Korean War Research

Rakkasans!

2007-12-03T09:13:00.000-06:00

Had a chance to meet with two local chapters of the Rakkasans this past week as they celebrated their Christmas dinner.

These airborne troopers were attending from several of America's wars, including old-timers and younger men who had recently returned for war.

They meet together to remember old times, but it is more than that. They also meet to remember what they did, and why, and to register their patriotism and their continued support for the country.

They seem to have a lot of different opinions, even some disagreements, about all kinds of current events, but they were united in their support of each other, and of the nation. It was good to be with them.

Senior Fellow, Paul M. Edwards

Finding the MIA

2007-11-26T09:24:00.000-06:00

When United States and United Nations troops were moving north in November 1950, the promise was that they would be home by Christmas. This is at last coming true for First Lieutenant Dixie S. Parker of Iowa, who was killed 27 November 1950.

After fifty-seven years his body, lost in the foxhole where he died, is being returned for burial in our national cemetery.

While thousands are still unaccounted for, the search goes on with GIs being identified every so often. While all wish the process was moving faster, and more completely, our hats must go off to the government (www.dtic.mil/dpmo) and their continued effort to locate, identify, and bring home those who died in this awesome war.
http://www.wmbb.com

Senior Fellow, Paul M. Edwards

Culture Wars

2007-11-19T15:49:00.000-06:00

Cara has a wonderful idea (http://caramac.umwblogs.org/), suggesting that we might be far better off conducting a cultural war rather than a shooting war.

She also points out the similarities between Korea and Vietnam; not so much the causes or fighting, but the remembrance. The tombstones of those men who died in those wars are still reporting these wars as “conflicts.”

Senior Fellow, Paul M. Edwards

The Real War

2007-11-12T14:27:00.000-06:00

The Baltimore Sun (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/broadband/photoedge/blog/)
has recently used the length of the Korean War as part of a trivia question.

What are the dates of the Korean War, it asks, then reports the answer as 57 years. It then goes on to say that the “real war” was from 1950 to 1953. Well, they are right of course, if you are not concerned with what was going on.

Even the US Army acknowledges that the war continued well into the new year, and thus see the end, for official purposes, as 1954. But even that is not a good picture, as anyone who was there between 1953 and 1954 will know. The war may have been over as far as the politicians were concerned, but not the GI in the field.

Senior Fellow, Paul M. Edwards

Progressive Historians on Ridgway

2007-11-05T09:15:00.000-06:00

The progressive historians have published an excellent comment about General Mathew Bunker Ridgway who, at Christmas 1950, took over command of the United Nations forces in Korea.

He arrived he found a demoralized army and a highly aggressive enemy at his heels. His response was a long unappreciated military marvel.

Check their website: http://www.progressivehistorians.com

Senior Fellow, Paul M. Edwards

A Win For North Korea

2007-10-29T10:22:00.000-06:00

For those who are interested in the current peace talks between North and South Korea, it would be helpful if they read about them with some perspective about the U.S. role.

For more than six years the Bush administration has been attacking the North Korean government, listing them among the axis of evil, and saber rattling while the North Koreans have postured their nuclear power plants and sent missles out over the Sea of Japan (East Sea).

Now, with seeming surprise, there is talk that America will promise not to undertake an aggressive war against North Korea in return for the North’s promise to stop its nuclear endeavor. Shades of remarkability, is this not the same proposal that President Clinton made nearly a decade ago. And was it not seen then as a “win” for North Korea.

Well, that is because it is. I don’t usually buy all that Bruce Cumings says about the Korean War, but he is sure on the mark in his recent comments when he explains just how much of a win it is for the North.

North Korean Economy: http://nkeconwatch.com
Roundup: Historian. http://hnn.us/roundup/1.html#44102

Senior Fellow, Paul M. Edwards

Best Interests

2007-10-22T14:34:00.000-06:00

So what are China, Russia, and the United States doing in the Korean peace talks?

Is it that everyone who had an interest in the war nearly sixty years ago still retains the same interest? Or, perhaps, these are the nations that see some significance in Korea remaining divided.

Is it South Korea that is refusing to send the promised rice until the nuclear plants are destroyed? Don't think so. Is it China that is interested in opening the border so that Koreans can move back and forth with their families? Don't think so.

Perhaps the move, recently taken by the South to just go ahead and talk with the North, is a good move.

www.kimsoft.com/korea/4-talks.htm
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/IF02Dg01.html

Senior Fellow, Paul M. Edwards

'MacArthur' Too Simple An Explanation

2007-10-15T14:19:00.000-06:00

I'm still thinking about David Halberstam's book The Coldest Winter, which is turning out to be a best seller.

There are a lot of things about the book I don't like, but the author must be given his due credit. Reading it puts me in the strange position of defending General MacArthur.

In a better world I would die my death rather than defend this man who, in my opinion, was the worst egomaniac among an army of egomaniacs. But, come on, to blame the whole war on him? No, I don't think so.

Certainly his ego got in the way and in the final analysis made a difficult job even more difficult, but there is a lot of blame to be spread around. To focus so harshly on General MacArthur leaves the reader with a far too simple explanation for a very complex problem.

Senior Fellow, Paul M. Edwards

The Coldest Winter

2007-10-08T14:12:00.000-06:00

There seems to be no end to the amount of comment available in the news and on the net about The Coldest Winter. I finally got around to reading it. What can I say? It is long.

And it tells a story that is perhaps the only Korean War story that has been well told. If I had no prior knowledge of the Korean War then it would be generally informative, but there is certainly nothing new.

All the sources are secondary, and a significant number of them are questionable in terms of accuracy. But, certainly, it is well written.

And while the stories don't always seem to relate to the events taking place, they are descriptive. Whatever it is, it does bring to focus events that have not been properly considered, and highlights a war that, even today, is remarkably unacknowledged.

http://www.slate.com/id/2174591/fr/rss/

Senior Fellow, Paul M. Edwards

An Obvious Question?

2007-10-01T13:59:00.000-06:00

Surely it is time someone in the Bush administration asked themselves the obvious question: What does North Korea want?

In between the sword rattling and the rhetoric about peace treaties, the message does not seem to have changed a great deal in the past thirty years.

More than anything North Korea wants to be left alone. By left alone, I mean treated like any other sovereign country, free of international harassment, free of a foreign power poising troops on its border, free to trade for the food and energy it needs.

And is this too much to ask? Somehow I don't think so.

http://www.etherzone.com/2006/raim070706.shtml
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/IF02Dg01.html

Senior Fellow, Paul M. Edwards

Halberstam and History

2007-09-17T09:13:00.000-06:00

There has been a lot of hype about the publication of David Halberstam’s book, published shortly after his death in an automobile accident. While I have a great deal of respect for Halberstam, both as an author and as a historian, I am hoping that the book does not, as has been suggested by those who have already seen it, fall into the trap of so many books on the Korean War.

The trap is that for them the Korean War is an afterthought. Their war, the one that concerns them, is Vietnam—and they use it to recount their concern and deliver their insights about their own experiences. Hopefully Halberstam was a good enough interpreter of history that he has not fallen into this pattern. As the book is called "The Coldest Winter", hopefully he has also not fallen into a retelling of the story of the Chosen Reservoir as if it was the whole conflict. When it is readily available we will see.

Senior Fellow, Paul M. Edwards

From Stalemate to War

2007-09-10T08:24:00.000-06:00

During the early phases of the Korean War, specifically on one important occasion on 9 January 1951, General Douglas MacArthur recommended to the Joint Chiefs of Staff that troops be withdrawn from Korea. Earlier the Joint Chiefs had identified MacArthur’s job as holding a series of defensive lines in Korea, causing as much harm to the enemy as possible, and then if that failed, to withdraw and see to the defense of Japan.

Interestingly, according to the release of some Soviet archives from the period, we now know that Joseph Stalin was also expressing the belief that Chinese Volunteers should stay north of the 38th parallel in order to avoid provoking a larger international war. It was from this political and military stalemate that the tide began to shift, the UN took the initiative while at the same time trying to open up talks on a potential cease fire.

Senior Fellow, Paul M. Edwards

Operation Blueheart

2007-09-03T09:31:00.000-06:00

The 22nd of July, 1950, was the original date set by General MacArthur for Operation Blueheart. Blueheart was the plan to invade the North through Inchon, a plan carried out several months later, 15 September 1950, as Operation Chromite.

While the plan was drawn, and MacArthur was ready for an immediate response to the North Korean advances, there were just not enough troops to hold the advancing North Koreans and still pull out enough to make the end-around invasion. It was necessary to wait until the middle of September before elements of the First Marine Division were available, with the 7th Infantry Division, to make the highly successful assault.

One must wonder what the outcome would have been if the earlier attack had been possible.

http://www.koreanwar.org/; http://www.cnn.com/; http://www.korean-war.com/.

Senior Fellow, Paul M. Edwards

Working Together

2007-08-27T09:30:00.000-06:00

Some real understanding of the activities of our allies in the prolonged war in South Korea are just now coming to light.

While everyone should be aware that the Korean War was fought under the flag of the United Nations, in reality what that means is that twenty-seven nations worked together to put an army, a navy, marines, and air force personnel into the fight to maintain the sovereignty of South Korea.

That contribution ranged from small nations providing produce, to more involved nations sending large fighting units. The story pretty well remains untold in this country. To see some of the expanding information check out:

http://bubl.ac.uk/link/ for the United Kingdom;

www.answers.com.au/ for Australian information;

http://www.abondance.com/ for French involvement;

http://www.ijzer.nl/ for the Dutch; and

http://www.yehey.com/ for the Philippine sources.

Senior Fellow, Paul M. Edwards

C'mon, America!

2007-08-20T09:29:00.000-06:00

Most will have noticed the news that the government, short of Purple Heart medals, has instructed a veteran that he should buy his own. This follows the announcement that the expenditure of bullets in Iraq has caused a shortage of ammo for US police departments. That, of course, followed the news of poor treatment for veterans in the hospitals designed for their care, and a shortage of artificial limbs noted. What does all this tell us?

I think it tells us that the American people, once again, are not taking their nation’s veterans seriously. Rather than raise the payrate to lure young men and women into the military, how about using some of that money, or the money paid for waste, to take care of those we have asked to serve the country in harm’s way.

What does it take to convince America that regardless of our beliefs about the value of the war in Iraq, we owe those we send there to fight. And, that the commitment never runs out, for we owe those still suffering the results of service in World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf, etc.

Come on America, 100 million less for a new quarterback and a few bucks for the veterans.

http://senate2008guru.blogspot.com/; http://www.vawatchdog.org/

Senior Fellow, Paul M. Edwards

Its Living Ghost

2007-08-13T09:26:00.000-06:00

Looking back a bit, I was impressed again with the natural human tendency to remember significant events in terms of beginnings and endings.

We have just recently passed the 57th anniversary of the beginning of the Korean War and the 54th of the cease fire. I wonder sometimes why it is that we do not seek to remember the “awesome days”, those days when nothing happened other than just another monotonous and frightening day in the middle of a year-or-more of such days.

James Hillman, no stranger to war, wrote in 2004 in his book A Terrible Love of War, “Peace for veterans is not an ‘absence of war’ but its living ghost in the bedroom, at the lunch counter, on the highway. The trauma is not ‘post’ but acutely present.”

The best connection to the U. S. military for service related information is http://www.searchmil.com/.

Senior Fellow, Paul M. Edwards

Garand Collectors Meeting in Kansas City

2007-08-06T11:50:00.000-06:00

Recently I had the opportunity to address the Garand Collectors Association 20th Anniversary Convention that met in Kansas City, Missouri. I was impressed with the members interest, and knowledge of the M-1 Garand. Many were veterans but some were far too young to have used the weapons in combat.

In considering what I would say to them, I found myself remembering the rifle, my rifle, and the many days and nights we spent together. Sure it was a tool, a well designed and very efficient tool, but it was also more than that.

Waking one morning before my assigned talk I discovered that I was field-stripping the Garand in my sleep, slipping off the trigger housing and pulling away the stock. I even remember the number. What I finally talked about, and what several of those in attendance affirmed, was that other than being a mechanical object, a thing to be taken care of and used with caution, the M-1 for the Korean War soldier was a companion. Perhaps the word friend is too strong, but in many respects that is what it was.

The M-1 was a rifle, but it was also a weapon, and as a weapon I came to know it far better than most things associated with my life. There are a lot of books available about the M-1 as a rifle, I would love to see someone compile a book about men’s experiences and memories of the rifle.

Senior Fellow, Paul M. Edwards

Poor Advice to MacArthur?

2007-07-30T08:56:00.000-06:00

It is about time for the revisionist historians to take another look at Major General Charles A. Willoughby, the “intelligence” officer who appears to have totally misunderstood conditions in Korea, downplayed the intention and power of the Communist Chinese, and advised his boss, General MacArthur, poorly on more than one occasion.

There had been some hope that time and newly available research would suggest that he did not do as poorly as history has painted him. However, the current availability of some of his papers, to be found at the General Douglas MacArthur Memorial Archives and Library Collection , may well paint an even darker picture.

Anyone out there doing a current biography of Major General Willoughby?

Senior Fellow, Paul M. Edwards

Treaty To End the War?

2007-07-23T09:26:00.000-06:00

Who makes the peace treaty? We are hearing a lot these days about some sort of final treaty to end the Korean War. After more than half-a-century that would be nice. I wonder, however, just who will be involved in such a treaty.

My understanding is that the cease fire, signed in July 1953, was between the Chinese People’s Volunteer Army, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North), and the United Nations Command. The South Korean government did not sign the cease fire.

As far as I know the Chinese People’s Volunteers no longer exist. Can a treaty of peace be signed between the Koreas? Is that enough? Will the United States, or representatives from the 26 other nations involved have to participate, or is there enough United Nations Command left to take part?

Be interesting to see who we think, now 54 years later, was fighting who.

On another note, if you've never checked out the US Army Heritage and Education Center, it's worth a visit to their website.

Senior Fellow, Paul M. Edwards

54 Years and Counting

2007-07-16T10:00:00.000-06:00

On the 27th of July we will mark the 54th year since the end of the Korean War. After three years of fighting and two years and 17 days of talks, the opposing armies finally agreed to a cease fire. A joint policy statement issued by the United Nations pledges to uphold the armistice, and states that any violation will result in a renewal of the war.

During these fifty-four years, of course, there have been many breaches, more than 40,000 according to the federal government. But both sides have worked to prevent it from breaking out into another conflict. The Korean Military Armistice Commission, which was to meet and settle outstanding differences, did not last long. No political settlement has been reached. Constant effort has been made by institutions and individuals to bring about some sort of a peace settlement, but that has proven to be impossible.

What will it take to breach this break in the natural Korean state? Can this generation’s crop of leaders accomplish some sort of “first step” toward solving the potential conflict?

Senior Fellow, Paul M. Edwards

Panmunjon Corridor

2007-07-11T09:32:00.000-06:00

Does anyone remember the Panmunjon Corridor? One of the strangest situations where both armies were prevented from attacking, but the North Koreans, at least, were able to move troops and supplies. Arranged as a part of the Panmunjon Security Agreement, it was designed to protect the negotiators from being caught up in the war.

It is easy to locate on a military map of Korea but hard to find out much about how the security of the area was maintained. Anyone remember?

Senior Fellow Paul M. Edwards

No Gun Ri Massacre - Enough Already

2007-07-02T08:26:00.000-06:00

The question about the massacre at No Gun Ri has come up again. What are we to believe?

Civilians are killed in wars and an awful lot of civilians were killed in the Korean War because, if for no other reason, the war moved so quickly up and down the peninsula, forcing refugees, displacing persons, and mingling persons of the North and the South. Soldiers hid among the civilians, weapons and supplies were moved by civilians, and on more than one occasion seeming civilians opened fire on UN troops.

There is a good chance civilians were killed at No Gun Ri, and three dozen other places. The effort to turn it in to some sort of massacre requires us to pretend we have knowledge that we do not have; who were the people, what had been happening just before, and what price had the involved units been paying from the presence of "civilians."

The saying when I was there was that you could tell the difference between Communist and Republic troops by watching which way they were running; the North Koreans were running after you and the South Koreans were running with you. Give it a break!

Senior Fellow, Paul Edwards

China's Influence?

2007-06-25T09:14:00.000-06:00

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?

2007-06-20T21:58:00.000-06:00

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?

2007-06-15T06:58:00.000-06:00

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