The View from Right Field

A Belated Comment on the 60th Anniversary of the End of the Korean War

I apologize for missing the 60th anniversary of the end of the Korean War.  It was last Saturday, July 27.  The ceasefire in Korea went into effect on July 27, 1953.  With the good war that was World War II, the bad war that was Vietnam, and the “other” wars that were/are the Persian Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan, Korea often gets lost.  This is unfortunate because there is much that can be learned from the success that we achieved in Korea.

Success in Korea, you might ask.  What success?  It was a stalemate, many say.  Conventional wisdom is that we didn’t win; we tied.  In the case of Korea, conventional wisdom is wrong.  We did achieve our goals, and that is success.

In 1950, Korea was divided along the 38th parallel.  In June, the North invaded.  To say we were not ready would be an understatement.  As the South Korean army disintegrated, the forces we rushed to Korea fell back and back – and back.  Finally, almost amazingly, we held.  That was Pusan.

In September, one of the greatest landings ever, at Inchon, we hit the North Koreans in their rear, and knocked them back.  (It is amazing to me how few people today have even heard of Inchon.)  It was now the North Koreans’ turn to fall back – and they did.  Almost all of the way back to the Yalu River, which was the border with China (a/k/a Red China).  As the U.S. and U.N. forces got too close to China, Chinese “volunteers” attacked and threw the U.S./U.N. back again.

Victor David Hanson had a great article in The Wall Street Journal last Saturday on how General Matthew Ridgeway stopped the Chinese attacks and returned the front to the 38th parallel.  This time, however, we stopped there.  Then, finally, after two years of fighting along that line, a cease-fire was agreed upon.

As I said above, many people think it was a tie.  We didn’t beat them.  We just agreed to stop fighting.  But that is the wrong way to look at it.  Unifying Korea was never our goal (or at least it shouldn’t have been).  We couldn’t do it – or at least it wasn’t worth trying to do.  But we could prevent North Korea from conquering South Korea, and we did that.  And, after a little more time than one would have hoped, a real democracy took root in South Korea.  Today, South Korea is a free, rich country.  North Korea is a hermit country, with poor people who have no rights.  If the Berlin Wall was, at one time, a symbol of the two sides of the Cold War, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea very clearly demonstrate who won the Korean War.

For an excellent history of the Korean War, I very strongly recommend This Kind of War by T. R. Fehrenbach.  (It’s listed in “Books Worth Reading” in the left column.)  I first read this book almost 50 years ago, in the summer of 1964.  It is a great story and a great read.  I learned a lot when I read it the first time, and I have learned more each time I have re-read it.

One main thing I learned is that you “win” wars by accomplishing your goal.  Sometimes that goal is unconditional surrender.  Other times it is just kicking out the invaders.  Korea, properly viewed, was the latter, and it was a victory.

One final thing.  This past weekend we visited Springfield.  We went to Lincoln’s Tomb, which is always moving.  When we were done, we went to the memorials for World War II, Vietnam and Korea that are also in Oak Ridge Cemetery.  The memorials are very impressive and well worth a visit.  Part of the memorial for the Korean War was this panel of the battle of Chosin Reservoir:

If you don’t know what the battle of Chosin Reservoir was, you should.  You could see this Wikipedia article on it.  Better, though, would be to read about it in This Kind of War.

Trading for Prospects – Matt Garza and Chris Archer Edition

The Cubs recently traded Matt Garza to the Texas Rangers for several prospects.  Given where the Cubs are going this year (and probably next), that is a good idea.  Let’s hope that one of those prospects does as well as Chris Archer is doing for the Tampa Bay Rays right now.  Here are Chris’s current stats, including his last ten starts. 

The reason I am mentioning Chris Archer is that he is just one of the prospects that Jim Hendry traded to Tampa Bay in January of 2011 to get Matt Garza.  Two of the others, Brandon Guyer and Robinson Chirinos, have also played in the majors.  Let’s hope that Theo Epstein, et al, were able to get as much for Matt Garza as Jim Hendry gave up to get him.

Hayek on the NSA – and More

One of the things I am enjoying about retirement is that I have the time to read books that I never got to before.  I am currently reading The Constitution of Liberty by Friedrich A. Hayek.  I thought this passage is particularly appropriate today:

“We cannot enumerate here all the rights or protected interests which serve to secure to the legal person a known sphere of unimpeded action.  But, since modern man has become a little insensitive on this point, it ought perhaps to be mentioned that the recognition of a protected individual sphere has in times of freedom normally included a right to privacy and secrecy, the conception that a man’s house is his castle and that nobody has a right even to take cognizance of his activities within it.”

-----------
* Friedrich A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, The University of Chicago Press (1962), page 142.

Sweet Caroline to Japan

President Obama’s appointment of Caroline Kennedy to be ambassador to Japan is an embarrassment for the United States and an indication of how little the President cares about foreign policy.

Look at some of our recent ambassadors to Japan:  Mike Mansfield (1977 to 1988), Michael Armacost (1989 to 1993), Walter Mondale (1993 to 1996), Thomas Foley (1997 to 2001), and Howard Baker (2001 to 2005).  These people were heavyweights.  They knew what they were doing, and they demonstrated to Japan that we respected them as an ally.  With all due respect to Ms. Kennedy, she is neither of these.  To show how little she is qualified for this job, according to this morning’s Chicago Tribune*, she is considering hiring an expert on Japan to advise her as ambassador.

While the matter does not appear a lot in our new media (George Zimmerman isn’t involved), China and Japan are currently involved in a very serious dispute over the ownership of certain islands in the East China Sea.  Maybe their dispute seems silly to us, but it is not.  There is a real potential for fighting.  This is a serious matter between two very important countries.  It is not a place for a trainee ambassador.

Also, North Korean nuclear weapons may be a worry for us some time later this decade or next.  For Japan, it’s a worry now.  North Korean missiles can hit Japan today.  And yet Barack Obama is appointing a person without experience or knowledge to be our ambassador to that country.

All of which goes to show that Barack Obama doesn’t seem to care about foreign affairs.  In the case of Libya, the Administration talked about leading from behind.  The appointment of Carline Kennedy to be U.S. ambassador to Japan is not a matter of leading from behind; it is not caring at all.
----------
* Actually, while I read the article in the Tribune, as you can see, the link is to the Los Angeles Times.  The Tribune isn't really a serious national newspaper anymore.

UPDATE (7/29/13): I corrected a typo in the last sentence of the second paragraph by inserting the word "how".  Thanks to my number one copy editor for pointing out the typo.

FURTHER UPDATE (8/1/13 1:00 am): I corrected the reference in the third paragraph from "South China Sea" to "East China Sea."  

The Heckler: "Worried about being traded, Nate Schierholtz promises to strike out next time"

Here is another article from The Heckler: "Worried about being traded, Nate Schierholtz promises to strike out next time”.

Barack Obama as the Afghan Hamlet – Redux

Four years ago this fall, Barack Obama spent months deciding what to do in Afghanistan.  (See here, here, and here.)  When he finally made a decision, he split the baby in half.  He promised a surge, but he also promised to take the troops out right away.

On July 11, both Democratic Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Republican Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee called on President Obama to decide on the number of troops that will stay in Afghanistan after we withdraw from combat next year.

Senator Menendez said, “The lack of clarity on this point has led to too much hedging in the region.”  He also said, “Afghans who may otherwise be interested in building a fledgling democracy want to know that they will not be abandoned by the United States as the Taliban claims they will be.”

Senator Corker agreed: “This continued looking at our navel, trying to make a decision, having competing forces at the White House, is hurting us, it’s hurting our efforts in Afghanistan, it’s hurting our military and it’s hurting our allies.”

Not only is the President delaying decision, the Administration has floated the idea that we might leave Afghanistan completely at the end of 2014 (as we did in Iraq at the end of 2011).  While the theory is that the Administration is bluffing, and using the so-called “zero option” as a threat to pressure Afghan President Karzai, it’s unclear.  As I have said before, I think President Obama would be happy to leave (a/k/a abandon) Afghanistan as soon as possible.  It served its purpose as a campaign issue in 2008.  His interest in it now doesn’t seem to be there.

Ryan Crocker, former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan (and Iraq, among other countries), said this about the zero option idea:

"If it's a tactic, it is mindless; if it is a strategy, it is criminal.

Nothing could encourage the Taliban more.  The Pakistanis [who are helping the Taliban] will dig in harder.  It will send Karzai in completely the wrong direction.

It invokes memories of the early 1990s.  It's as if we're telling the Afghans, ‘We're tired, we're going home, screw you.’”

As The Washington Post noted in an editorial yesterday:

“A full withdrawal would be at odds with the strategic partnership pact already signed by the two governments and NATO’s agreement in June on a post-2014 ‘concept of operations’ in the country – not to mention President Obama’s repeated public pledges that the United States would continue to stand behind Afghanistan.” 

How can we expect our allies, who we want to stay in Afghanistan, to agree to stay, when we won’t tell them what we are going to do?  Even more importantly, as Senator Menendez said, how can we expect the Afghani people to work with us when they don’t know how many of us, if any, will still there 18 months from now?

We have invested hundreds of billions of dollars in Afghanistan.  We have invested thousands of lives, of Americans and our allies, in Afghanistan.  Most importantly, we pledged our word and our honor to the Afghani people.  President Obama needs to reaffirm those investments and that pledge – and he needs to do it now.  Otherwise, those dollars and those lives will be wasted, and our word and our commitment will be devalued.  If President Obama fails to follow through in Afghanistan, when we promise help in the future, who will believe us?  When we ask for help, who will give it?

Obamacare’s Individual Mandate: A Question

Here is the question:  If a person doesn’t buy healthcare insurance when her or she is first obligated to buy it under the Affordable Care Act, should it be okay for the insurance company to deny them coverage, when they do apply, because of a pre-existing condition where the pre-existing condition arose between the time they were first supposed to buy insurance and when they ultimately applied?  Obviously, the law doesn’t allow it.  Should it?

If NSA Snooping Is Really Necessary, the President Needs to Spend More Time Defending It

My initial reaction to the reports about National Security Agency’s “spying”/“snooping” (whatever the proper word is) was to credit those who said that the intrusion was minor and the benefit was great.  I am still, I think, of that opinion, but the more I hear about the program, the more significant the intrusion seems.  According to information that has come out (here and here, among others), the NSA is apparently collecting information on phone numbers called and length of phone calls.  The Administration says they are not listening to the calls, but numbers called and length of calls is a pretty big deal.  I am sure a private investigator checking on whether a husband or wife is cheating on his or her spouse would love to get a list of numbers called and the length of the calls.  The investigator wouldn’t need to know what was said.  Who was called and how long the calls were would be good enough.

It may be appropriate and necessary for the NSA to collect the information they are collecting.  But somebody important needs to tell us that – and convince us that it’s necessary.  The President did go on PBS to defend the program back in June.  Still, it’s PBS.  He has been out making speeches on Obamacare (which I understand).  He also made a special appearance in the White House press office last Friday to talk at length about the Trayvon Martin case and to tell individual states what they should be doing about their “stand and defend” laws. 

If the NSA program is important, then the Administration and the President need to spend more time, and political capital (if necessary), defending it. 

A Reluctant Comment on the Trayvon Martin Case

I guess I will comment, briefly, on the reaction to the Trayvon Martin case and jury’s verdict in it.

First, in response to those who say we need a national conversation about race, at times it seems like race is all we are talking about.  Maybe instead of talking about race all the time, we should be quiet about it for a while.  We have, after all, elected, and re-elected, a black President.  We also have Hispanic senators and Indian governors, all elected by majority white electorates.  That’s pretty good.

Some people feel bad they need to have talks with their sons, talks that they never thought they would have to have.  But while upper middle class parents have one conversation, parents who live in the gang killing fields in Chicago have to have another.  In many ways, those conversations are sadder.

The President talks about black men “walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars.”  I understand that can be disconcerting, but I also know that statistically Asian ladies are less likely to do things that could be stopped by locking car doors.

A final comment:  Sometimes sores heal faster when they are not constantly rubbed.

Syria and International Law. What Is the Obama Administration Thinking?

There was a fascinating article in last Monday’s The Wall Street Journal entitled “Legal Fears Slowed Aid to Syrian Rebels.”  The article deserves some comment because of what it says about how foreign policy is being made in the Obama administration and the self-imposed limitations that the Administration’s view of international law puts on our policy and our policy-making.

The first three paragraphs set the background:

“A string of cautionary opinions from administration lawyers over the last two years sheds new light on President Barack Obama’s halting and ultimately secretive steps to provide military support to rebels in Syria's deadly civil war.

Members of the so-called Lawyers Group of top legal advisers from across the administration argued that Mr. Obama risked violating international law and giving Syrian President Bashar al-Assad the legal grounds—and motivation—to retaliate against Americans, said current and former officials.

The group's arguments in part help explain why the White House agonized over Syria intervention and why Mr. Obama eventually opted to provide military aid to the rebels covertly through the Central Intelligence Agency, to help mitigate the legal risks and keep the U.S.'s profile low.”

The article continues, a little later:

“U.N. Security Council resolutions that could authorize outside intervention in Syria have been blocked by Russia, which was critical of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization-led mission in Libya in 2011, constraining the U.S.'s legal options.”

As I have said before, I think we are foolish to accept the idea that U.N. Security Council resolutions are the only way intervention can be justified.  Voting in the United Nations is seldom about law and mostly about self-interest.  Are we really willing to give a Russia or a China, voting on the basis of their own self-interest, a veto over what is or is not legal under international law, especially when we follow such “law” when we decide what we can and cannot do in international affairs?  I would say “No,” but the article seems to indicate that some in the Administration would not agree with me.

“U.S. officials give two possible explanations as to why the lawyers were cautious.  Some say it reflected the extent to which Mr. Obama and his legal advisers sought to draw a distinction with the Bush administration and its approach to international law.”

I am not sure that “not Bush” is a good basis for legal analysis, though I would not be surprised if it appeals to President Obama.  

“A reconstruction of the debate over arming the Syrian opposition shows how much administration lawyers played a cautionary role in the process, parrying calls for more assertive U.S. action by citing the risks of skirting international law, triggering a shooting war and setting legal precedents that could be cited by other countries, such as Russia and China. …

Key members of the [legal] group raised objections soon after the start of the Syrian uprising, in March 2011, when some in the State Department argued for recognizing the opposition and severing ties to the regime, said current and former officials.

Then-State Department legal adviser Harold Koh and other administration lawyers argued that could be viewed as meaning the U.S. no longer recognized Mr. Assad's government, officials involved in the debate said.

That, they argued, could relieve him of his responsibilities under international law such things as the use of chemical weapons under his government's control.”

The idea that our not recognizing President Assad’s government would somehow mean Syria was no longer prohibited under international law from using chemical weapons does not make sense to me.*  In any case, as it happened, the United States did continue to recognize President Assad’s government, and they used chemical weapons anyway.  President Assad might have used our lack of recognition as a public relations excuse, but he was always going to make his decision on whether to use chemical weapons based what he thought he needed to do to stay in power and what his supporters, such as Russia, would let him get away with.

“…[T]he Lawyers Group questioned whether the State Department could provide military support directly to forces fighting a war in which the U.S. wasn't formally engaged.  Lawyers also told the White House that providing military aid would allow Mr. Assad under international law to declare Americans combatants, whether in military uniforms or not, and target them for taking sides in another country's civil war.

The lawyers said even a State Department proposal to supply rebel fighters with food rations could give Mr. Assad legal grounds go after Americans.”

If President Assad goes after Americans, it will not be because he has “legal grounds” to do so.  It will be because he thinks he can get some advantage out of doing so and because he thinks the United States is too weak to do anything about it.

“The legal debate over providing military support to the rebels came to a head earlier this year.

In February, Secretary of State Kerry was poised to fly to Rome where officials hoped he would announce a U.S. decision to, for the first time, provide nonlethal military equipment along with halal meals and medical kits, directly to the Western-backed rebel army of Gen. Salim Idris, current and former U.S. officials said.

At the time, the administration balked at authorizing the State Department to provide military equipment: Using the State Department to do so was "legally available" under domestic law, but questionable under international law.  As a result, Mr. Kerry announced only plans to provide food rations and medical kits, disappointing the opposition.

Some lawyers continued to raise objections to even the pared-down plan, arguing that Gen. Idris's Free Syrian Army should deliver the supplies only to unarmed civilians, instead of giving them to fighters, said an official briefed on the matter.”

Lawyers (or people) who think that supplies can be delivered with these kinds of limitations in a war zone, don’t live in the real world and shouldn’t be giving advice to people who do.

“While the smaller CIA footprint may reduce the risk that Mr. Assad will launch attacks on U.S. personnel arming and training rebels mainly in Jordan and diplomats and aid workers in other countries such as Lebanon, current and former officials say the legal risks remain.

The lawyers told the White House that Mr. Assad was under no obligation to draw a distinction between the CIA and other branches of the U.S. government.

‘Once Assad claims a right to attack American citizens, we're in a whole new game,’ a former official said.”

The way to stop Bashar al-Assad from attacking American citizens, if it comes to that, is with strength, not legal briefs and lawyers arguing fine points of international law. 

I have no problem with international law.  It does many good things.  But people need to understand its limitations.  We can’t be limited by an international law that allows Vladimir Putin’s Russia to decide which international interventions are permissible and which are not.  Similarly, we can’t be the only ones following international law.  We can be a leader, but we can’t be foolish.  Reality must prevail over good intentions.  My worry is that too many of the Administration’s lawyers seem to be focusing on the latter instead of the former.
--------
* If that were true, it certainly wouldn’t say much about international law.