The Thinking Man's War

As America comes up to the 50th anniversary of it signal 'failure to win ' a war, the Vietnam experience is being re-eviscerated, This time it's being compared to modern war and how we don't seem to be winning the War on Terror either.

Ken Burn's has, supposedly, done to Vietnam what he did for the US Civil War - humanized it, uplifted it artistically, morally, and historically as a 'high point', and not a low point in American history.  Study groups and academics are churning out new looks at the men and the moments when either America 'shone through' or 'went to a darker side'.  Most of the emphasis is, of course, on shining through.  There is this piece from 'War on the Rocks' written by doctoral student Jon Askonas

The Heroic Leader and the Better War From Vietnam to Afghanistan

America is 'gridding its lions'  to do "what must be done" to "de-nuclearize" North Korea.  That's increasingly looking like the kind of thing that had to be done to Afghanistan , Iraq , etc - only possibly even worse, as it could be the 'Norks' might 'nuke' one of our 'regional' allies - or shell the heck out of Seoul. A nuclear first strike is probably a 'coffee and biscotti' topic down in the War room - particularly getting the nuclear neighbors 'on-side' for letting the good guys do that.

What level of 'getting for letting' would be indicated in order to ensure against General Dreedle just 'going nuts' and getting 'the inevitable' done at the same time?  Trump would have to send Melania as a 'human shield' to Moscow and Ivana to Beijin or Shanghai with a couple of her kids. While Trump might want them to take a couple of the Obama administration,  or a few DARC's - Putin wouldn't trust Trump as far as a B-2 Ghost could 'toss' the new GenX tactical-nukes. The Chinese are just 'saying' not much and 'doing' even less.

But so what?  North Korea has been threatening world peace since it caused that post-war police action at the behest of Uncle Joe.  Since then, all it has done is require the presence of a couple of US army divisions and an east Asian air force,  standing-by to guard the SORKs and their Parallel. Sure there were a couple of post-war 'close calls' but America has been a buttress against talking peace with commies and much interested in changing the Nork regime.

What is happening now in Korea is just a logical extension of what has been SOP there for 70 years,   'modified' by America's recent humanitarian rambustuousness. After Bushco the Second decided that Clinton made 'too sweet a deal' to get the NORKs  to discard their nuclear industry, the Kims watched him 'go to work' in western Asia and thought, 'Should he ever get out of that quagmire,  the east might really be red - with blood. Best have something in the arms locker to make the shaolin warrior-monks tug a little longer on the prepuce of fortitude.'

It took the Koreans an administration and a half to become really terrifying and they're (or we're) turning the 'skeer' into a  'national emergency'.  Americans are being treated to how Israelis feel living under a Gazan rocket barrage - or the thought of one.  We're giving the Israelis  the tools they'll need to do their 'jobs', so why should we leave ourselves out of 'the danger' or 'the solution'?

We can take some comfort that, for all the hoo-hah and rattling sabres,  if push comes to shove,  it won't be on the UN's dime or with the UN's blessing - America is going to have to 'go commando' on the NORKs on its own - and take the risks of a nuclear conflagration. For,  without some 'jaw-jaw', the NORKs are going to 'eat grass',  as Putin said, rather than disarm themselves in front of American threats and aggression.  There is nothing in it for them to quit  and Trump Inc is too dumb to realize that.


Nuclear tests 1945 to 1997: We had this stuff stopped and we started 'missing it'?