The Result of Losing Korea?
Gentlemen,
I submit our Nation has not prevailed in a war since WWII. This has given our current enemies hope that they can exhaust and defeat us. I am intrigued by the idea that had we decisively defeated North Korea, would Vietnam have occurred? I believe that because we accepted something less than victory in Korea that our leaders have made our nation more vulnerable and emboldened our enemies in the present age.
Had we done as McArthur advised and razed parts of China...done whatever was necessary to win in Korea on the order of what we did, with the U.K. and Soviets in WWII...that the modern world might look much different than it does today. Certainly we would not be facing the threat of nuclear missiles launched from North Korea on American soil or used to attack U.S. forces in the Pacific...or given to a government or terrorist organization that would use them against us? Was our weakness in fighting communism in Korea something which emboldened and inspired our communist enemies in Vietnam? Would they have done so if the U.S had won decisively in Korea and if we had used all elements of national power to make the communists in Vietnam understand what would happen to them if they decided to fight: Annihilation?
I believe this is an important question as it relates to our present struggle and how our enemy views us. There are important consequences to losing a war, some of which are not realized for a generation or two. Certainly we know our enemy cites our failure to win in Vietnam as an inspiration to outlast and exhaust us. Great powers can never lose a war; they must always be viewed as having won decisively.
Further, our weakness since WWII, I believe, has and will have significant consequences for the current world order. Should we lose in Iraq and elsewhere, who will view us as: 1. a reliable ally; 2. an enforcer of peace among the great powers. If I were Taiwan or Japan, I would not trust U.S. resolve. This is disastrous.
Does anyone have any books or research to recommend that could shed light on this? What are your thoughts?
Very respectfully,
CR
Looking at CR's arguments
Thank you for leaving what I consider a controversial post. I agree with Tom Odom's comments. As much as I wish we decisively defeated N. Korea, the political situation was not in favor of escalating a land war in Asia. As a democracy, political consideration is paramount in war decision making. Public support waned for the Korean War after stalemate persisted beginning in the spring of '51. Our war-weary citizens would not have stood for a large war in Asia only six years after WWII peace was concluded.
Vietnam was a reaction to a number of different things, including Kennedy's impotence regarding the construction of the Berlin Wall and the disastrous Bay of Pigs operation. Mao's Revolutionary War concept also resonated outside China, with its implementation by Ho Chi Minh and Giap during the war in Indochina.
Losing a war is not necessarily detrimonious to a superpower. Hell, the Brits lost during the "Great Game" in Central Asia but it hardly affected their power. The "win" in the Boer War was less than decisive. The Russians may have lost the Russo-Japanese War, but they continued to influence world affairs for the next 100 years.
What is necessary to remember is losing in Iraq is not the end of the world for the U.S. I feel it might actually suit our strategic goals. The first, keeping extremists divided and fighting amongst themselves in a country far away from our own, siphoning their energy. Two, if the situation escalated into a regional war, Syria and Iran would have to engage. Their involvement would aid our goals-weakening their state governments through fiscal and human loss. Third, if chaos broke out in the Middle East, might the U.S. not have a reason to intervene in the region to "protect our interests?" Our interests would be oil fields and oil production. Who knows where we might cordon off and control.
Real politik is not naivete; it is based on fact and a sense of what public support for military operations might be.