The seeds for a nuclear-armed DPRK were planted when the United States shredded the 1953 Armistice Agreement.
This article by Robert Alvarez certainly has the ring of truth about it.
In addition, the historical perspective I found invaluable.
The following excerpt is from Wikipedia’s depiction of Ghengis Khan, and seems very like the pattern of ‘regime change’ discussed in this Alvarez article:
“These benefits were enjoyed only by populations who surrendered immediately to the Mongol invaders. Those populations that resisted could be massacred as a warning to other towns/cities. These massacres were a method of psychological warfare to alert those populations not yet conquered. The resulting terror helped color the historical portrayal of the Mongols.”
For those interested in perspective, in relieving the tedium of American exceptionalism, here is a free movie - really superb, sub-titles and all. In another post, I recommended a similar retreat to perspective with the new book about the beginning of the end of the Roman Republic, replete with analogies to the United States today. I will post the link to it, giving us all the opportunity for perspective from two empires in Eurasia.
I think Mueller may well destroy Trump - but the problems will remain, and in the short term, especially for those of us perhaps too old to wait, these historic epihanies from the arts and the sciences are very worthwhile.
Elders were always valued for perspective and historical memory.
My father was a decorated Infantry officer in WWII and Korea. He survived, thank goodness.
As French writer Anatole France (1844-1924) wrote, ‘You believe you are dying for the fatherland — you die for some industrialist.’“
Because War is a Racket (Gen. Smedley Butler)
Thanks for providing the details of US govt’s irresponsible behavior that led to this impasse.
“You die for some industrialist.”
When they say thank you for your service, what they really mean is thank you from the war profiteers for your service.
First: We’re going to destroy Seoul.
Then: We’re going to destroy Pyongyang.
Finally: We’re going to run the train on some North Korean girls!
In random order…
What I remember from c.2000 was wide-spread complaints in the USA that North Korea was cheating. A claim that was credible based on our earlier experience with the USSR.
Regarding the claim that no peace treaty followed the Korean War armistice of 1953, yes. But not well remembered was that the Geneva meeting of 1954, famous or infamous for its ‘agreement’ on Vietnam, was supposed to be about Korea.
Regarding North Korea seeking bilateral talks with the US, the sticking point was ‘bilateral’, just as it had been with North Vietnam. North Korea has always wanted to frame the situation as the USA as a colonizer and South Korea as a puppet state. South Korea has a right to object to both of those claims. BTW, credit South Korea for the restraint on US action against North Korea. They will not permit military action against North Korea unless they think they have no choice but to risk massive artillery bombardment of Seoul.
As a brutal dictatorship, North Korea’s government has, and should have no claim of Common Dreams sympathy. Kim Jong Un deserves a people’s overthrow by several multiples more than Nicolae Ceaucescu of Romania or the Shah of Iran did.
Sen. Fulbright would later suggest “Declare victory [in Vietnam] and leave.” That is what Truman did in Korea in 1949. Then … He would later get blamed for the bad diplomacy that caused the war, much like April Glaspie would be blamed for Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.
The cynic would say that the appropriate ‘stability regime’ was suggested by Pakistan’s A.Q. Khan, that the world would be a ‘safer’ place if many nations acquired nuclear weapons and ICBMs and pointed them at the USA.
War is a Game, that rich men play to get richer.
Just prior to North Korea’s invasion, the US Secretary of State, Dean Acheson declared that it did not consider Korea as part of its “Defense Perimeter” thus sending a message that the US would not consider itself under attack if South Korea under the Rhee regime were attacked in an attempt to reunify Korea under a Government established with support of the Soviets. . The framework of such a policy statement would be one in which the US was defining its “interests”.(already defined as containment of Communism and defense of “Democracy” (Capitalism).
However when the inevitable attack occurred President Truman obtained a mandate to act as the vanguard of a UN police force in order to contain an aggressive attack by one nation vs. another – an act that would be against the UN Charter. The framework was then changed to collective security/international law. When Douglas MacArthur then ordered US troops to advance to the Yalu River (the border of China) and thus to unify Korea (He was also urging use of Nuclear Weapons to overthrow the Mao government in China), Truman fired him and ordered a return to his public policy that North Korea be prevented from illegally gaining land via invasion. Throughout the last years of the “war”/police action (the MASH era) debate in the US was between these two foreign policy stances, the US committed to military action to defend its “interests” vs. the US committed to a world of collective security and international law. The former was expressed by George Kennan when he said in a 1947 memo that the goal of US foreign policy should be to maintain the unequal balance between the size of the US population (6%; of the world’s at the time) and US control of the wealth and economic resources which he indicated was, I believe, 60% control. The latter was expressed throughout WWII and following by the US leadership in forming the United Nations in which nations would be forbidden to use their power to control and/or invade (regime change) by force any other nation regardless of its economic ideology.
This “debate” in which the Police Action was a major paradigm has never ended. It got salted with all kinds of religious overtones like (Godless Communism (therefore evil) and, “In God we Trust” Democracy that rejects a Marxist interpretation of 19th and 20th Century history. (therefore good and to be defended and extended through military means if necessary). But Korea got caught in the middle of the ideological debate at the end of WW2 just as Vietnam. Both had been subject to industrial imperialism (France in Vietnam and Japan/US --check out the Taft Katura secret agreement of 1906) and so much of their indigenous leadership was very amenable to Marxist-Leninist understandings of their situation. Wouldn’t anyone who lived in that era be so?
This article should be read by every American!
I agree with that statement 100%.