Still No Substitute for Victory
- Print print this page
- Discuss 29 comments, Blog about
Advertisement
Wars must be won. It sounds simple, even axiomatic. But it is an American goal that has not been achieved since World War II. Within the next few years, we may pay in blood for that timidity.
In 1950, North Korea, a puppet Communist state of the Soviet Union and China, attacked South Korea, an American protectorate, by sending troops across their common border. President Harry Truman summoned the architect of the Pacific war, Douglas MacArthur, to destroy the Stalinist state that had launched the attack. Then China, with its sea of soldiers, entered the war.
MacArthur took two positions: (1) arm the nationalists of Chiang Kai-Shek to invade mainland China, and (2) prevent Chinese troops from entering the fight by using tactical atomic weapons against the hordes crossing the Yalu River. In defense of his strategy, the general wrote to the president, "There is no substitute for victory." MacArthur was fired.
The liberal press hailed Harry for his statesmanship when his decision made him unpopular. The elite only glorified the president more when he was forced to refrain from a re-election run in 1952. They ridiculed the American public for giving MacArthur a ticker-tape parade while "giving Harry hell."
The result of Truman's action was that America, with its 1950 population of about 150 million, was locked in a land war with a country of about 563 million. Even with superior technology, America could not win such a war so long as it could not use its best arms and its most motivated allies to attack those who would ally with its enemy.
The war was fought to a stalemate, and North Korea survived. A bamboo curtain was then drawn throughout East Asia to protect a new Chinese sphere of influence
Building upon Truman's rejection of the MacArthur Doctrine, the United States refused to invade North Vietnam during that war. We waited, in fear of China, until North Vietnam invaded the South and the war was lost
Today, this Truman Doctrine of limited war has resulted in our ignoring the Iranian makers of weapons used to fight Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, back in East Asia, Korea's Pusan Peninsula has become an American outpost with its back to the sea. There we await, occasioned sometimes by failure and sometimes by success, the development of a North Korean orbital or suborbital nuclear warhead capable of threatening North America, the development of which is protected by the still-Red Chinese.
Our limited wars, whether waged by Democrats or Republicans, have done us little good. A decade ago, President George W. Bush recognized that there was an "axis of evil" from Iran to Iraq to North Korea. Today, Iran and North Korea are deep into the development of a space program supposedly in search of science, but actually in search of an intercontinental ballistic missile.
And, with respect to Iraq, our limited war there has only installed Iranian allies into the power structure. In fact, so tight are today's leaders of Iran with those of Iraq that the Iranians have insisted on holding their nuclear talks in Baghdad.
The failure to defeat China at the Yalu River has now rendered us impotent to confront the current North Korean threat not only to South Korea, but also to the mainland of the United States. The idea of limited war first put forth by Harry Truman now forces us to wait and watch while North Korea perfects its nuclear delivery system and starves its people.
That same paralyzing fear of a "wider war" also puts America on the sidelines while a space nuclear missile system is negotiated in Iraq and perfected in Iran.
During the 20th century, there were several generals far ahead of their times, despised by the politicians but appreciated by the general public. Certainly there was Billy Mitchell. And perhaps, with some debate, one could add George Patton. But the general to whom America owes its greatest apology is clearly Douglas MacArthur, the man who was accused of trying to start World War III, but, in reality, could have prevented that war, which we may be still doomed to fight.
To paraphrase MacArthur, the only substitute for victory is a future war with the evil we failed to defeat.
Robert M. Levy is chairman of the Moore County Republican Party. Contact him at Law52@prodigy.net.
More like this story
Advertisement
Comments
Easygoing 1 year, 1 month ago
Unbelievable article! Breathtaking in its suggestions. Genghis Khan would be proud.
emb6683 1 year, 1 month ago
I'll have to re-read some of the books in my library, I don't remember things happening as described here.
Toyboy52 1 year, 1 month ago
Kahn had a good idea, just a different direction and a wall instead of a river. Otherwise, correct.
Toyboy52 1 year, 1 month ago
@emb6683: still waiting for any historical inaccuracy.
emb6683 1 year, 1 month ago
Research does take a while. Start with the quotation "There is no substitute for victory." MacArthur said this in his farewell address to Congress after he was relieved by Truman. I can't find where he actually wrote that in any of his messages to Truman before his relief. He did use that phrase in a letter on 20 Mar 1951 to Congressman Joe Martin, where he supported Martin's criticism of the President. Martin's subsequent publication of these criticisms, for political purposes, was one of the reasons MacArthus was relieved.
The article says that Truman "summoned the architect of the Pacific war." MacArthur was supreme allied commander of the Southwest Pacific theater of operations; Admiral Nimitz was the commander of the Pacific Ocean Areas, so it is inaccurate to credit one man with the distinction of being the architect of the Pacific war.
And "summoning" makes it sound like Truman called MacArthur out of retirement or somewhwere to take charge in Korea. The fact is that MacArthur was already in Japan as the Supreme Commander Allied Powers, so it was only logical that his authourities be extended to Korea and that he be designated as CINC Far East.
Is that enough to start?
TPicking44 1 year, 1 month ago
Every word is pure, brilliant truth. Mr. Levy is at the top of my wish list for our next Secretary of Defense.
Easygoing 1 year, 1 month ago
So Mr. Levy is advocating that we should have (and presumably in the future) should start a nuclear war (to obtain his version of victory). Rather not have him in charge of anything much less be anywhere the red button. Love it when the hawks call for everyone else to die for their beliefs.
Bentpan 1 year, 1 month ago
Easygoing 19 minutes ago Love it when the hawks call for everyone else to die for their beliefs.
The rest of us love it when the Hawks call for the enemy to die rather than our young men and women. If we went back to waging war instead of police actions, we'd be forced into a lot fewer conflicts. An enemy that knows that if he takes us on as a people and a country is going to suffer terribly for it, will back down.Now we feed cloth and give cellphones to those that would kill us all to " Win their hearts and Minds" For over 60 years this approach has failed miserably each and every time.
geoffcutler 1 year, 1 month ago
Yup!
Toyboy52 1 year, 1 month ago
@EMB6683: MacArthur was the archtect of the Pacific War because of his 'island hopping" strategy which created the logistical ability to fight a successful war with a major power while most troops and equipment were committed on the other side of the world. Truman could have "summoned" a number of generals or admirals to take on the Korean war. He chose and summoned MacArthur because of MacArthur's knowledge of the Russian effort at the end of World war II to assert its authority in the Pacific and his knowledge of the area. He also knew that MacArthur was best for the job that Truman had bungled, i.e. refusing to forbid the Soviets from entering the Japanese War in August, 1945. This failure together with failing to fully support the Chinese Nationalists was a cause of the Korean war
dustyrhoades 1 year, 1 month ago
@emb6683: still waiting for any historical inaccuracy.
Just like I'm still waiting, after several weeks and at least two requests, for any legal authority for your assertion a while back that the NC Insurance Commissioners could have been jailed for not regulating credit default swaps.
You can't refuse to answer questions and then act all high and mighty when people don't answer yours, sir.
Why don't you just admit that these little screeds of yours are just preaching to the choir, that they have no persuasive authority whatsoever, and that they're nothing more than cliche-filled, fact-free, slanted political theater meant to fool the rubes into believing that the Grand Angry Old White People's Party has any principles other than saying absolutely anything it takes to win?
(Waiting now for the inevitable "I know you are, but what am I?" response from the Pee Wee Herman Republicans).
geoffcutler 1 year, 1 month ago
"Why don't you just admit that these little screeds of yours are just preaching to the choir, that they have no persuasive authority whatsoever, and that they're nothing more than cliche-filled, fact-free, slanted political theater meant to fool the rubes into believing..." DR
Throwing stones...glass houses...much?
dustyrhoades 1 year, 1 month ago
And there's Preacher Geoff, right on schedule, proving me right. Thanks, Preacher!
fugitiveguy 1 year, 1 month ago
Who can you boast of bringing into the light?
JER 1 year, 1 month ago
May I suggest that the next war we decide to engage in involve the entire country, not just those who otherwise would have no job. Any future military action should involve a draft of all able bodied Americans between the ages of 18 and 40 with only severe medical and mental deferments. Every American must sacrifice their normal daily routine for the war effort. All resources must be available for the war effort. We must be willing to use all the weapons at our disposal to achieve a swift and conclusive victory while being willing to accept that our enemy intends to do the same thing. Perhaps if we enter the next conflict using these parameters, we will find a lot fewer people beating the war drum.
geoffcutler 1 year, 1 month ago
Hmmm...preacher...there's an idea. Now, for you to admit you were ever wrong...that would take divine intervention. A larger job than any ole preacher could handle.
JER, if we are attacked again like we were on 9/11, I would suggest to you that you would be wrong.
pgericson 1 year, 1 month ago
geoffcutler, I believe JER was talking more about Iraq than Afghanistan. I wonder what Americans would have thought about going to war in Iraq if (a) they had to pay the bill via higher taxes rather than borrowing as we did and (b) a draft was used to expand the armed forces vice hiring civilians for combat support operations.
Nezumi 1 year, 1 month ago
Toyboy - I assume your comment about the Chinese Nationalists refers to the Chinese civil war after 1945? The reasons for the loss of the civil war by the KMT are multiple, and IMO the reason had more to do with inept economic, political, and military leadership by Jiang's gov't and the massive corruption that destroyed his mainland regime from within.
Toyboy52 1 year, 1 month ago
@ Dusty: I would comment on your statement, but it is not factual, just rude.
geoffcutler 1 year, 1 month ago
pg, The hypothetical on Iraq is difficult to consider because neither cost nor civilian involvement were considerations at that time. These are after the fact phenomenon, and unfortunate consequences of what some would argue was a botched plan about what to do after we'd militarily disarmed Iraq. You'll remember there was bi-partisan support for the war and had to do with WMD and continued breach of the no fly zone. There was at the time, plenty of domestic support to do something about Hussein, and there was also UN resolution support, if memory serves.
dustyrhoades 1 year, 1 month ago
@ Dusty: I would comment on your statement, but it is not factual, just rude.
I asked politely for your legal authority saying the NC Insurance Commissioners could have been jailed for not regulating credit default swaps. You ignored it.
Face it, you're not interested in a discussion at all. You're not really interested in courtesy at all, except where you can duck a question by whining about someone being mean to you.
This is just a press release from the local GOP Propaganda Flack. So why should I be polite?
FightFireWithFire 1 year, 1 month ago
Remind me not to piss Dusty off. LOL!
JER 1 year, 1 month ago
geoffcutler: When this country is attacked by a foreign government without cause, I will be first in line to defend this nation. When this country is subject to a terrorist attack, the situation is not the same. We didn't retaliate when the Oklahoma City bombing killed many innocent Americans and yet a group of terrorists were involved. Whatever could have been the difference between that and 9/11 to the dead people and their families in Oklahoma?
DoubleHeroides 1 year, 1 month ago
While to a degree I concur that future military action on the level of WW2 and other more “organized” conflicts would ideally be cleaner and “easier” to support morally (from the point of view of public involvement and support), financially and strategically I will point out that the days of fighting a land war like WW2 are long over.
War is an evolving organism and over the past several centuries it has really changed dramatically. Napoleon fought a style of war radically different from that of WW1 and that changed even more radically in WW2. Between the advances in technology and the relative peace between the current superpowers (at least in Europe) the likelihood of a large scale ground war in a first world nation are slim to nil in my humble opinion.
That leaves the majority of conflicts (and our last several decades I think holds this to be true) to be held in smaller third world arenas where the nation turns into a melting pot of people that want to fight for the sake of fighting. It is here that counter-terrorism actions and smaller scale skirmishes are fought without the benefit of the big missiles we have stockpiled.
Could we use those missiles in these smaller conflicts? Sure but we would risk a lot of civilian lives and what kind of nation can we hold ourselves to be if we begin a strategy of saying that all lives (women, children and the elderly) are forfeit to the cause of eradicating the people we don’t like? Just doesn’t seem very Christian or even human to me.
Besides, what do we care if the North Koreans can shoot a missile into the air? We have more missiles that are designed to shoot down bigger and better missiles than North Korean and Iran could ever dream up. We thought we were going to have to take on the Soviets at one time. I think we’ve got it covered.
dustyrhoades 1 year, 1 month ago
Remind me not to __ Dusty off. LOL!
Generally a good idea :-).
Bentpan 1 year, 1 month ago
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
Toyboy52 1 year, 1 month ago
@dusty: you asked why you should be polite? 90% of life consists of manners. If you will get some tutoring I'n that regard, I will take your writing more seriously.
JER 1 year, 1 month ago
DoubleHeroides: Never forget that it was our country who used our nuclear weapons to kill men, women and children to bring and end to a war. We are the only ones to have ever dared to do it. If we have no intent of ever using them again, then we need to destroy all of them. If we feel that we need them as a deterrent, then we should easily be able to understand why any other sovereign nation would want to have them as well. Unfortunately, our past action has taken away the high ground. We can't say that these other nations are too unstable or radical...oh, we could, but it would be a case of "do as I say, not as I do".
All our troops need to be withdrawn and returned to the US where they would actually be protecting our borders and our freedoms. That should be our ultimate victory.
DoubleHeroides 1 year, 1 month ago
Thank you for that JER, you raised just the counter-point I was hoping someone would. Now we get to talk about the lessons learned from our past, about intended and unintended consequences and the issues with holding the future accountable for the actions of our forefathers. I do not regret the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan. The loss of life was great and I am sure that many innocent lives were lost as a result of those actions however since that time has any nuclear bomb been used in combat like that? The answer is no. The effects both immediate and lingering were such that the idea of using nuclear weapons at all became synonymous with the “last stand” or the final solution to the Cold War and the likely end of the world or at least modern society. We have been the only nation to use nuclear force during combat and I would argue that even after that we still retained the higher moral ground following the close of the war, granted history is written by the winner but the Axis powers were so in the wrong that the Allies were able to retain their footing as being “in the right”. But history is history and what we should be discussing is your point of “if American gets to have certain kinds of weapons then everyone else should have them too”. I have to disagree with you. I am allowed to own a handgun but a felon is not, is that necessarily fair even under our Constitution and laws? I would say emphatically yes. Furthermore, where to nuclear weapons come from? They don’t grow on a tree. If we make X number of nuclear weapons and we want to sell them to our friends in other nations that’s our right as the producer and supplier of that product. If there are people we don’t want to sell to that is our right as well. The idea of equitably supplying arms to every nation on the planet seems like quite a silly foreign policy.
JER 1 year ago
DoubleHeroides: I see it differently. I do have a problem with our use of nuclear weapons and the associated instant annihilation of so many non military civilians. We need only reflect on what our reaction would be had it happened here instead. I also would like to remind us that we did not use nuclear weapons to end the European portion of WWII. Our use of these weapons did have the effect of showing the world how truly horrific this type of weapon was, so from that standpoint, it served some useful purpose. The fact that you can own a gun and a felon cannot is not a apples to apples argument unless you consider countries not currently members of the nuclear club to be the equivalent of felons. Nuclear weapons do not grow on trees, but they can be assembled by anyone who has the proper materials and knowledge. Scientists in the 1940's learned how to do it and scientists in the 2000's can also learn how to do it. Having the current nuclear club members sell the technology (or the weapons themselves) is not the only way for other countries to obtain them. The point I am still trying to make is this: If we have them and have used them, what rational can we base our argument against other countries having them?