This just in: North Korea to End armistice!

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ned
But he first had to get rid of the warmonger Republican, MacArthur, who was too dense to understand that victory is not the objective of war.

Who controls the military? The POTUS or some general too in love with his own importance?

[DanS]

How is that different in effect from a military campaign

What's Kim going to do? Go to war because China passes on refugees to South Korea? It doesn't make any sense.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by DanS
How is that different in effect from a military campaign

What's Kim going to do? Go to war because China passes on refugees to South Korea? It doesn't make any sense.

And yet it forces change?

How big a wave of refugees are you anticipating anyway?

[Arrian]

Ned,

Truman did what he had to do w/respect to MacArthur. The man was out of control. The President runs things, not a general high on his own "greatness." Allow MacArthur to run amok, and you have Caesar all over again.

No thanks. Besides, wasn't MacArthur babbling about going into China and using tactical nukes? Unless I'm misremembering, the man was at least half-mad.

-Arrian

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian
Ned,

Truman did what he had to do w/respect to MacArthur. The man was out of control. The President runs things, not a general high on his own "greatness." Allow MacArthur to run amok, and you have Caesar all over again.

No thanks. Besides, wasn't MacArthur babbling about going into China and using tactical nukes? Unless I'm misremembering, the man was at least half-mad.

-Arrian

The problem MacArthur had, IIRC, was that he stated to the press that the Chinese were strengthened due to restrictions on the UN command. He was referring, I believe, to the 1950 order not to bomb on the Chinese side of the border that was intended to no provoke China, but which was not rescinded even though China had invaded.

The statement to the press was made despite a Joint Chiefs requirement that State review all press statement before they were released.

As to nukes, MacArthur had requested and received Truman's authorization to use nukes under two specific circumstancs. A fresh invasion by China and the use by Russia of its airforce to bomb Japan.

MacArthur's statement was one of fact, not opinion. However, he did not follow the guidelines requiring clearance through State.

Rather than order MacAurthur to comply with the guidelines, Truman, several weeks later, escallated and fired MacArthur because he believed he was going to run for president and that his statement was the beginning of his campaign.

Viewed in this light, the venal bastard was Truman who was not protecting civilian authority over the military. They were complying with his orders. He was protecting his own butt in the upcoming election.

Assuming that Truman was right that MacArthur was going run for president, this set a precedent that a present member of the military could not do so without first resigning.

Just from a point of reference, did McClellan resign before running against Lincoln in 1864? Did he say anything negative about Lincoln while in uniform?

[Arrian]

Yeah, I think he resigned first and yeah I think he badmouthed Lincoln while in uniform. But I honestly don't know for sure.

-Arrian

[Ned]

I just checked. McClellan retired on election day. He ran on the Democrat platform of appeasement of the Sourth.

[Arrian]

Oh, I knew his platform. Why is it, you think, that McClellan was so terribly ineffective as a battlefield commander during the war? Hmm... could it have been because he didn't really want to fight it in the first place?

Imagine being Lincoln. Your "top" general is not only a political opponent, but quite possibly actively subverting the war effort!

How was MacArthur really any better? He didn't want to "appease" he wanted to get into WWIII. Truman wanted to go the containment route. The fact is that Truman was the President. MacArthur wasn't, and had a problem with keeping his mouth shut.

-Arrian

[Ned]

Arrian, Your conclusion about WWIII certainly is Truman's position. At the time, only 20% of Americans agreed with Truman. By firing MacArthur, it made clear that Truman had no intention of winning the war. This did not set well with America at the time. It is amazing how propaganda has changed our views of Truman despite the lessons of Vietnam.

[Arrian]

Ned, I have a feeling that you see the "lessons of Vietnam" differently than I do.

It may be possible that MacArthur could have won the Korean War and unified Korea, and that Korea may have ended up like SK is today. I do not consider it likely, though. More likely was the escalation of the conflict, and us ending up in shooting war with the USSR, or a wider conflict with the PRC, or both.

-Arrian

[Ned]

Arrian, Truman made no headway whatsoever after he fired MacArthur in April 1951. The Chi-coms continued the war confident they could not loose. In the end, Eisenhower brought the war to an end by threatening China with invasion.

But, in the meantime, we lost tens of thousand of troops in a meatgrinder.

In Vietnam, Johnson pulled the same crap. He allowed the NV to have their bases in Cambodia, to leave their Ho Chi Minh trail unmolested, to allow the ports of Cambodia and the North to be free of bombing, even while tens of thousands of GIs were being killed in combat.

It was not until Nixon reversed all this did NV agree to peace. As if you didn't know it, the left nearly revolted when Nixon became aggressive in seeking peace. They called the attacks on NV in Cambodia an "invasion" of Cambodia. They said Nixon's bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong would lead to escallation, not peace. Well, they were wrong.

Save for Polk and Roosevelt, the Democrats have a long history of appeasement and of wanting to conduct wars in a half-assed manner. It is amazing that the Democrats produced Polk and Roosevelt, two of our better and most successful presidents.