The latest news from Korea is that American and South Korean forces are planning a "proportional response" in the event that North Korea launches any sort of attack. In other words, if North Korea attacks a South Korean navy ship, the a North Korean vessel will be attacked in retaliation, and no more. The idea is that such a proportional response will keep the conflict from getting out of control.
Are they kidding? In the Vietnam War, the geniuses in Washington decided that America would only respond in proportional ways to the North Vietnamese. As a result, each escalation of the conflict came on the timetable of the North and only at moments when the North was ready to deal with them. The overwhelming strength of the United States was not brought down on the North all at once in a way that might have ended the conflict. After Vietnam, American military strategy supposedly shifted away from proportionality and to overwhelming force instead. This was used in the Gulf war and in Iraq to great effect. So why now would we go back to the failed policy of some many years ago. I have to wonder if the spiritual heirs of the liberals who ran Washington under president Johnson are now using the policies that failed so completely back then.
Why should we let the NK's know that if they shell the south, they will just get hit with a shelling in return? Why not tell them that we will strike back in a way that will make them sorry they ever began hostilities. Let the fear of the unknown prevent them from attacking.
Right now, absent use of a non-conventional method for delivery of nuclear weapons by the North Koreans, the forces of South Korea and the United States ought to be able to win any war resulting from an attack by the NK's. If the NK's are foolish enough to attack, why not wipe them out once and for all. Must we all wait until North Korea develops nuclear missiles in a few years so that the next confrontation comes with Los Angeles, Washington or New York in the crosshairs?
Are they kidding? In the Vietnam War, the geniuses in Washington decided that America would only respond in proportional ways to the North Vietnamese. As a result, each escalation of the conflict came on the timetable of the North and only at moments when the North was ready to deal with them. The overwhelming strength of the United States was not brought down on the North all at once in a way that might have ended the conflict. After Vietnam, American military strategy supposedly shifted away from proportionality and to overwhelming force instead. This was used in the Gulf war and in Iraq to great effect. So why now would we go back to the failed policy of some many years ago. I have to wonder if the spiritual heirs of the liberals who ran Washington under president Johnson are now using the policies that failed so completely back then.
Why should we let the NK's know that if they shell the south, they will just get hit with a shelling in return? Why not tell them that we will strike back in a way that will make them sorry they ever began hostilities. Let the fear of the unknown prevent them from attacking.
Right now, absent use of a non-conventional method for delivery of nuclear weapons by the North Koreans, the forces of South Korea and the United States ought to be able to win any war resulting from an attack by the NK's. If the NK's are foolish enough to attack, why not wipe them out once and for all. Must we all wait until North Korea develops nuclear missiles in a few years so that the next confrontation comes with Los Angeles, Washington or New York in the crosshairs?
No comments:
Post a Comment