North Korea is a country formed by a war that never ended.
Pacifists are fond of saying that war never solves anything. I beg to differ--war, for example, solved the problem of Adolf Hitler and German expansionist aggressiveness, although at great cost.
But that war was fought to the bitter end, unlike many subsequent ones. Revulsion at war--which I share, by the way, although my critics won't credit that--has led to a series of unfinished, prematurely truncated wars. And like most unfinished business, there's a tendency for these conflicts to come back to bite us.
The Korean War was the first modern "limited war," a concept with which we've grown familiar. (The division of Korea was a result of the conclusion of World War II, by the way--so you might say that, if that Second World War solved the problem of Hitler, it led indirectly to the creation of the problem of Kim Jong il.)
Why was the Korean War not fought to a conclusion, but rather a stalemate? Each side wanted to unify the peninsula under its leadership, and each side failed. Each side was supported by a much larger power in its endeavors, but the larger powers were both exhausted, partly from fighting the Second World War. The US was reluctant to use the atomic bomb again, which would certainly have broken the stalemate--although MacArthur was purportedly in favor of it.
Little was accomplished by the Korean War in terms of change in the borders between the two countries, unless you consider the killing of hundreds of thousands of people an accomplishment (I don't). The best you can say is that it kept the South from being swallowed up by the North--which, given what the North has become, is certainly a good thing.
But now the long-postponed conflict is coming to a head once again. And now North Korea is a dictatorship of such tyranny and oppression that it's hard to find anyone who wouldn't consider the end of such a regime to be an unequivocally good thing.
But as I wrote in yesterday's piece, it's not always so simple. This article by Robert Kaplan, appearing in the Atlantic, poses the question: what will happen when [and if] North Korea fails?
Answer: a potentially chaotic humanitarian and political disaster, as the tyrannical structure that holds together the failed state and its suffering people fails apart:
“It could be the mother of all humanitarian relief operations,” Army Special Forces Colonel David Maxwell told me. On one day, a semi-starving population of 23 million people would be Kim Jong Il’s responsibility; on the next, it would be the U.S. military’s, which would have to work out an arrangement with the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (among others) about how to manage the crisis...
In order to prevent a debacle of the sort that occurred in Iraq—but with potentially deadlier consequences, because of the free-floating WMD—a successful relief operation would require making contacts with KFR generals and various factions of the former North Korean military, who would be vying for control in different regions. If the generals were not absorbed into the operational command structure of the occupying force, Maxwell says, they might form the basis of an insurgency. The Chinese, who have connections inside the North Korean military, would be best positioned to make these contacts—but the role of U.S. Army Special Forces in this effort might be substantial. Green Berets and the CIA would be among the first in, much like in Afghanistan in 2001.
Does this mean it's best to keep Kim Jong il in power? Of course not. But be careful what you wish for, and be prepared--much better prepared--to deal with the consequences than you were in Iraq.
After the horrors of World War II, we faced the problem of reconstruction in Germany and in Japan, as well as most of Europe, which was in near ruins.
But, just as World War II was a total war, the reconstruction was an all-out effort as well. At the time, the US held no fear of words like "occupation" in Japan. If we were imperialist, so be it; we were out to change the country we had conquered. And change it we did, and most agree it was for the better.
Reconstructing North Korea would probably be a much more daunting task than reconstructing Japan. And all-out war, plus all-out reconstruction, doesn't seem to be an option. But without the latter, the prospects seem grim.
Scylla and Chraybdis, indeed.
My question is, would China really allow or assist us in making contact with the above mentioned generals? Wasn't one of the reasons China got involved in the Korean war was because they feared a US allied state on their border?
I really don't see the Chinese helping us in any meaningful way. I see them absorbing North Korea into a new "Chinese" province or supporting another strong man in the region. If that happens, the South Koreans will just blame us as usual.
If the generals were not absorbed into the operational command structure of the occupying force, Maxwell says, they might form the basis of an insurgency.
The basis and the full body. Do you think average North Koreans will fight to defend their tyranny?
successful relief operation would require making contacts with KFR generals and various factions of the former North Korean military
Check that you assume that those KFR generals know how to carry out such sucessful relief operations, while their rule over their people does show that they cannot even feed them.
Also food supplied may trigger corruption, as it happens in Africa. Therefore, I think, a full new system should be developed.
Reconstructing North Korea would probably be a much more daunting task than reconstructing Japan.
I disagree. Check that there already are millions of rich capitalist Koreans in that same peninsula. As long as they don't automatically extend a full Welfare State to all 23 millions North Koreans (something the Federal Republic of Germany did to all eastern Germans) reconstruction would not cost so much. Moreover, the stabilization of that region may spare billions for investors.
I don't see this as an American problem, but as a South Korean or Chinese problem, depending on who gets there first or who wants it. Our only interest is in securing the WMD's, but either S. Korea or China would have the same interest, and would act expeditiously to that end. It may sound heartless, but it's just not our problem.
Jeff's on the right track and I seem to recall reading dire predictions in anticipation of German re-unification.
The South Koreans are completely capable of managing re-unification with the North and, since their “Sunshine Policy” has aggravated the already complicated situation and helped to prop up the KFR, it's appropriate that they have the bulk of the burden in clearing up the mess that follows.
"The basis and the full body. Do you think average North Koreans will fight to defend their tyranny?"
Yes, I do.
You don't keep a police state functioning without thugs which benefit from the system. We have to assume that at minimum, say 1 in 15 North Koreans fundamentally enjoy the brutality, the drama, the mythology, and believe in it and prosper from it. The logic of Fascism is relative prosperity - not absolute prosperity. It doesn't matter how poor and miserable NK's thugs are, they'd rather have thier little entitlements and lord them over thier neighbors than see everyone prosper at the expense of thier own relative poor. So, we have to assume that hundreds of thousands - if not millions would fight for it directly or indirectly (by support for the fighters).
What's necessary to prevent that is a profoundly disillusioning shock which destroys the faith in the the mythology. A devestating defeat obvious in its scope to anyone is the critical ingredient, but propaganda is hugely important here as well, as is the ability to bring in massive food aid. Only a throughly beaten population is at a point where fighting for what they know seems the less scary and less honorable choice than accepting what they don't know from someone they don't understand.
This article by Robert Kaplan, appearing in the Atlantic, poses the question: what will happen when [and if] North Korea fails?
I read the Kaplan piece as when, not if, the North fails. The ifs seemed more to deal with if North Korea decides to go out in a blaze of glory by launching all of its weapons at Seoul.
That would put a small dent in the plan of letting South Korea handle a flood of 23 million starving Koreans, some percentage of which might be guerrilla/criminals.
KJI is a dictator, but that doesnt give him absolute power anywhere but his mind. This isnt a religious cult like Iran seems to be- I dont know that his generals will let him commit national suicide on their behalf. Surely there is a von Stauffenberg somewhere in the Nork hierarchy.
celebrim (#5)
Well, I meant fight in an insurgency: you know, hiding in the mountains for the tyranny while the people of the cities have food and begin to feel freedom.
NK is not Irak
Why does America have to pay for North Korea's redevelopement?
This is the Marshal Plan writ large.
(perhaps Truman is "History's Greatest Monster")
As far back as 1955 Wibberley wrote 'the mouse that roared', it's good business to lose a war to America.
(and don't think this does't go with the Korean trucated war therum)
Perhaps Mr. Il sees this as his only chance to feed his country.
I say, f... 'em, take away their nuclear toys and let 'em stew in their own juices.
Will this impact their lives and their future? Definately. Should it? Why not.
It is a mistake for America to think that it's foorprints should leave no trace. More Americanism is good for the world. Optimism is not Imperialism.