==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==
Fred, thanks for posting this. It seems the Militant squirms a bit here.
Since the 'first shot' was fired by the DPRK, as that country noted in it's
declaration, it's hard to argue the 'provocation' was a justifiable reason
to start shooting, knowing only what I do from the media. Did it have the
indended effect on the ROK? Unless the DPRK wanted a closer shot at starting
a war, then yes, it did.
Secondly, now the US, hitherto *abstaining* from these troop maneuvers, is
sending it a truncated air-craft carrier battle group to *back up* the ROK
forces. Seems the DPRK actions only had the intention of bringing direct US
intervention there on a higher level. I think this is a bad thing, not a
good thing.
Thirdly, the ROK forces are NOT commanded by the US. This is false. ROK
forces are "independent" within in the parameter of US-ROK relations, albeit
they always have US military observers as "consultants".
My thoughts on this:
Interestingly, the "pro-smash-DPRK" Republicans want the US *out* of the ROK
for the moment. They want a military response by the S. Korean forces who
are at least several generations ahead of the North in military hardware and
technique (despite being outnumbered by them about 3 to 1 across the board).
Chuck Devore, the Orange County, CA Tea-Party Republican Assemblyman is
advocating this on his blog as are a few others. They see it essentially as
an "Israel vs Egypt" scenario, circa 1967. They see a US presence for the
moment as one of *hindering* the South in a "response" to the North.
Probably aimed at Obama believing, falsely, that Obama would take a softer
approach. DeVores view is "my pledge when I was in the US Army was to
defend the Constitution, not Seoul, South Korea".
The 'danger' to the South comes from an array of very upgraded SCUDs that
exist and are targeted at Seoul ( and other cities in the South). The
South's counter-response, or, likely "pre-emptive" response, as everyone
knows, is to take out these pre-targeted rockets and, the mostly obsolete N.
Korean Air force. In case people doubt the importance of Seoul, consider
that about half the population of the ROK lives in the Greater Seoul
Metropolitian Area. That's 24 million people.
The entire basis of current S. Korean politics toward the North that the
regime in the North is now on a slide toward disintegration. They have
various scenarios on how to deal with this including outright invasion to
hasten the process in a more 'controlled' manner. It is highly likely that
very secret negotiations take place between the Chinese and S. Koreans on
"what is to be done" should Korea be reunified on the basis of the ROC
political economy. The PRC doesn't want ROC troops on their border,
obviously. They probably want the economy, however, to help them in
investment capital in this, the old Rust Belt of China. The Russians are not
thrilled about it either (as it would bring them within about 60 miles from
their main Pacific port, Vladivostok). With the ROC comes the US Navy and
Airforce.
The S. Koreans have tentively figured and publicly discussed that it would
cost them up to 1 trillion USD to reunify and throughly integrate the north
with the south under their hegemony. After the clear economic failure of
German unification 20 years ago, they 'pulled back' from a more easy wishful
thinking on reunification with sections of the ROC ruling class having
second thoughts about 'reunification' altogether. But Korean 'national will'
on both sides of the border, unlike with the old FDR/GDR is for unification.
No one really speaks out against it.
And the DPRK got nukes, albeit its likely they are not 'weaponized' (made
compact and light enough to deliver to the enemy).
Altogether a f*cked up situation.
David
Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
