The Result of Losing Korea?

[CR]

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

[tequila]

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.

Not sure about this thesis. The Cold War turned out pretty well for the U.S. Also proxy fights in Central and South America, as well as in Afghanistan, went pretty decisively in our favor even if the results weren't necessarily pretty for the inhabitants at the time. Also Desert Storm.

As for whether Vietnam would have occurred if Korea had been "won" --- not sure what you mean here. If by "win" you mean that the U.N. forces end up guarding the Yalu instead of the 38th Parallel? What about this scenario makes the Viet Minh give up against French colonialism or stops the U.S. from intervening in 1956?

Please provide evidence that destruction of large parts of China would have resulted in China giving up its backing of North Korea and assenting to a permanent U.S. presence on its border. The more likely scenario sees Mao and Stalin becoming closer and a much closer Soviet-Chinese bond.

Great powers can never lose a war; they must always be viewed as having won decisively.

Nonsense, unless your definition of "Great Power" starts and ends with Alexander the Great. The Romans suffered repeated defeats. So has every other Great Power in recorded history. Did the British Empire end with its defeat in the North American colonies?

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.

I remember similar doomsayings about Vietnam. Somehow Japan and Taiwan still remain independent and allied to the U.S., despite at the time facing a far greater and more ideologically implacable foe than al-Qaeda.

[Steve Blair]

I have seen nothing that would indicate that following MacArthur's wishes would have resulted in anything other than a wider, longer, bloodier war. I would also say that the opening thesis relies on a very selective definition of "war."

[Old Eagle]

We won the war in Korea. One need only look at the bustling Korean economy and the fact that they were able to support the U.S. with combat forces outside their borders.

We are well on our way to winning in Vietnam. General Electric, General Motors and General Dynamics are accomplishing what General Westmoreland and General Abrams could not.

[tequila]

I agree that the U.S. and its allies won in South Korea. We successfully defended South Korea from a small insurgency, then a major conventional invasion, and preserved its sovereignty. We then helped develop its economy into one of the most successful in the world. South Korea's transition to democracy in 1987, though largely accomplished without U.S. support, completed a near-total victory for South Korea and the U.S. in both moral and military terms.

[CR]

tequila, thanks for responding. Firstly, you are correct in pointing out that the U.S. achieved successes in Central American proxy wars, but these were just that: proxy wars and not true tests of national resolve on the order of larger conflicts. Enemies of the U.S. recognize this. Secondly, the U.S. also achieved some success in Desert Storm, but the enemy in that conflict was not decisively defeated and remained a problem for years afterward. One can argue that Desert Storm achieved its stated objectives, but perhaps the objectives were too limited for what really needed to done: permanently end the threat to U.S. interests in the region from that regime (oil, security). The Desert Storm campaign failed to do this or perhaps was not designed to do this. One can argue that it should have been in light of what the U.S. is experiencing now.

In many ways, the Cold War did turn out pretty well for the U.S., but that again was a different sort of conflict. There still remains unresolved business from the Cold War, so perhaps it will not turn out as well as we believe. How the U.S. handled certain conflicts during the Cold War certainly exposed its weaknesses to others--weaknesses U.S. enemies are now exploiting.

You are also correct in pointing out that every great power has suffered defeat since Alexander. I did not say that great powers have never lost a war or suffered defeats; what I mean is that it is never good for great powers to lose. You seem to indicate that losing is no big deal because when great powers in the past suffered defeat, it did not spell the end of them (at least immediately). Funny about Great Britain, especially in light of their recent humiliations at the hands of Iran.

I think it is a big deal whenever a great power loses (or is widely perceived to have lost), especially today because defeats are so amplified by modern media. If a great or greater power does not win convincingly, it has lost (Israel v. Hezbollah). After enough defeats, great powers cease to have the ability to successfully defend their interests and protect their people. I meant to point out that defeats can have tremendous detrimental consequences in the future--consequences that might not be readily apparent now. Because the U.S. did not decisively defeat the communists in North Korea, it has been plagued by a hostile regime for another generation. Now this regime has or potentially has the capability to do great harm to us or our allies either directly or by sharing powerful military technology with others hostile to our interests and way of life.

My definition of "winning" in Korea: total and lasting defeat of communist forces up to the Yalu River. Doing this very likely would have required some action against neighboring states supporting our enemies there (China). If we had to fortify that area, so be it. Better to fortify there than at the 38th Parallel like we are doing now. You may be right that such action might have brought Stalin and Mao closer; or the U.S. might have been able to sign a peace agreement of some sort from a position of victory and strength.

I wonder about the implications of not achieving victory in Korea were for Vietnam and future conflicts, if any. When great powers are seen as vulnerable, others are inspired to attack them and their interests. Had the U.S. won decisively in Korea and thereby made clear that it would not tolerate the spread of communism in SE Asia (and what would happen to those who tried), it might have given others (the Viet Minh) pause. We might have been able to achieve some sort of different relationship with the Viet Minh or whoever came to power in Vietnam.

I can't prove this as it is only a theory and something I put up for discussion. I could be wrong, but I would like to know what others think the implications were and are. I also wanted to see if anyone knew of any writing or research I could reference to learn more about the consequences of Korea in relation to Vietnam and future conflicts.

Lastly regarding Taiwan, I do not think the U.S. track record bodes well should Taiwan really need to be protected. I do not believe the U.S. would go to war with China to preserve Taiwan, especially if it turns out that it does not have the resolve to defeat the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, just like it did not have the resolve to win in Vietnam and Korea. If the world perceives the U.S. lacks resolve, it cannot enforce peace like it has in many parts of the world for the last 60 years, because of how decisively it and the Allies won WWII.