China's Influence?

On the 25th of June, 1951, just a year after the outbreak of the Korean War, the Chinese radio reported that the People’s Republic of China was in favor of a peace effort, and that they would be willing to discuss a cease fire. Nearly eight hundred days, and thousands of casualties, later an armistice was worked out. A shaky one, but as it turns out, one that has held for fifty-four years.

Today, as we consider further negotiation with the North Koreans it might be important to remember how much they have been influenced by the Chinese all these years, especially the teachings of Chairman Mao. Mao said in his writings on revolution that negotiation was a part of the military process, and often what could not be achieved on the field of battle, could be achieved in prolonged and difficult negotiations that wore the enemy down. How long will we have to talk about nuclear weapons before something actually happens?

Check out North Korea http://www.kcckp.net/
Check out military connections http://www.militaryconnections.com/


Senior Fellow Paul M. Edwards

Thirty Years for a Medal?

Recently it has been noted that another Korean Veteran finally received his medals due him. When I returned from Korea and was run through a warehouse at Oakland, California, I was given a new uniform with my medals – albeit few— on my tunic. Thus, it is hard for me to understand why it takes the government so long to fill a veterans request for his or her medals.

I understand that in the confusion of combat, or the return of a wounded man, records sometimes get lost, the paper trail is erased in some fashion, and it requires some special effort on the part of the armed forces to set the record straight. But thirty years? And, in a lot of these cases, they are not questionable calls; men who were in Korea during the conflict are eligible for a specific set, men who have been wounded are eligible for a purple heart, etc, so what is the problem? It often takes the extended effort of someone outside the system, often a congressmen or civic leader, to finally get this medal produced. Why, if they can get it done, can’t the GI get it done?

I am not always sure why it is so important to the individual, but it is, and it is the very least that can be done by a supposedly grateful nation. What these men and women want is recognition. It is time they got it.

Senior Fellow Paul Edwards

Is 57 Years Long Enough to Keep a Secret?

I note that the names of five new Korean War veterans have been etched into monument (see CBS News report). It seems that at least one of these men, and perhaps all, belonged to a Special Ops team, and their actions (and thus whereabouts) have been kept secret all this time.

While I am pleased that these veterans have been duly recognized, I can't help but wonder about how this might play into the more than eight thousand Americans who are still MIA in Korea. Do we know about the disposition of these individuals but still cannot release this information to the public, to the family, because the nature of the operation is still being held secret? It has been 57 years since that war began, and there are still families that do not know what happened to their loved one. If it is the case, that the government is withholding information about these MIAs, then it is time they stopped and gave an accounting.

Staff Sergeant Elizabeth Feeney, with the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command (JPAC) in Hawaii, recalls for us that the motto of her command is simply: "until they are home." And yet, so many are still unaccounted for. Maybe the next step is declassification.

Senior Fellow Paul Edwards

When is a POW not a POW?

What do you think about the plight of Dean Gehring who was a prisoner of the Chinese during the Korean War for a period of two days? The problem is this: what makes a POW? His granddaughter wants to get him a POW license plate but she is unable to get one. It appears that (at least in the State of Washington) in order for it to count that you have been a POW, you need to be in captivity for at least 29 days.

That was a new one to me. When I saw this my first reaction was that a prisoner of war is a prisoner of war, and if the man was fortunate enough to get away after two days, why not give him the license if he wants it. But then, I realized that others who had spent months, even years, as a POW might find objections to this. It is an interesting question. How do you determine that 29 days makes you a POW when 15 days doesn’t, and so on?

There is some further information on this story at http://www.kitsapsun.com/ (requires registration), and is worth reading.

What do you think?


Senior Fellow Paul Edwards

Will Iraq Become Another Korea?

There has been a great deal of talk the past few weeks over President Bush's comparison of the war in Iraq to that which began in Korea more than half a century ago. The president seems to be suggesting that the long-range mission in Iraq will keep American troops stationed there well into 2065, and that they will continue to be needed in such a way as to cause them to be in harm's way.

Some of the disagreement I hear about this has to do with the stretch involved in the comparison of the two wars. I suppose this is correct even though the two seem to have a great deal in common. True, Korea was more traditional in the beginning with the localized fighting of hill wars and urban conflict coming near the end. But in both cases we are dealing with a civil war that will not (did not in Korea) end when the primary fighting is over. In both cases we are dealing with highly nationalistic peoples who, while seeking their own agenda, are willing to take on the cover of an international crusade (Islamic or Communistic).

Part of the difficulty, I believe, it that the current administration, like so many we have had recently, do not have any historical sense whatsoever, nor have they learned anything from America’s involvement in numerous localized wars. In Korea it was obvious from the beginning that we did not understand Communism, nor did we comprehend the distinctions between national and international communism, linking China, Russia, and then North Korea within the same system. Systematic to the problem in Korea was the determined nationalism of its leaders, both north and south, and failure of a UN imposed division of their nation. In what way is the problem in Iraq much different?

But aside from these arguments of comparison, let us not ignore the horror of what is being suggested: American soldiers will be engaged in another dangerous occupation well into the last three quarters of this century. Have we thought this one through?

Senior Fellow Paul Edwards