Tuesday, November 23, 2010

The Wages of Appeasement

If we needed a reminder about the consequences of appeasement, today's latest act of war by North Korea is a good example. When you tolerate numerous acts of hostilities by a rogue state, including allowing it to get away with sinking one of your warships without significant consequence, don't be surprised when its leadership feels confident in firing artillery into your country. At least this time South Korea struck back with its own guns, albeit in a fairly minor way.

For years, U.S. and South Korean policy toward the North has been essentially one of appeasement and wishful thinking. At the same time, both have supported limited economic sanctions, which while doing nothing to negate the North Korean military threat, created even more hostility. Now the threat has increased and is backed by an unknown number of nuclear weapons. Time and time again North Korea has been allowed to get away with hostile acts, to the point where it has to believe it can do pretty much whatever it wants, and that the South and its U.S. ally are too afraid of war to respond with anything more than empty talk and economic sanctions. Its belligerence has paid off before, forcing negotiations and even agreements which brought direct aid to North Korea.

Although appeasement can delay war, it tends to breed more aggression, confirming the aggressor's views of its enemies as weak and irresolute. But at some point the aggressor is going to miscalculate and go too far, and there will be a war. Hopefully it won't happen now, but it's only a matter of time unless there is a drastic change in policy toward North Korea.

6 comments:

  1. This morning, at 20 after 8 in the morning, I mentioned the "latest" North Korean news to a friend - about how a uranium enrichment facility was found, and its sophistication described by an American nuclear scientist.

    -- To which I quickly found out that this wasn't at ALL the latest from the DPRK! Shameful if you ask me. Nothing I can add really except my agreement that the trend will probably be an escalation in provocative acts, so long as Barack "Chamberlain" Obama and the weak-kneed leadership in South Korea don't do anything about it!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm sure we'll give them a stern talking to about how this behavior is unacceptable to the "international community." No doubt they'll be real impressed.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I always figured western strategy towards NK was to ignore them as much as possible; we really don't want to get involved in a war with 23 million starving, brainwashed people. They're going to collapse at some point.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Unfortunately we are involved whether we want to be or not, since we have thousands of troops stationed there, thousands of American civilians in the Seoul area, and an alliance with South Korea.

    ReplyDelete
  5. So, would you have supported going for an all out war with China back in 53? That would surely have caused way less death...
    By your logic, The US should worry about what threatens the US, how does NK threathens the US? They don't. They are dangerous for South Korea and perhaps Japan. Of course the west was never all that interested in spending whatever was needed to bomb the shit out of them.
    And then look at Seoul. It's very close to the frontier. If war broke out, no matter how fast we acted, NK would have ample time to cause a lot of damages.
    Think before you talk. It is NOT a simple situation. China's involvent if nothing else makes this highly tricky. And if Irak teached us anything, it's that invasion is not all that great. And that running headlong in unecessary war leave you spreaded thin when someone start to actually attack your allies.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "So, would you have supported going for an all out war with China back in 53? That would surely have caused way less death..."

    It isn't 1953. I'm not writing a historical essay on what I think we might have done differently during the Korean War.

    "By your logic, The US should worry about what threatens the US, how does NK threathens the US? They don't."

    Yes, actually they do. A rogue state with nuclear weapons, and a grudge against the U.S. is a threat to the U.S. As I just mentioned, it is also a threat to our forces and civilians in Korea. And it is a threat to a long-standing ally, which makes it a threat to U.S. interests.

    "And then look at Seoul. It's very close to the frontier. If war broke out, no matter how fast we acted, NK would have ample time to cause a lot of damages."

    I'm well aware of that, and I haven't called for military action against North Korea.

    "Think before you talk. It is NOT a simple situation."

    Take your own advice. I never said it was a simple situation. It obviously is not.

    "China's involvent if nothing else makes this highly tricky. And if Irak teached us anything, it's that invasion is not all that great. And that running headlong in unecessary war leave you spreaded thin when someone start to actually attack your allies."

    No kidding. If you are going to comment here, try commenting on what I actually wrote and responding to points that I make, rather than just telling me things I already know and attacking your own strawmen.

    ReplyDelete