside the borders of EU nations? Please provide a ratio for benchmark.

v^2

Quote Reply

sentinel28a 10/10/2006 2:32:34 AM

I can give you one very good reason there are no US troops advancing on Pyongyang, and it has nothing to do with Iraq, yellowcake, or Kim's poofed out hair.

THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

The Chinese tend to get a little upset when American troops close up to the Yalu River. And unlike the North Koreans, Chinese missiles and nukes work perfectly well and can hit American targets.

I don't like the situation either, but the PRC is the 800-pound gorilla in this. Without them, I think Kim would've been gone a long time ago. The upside to this is that China isn't real happy with Kim Poofyhair right now, so they may solve the problem for us. Sooner or later, sanity will come to Beijing and make them realize that a nuclear-armed nutcase on their border is not a good thing, no matter how much of a distraction he provides to the US and Japan.

Quote Reply

eu4ea 10/10/2006 12:23:21 PM

I can give you one very good reason there are no US troops advancing on Pyongyang, and it has nothing to do with Iraq, yellowcake, or Kim's poofed out hair.

THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

The Chinese tend to get a little upset when American troops close up to the Yalu River. And unlike the North Koreans, Chinese missiles and nukes work perfectly well and can hit American targets.

Sentinel,

For sure; China. That's the #1 concern here. And the #2, #3 and #4 - in fact I posted about that just yesterday: being said, however, you'd have to smoke some *very* good stuff to argue that the Iraqi quagmire is not affecting our ability to credibly threaten (partially militarily - primarily politicaly and diplomaticaly) North Korea. Same with Iran, for that matter. To put it simply, our ability to go to the Security Council, cry 'wolf!' over WMD, and pressure other nations to pass resolutions is at best highly compromised. We've seen that over Iran and we're about to see that again over North Korea.

Which is most unfortunate; unlike Iraq (a militarily crippled, WMD-less, economically sanctioned local dictatorship that was of no threat to us or it's inmediate neighbours), North Korea actually is unpredictable and dangerous. Extremely dangerous, in fact - to it's neighbours and to us (they have yet to develop a weapons system that they have not offered for sale to the highest bidder).

Aside from our distraction in Iraq, there was (and maybe still is...) the possibility of a radical raproachment with China, on the same scale as the diplomatic breakthroughs under Nixon - after all, China is much more directly threatened by NK that we are, China is a capitalist state, our trade relationship with them is booming, their track record in handling Hong Kong is remarcably good, they have as much to fear from rouge dictatorships with WMD as we do, and a stable and prosperous NK is as much in China's interest as it is in ours.

Not only that - unlike Iraq, peace, then order, then prosperity in NK is eminently achievable without 100's of thousands of US troops hanging around for years.

I'm an optimist, so I tend to think that this may yet be achievable - but let's not kid ourselves, this Administrations hare-brained adventure in Iraq, their dogmatism and their patent incapacity to formulate a foreign policy that would actually serve America's interests and security does not bid well for it...

Heart,

eu4ea

Quote Reply

eu4ea 10/10/2006 12:25:43 PM

V2 - I'm not sure I follow. What ratio, and how does that relate to the Iraq/North korea situation being discussed in this thread?

eu4ea

Quote Reply

joe6pack 10/10/2006 12:53:37 PM

I can give you one very good reason there are no US troops advancing on Pyongyang, and it has nothing to do with Iraq, yellowcake, or Kim's poofed out hair.

THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

The Chinese tend to get a little upset when American troops close up to the Yalu River. And unlike the North Koreans, Chinese missiles and nukes work perfectly well and can hit American targets.

North Korea may look at Iraq from all sorts of angles, maybe they feel we are overstretched or maybe they feel threatened by our agressive posture there. So, yes, in a way Iraq affects current events in Korea. That doesn't make their perceptions reality.

Now as to it affecting our diplomacy or military options. It does, but its not exactly a direct cause and effect like you seem to suggest.

The North Korean nuclear program is probably around 40 years old. (pre Iraq, pre G.W.B., pre Axis of Evil)

We have faced the same problem in the early 90's with a military that was somewhat larger and free of major actions.

However, we are faced with the same problems we have been faced with for the last 60 years when dealing with North Korea. China (as has been mentioned) and our South Korean ALLIES have their capital of 10 million and the industrial heart of their nation within artillery range of the DMZ. Any direct military action puts the lives of tens of thousands of South Korean civillians at risk. Its a risk that has, so far, far outweighed any advantage of using military force to resol

Quote Reply

eu4ea 10/10/2006 1:35:35 PM

Joe,

I actually think this is a place where (unlike pre-war Iraq) the status quo is not acceptable to us and we should activelly try to change it.

The best, indeed the only, way to achieve that is acting in concert with China - a diplomatic breaktrough of that scale is possibly unachieveable under the pall of the Iraq, and certainly unachievable by the current administration but it's not ultimatelly out of the question. We have a *tremendous* amount of common interests with China, in NK and elsewhere and indeed have achieved a similar scale breakthrough with them before.

As to how to implement the end of the Kim regime, a simple economic blockade combined with a state of high military and humanitarian readiness on both sides of the border would do nicely. No ships in, no ships out, nothing across the Chinese border and nothing across the DMZ. NK would colapse inside of 3 months - and if they take 6, better yet - .

There would almost certainly be last-gasp confrontations which could get nasty (specially re: artillery/mlrs strikes on SK, possibly also Scuds fired at other Asian nations like Iraq fired on Israel in '91), but this is by no means unmanageable.

Heart,

eu4ea

Quote Reply

joe6pack 10/10/2006 2:00:55 PM

While I think its a good thought, I just don't see it as a likely scenrio. China is playing their own game and I don't think helping the US to bring Kim's regime to an end is in the cards. Maybe they don't have the clout we credit them with, maybe they see some greater advantage to the current situation, maybe they find the possible alternatives distastefull. I don't know.

Flash back to 1993-1996ish. We were pretty much in the same situation we are now. We had an administration that was, lets say for the sake of argument, more open to diplomacy and had a better relationship to China. China wasn't really helping us in that situation either.

I'm pretty sure your suggested scenrio would not work either. A complete blockade would be (1) in the international law (which a lot of people point to these days) an act of war. (2) It would have huge humanitarian impact on an allready suffering North Korean populace. I sincerly doubt South Korea would go along with this. They have relatives in the North and they are looking for a slow, peacefull re-unification. Not a quick and dirty collapse that could lead to war. Without South Korean support this plan fails. (3) We have to weigh the military risks, the last dying gasps of North Korea could result in hundreds of thousands of civillian casualities if they choose to employ chemical and biological weapons along with convential ones. Never mind whether they could put together a few nukes in a deliverable package.

Quote Reply

PlatypusMaximus 10/10/2006 3:16:32 PM

For sure; China. That's the #1 concern here. And the #2, #3 and #4 - in fact I posted about that just yesterday: being said, however, you'd have to smoke some *very* good stuff to argue that the Iraqi quagmire is not affecting our ability to credibly threaten (partially militarily - primarily politicaly and diplomaticaly) North Korea. Same with Iran, for that matter. To put it simply, our ability to go to the Security Council, cry 'wolf!' over WMD, and pressure other nations to pass resolutions is at best highly compromised. We've seen that over Iran and we're about to see that again over North Korea.

Which is most unfortunate; unlike Iraq (a militarily crippled, WMD-less, economically sanctioned local dictatorship that was of no threat to us or it's inmediate neighbours), North Korea actually is unpredictable and dangerous. Extremely dangerous, in fact - to it's neighbours and to us (they have yet to develop a weapons system that they have not offered for sale to the highest bidder).

Aside from our distraction in Iraq, there was (and maybe still is...) the possibility of a radical raproachment with China, on the same scale as the diplomatic breakthroughs under Nixon - after all, China is much more directly threatened by NK that we are, China is a capitalist state, our trade relationship with them is booming, their track record in handling Hong Kong is remarcably good, they have as much to fear from rouge dictatorships with WMD as we do, and a stable and prosperous NK is as much in China's interest as it is in ours.

Not only that - unlike Iraq, peace, then order, then prosperity in NK is eminently achievable without 100's of thousands of US troops hanging around for years.

It's so hypocritical that I'm guessing it's humor. Recap: We can't can't cry wolf at the UN like we did 17 times with Iraq...What a big help that would be. Iraq was WMD-less and no threat to it's neighbors...thank goodness we had them so well-contained economically then, huh? Anyhoo,tell that to Iraq's neighbors..oh wait, ya can't, they're dead...victims of WMD's. Finally, economic sanctions are the fast-track to prosperity for a particularly unpredictable and dangerous country. At first I didn't get it, I started to get mad..I'm with ya! Good one!

Quote Reply

Bob 10/10/2006 8:50:53 PM

Doesn't this say it all? Of course they're not shaking in their boots, they know they could be toppled in weeks or even days, but the chances of that happening are extremely slim because Americans have no stomachs and need "reassurance" that they'll be in and out by autumn or winter or Q01 or the Super Bowl or Independence Day or the next elections. Some Will for World War IV, ey? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?

We have a Navy and an Air Force, you know. And a working missile defense system. North Korea's duct-taped bottle rockets, clay pigeons and large truck bombs shouldn't scare anybody but the poor people who have to operate them for days on end for a helping of boiled grass.

Quote Reply

eu4ea 10/11/2006 11:56:40 AM

I'm pretty sure it could, given a compentent US administration that had no tied up our resources in a pointless military adventure in Iraq. For one, China today is not the same China it was 10+ years ago. For another NK is a net liability, not a net asset to them - they're the ones with the nuclear-armed nutcase and impending refugee catastrophe on their border, not us. And for a fourth, we and Japan have (or would have) much to offer, more than enough to offset any losses caused by pacifying NK.

Indeed, China is the only real obstacle here - the 3 western nations in the Security Council are calling for a chapter 7 resolution (heavy economic sanctions and/or war), and Russia alone would not veto it. China is the real issue, and even at this stage they are not entirely opposed. As to economic sanctions/blockades they most certainly are not ilegal given a chapter 7 UN resolution, like the one we had around, say, Iraq.

The possibility of, and incentive for a diplomatic breakthrough, like the one we had with China under Nixon is definitivelly there - we are just not in a position to take it, and even if we were it's unclear that this Administration is competent enough to achieve any such thing and provide actual security from real threats. So far their track record has been to get 100,000+ of our soldiers tied up for 3+ years in a pointless quagmire - and then lie about it.

Quote Reply

1 2