Another Lesson From The "Forgotten War"

The Geek is a fan of the Korean War. That's the three year war which many historians have correctly called the "Forgotten War." It was an inconclusive conflict which at the time was not acknowledged by the Truman Administration to be anything other than a "police action."

It was, of course, much more than that. It was America's first limited war in support of policy. There was no odor of crusade about it. Except for the brief, shining moment in the euphoria following the stunning success of the amphibious end run at Inchon, the men of the Truman Administration never lost sight of the policy goal as they had defined it.

That was the first crucial lesson learned in the bloody wastelands of Korea. In a limited war fought in support of a clearly defined policy, the aim of the war, the better state of peace, is the attainment of the policy goal. In the case of Korea the policy was containment. The better state of peace was showing the Communist Bloc it could not violate that policy without meeting firm, prolonged and fierce resistance.

The second lesson from the Korean War has been mentioned many times by the Geek in previous posts. The minimum definition of victory in a limited war in support of policy is "not-losing." In Korea it was not necessary--or, as events proved, possible--to achieve an absolute victory including the surrender of the North and the reunification of Korea under the South. At the opposite extreme, the military defeat of the US brokered "UN" coalition would have destroyed the policy of containment and fatally undercut the diplomatic credibility of the US.

As a result, the US discovered the "third option," that of "not-losing." De facto that became the definition of victory in Iraq with results that might not be entirely satisfying to the neocons and others who were behind the war at the giddy-up, but have been quite satisfactory to the Iraqis and overall, to the US position globally.

There is yet another lesson which must be taken from the Korean paradigm. It is a lesson which is immediately applicable with respect to our current diplomatic imbroglios with Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea. It is also quite applicable along with the first two "lessons-learned" in the war underway in Afghanistan.

But, first, take a look at the advice of a master realist.

A diplomat's words must have no relation to actions--otherwise what sort of diplomacy is it? Words are one thing, actions another. Good words are a concealment of bad deeds. Sincere diplomacy is no more possible than dry water or steel wood.

So said Joseph Stalin. Admittedly "Uncle Joe" was a man of many unpleasant habits. But, no person ever accused him of not having an accurate, cynical and above all, realistic understanding of the games nations played.

Americans and others, particularly Western Europeans of the post-World War II era, may not rush to agree with Stalin's view. However, there are many others in the world who do--even if they have never read the Collected Thoughts of the Great Teacher.

The US ran into the practical implications of Stalin's approach to diplomacy during the two years of negotiations which ultimately resulted in the cease-fire ending active combat in Korea (sort of, maybe, at least some of the time.) We found out the hard way that negotiations were the continuation of combat by other means. We also learned the hard way that without the pressure of combat--even bloody contests of King of the Hill waged on meaningless terrain features which gained at least transient fame such as Pork Chop Hill, Bloody Nose, Heartbreak Ridge--the war ending negotiations went nowhere--slowly.

Seemingly driven by some sort of institutional amnesia, the US relearned the same principles of Diplomacy According To Uncle Joe during the seemingly endless Paris Peace Talks. It's instructive to recall that more men died after the talks started than did before the diplomats started flapping their gums.

The interlocutors sitting across from the Americans at Panmunjom and Paris were Communists. That ideological label is far less important than the underlying reality. They and the governments they represented were True Believers.

True Belief is the critical fact. The power of the Belief is far more important than its ideological structure. True Belief describes a worldview, an existential stance. True Belief leaves no room for the nuances of compromise which constitutes the essential core of non-Stalinesque diplomacy--the sincere diplomacy which the Master of the Kremlin believed did not--could not--exist.

Former Secretary of Defense William Perry speaking in South Korea the other day allowed that it "appeared that the more we talked, the more intransigent the North Koreans became." He is right on the appearance. The appearance is the reality.

The reason? You ask.

Simple.

The Men of the Hermit Kingdom of the North are not simply fossils of the Stalin era, they are True Believers in the right and destiny of North Korea to dominate the peninsula by whatsoever means might be necessary. To them as to their progenitors during the Korean War, talking is the extension of combat by other means. As the US found out on the killing hills of Korea, any sign of weakness, no matter how transitory, gives aid and comfort to the True Believers of the other side.

Iran is not communist. But, the Iranian regime is comprised of True Believers. The Belief is not simply nor solely in Shia Islam, even though that may be the larger part. The rest of the Belief is in Iranian nationhood and with it a presumed natural Iranian right to hegemony over the Persian Gulf and Northwest Asian region.

To achieve that end, the possession of nuclear weapons is not simply desirable, it is necessary. To pursue the goal of hegemony, to acquire the nuclear threat, requires that "good words hide bad actions." Considering that Islam, particularly the Islam of Shia, approves of lying in protection of the Believers and the Belief, the Stalin Formulation has great applicability.

Susan Rice, our new ambassador to the UN, said yesterday on NPR that the US "might" directly engage the Iranians in order to dissuade them from pursuing nuclear weapons. There is no inherent harm in that. Provided, and this is a major provision, the US recognises the lessons of the Korean War negotiations as a model. And, provided that we acknowledge the saliency for Tehran of the Stalin approach to diplomacy.

The Islamists of Pakistan who, along with their supporters and sympathizers in the government and military, are also True Believers. They also mix Islam with nationalism and the ambitions of hegemony which this mix so facilely propels. Our relations with Pakistan on a practical level are going to be conducted under the shadow of Stalin, in the orbit of his understanding of diplomacy.

With the Pakistanis as with the North Koreans and the Iranians, diplomacy in any form is always combat without bloodshed. Any slackening, any compromise, any hesitation, any uncertainty as to our policy goals and our definitions of success will be taken by the other side as an indication of weakening will and lost ability. Any metaphorical hill left without both strong defense and instant counterattack will be seen as defeat for us and victory for the other side.

There is one final critical lesson to be derived from the Korean War which is all too easily overlooked. During the course of the war the Chinese Army became progressively more capable, progressively better by all objective measurements. The myriads of lives lost by members of the Communist Chinese Forces (CCF) did not buy Beijing a military victory.

No.

The CCF hectatombs bought China something far more important. Far more long lasting. It bought the Beijing regime international authority and internal self-confidence. Ultimately these were so strong and so durable that they were not erased by the monumental errors of Beijing--the Great Leap Forward, the Famine and the Cultural Revolution to mention a few. The dead bodies littering the landscape clothed in quilted uniforms and tennis shoes made the Peoples Republic of China what it is today. A Great Power.

Wars tend to improve the fighting capacities of those who fight them. This is particularly true of fighters who have no tours of duty, no guaranteed end of tour, no date of return to a faraway country. This implies what has already been observed in Afghanistan--and Pakistan. Under pressure, Taliban and other jihadists have gotten better.

The same has been observed in 2006 in Lebanon with the fighters of Hezbollah.

The experience of the CCF in Korea meshes with what we have seen in more recent wars. The lesson is simple but hard to put into practice. Win, lose or (as in Korea) draw, the major beneficiaries of the war may well be the enemy. And, the enemy may never change his nature no matter how much his tactics might alter.

Had the planners and executors of our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq taken a good, hard look at the "Forgotten War," it is highly probable that our approach and methods would have been far different. Far less likely to carry the negative effects extant today and extending into the future.

Now the challenge before the Obama Administration is either to study history or try--perhaps with awful consequences--to relearn the truth of the Stalin Formulation. It may not be nice, it certainly isn't pleasant, but the reality is that for our major diplomatic opponents today and in the near-term, diplomacy is unarmed combat.

Human Rights And National Interest

Last Monday a group headed by two Clintonites, William Cohen, the one time Secretary of Defense and Madeleine Albright, the Secretary of State, released a report timed to coincide with the Sixtieth Anniversary of the promulgation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations. This report took the position that "genocide" and "mass atrocities" threatened American national security and interests.

The report urged the incoming Obama Administration to reorganise the National Security Council and other components of the national security establishment to reflect this conclusion. While cheerfully acknowledging that the Cohen-Albright report is filled with High Minded, Lofty Thinking, the Geek is unconvinced that enforcement of "human rights," however narrowly they may be defined, is necessarily in the national or strategic interests of the United States.

Even the matter of genocide is not necessarily one that the US should, let alone, must, respond to even in the context of multilateral action. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948 (ratified by the US in 1988) like the Universal Declaration on Human Rights was the product of its time.

Specifically, the Genocide Convention was the product of revulsion throughout the Western world over the state sponsored slaughter of discrete ethno/linguistic/religious communities by the Nazi government of Germany. (It is doubtful that Joe Stalin was all that perturbed by the tales of extermination considering his extensive personal experience with liquidating undesirable populations.)

In 1948 the definition of genocide was easy. The example was right in front of the world's leaders and peoples. In more recent years, the edges of definition have become ever more fuzzy, ever more blurred by propagandists and ideologues alike. The political goals and ideological imperatives override any objective definition and consensual understanding of the actions which genuinely constitute genocide.

The charge of "genocide" is hurled at the Israelis by partisans of the Palestinians. It is heaved by the Kremlin to justify the Russian invasion of Georgia. Taliban chieftains accuse the US of pursuing genocide in Afghanistan. The central regime of the Democratic Republic of the Congo charges the government of Rwanda of genocide by proxy.

You get the point.

The highly undistinguished former Secretary of Defense and his equally-at-sea counterpart from State want the military to incorporate genocide prevention (and, presumably, punishment) in its official doctrine. (Hint to Mr Perry: It's already there in all the doctrinal corpus that covers interventionary operations.) The report also demands that the intelligence community add genocide and related human rights violations to its already overstocked plate of missions and tasks. (Hint to Mr Perry and Ms Albright: Such reporting is already present even if it is not labeled as such.)

The Geek does not contemplate genocide with total detachment and equanimity although he is willing to admit that life as a historian hardens one to the extent and brutality of calculating governmental brutality. He is not willing to buy into the proposition that genocide per se let alone violations of human rights constitutes a threat to American national interests and security which compels response beyond the rhetorical.

There are several historically rooted reasons buttressing the contention that massive violations of human rights including the starkest expression of violation, genocide, does not constitute a threat to national interests and security. Some of these should be self-evident to Mr Perry and Ms Albright as they witnessed them during the Clinton years.

The first of these historical experiences is a negative lesson from a generally positive outcome. The venue was the ruins of Yugoslavia. The time frame was the 1990s. The cause was "ethnic cleansing" in Bosnia. The outcome was a seeming success with the atrocities ended and at least some of the major perpetrators arrested.

The important lesson is not that the intervention by NATO worked. While that is true, it is also less important than the negative lesson which must be taken away from the experience. The operation, including the low risk, high payoff bombing campaign worked simply because of the unique nature of the Bosnian context.

The venue was small, easily isolated. The ethnic rivals were easily identified. The support among the larger population for the atrocities committed by the ethnic cleansers was weak and easily eroded. The participants on all sides came to be revolted by their own excesses. Beyond that, there was a growing fear that if the chaos was not ended quickly, it would become an unendable monster as the dead increasingly dictated a policy of revenge and counter-revenge.

There was an almost palpable sense of relief in the disintegrating remnants of Yugoslavia when NATO and the US provided a way out. Promised a chance to end the mutual dance of slaughter without any particular group losing either face or internal cohesion.

In short, Mr Perry, Ms Albright, et al should take a firm grip on the ground truth of Bosnia. It constitutes a success which is nearly non-replicable.

There are other realities which the group headed by the ex-SecDef and ex-SecState should get a grip on. It is even more important that Susan Rice and others in the incoming Obama Administration get a grip on the limitations inherent to any attempt to prevent or punish genocide or other crimes against the purported rights of all humans.

Mr Perry and Ms Albright were around during the debacle of the US intervention in Somalia. They were witnesses if not architects of the disastrous adventure in mission creep which saw the US start out with the High Minded but achievable goal of protecting UN humanitarian relief convoys and distribution centers. Over the span of only a few months, the mission shifted from one of defending convoys and centers to one of suppressing warlords and building a nation.

Insufficient force combined with deficient planning and an excess of ignoring basic intelligence concerning the Somalis and an exuberance of ideology to assure an American defeat. Make no mistake about it. We were defeated in Somalia. Defeated in the field in the course of one botched commando style raid. Defeated in our political will by the televised imagery of American corpses dragged through the dust of Mogadishu.

The defeat of the US in Somalia had long term consequences. Consequences with which we are still dealing. The American defeat convinced Osama bin Ladin and others that the US lacked the stomach for killing and being killed. It convinced these prototypical jihadists that they could achieve their policy goal of forcing the US out of the Mideast if only they could inflict enough casualties in a high profile way on our citizens and troops.

The rest is, as they say, history. More properly, it is the Law of Unintended Consequences at work.

Another argument against taking action whenever and wherever violations of human rights occurs is the nature of international politics. Countries such as China and Russia have a sensitive regard for protecting "internal affairs" from the actions or even the inspection of outsiders. It is necessary to balance our national interests which may well require the understanding cooperation of major actors such as these two permanent members of the Security Council with emotional or ethical repugnance at the acts of governments such as that of Sudan.

In short, we must carefully assess where our genuine interests reside and not be driven by ideological considerations or the emotional gales of people outraged by gory media depictions of atrocities. Every Great Power from Great Britain in the Sudan over a hundred years ago to us in the past decade has suffered the negative consequences of emotional and ideologically driven policy decisions.

A final cautionary note for all of those eager to embrace the propositions of the Perry-Albright report (that means you, Ms Rice,) Well intended humanitarian actions may well have the result of freeing obnoxious governments from the necessity of basic reform. The efforts of High Minded, Lofty Thinking outsiders to alleviate human suffering in the short-term may well result in the paradoxical effect of assuring the suffering continues in the long run.

The paradoxical effects of well-intended efforts at humanitarian relief can be seen time after (literally) bloody time in Africa. Sometimes and under some conditions the best love is tough love, the best humanitarian gesture is doing nothing. There are times and places such as Zimbabwe today where only the absence of aid and the concomitant increase of human suffering will serve to cure the greater ill: The government of Kleptocrat in Chief Robert Mugabe.

It is neither pleasurable nor instructive to stand by with folded arms as people suffer and die. Neither is it pleasurable or instructive to watch as foreign troops fight, kill, and die in order to end atrocities or punish their perpetrators.

That's why foreign policy is usually a matter of choosing the least-worst option. That is why only cool assessment of genuine national interests and not feel good emotions or ideology must be the basis for foreign policy.