Russian Bomber Patrols Resumed
August 18, 2007 by OJ - PermaLink
During joint military exercises with the Chinese Red Army, Russian President Vladimir Putin today announced that Moscow has reinstated the Cold War practice of regular long range patrols of nuclear bombers. Clearly indicated as a message of strength to the West, one cannot resist but to analyze some underlying facts as they relate to the announcement.
Before delving deeper into the situation, here is the statement:
"I have made a decision to resume regular flights of Russian strategic aviation," Putin said in televised remarks. "We proceed from the assumption that our partners will view the resumption of flights of Russia's strategic aviation with understanding."
Putin said that 20 Russian bombers were involved in the exercise.
"Starting today, such tours of duty would be conducted regularly and on the strategic scale," Putin said. "Our pilots have been grounded for too long, they are happy to start a new life."
This practice was common during the late Soviet era as a show of secondary strike capability. After the evolution of the intercontinental ballistic missile, long range bombers became secondary in the strike arsenal of both nations. Although hypothetically, a first point of attack from 20 long-range aircraft fully loaded with long-range, nuclear tipped missiles will present an element of surprise, the sheer arsenal of intercontinental ballistic missiles on both sides renders the bomber fleets practically obsolete from a strategic perspective.
Seconds after a supposed launch of missiles from a long-range nuclear bomber, United States launch detectors would be notified and the appropriate action would be taken - in this case; full blown retaliation.
One could speculate that the move is a reciprocal engagement related to the US plans to build a missile shield in Central Europe (a policy that Moscow has angrily opposes) yet the Russians claim to be implementing multi-trajectory warheads on their most recently deployed missiles, a move claimed to be countering the missiles shield. This, despite the fact that the US is constructing only a couple of dozens of interceptor silos. More realistic is that China rightly feels threatened by the missile shield and is leaning heavily on Russia to escalate matters from their end.
The reason for this argument is that China has been spending significant resources on modernizing their submarine fleet – with vast Russian assistance – but despite its wealth born in the US and the West, Beijing has not had the funds to significantly revamp their strategic ballistic missile capability. Critics will say that China recently put astronauts (communauts) in orbit and as such possess the capability to strike anywhere in the world. Yet with 20-50 intercontinental ballisitc missiles, China is vulnerable to US shield efforts. Russia, not a solidified friend of China and not a declared enemy of Washington, comes to the rescue!
The United Sates will doubtfully take the resumption of Russian bomber patrols seriously beyond occasional capability updates. Rather, our nation should be focused on the emerging threat posted by a growing Chinese submarine fleet, equipped with greater and greater capability.
This being said, neither China or Russia should be viewed in the light of ‘strategic partner’ with common interests and goals. Thank You Bill Clinton!
Iranian Posturing
April 1, 2006 by OJ - PermaLink
The Iranian military recently began military exercises designed to exemplify their capabilities to respond to a Western military attack on their nuclear installations. Maneuvers began this week and are expected to last through next week. Conducted as a measure to inflict the greatest possible pain on the West, the Iranian military prepared by simulating gaining control over the Straight of Hormuz, a narrow waterway used to transport 80% of Arabian oil exports. Experts widely anticipate Iranian mining of the straight as well as unconventional attacks on passing tanker ships utilizing small vessels packed with explosives.
More troubling was Friday's test launch of a Fajr 3 missile. The Iranian government claims that the missile is capable of carrying multiple warheads and that it has radar avoiding capabilities. Clearly, the test and consequent statements are meant to intimidate any power seeking to attack its nuclear installations.
It is highly questionable that such an indigenously developed missile can carry multiple warheads with independent targeting abilities and utilize radar avoiding technology. Unless Iran has received significant assistance from Russia, who as far as we know, does not possess stealth aircraft, this domestic missile development is a scam. Independent targeting requires complex calculations and a ballistic trajectory. The 1,250 mile reported range is not enough to achieve a meaningfull separation of targets. Further, Western technology is dependent on tracking the launch phase, rendering any 'stealth' technology obsolete. The measure is clearly designed to intimidate Israel and the West from launching military raids on Iran. Considering the rogue regime's refusal to halt enrichment of uranium, the Iranian leadership is obviously anticipating military responses to their intransigence.
What will likely receive little media attention is the aftermath of the Iranian exercises. The 20,000 or so troops participating in the posturing, will probably not return back to their barracks once the maneuvers are completed. The 'exercise' is more of a cover for permanently refortifying the Straight of Hormuz in preparation for possible bombardment.
The situation in Iran is coming to a head. The Pentagon clearly timed the release of evidence collected in Iraq, suggesting Russia was not on the side of America leading up and during the Iraq conflict, in an attempt to cast suspicion on the current Russian political position on Iran. The Iranians have leaked information on a possible upcoming nuclear test, albeit of a non deliverable weapon, as a means to stave off any plans for Western air strikes and this latest military exercise is designed to plant second thoughts in Western military contingencies. This said, if the Iranians expect to be attacked, likely, they will be.
As inability to reach a global consensus on how to respond to the Iranian nuclear program persists, options at our disposal become more and more limited. Arguing against tougher international measures by the Russians and the Chinese, both governing significant economic interests in Iran, the two nations are increasing the likelihood of a military response.
If Russia and China eventually will back off remains to be seen. As things stand today, the Iranians are preparing for counter measures in the event that they are hit, suggesting that the Mullahs consider it a very real possibility.
UPDATE: Brits think Iran Strike likely.
UPDATE II: Information on the super cavitation technology bought by Iran and tested this week.
Where is the Democrat Party Position?
March 24, 2006 by OJ - PermaLink
We have all heard that John Kerry wanted to give uranium to Iran. Infamously, the man suggested that giving a regime that endorses the death of our country fissile material was a creative and feasible idea.
The real question is, where does the rest of the Democratic Party stand on the Iran issue? If you know, please send me an email…. I have not heard a single thing!!!
The UNSC!
March 14, 2006 by OJ - PermaLink
As the Security Council is readying to debate Iran's nuclear program and international posturing, one cannot but to consider the diplomatic tight rope act currently performed by all players in the game. Teheran seeks to act recklessly and unpredictably enough to appear strong and independent while at the same time avoiding to upset their allies to the North and East. The West seeks the harshest possible punishment for Iran's nuclear intransigence, yet they cannot push over the top; a move that would erode nascent Russian and Chinese support for international rebuke. Finally, the leading powers of the Shanghai Five are maneuvering to increase their diplomatic relevance, protecting their energy cash cow and military exports while not getting caught, from a Western perspective, with their hands in the cookie jar. It's an intriguing game!
What will come out of the discussions this week? Economic sanctions are an unlikely initial outcome. Removing Iranian oil from the international market will hurt the West almost as much as the Iranians, while such measures seem unacceptable to Russia and China who stand to lose billions if economic sanctions are enacted. The United States is reportedly negotiating for a deadline before which Iran must comply with stated obligations or face rebuke under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which includes the possible use of force. Seen as a premature step with little support in Europe, this option will likely remain on the back burner for the time being. Diplomatic sanctions, restricting travel for all diplomats and state officials, isolating Iran internationally, seem to have more of an appeal in the short term. A unified international message, condemning Iranian arrogance and belligerence serves to send a message to the leadership as well as the Iranian population. Waning confidence in the policies of Mr. Ahmadinejad among the Iranian elite can be exacerbated with such subtle yet powerful measures.
More troubling is our recent experience with sanctioning a delusional dictatorial regime. Enduring extreme humanitarian hardship, the Iraqi people - not the regime, were punished during the decade of economic sanctions on Baghdad. Few of the intended effects were levied as the regime found creative ways to further their agenda among corrupt international players and governments. It is safe to say that the world can expect similar backroom deals cut by the Iranians facing sanctions. Israeli intelligence suggests that the domestic situation in Iran, however, is much more volatile than conditions in Iraq during the period of UN sanctions. Facing a deplorable domestic economy already - some estimates predicting as much as 30% inflation by the end of the year - an erosion of confidence in the leadership and billions of dollars exiting the Iranian economy, international economic sanctions may tip the scale. An undercurrent of political dissent and lust for Western freedoms, bubbling just under the surface of a repressed people, can well erupt and topple the regime. The question is if sanctions can unlock this current before the Mullahs cross the finish line in their nuclear race. Two independent accounts, one from Russian intelligence and one from the Israeli Mossad suggest that the Iranian regime seeks to detonate a crude, undeliverable, nuclear device in the very short term. If these reports are correct, no sanctions in the world will prevent the regime clinging to power and declaring official nuclear status.
Accompanying any international condemnation of Teheran must be strengthened inspections. Although the international community may differ on the severity of any sanctions levied, all should agree that the Iranian intransigence indisputably results in unfettered access to any and all installations. Any first Security Council rebuke, must include an army of qualified inspectors descending on Iran. Failure to allow full visibility will force the hand of fence sitters in Moscow and Beijing and may pave the way for much harsher punishment.
Iran likely has taken a few pages from Saddam's playbook in the decade of cat and mouse evasion and will seek to conceal any questionable activity. Yet they are hampered by the very design which they implemented to reduce the likelihood of military air strikes. By spreading out their facilities and burying them deep underground, moving questionable research and materials becomes incredibly difficult considering the very watchful eye of our satellites. Hiding in the ground with few exists allows us to see what comes and goes.
It will be months, maybe years, before the international community can speak with one voice on this matter. The most important cornerstone of stability in the Middle East during this time will be full visibility of Iranian activities. Whether the Security Council slaps Iran on the wrist or sentences the regime to jail time, we must know where their program stands and how far they have progressed at all times. This should be the goal of the Security Council while other differences are debated!
Update: In Iran, Dissenting Voices Rise on Its Leaders' Nuclear Strategy
Wartime!
March 1, 2006 by OJ - PermaLink
Ladies and Gentlemen! We are at war! Our enemy is using subversive and underhanded tactics! It is disregarding established rules of engagement! Clearly it employs every resource in its arsenal. Webs of divergent elements, with bisecting agendas, are joining forces to accomplish their criminally deviant but shared goals. From the extensive use of the media to their massaging of well placed political leverages; we are fighting a determined adversary!
No, this is not the insurgency in Iraq! It is not the shadowy network of Al Qaeda! Our foe is not the emerging powers in the East! Rather, the enemy lives among us and reveals itself in the progressive manifesto of the liberal causes.
First on this manifesto is: humiliate, disgrace, shame, accuse, disfavor and degrade our acting President and his staff. No matter what the cost to our nation's pride, our national security or the perception of Americans in the eyes of the world.
Topping today's agenda is the clearly slanted CBS poll just released. Looking at the sample, it is evident that the data does not represent an even segment of our population. Still, the poll is blasted over the airwaves as irrefutable evidence that the American population is tiring of the administration. This is blatant misrepresentation with one goal in mind.
Next, we have a concerted attempt by Democrats in Minnesota, hoping to force TV stations not to run ads featuring returning soldiers complaining about the media coverage of the conflict. These ads, funded by a group called Progress for America, are meant to shed light on the inconsistencies of the networks' portrayal of our progress in Iraq. Instead, Democrats are attacking the ads, calling them "un-American, untruthful and a lie". They simply do not want the other side of the story to be told.
As highlighted in the previous post, Paul Pillar just published a paper suggesting that the Bush administration's MO led to a warping of the actual WMD situation in Iraq prior to invasion. The liberal media has used this attack piece as irrefutable evidence to argue that Bush misled the nation although the paper is highly speculative and lacks any concrete evidence that such deception by the administration ever took place.
Then we have the ongoing dispute over the sale of ports, where both media and liberal politicians are trying to score points against an administration which has successfully outmaneuvered them on security issues for more than four years. Taking up security as important to them, while slamming and hindering the renewal of the Patriot Act is completely disingenuous. Clearly these individuals are hoping to have the cake and eat it too! So far, no member of the MSM has confronted the ambiguous politicians on their contradictions. Why not you ask? Well, doing so would be contrary to their overall objectives.
The list of deceptive behavior goes on and on.
It is clear that the liberal slander machine will use every tactic in it's arsenal to achieve its objective. Their confusing and disillusioning the public is nothing short of an attempted power grab. They will seek to reclaim their lost authority, no matter what the damage to the truth, American security or their own moral compass. We need to fight this war by keeping the politicians and the media honest and not letting them get away with their distortions. It is our obligation to call them on the rug and demand an explanation for their inconsistencies. Otherwise, as in any time of war, they will beat us by cheating if we let them!
Iraq and WMDs
February 21, 2006 by OJ - PermaLink
The ongoing and controversial saga of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has recently resurfaced with two conflicting reports, released just days apart. The first, is a paper released by the Council on Foreign Relations, authored by Paul R. Pillar, National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005. The second is a report issued at a privately funded Intelligence Summit (hat tip: Pajamas Media) over the weekend.
Paul Pillar's paper, peppered with 'probably's 'may have's, regurgitates most of the ideas already well hashed out in our liberal media, suggesting that a group-think mentality at the CIA and within the Bush administration led to massive miscalculations of the maturity of the Iraqi WMD programs. Further, Pillar alludes to blatant manufacturing of intelligence assessments by the administration through 'cherry picking' individual segments of intelligence and aligning these independent bits of data to form an incomplete and incorrect view of the WMD situation in Iraq prior to the invasion in 2003. The overall gist of Pillar's paper revolves around a supposed desire within the administration to have policy dictate intelligence and not the other way around.
Pillar continues to suggest that the administration's request to investigate possible links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda served as a distraction to the agency and a catalyst to group-think attitudes. Clearly, a sworn enemy's potential involvement in the deadliest attack on US soil must be investigated thoroughly even if no clear link can be established on the surface – and even more so if circumstantial evidence suggests even a hint of a connection. Pillar concludes otherwise: "In the shadowy world of international terrorism, almost anyone can be "linked" to almost anyone else if enough effort is made to find evidence of casual contacts, the mentioning of names in the same breath, or indications of common travels or experiences." Not investigating such a link would be criminally irresponsible.
In order to have a clear understanding of the rational within both the CIA and the administration, however, the evidence available to us at the time must be considered. In his five pages of accusations, Pillar never once points to a single piece of clear and constructive evidence in our possession prior to March 2003 suggesting that Iraq did not have WMD programs. On the contrary, habitual deception, obstruction and outright refusal to cooperate with inspectors established a decade long record, painting a picture of an Iraqi regime which was not willing to give up its WMD arsenal. Every intelligence agency in the world concluded that Iraq did indeed have WMD programs, although to which extent was disputed. As well documented in the lead-up to bombings of suspected Iraqi WMD facilities conducted by the Clinton administration, this has been a long-standing opinion in Washington, on both aisles, and not something conjured out of thin air by the current administration. Pillar's attack piece seeks to rewrite history as to the actual intelligence situation prior to the invasion. Everyone, including the previous Clinton administration, all foreign intelligence services and even Saddam (apparently) believed that there was a weapons program in Iraq. Clearly, not acting on this would be irresponsible. Attempting to change perceptions of this fact by presenting a hypothetical psychological analysis of the bureaucracy of our intelligence community is equally irresponsible...
By suggesting that President Bush misled the American public without pointing to clear and indisputable evidence that our administration knew, prior to the invasion, that Iraq did not have WMD programs, Mr. Pillar is indeed himself misleading the public.
Former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense John. A. Shaw painted a wholly different account of the Iraqi WMD situation at a Virginia Intelligence Summit over the weekend.
Out of Hand
February 5, 2006 by OJ - PermaLink
Contrary to our State Department, this publication will stand behind our brethren in their battle against fundamentalist views seeking their muzzle. The row over cartoons published in a Danish newspaper has caused a stir in Muslim nations, conjugating into a storming of embassies.
These very same nations that allow inflamed attitudes to dictate the direction of their indigenous movements, have the nerve to remain silent when a hundred and a thousand people perish in savage suicide bombings, orchestrated to inflict the severest of civilian devastation. It is time that the civilized world stood up and said enough is enough! The very same people assaulting embassies in the Middle East are the ones that quietly condone and allow women and children being brutally murdered; in the name of a religion taking offense to a few lines of ink printed in a newspaper!
Where do the lines need to be drawn? Can we, as a civilized society accept such infantile behavior? When have we had enough???? Certainly the burning of cars in Paris left us smirking. Absolutely, the Iranian nuclear program is concerning! The violent storming of diplomatic outposts, instigated over a cartoon, and the intentional allowal thereof constitutes a violation of sovereign property and is, legally, an act of war!
We will not stand for it!
The Glorious Burden (Act I) - Selectively Humane
January 27, 2006 by EGJ - PermaLink
What are Human Rights? Human Rights are universally believed to mean the freedom to be human, encompassing political, economic, civil, social, and cultural rights and freedoms. This sounds terrific on paper, but the application and enforcement of Human Rights as a matter of International Law is a far more complex conundrum. Trickier still is reconciling the concept of Human Rights, or any "right" for that matter, with the human experience. If a person is robbed and murdered nobody claims that he has been deprived of his human rights. Similarly there will be no assertion that he has been deprived of his civil rights, economic rights, or political rights either. Instead, this individual has been the unfortunate victim of a "crime". No matter that the crime deprived him of his possessions, dignity, and life. The concept of Human Rights thus warrants closer scrutiny.
Few single individuals have been reckoned to have lost their Human Rights; the loss thereof can seemingly only be experienced by a collective community that is externally bounded and internally homogeneous. Although single individuals are held responsible for such abuses, punishment is often reserved for the highest echelons of government. More importantly, perpetrators ostensibly have to belong to an internationally recognized regime. It is noteworthy that neither Osama Bin Laden nor Mullah Omar have been indicted for Human Rights abuses, which is in stark contrast to the numerous calls to have the US administration charged with "war crimes". Let us now briefly examine the emergence of the concept of human rights.
Although human rights are conceptionally derived from the doctrines of natural law expounded by Greek philosophers and codified by Roman legislators, it was not until the French and American Revolutions that the notion of people having a set of universal and inalienable rights that the idea of human rights was born. However, these first ventures into legislating human entitlements such as rights to freedom, property, security, and resistance to oppression were largely efforts to recognize individual rights in the face of the oppressive hegemonies of the European royal houses. Not to mention the very selective nature of these rights – white property owning males. In other words, people, some people, had rights to protect them from their own government. These rights nonetheless, did not apply to foreign governments and their subjects; if one invaded a country or region one was under no obligation to recognize or extend one's own rights to conquered peoples. The birth of the nation state saw the emergence of complex bureaucracies and national identities where individuals were not just subjects to a regime; they were citizens within a legal system particular to the specific nation state to which they belonged. The rights of the citizenry subverted individual rights and non-citizens were denied the same formal status under the law. So when were human rights established???
In the wake of World War II and the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime an international tribunal was convened to prosecute senior members of the Nazi party and those directly responsible for perpetrating genocide. It should be noted that although the scale of the holocaust far surpasses most genocides, the practice has in fact been quite a common occurrence throughout history, and still is. The Nazis were on trial for war crimes to be sure, but more importantly for "crimes against humanity". It was at this moment that human rights as an international (and international only) phenomenon was born. The Nazi survivors have always argued that the trials against them were simply an attempt by the allies to exact vengeance on the German state beyond what had formerly been done. For the first time in history a peace treaty was followed by the systematic and legislated dismantling and execution of a previously recognized regime. The concept of inalienable and universal human rights was reborn into international law and the notion imbedded itself in our social consciousness and was expressed in the Western liberal movements of the 50s and 60s. Laws existed it was argued that were beyond any nation's laws and which no citizen of any place was above. So it was perceived anyway.
But popular conception and reality need not be the same thing. The Nazi's assessment was in fact pretty accurate. The invocation of crimes against humanity was a politically expedient way of removing any and all vestiges of the Nazi party from Germany and as such it was a useful tool. Yet the precedent did not mandate international action against subsequent proven Human Rights abuses, nor did it define in clear terms what constitutes a violation of said rights. Those who are still consumed with the idealistic notion that circumstances are otherwise, need only look to the last 50 years and the utter failure of the international community to prevent genocide and ethnic cleansing in other parts of the world. Human Rights violations are only invoked when it is politically advantageous to do so.
A quick glance at Human Rights Watch demonstrates my point. The top headlines are for the most part directed at Israel and the US. There is even a separate section dedicated to human rights "abuses" by the United States. The ongoing genocide in Sudan is only mentioned in the ninth article of the Africa section, neatly tucked away beneath accusations that Egypt should stop deporting a few hundred Sudanese demonstrators. Similarly the ethnic cleansing currently under way in Xinjiang province in Western China is not even mentioned, but the fact that Beijing police shut down a gay and lesbian event is. Rather than being a palpable illustration of a failure to prioritize those atrocities that are most urgent, Human Rights Watch is a prime example of an organization that uses human rights as a political weapon to promote their own agenda.
Since their injection into international politics, Human Rights has mostly served to further underlying agendas. Clearly, as stated above, the propagation of Human Rights abuses over the past 50 years establishes demonstrative patterns of selective enforcement of these inalienable rights.
Human Rights is a tantalizing ideal which is both easy to support and mobilize behind; one that is extremely difficult to disagree with. Yet when do we have human rights? When do we have these elusive and inalienable rights that makes us human? More accurately, when are they judged to have been violated? In fact human rights are never possessed, they can only be taken away. Accusations can only be levied by countries or organizations against other countries or organizations. The very concept of the individual human being, for which the concept was drafted in the first place, is very much a secondary consideration. Populations seem to have human rights. People on the other hand do not.
The Mirror of Mesopotamia!
January 22, 2006 by OJ - PermaLink
Confronting the realities of the present Iranian perdicament requires more guise than any Democrat politician can offer today! The situation does not warrant the immediate bombing campaign that the demo-cons are begging for - yet argue against. The situation does not require a drastic increase in anti-American staffers at the New York and Los Angeles Times. The situation does certainly not demand commentary from Hillary Clinton…
Despite the limited coverage that you may experience, we are facing a grave and serious dilemma regarding the Iranian nuclear program. In a political effort this week, Hillary feebly attempted to suggest that sanctions ought to be our modus operandi and that our President acted slowly and irresponsibly by 'outsourcing' negotiations to our allies. Clearly, she is jumping on a political calculation stemming from her advisors proclaiming that she needs to be tougher on defense! Does her outburst serve our country any purpose or should we judge her statement as a self-serving diatribe capitalizing on current events?
The present predicament reaches far beyond political ambitions. Iran has cleverly construed alliances with American adversaries holding seats on the UN Security Council. Cementing lucrative oil contracts and expensive weapons purchases; Teheran bought the status quo.
Considering the incredibly complicated situation facing our President – and the decision is difficult and grave – who will hold the former first lady accountable for political opportunism, attempting to score a percentage point or two undermining the continuing work of our administration?
We are no longer backing up a united world yet we are bound by a UN treaty suggesting we should. Russia and China will cast Security Council votes based on their best interests. Currently, their interests lie in the cradle of lucrative energy deals conveniently just cut by the Iranians. The question that ought to be raised – were you concerned about the current situation in Iran? Would you find another way to address the problem than accosting our President, causing confusion and in turn, handing a tactical victory to our enemy? If the answer is yes – Hillary is not your man!
Forgotten Wars and Unsung Heroes
January 9, 2006 by EGJ - PermaLink
The public is fond of comparing current conflicts to other wars fought in our country's past. Nowhere is this more evident than in the current conflict in Iraq. It has been likened to World War II and a struggle against oppressive and genocidal tyranny, to the drug wars against South American cartels, and of course to Vietnam. Most of these comparisons fall short of sincere and honest comparison however, and more often than not revolve around comparing casualty rates and similar traits among our enemies to further one political agenda or another. The futility and despondency inherent in comparing Iraq to Vietnam has already been covered here at Rightviews. Liberals generally seek to denigrate the war by comparing it to Vietnam or other conflicts in which America has not fared well in an attempt to portray the war as ultimately doomed to failure. None of these comparisons are very accurate, in fact, none of them can be. Wars, just like any other human experience, are unique in and of themselves, transpiring under circumstances that are both spatially and temporally unique. What we can do however is look to past conflicts in an attempt to identify analogous conditions, solutions used overcome them, and to see if they are applicable in today's wars. In this regard Vietnam, World War II, or the First Gulf wars are not very helpful since they do not correspond well with the current situation in Iraq. But one war is extremely similar; The Second Korean Conflict.
"The what conflict!" you gasp. The Korean War has long been called America's Forgotten War, so the fact that its small-scale reverberation, a conflict that raged in the DMZ between 1966 and 1969, has been lost to history is not surprising. It did after all occur while another more notorious war was at its height. However, in spite of its obscurity the Second Korean Conflict is perhaps the best comparison to Iraq, or should I say the second Iraq War. Few people know about the 2nd Korean Conflict and its ultimately successful outcome. Even fewer know that it was a war against an insurgency, and a war that has some extremely useful lessons on how to conduct a very successful counterinsurgency campaign.
North Korea's leader Kim Il Sung hoped to start a popular uprising against South Korea and the United States with the ultimate aim of spreading the "revolution". North Korean troops infiltrated South Korean peasant villages to disseminate their ideology and turn the populace against South Korean and American forces. The infiltration was followed by barracks bombings, ambushes, booby traps, and other attacks on US and South Korean forces. The United States was facing an invisible enemy on friendly soil that was not fighting according to conventional rules of combat. Heavy-handed tactics were not feasible since it would undoubtedly alienate the local populace. Does this sound familiar?
Four-star General Charles Bonesteel III opted for a low-tech approach. He was in favor of assertive patrols over airstrikes and artillery, and relied heavily on South Korean forces, it was after all their country in which the war was being fought. They were more familiar with the terrain, sensitivity to local customs, and more likely to expose a North Korean infiltrator. Bonesteel emphasized how invaluable the South Korean forces were by incorporating their officers into the American command structure thereby streamlining the joined effort to thwart and oust the enemy. It worked. By 1969 attacks and ambushes virtually ceased and Kim Sung Il realized that his plan had failed.
The military similarities between Iraq and the 2nd Korean Conflict are there, but perhaps more than simply serving as a comparison to Iraq; the latter adds one more important lesson. In Korea there was no decisive victory, no dramatic moment that could be hailed as the turning of the tide or a sign that we were winning. Instead the conflict rather unspectacularly ebbed and faded away. That is the nature of counter-insurgency; there are few triumphant battles since the most significant struggle lies in preventing the enemy's plans from coming to fruition. Furthermore, there will never be a point when an insurgency declares defeat and comes out of hiding, when beaten they merely cease their activities and wilt away. With all eyes now on Iraq, it is important to remember that our inevitable victory is not going to be punctuated by any triumphant battle or dramatic event. The insurgency has not been able to thwart a single part of the timetable to install a democratic government in Iraq, yet these victories of ours go unnoticed and uncelebrated. Ultimately it is here that the most poignant similarity to the 2nd Korean Conflict lies, namely, that even very important wars and victories are sometimes overlooked, ignored, and forgotten. South Korea is now a free and democratic country, largely due to the sacrifice of unsung American and South Korean soldiers. Soon Iraq will be as well, but given the nature of the media, the nay Sayers, and the MTV and Nintendo generations, we can but hope that this time posterity will be a more honest and forthcoming witness.