North Korea fires on South Korea

[Surgicalcric]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

...American navalism has frequently served to keep rank and file Americans focused on "big picture" concepts. These concepts include nationalism and a sense of mission...

And if it wasnt for the large carrier groups where would the Navy find the money to fund the SEALs or their never ending projects...

The same holds true for the AF, with respect to the PJ's/CCT's...

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Surgicalcric

And if it wasnt for the large carrier groups where would the Navy find the money to fund the SEALs or their never ending projects...

The same holds true for the AF, with respect to the PJ's/CCT's...

There are many reasons why I have privately asked/nagged those members of your brotherhood who tolerate my rambling PMs to pen their memoirs / autobiographies.

Not the least of these reasons is that the navy is still reaping the benefits today of the public outreach it did in the Gilded Age.* Indeed, the navy and associated navalists were so successful that some reform-minded soldiers argued for fleet modernization at the army's expense.**

__________________________________________________ ___________
*James Donal Sexton, “Forging the Sword: Congress and the American Naval Renaissance, 1880-1890” (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Tennessee at Knoxville, 1976); Mark Russell Shulman, “The Emergence of American Sea Power: Politics and the Creation of a U.S. Naval Strategy, 1882-1893,” (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, 1990).
** Eugene Griffin “Our Sea Coast Defenses,” North American Review 147:380 (1888): 64-78.

[incarcerated]

To what degree is NK acting as an independent, sovereign entity that does not take direction from China?
If the original artillery fire into the South was conducted without China’s blessing (or knowledge), is China likely to have taken control of its client state and the situation by now?
Is this really a proxy conflict with China?
China’s warning over the carrier group movement is an indication that we MIGHT be in the right place in terms of addressing the issue through its center of gravity (China). (I qualify this because I do not have a lot of faith in the Administration, and I do not put it past the Dems to give the North another reactor when it is all said and done. It will be a peaceful reactor, of course.)
What other regional levers do we have that can be applied to China?

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

TS--

With respect, IMO contemporaneous discussions about strategy are less than they might be because American navalism is in decline.Since 1945, navalism has served as a necessary--and under appreciated--counter weight to those air power enthusiasts and advocates of 'transformation' who believe that there are sustainable high tech short cuts to fighting wars.

Moreover, from a historical perspective, American navalism has frequently served to keep rank and file Americans focused on "big picture" concepts. These concepts include nationalism and a sense of mission.

IMO, the army does not yet have this type of influence. This influence has not fully flowered for several reasons including:

• America's long standing ambivalence towards standing armies;
• William Sherman's and Emory Upton's lasting influence on civil-military relations,
• widely held popular misconceptions about the Vietnam War; and
• the increasingly fetishized discourse over military affairs in mass popular culture.

Consequently, when I made my tongue in cheek aside, I was not arguing that the U.S. Navy would be at the forefront of a solution to the ongoing crisis with North Korea. I was simply suggesting that navalists could bring something to the discussion.

My $0.02.

Im not sure what you mean by this statement especially since the USA boasts the biggest, baddest and most bang for your buck Navy. I'm not sure if decline is proper as we are now just doing more with less. (How many Iowa Class battle ships fire power would it take to match just one Ticonderoga Class Cruiser?)

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

Im not sure what you mean by this statement especially since the USA boasts the biggest, baddest and most bang for your buck Navy. I'm not sure if decline is proper as we are now just doing more with less. (How many Iowa Class battle ships fire power would it take to match just one Ticonderoga Class Cruiser?)

TS--

I would differentiate between American naval power and American navalism. For navalists, sea power is a means to an end and that end is to replace the ethos of Jeffersonian democracy with Hamiltonian republicanism.*

When I speak of the decline of American navalism I am referring to the difficult--if not impossible--choice navalists had to make during the Carter and Reagan presidencies. The Carter administration wanted the wrong type of fleet (given the geopolitical circumstances) for most of the right reasons while the Reagan administration wanted the right type of fleet but for reasons that were antithetical to navalists' core values.


________________________________________________
* This definition of navalism draws on Shulman, “The Emergence of American Sea Power: Politics and the Creation of a U.S. Naval Strategy, 1882-1893,” vii. Critical interpretations of modern American navalism can be found in Peter Karsten, The Naval Aristocracy: The Golden Age of Annapolis and the Emergence of Modern American Navalism (1972; reprint, Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 2008); Robert Seager, II, Alfred Thayer Mahan: The Man and His Letters (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1977); Philip A. Crowl, “Alfred Thayer Mahan: The Naval Historian,” in Makers of Modern Strategy: from Machiavelli to the Modern Age, ed. Peter Paret et al. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), 444-471. (IMO, it really says something about the U.S. Naval Institute's commitment to American naval history for it to reprint Karsten.)

[DevilSide]

One thing I don't understand is why re-education/integration is a huge problem when it comes to us, should we ever move in we would bring everything they've never had, such as a decent meal. Eventually, wouldn't they be more welcoming when they see the difference between NK and their propaganda image of us, and the real "us"? I am not very knowledgeable in Korean culture, that would be the QP's, but I think if someone fed me when I was hungry that would be a good step in relations.

Just my $0.02 cents, keeping it professional as I can.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

TS--

I would differentiate between American naval power and American navalism. For navalists, sea power is a means to an end and that end is to replace the ethos of Jeffersonian democracy with Hamiltonian republicanism.*

When I speak of the decline of American navalism I am referring to the difficult--if not impossible--choice navalists had to make during the Carter and Reagan presidencies. The Carter administration wanted the wrong type of fleet (given the geopolitical circumstances) for most of the right reasons while the Reagan administration wanted the right type of fleet but for reasons that were antithetical to navalists' core values.


________________________________________________
* This definition of navalism draws on Shulman, “The Emergence of American Sea Power: Politics and the Creation of a U.S. Naval Strategy, 1882-1893,” vii. Critical interpretations of modern American navalism can be found in Peter Karsten, The Naval Aristocracy: The Golden Age of Annapolis and the Emergence of Modern American Navalism (1972; reprint, Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 2008); Robert Seager, II, Alfred Thayer Mahan: The Man and His Letters (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1977); Philip A. Crowl, “Alfred Thayer Mahan: The Naval Historian,” in Makers of Modern Strategy: from Machiavelli to the Modern Age, ed. Peter Paret et al. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), 444-471. (IMO, it really says something about the U.S. Naval Institute's commitment to American naval history for it to reprint Karsten.)

So you're not stuck in the 1950's, you're still applying 1800 navalism to modern day issues.

I fully understand that our naval power is a floating political statement. Just like I understand the military is an extension of American politics.

And you compare carter the coward and President Reagan the Emperor! (You made me laugh)

Black and white. One desired not frighten the world with our military might and the other brought down the Soviet Empire.

One "voiced" his complaint over the Soviet invasion of A-Stan, gave away the Panama Canal, allowed 53 Americans to be held hostage for 444 days, was responsible for the failed rescue attempt and the lives of those lost on the attempt. America was a global joke for a number of years. carter spent what seven years in the Navy and then went to take care of the peanut farm. Please.

I am not conflicted, I can differentiate between a wolf and a lamb 100% of the time. I'm sure carter's naval strategies were very much in line with his left-wing-socialist, "social justice" views.

One changed history, the other will go down in the history books as the "second" worst president this country has ever seen.

Some read history, some write history, some teach history, while others make history. I was on active duty under both carter and President Reagan and believe me, it was black and white, lamb and wolf.
TS

[Masochist]

DevilSide,

It seems simple, but when your door is kicked in and everything you've been force fed your entire life is validated, how do you know the nice meal and promise of a good life isn't a ruse? When you live in a state of perpetual paranoia and fear, even something as simple as a good meal from the other side makes you wonder what the ulterior motive is.

[DevilSide]

Originally Posted by Masochist

DevilSide,

It seems simple, but when your door is kicked in and everything you've been force fed your entire life is validated, how do you know the nice meal and promise of a good life isn't a ruse? When you live in a state of perpetual paranoia and fear, even something as simple as a good meal from the other side makes you wonder what the ulterior motive is.

I understand now, thanks.

[Dusty]

I'm just saying it smells more serious this go-round:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/11...s-north-korea/

North Korea has deployed surface-to-air missiles near the Yellow Sea border, the Yonhap News Agency reports.

"(The missiles) appear to be targeting our fighter jets that fly near the Northern Limit Line," a South Korean source told the news agency.

The source who spoke on condition of anonymity says North Korea is preparing to fire the Soviet-made missiles.

"The military is preparing for the possibility of further provocations as the North Korean military has deployed firepower near the NLL and is preparing to fire," the source said.

This latest development comes as a U.S. supercarrier and South Korean destroyer took up position in the tense sea on Sunday for joint military exercises that were a united show of force just days after a deadly North Korean artillery attack.



Nov. 28; Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei speaks during a press briefing in Beijing, China.


Nov. 28: South Korean ships stage off of the coast of South Korea's Yeonpyeong Island.


Nov. 27: A South Korean nightly news anchor prepares to give a live broadcast from a desk set up on top of the rubble in a destroyed neighborhood on Yeonpyeong Island, South Korea.
YOU MIGHT ALSO BE
INTERESTED IN
Military Pegs Hourly Air Force One Cost at $181G, as Obama Sets Travel Record Amber Alert Issued for 3 Michigan Brothers U.S., S. Korea Launch War Games Derailed: Why High-Speed Trains Haven't Caught On in the U.S. Ten Worst Places to Live As tensions escalated across the region, with North Korea threatening another "merciless" attack, China belatedly jumped into the fray. Beijing's top nuclear envoy, Wu Dawei, called for an emergency meeting in early December among regional powers involved in nuclear disarmament talks, including North Korea.

Seoul responded cautiously to the proposal from North Korea's staunch ally, saying it should be "reviewed very carefully" in light of North Korea's recent revelation of a new uranium-enrichment facility, even as protesters begged President Lee Myung-bak to find a way to resolve the tension and restore peace.

The troubled relations between the two Koreas, which fought a three-year war in the 1950s, have steadily deteriorated since Lee's conservative government took power in 2008 with a tough new policy toward nuclear-armed North Korea.

Eight months ago, a South Korean warship went down in the western waters, killing 46 sailors in the worst attack on the South Korean military since the Korean War. Then, last Tuesday, North Korean troops showered artillery on Yeonpyeong, a South Korean-held island that houses military bases as well as a civilian population of 1,300 -- an attack that marked a new level of hostility.

Two South Korean marines and two civilians were killed and 18 others wounded in the hailstorm of artillery that sent residents fleeing into bunkers and reduced homes on the island to charred rubble.

North Korea blamed the South for provoking the attack by holding artillery drills near the Koreas' maritime border, and has threatened to be "merciless" if the current war games -- set to last until Dec. 1 -- get too close to its territory.

As U.S. and South Korean ships, including the nuclear-powered USS George Washington, sailed into the waters off Korea's west coast Sunday, China began launching its diplomatic bid to calm tensions.

Washington and Seoul had been pressing China, North Korea's main ally and benefactor, to help defuse the situation amid fears of all-out war.

China, slow at first to react, has quickened its diplomatic intervention in recent days. Chinese state councilor Dai Bingguo made a last-minute visit to Seoul to confer with Lee.

Lee pressured China to contribute to peace in a "more objective, responsible" matter, and warned Sunday that Seoul would respond "strongly" to any further provocation, the presidential office said.

The strong words were Lee's first public comment in days. He was due to address the nation Monday morning amid calls from his people to take stronger action in dealing with the defiant North.

North Korea has walked a path of defiance since launching a rocket in April 2009 in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions and abandoning the disarmament process in protest against the condemnation that followed.

However, in recent months Pyongyang has shown an eagerness to get back to the talks, and has appeared increasingly frustrated by U.S. and South Korean reluctance to restart the negotiations.

Seoul has said it wants an acknowledgment of regret for the sinking of the Cheonan warship in March as well as a concrete show of commitment to denuclearization.

North Korea, which cites the U.S. military presence in South Korea as a main reason behind its drive to build atomic weapons, routinely calls the joint exercises between the allies a rehearsal for war.

Washington, which keeps 28,500 troops in South Korea to protect the ally, insists the routine drills were planned before last Tuesday's attack.

The exercises will take place over four days, but no live-fire drills are planned, said Cmdr. Jeff Davis, spokesman for the 7th Fleet in Japan.

Along scenic Mallipo Beach on the west coast, about 50 South Korean soldiers were laying down an aluminum road to prepare for an amphibious landing drill Monday. Barbed wire and metal staves ran the length of the beach for about 2 miles (3 kilometers). Military ships hovered in the distance.

North Korea expressed renewed outrage over the Yellow Sea drills.

The war games are a "pretext for aggression and ignite a war at any cost," the National Peace Committee of Korea said in a statement carried Sunday by the official Korean Central News Agency.

Hours earlier, the rattle of new artillery fire from North Korea sent residents, journalists, police and troops scrambling for cover on Yeonpyeong Island. None of the rounds landed on the island, military officials said, but the incident showed how tense the situation remains.

Saying they could not guarantee the journalists' safety, South Korea's Defense Ministry sent a ship to ferry them off the island but bad weather forced them to cancel the evacuation. About 380 people, including 28 islanders and 190 journalists, remained on Yeonpyeong on Sunday, officials said.

A similar burst of artillery fire Friday occurred just as the U.S. military's top commander in the region, Gen. Walter Sharp, was touring Yeonpyeong Island. No shells landed anywhere in South Korean territory.

Calls for tougher action made way Sunday for pleas for peace among about 150 South Koreans who turned out for a vigil Sunday evening in a Seoul plaza, huddling with candles in paper cups and chanting, "Give us peace!"

"It was very shocking," said Kang Hong-koo, 22, a student. "I'm here to appease the souls of the people who were killed in the North Korean attack. I hope the current tense situation is alleviated quickly."

[CombatMuffin]

It seems very serious, but at least the news and statements make it seems as though no one wants commit to a first strike, after those artillery shellings.

I read a lot about using nuclear capability and "getting rid of the problem" right away, and I'm personally amazed some people think it works as simple as that. The simple solution isn't always the best, or as simple as one thinks.

Besides, could the U.S. handle the re-education, restructuring and reformation of NK? I personally don't think it can, considering the fact that they spread out in the middle east, and the current border problems aren't helping it politically from within.

There is also the issue of: how much does it depend on the U.S., after all, you are fighting someone else's war, the U.S. simply has a deep commitment with South Korea, but are you willing to risk American lives in declared warfare against a country that is probably better equipped than the countries you just fought)and are fighting) in the middle east?

Its a hard decision.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

So you're not stuck in the 1950's, you're still applying 1800 navalism to modern day issues.

TS--

To its benefit and detriment, American naval historiography--thanks to the influence of navalism--is inexorably linked to contemporaneous discussions of domestic politics, naval policy, national security strategy, and international affairs. Consequently, I strongly--but respectfully--disagree with your assessment that I'm "stuck" in the 1800s or the 1950s (or the 1980s). Instead, I posit that my limited understanding of the past informs my conceptualization of the present.

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

And you compare [President Carter and President Reagan] (You made me laugh)

With respect, I myself am not entirely happy with the results of this comparison. Nevertheless, one must sometimes go where the muse leads.

In any case, it was Reagan himself, his supporters in the GOP, and contemporaneous critics of Carter (as well as of Nixon and of Ford) who invited and have perpetuated the comparison with their "decade of weakness" argument.*

Verily, while the political right has enjoyed the political capital gained from the comparison, political arguments sometimes are not historiographically sustainable. In this case, the "decade of weakness" argument goes hand in hand with the thesis that there was a "naval renaissance" during the Reagan administration.**

I disagree slightly but significantly with this interpretation. In my view, the revitalization of the navy began during the 1970s, took root during Carter's presidency, and flowered in full during the 1980s. I am also of the view that this revitalization fell short of being a "renaissance" thanks to the political maneuvering of the Reagan administration. To its credit, the Reagan administration correctly advocated the modernization and expansion of the armed forces generally and the navy in particular. However, this advocacy came at the expense of the American public gaining a more informed understanding of the armed services.

These conclusions stem from my research. First, a significant amount of archival evidence in the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and the operational archives of the U.S. Naval Historical Center indicate that the Reagan administration's approach to naval affairs was driven more by politics than by ideas. Given the choice of (a) persuading a skeptic of the legitimate needs of the navy or (b) trying to intimidate that skeptic, the Reagan administration consistently chose the latter. Likewise, given the choice between (a) actively educating Americans of why it was absolutely necessary to modernize and to expand the fleet or (b) making the discussions center around criticisms of his predecessor conflated with articulate appeals for ideological unity, the Reagan administration too often chose the latter.

Second, in a wide range of professional and scholarly publications one can find considerable evidence that the most important event of the 'naval renaissance' began during the mid-1970s. This event, the Maritime Strategy debate, was among the most significant discussions in contemporary American history. The evidence also suggests that the Reagan administration deliberately sought to bypass this debate rather than taking the time to win it decisively. (In contrast, President Carter had, clumsily, ineptly, inarticulately, and arrogantly, tried to expand the scope of this debate.)

Third, my research thus far on what became the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 has revealed a startling amount of disinterest on the part of the Reagan administration. This disinterest is especially striking because Goldwater-Nichols is, for worse and for better, one of the most important pieces of legislation in American history.***

These research areas, as well as three others, have led me to conclude that (a) Carter deserves a somewhat larger measure of credit for the navy's resurgence than he's thus far received, and (b) that in many ways, the revitalization of the American armed forces during the 1980s reflected the dedication of armed service professionalism and various civilians more than the inspired leadership of the White House.

YMMV.

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

Black and white. One desired not frighten the world with our military might and the other brought down the Soviet Empire.

While some historians and other researchers have made this argument, I do not think it is a sustainable interpretation. (And if it turns out to be the case after all, it will raise serious questions about Reagan's judgment as a strategist--if he knew that he could bring down the USSR, then why did America find itself unprepared for the end of the Cold War?)

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

Some read history, some write history, some teach history, while others make history.

Are these activities mutually exclusive?

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

I was on active duty under both carter and President Reagan and believe me, it was black and white, lamb and wolf.
TS

I absolutely 100% believe you. Yet the fact that Reagan was a better commander in chief, a superior president, and a more engaging human being than Carter does not disqualify either from sustained historical inquiry by eggheads like me.

Now, to return to the OT in the OP.

IMO, this crisis illustrates the utility of Bush the Younger's conceptualization of GWOT as a conflict against an "axis of evil." Esteemed members of this BB have energetically and eloquently articulated the view that GWOT is essentially a clash of civilization pitting the modern world (both west and east) against the pre (or anti) modern Islamic world.

I have disagreed with this viewpoint because it does not account for the persistence of the thoroughly modern scourges of communism and totalitarianism. I believe that a rogue modern state--no matter how dysfunctional or impoverished--poses a greater threat to America's self interest and international peace than do the Jihadists.

My $0.02.

_____________________________________________
^ This thread hijack is fueled by Google Desktop.
* A summary of this argument can be found in Colin S. Gray and Jeffrey G. Barlow, “Inexcusable Restraint: The Decline of American Military Power in the 1970s,” International Security 10:2 (fall 1985): 70-83.
** George Baer, One Hundred Years of Sea Power: The U.S. Navy, 1890-1990 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994), 432, 440; Frederick H. Hartmann, Naval Renaissance: The U.S. Navy in the 1980s (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1990), 25-33, 69-70, 199-217; John B. Hattendorf, “The Evolution of the Maritime Strategy: 1977 to 1987,” Naval War College Review 41:3 (summer 1988): 7-28; Robert Love, History of the United States Navy, vol. 2, 1942-1991 (Harrisburg, VA: Stockpile Books, 1992), chps. 23-25; Allan R. Millett and Peter Maslowski, For the Common Defense: A Military History of the United States, rev. ed. (New York: The Free Press, 1994), 614-620.
*** IMO, Reagan's disinterest is well captured in his signing statement for that act. Ronald Reagan, Statement on Signing the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986, October 1, 1986, available at John T. Woolley and Gerhard Peters, The American Presidency Project [online]. Santa Barbara, CA. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=36525.

[incarcerated]

Money sent to N Korea returned as torpedo and missiles

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/78082188-0...#axzz17Jeh2Sbj

[Dusty]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/12...est=latestnews

Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Feb. 3, 2010, before the House Intelligence Committee hearing on the annual threats assessment of the U.S. intelligence community.
WASHINGTON -- South Korea is losing patience with North Korea and probably will take military action, former national intelligence director Dennis Blair said Sunday.

Blair, who just returned from the Korean peninsula, said he doesn't see a major war starting, but he believes recent aggression by the North will press South Korea into some lower level military confrontations.

He said there's support among South Koreans for their military to take a stronger stance, adding that "a South Korean government who does not react would not be able to survive there."

He told CNN's "State of the Union" that the North's recent moves to sink a South Korean ship and fire artillery rounds on a South Korean island near a disputed sea border have frayed Seoul's patience. The artillery attack killed four South Koreans, while 46 sailors died in the sinking of the ship.

Blair said that what is needed is a united Korea under Seoul's influence, but China would have to exert its influence on the North for that to happen, and Beijing prefers the two countries to remain divided.

[Dusty]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...ean-peninsula/



AP2010

Dec. 8: Adm. Mike Mullen and South Korean Gen. Han Min-Koo shake hands after their joint press conference at the Defense ministry in Seoul. On Dec. 13 Mullen said that the danger of war or hostilities on the Korean peninsula is rising.
The top U.S. military officer said Monday that the danger of war or hostilities on the Korean peninsula is rising, as North Korea warned that cooperation between its southern neighbor and the United States could trigger a nuclear war.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told troops in Baghdad that North Korea has upped the ante in its aggression against South Korea -- a pattern he said is tied to preparations for Kim Jong Il to pass power to his son.

The latest example of bellicose rhetoric came with North Korea warning of nuclear war, as South Korea planned live-fire naval drills to run Monday through Friday. Those drills follow a North Korea artillery attack on front-line Yeonpyeong Island that killed two South Korean marines and two civilians.

The Nov. 23 artillery barrage, the North's first assault to target a civilian area since the end of the 1950-53 Korean War, began after the North said South Korea first fired artillery toward its territorial waters. South Korea says it fired shells southward, not toward North Korea, as part of routine exercises.

After the attack, South Korea staged joint military drills with the United States and also pushed ahead with more artillery exercises, despite the North's warning that they would aggravate tension.

A South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff officer tried to play down the significance of this week's drills, saying they are part of routine military exercises and would not occur near the disputed western Korean sea border where last month's attack took place. The officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of office policy, gave no further details.

North Korea, however, lashed out at Seoul, accusing South Korea of collaborating with the United States and Japan to ratchet up pressure on Pyongyang.

That cooperation "is nothing but treachery escalating the tension between the North and the South and bringing the dark clouds of a nuclear war to hang over the Korean peninsula," Pyongyang's main Rodong Sinmun newspaper said in a commentary carried by the North's official Korean Central News Agency.

North Korea has often issued similar threats during standoffs.

In a show of unity, top diplomats from South Korea, the United States and Japan met in Washington last week and said they would not resume negotiations aimed at persuading North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program until the country's behavior changes. Mullen visited South Korea last week and warned Pyongyang to stop its "belligerent, reckless behavior."

On Monday, South Korean and U.S. defense officials met in Seoul for one-day discussions on North Korea and other issues that are part of regular defense talks, according to Seoul's Defense Ministry.