Today is the 60th anniversary of the day the Communist NORKs crossed the 38th parallel and attacked South Korea.
A few things happened immediately after .President Truman went to the UNSC to get permission to defend South Korea (Resolution 82). General MacArthur was appointed Commander of the UN forces . President Truman ;under the assumption that the Korean war was the opening salvo in WW III ,asked the President of Columbia University ,former WWII Allied Supreme Commander Dwight David Eisenhower ,to assume command of NATO .Ike assumed command in 1951 and spent 15 months organizing the defense of Europe.

I will skip a lot of details and fast forward to April 5 1951 . Representative Joseph William Martin Jr. revealed a letter from MacArthur critical of President Truman's limited-war strategy and read it on the floor of the house.

Quote:

---

'It seems strangely difficult for some to realize that here in Asia is where the Communist conspirators have elected to make their play for global conquest, and that we have joined the issue thus raised on the battlefield; that here we fight Europe’s war with arms while the diplomats there still fight it with words; that if we lose the war to communism in Asia the fall of Europe is inevitable, win it and Europe most probably would avoid war and yet preserve freedom. As you pointed out, we must win. "There is no substitute for victory."'

---

Douglas MacArthur - Wikiquote
Truman met with Secretary of Defense George Marshall, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Omar Bradley ,Sec. State Dean Acheson and Averill Harriman . The military leadership was not in favor of MacArthur's dismissal ,but Truman sided with Acheson and dismissed him.

Meanwhile Ike began getting letters from New Hampshire Governor Sherman Adams (who later became Ike's White House Chief of Staff ),and other Republicans ,suggesting that Ike throw his hat in the ring for a 1952 Presidential bid.

The rest is history... one Truman General dismissed ,the General he called on to serve became President.

I know that the parallel is not exact. But still the comparison is compelling . McChrystal like MacArthur will "fade away" .

Despite calling on General Petreaus to pull him out of the fire ;Obama fears the political fortunes of the General. Perhaps the President thinks demoting the General ,and placing him into the impossible position of executing the war under the terms the President has set will derail the General's political ambitions before they get on track.

Tunku Varadarajan at the Daily Beast thinks so.

Quote:

---

Barack Obama, who has in recent days turned haplessness into an art form, played a masterstroke today, making perhaps the canniest, wiliest, even wisest decision of his generally rudderless presidency. I refer, of course, to his appointment of David Petraeus to the Afghan war command, in place of the Rolling-Stoned Stanley McChrystal. In doing so, Obama has, at a stroke, taken Petraeus out of the 2012 presidential race.
Keep your friends close—and the competition closer.

---

http://www.thedailybeast.com/.../dav...-2012-running/

The parallel would be complete if like Truman ;the bogus POTUS got tired of the gig and announced he would not seek a 2nd term... one can only hope.

Quote:

---

Obama has, at a stroke, taken Petraeus out of the 2012 presidential race.

---

Tom I don't think you believe that any more than I do, Patraeus may not even have the health to pursue the afghan campaign, I remember some other generals this prediction has been made about, and yes, your nation could benefit from the leadership of a good general, but I do think your review of Korea is valid at this time. Remember these generals don't have the status or record of a McArthur or an Eisenhower

I don't think we have any idea what is in the mind of the North Koreans, they are so paranoid that they might do anything. There is a difference with 60 years ago, North Korea doesn't enjoy the same support for a war from China as it did then, and there is no USSR to back them. 60 years ago China had little to loose, today to support the North Koreans would be disastrous, their prosperity would vanish like the morning mist

I think we need to remember the communist adage, "we will sell the last capitalist the rope to hang himself" who would have thought they could put themselves in that position.

The risk for the President is that General P succeeds despite the handcuffs his CIC places on him.

It is with no small sense of glee that I watch the libs ;who smeared General P as 'General BetrayUS' when he was Bush's General ,are now begging him to pull their butts out of the fire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

It is with no small sense of glee that I watch the libs ;who smeared General P as 'General BetrayUS' when he was Bush's General ,are now begging him to pull their butts out of the fire.

---

Yep, MoveOn finally decided to pull that ad in light of the circumstances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

are now begging him to pull their butts out of the fire.

---

Hello tom:

Given how we've botched this effort so far, I think "pulling our butts out of the fire" in an EXCELLENT name for the generals first operation. I say that, because I have NO IDEA what "pulling our butts out of the fire" looks like strategically, or how to achieve it tactically. But, it IS how we've been fighting this war so far, so why not continue??

Or, we could end the fiasco and come home. There's no there, there.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Or, we could end the fiasco and come home. There's no there, there.

excon

---

EX I think you have found an excellent name for it, the Afghan fiasco

The word fiasco means an absolute, abject or utterly humiliating failure

I agree we should all leave before the failure becomes absolute because it is already abject and certainly humiliating

Yesterday the NORKS demanded $75 trillion in compensation from the US because of our 6 decades of hostility .
N Korea seeks $75 trillion in compensation - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

It occures to me that under the theory put forward on another thred that "we ARE the evil oppressors of the world",and we have been "occupying" Korea since the post WWII division of the peninsula ,Kim Jong mentally-ILL has a case.

Quote:

---

KCNA said the figure includes $US26.1 trillion arising from US "atrocities" which left more than 5 million North Koreans dead, wounded, kidnapped or missing.

---

Those atrocities they refer to is defending South Korea (with a mandate from the UN) against an invasion from the North.
But ,since the only reason we were there was our occupation of the country ,we are the guilty party.

I'm sure the President will meet with Kim and extend an open hand ;do some tough negotiations;split the difference ,and hold a Rose Garden ceremony where he'll brag about saving the US $37.5 trillion.

Or maybe Kim will settle for a bow .

I see another beer summit in the works.

So give it to them Tom as a retirement bonus for Kim Jong Ill but make it tied aid so it can only be spent in the US

They don't need it... their counterfeit operation must've printed more than $75 bilion US dollars by now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

they don't need it ... their counterfeit operation must've printed more than $75 bilion US dollars by now.

---

If that were so the US dollar would be worthless, but then it is isn't it

A little vindication for the General today as he was confirmed by the Senate 99-0. Seems that would include most of the 25 Democratic Senators that voted against the Republican resolution in the defense of his and our military's honor after MoveOn's "General Betrayus" smear.

That would include Harry Reid, who said of Petraeus at the time “I don’t believe him" and, “For someone, whether it’s Gen. Petraeus or anyone else, to say things are great in Baghdad isn’t in touch with what’s going on in Baghdad, even though he’s there and I’m not.”

Now of course, Dingy Harry didn't really call the general a liar and out of touch, he was really slamming Bush.

“Sen. Reid had criticisms of the civilian decisionmaking and President Bush’s ‘stay-the-course’ strategy in Iraq while Gen. Petraeus served there," according to a Reid Spokeswoman.

I really wonder sometimes how these people can sleep at night.

I assume that General P will carry the diplomatic water for the State Dept . Too. I hope Evita doesn't have to "surrender disbelief " again . My guess is that if she does it will be willful .

You know Tom to get back on theme I do think the piece of history that is repeating itsself is Vietnam. That Afghanistan conflict is going the same way and with the recent attack on the NATO base even reflecting some of the minor detail like the Teit offensive. I think america is about to learn that short of nuking the Taliban back to the stone age there is no victory only rhetoric and a succession of battered heroes. So here's a strategy, why don't you start at one end and just drop daisy cutters right down to the other end and when you get there the Taliban will be gone like a puff of smoke, the same smoke your generals are smoking

With a firm timeline for withdrawal I have no doubt that an enemy victory will happen. Part of the reason the COIN worked in Iraq was because all sides were sure of one thing... President Bush was committed to the course of action regardless of the opposition .

General P's job will be difficult because the Pakis and the Karzai regime are already making plans for a post-NATO Afghanistan.

Jonathan Alter in his book 'The Promise: President Obama, Year One' writes that one of the major considerations in the President's AfPakia strategery including the unwise scheduled date of withdrawal... July 2011.. is that the President was worried about being "boxed in" by General P's political ambitions.

Quote:

---

Some aides worried at least briefly that Petraeus was politically ambitious and was making an implied threat: Decided Afghanistan my way, or I just might resign my command and run for president in 2012. It wasn't a crazy thought. Representative Peter King and various blogs were promoting him for high office. Although he insisted he was uninterested, Petraeus was a registered Republican in New Hampshire and well positioned to run as a Colin Powell-style alternative to Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, or anyone else in the 2012 presidential primaries.

---

When General P testified to the Senate (prior to the McChrystal firing ) ,he was asked about the timeline . He paused for about 10 seconds for dramatic impact ,before giving very guarded grudging support of the plan .

Meanwhile the President seems less sure that July 2011 is a realistic goal .

I think if the General is forced to stick to the plan as envisioned by Obama and VP Bite-me ,he will resign in plenty time to put his hat in the ring. If the President lets the General reshape the battlefield ;and take direct control of coordinating the diplomatic effort in AfPakia (goodby Eichenberry and Holbrooke).Then I think the General will suspend any thoughts of challenging the President because their future will be tied together.