Gautam Mukunda wrote:
I think these 2 are tied together much more than one would first think. Putting 37,000 troops (hidden among 600,000) isn't much of a statement of force. It's certainly not saying "we are serious about attcking you if you don't cooperate". But what it is saying is that if you try reunification by force, we are serious about stopping you.Second, I've heard a lot about the 37,000 American soldiers on the DMZ, and correctly so. Why, exactly, aren't our allies helping out in the defense of a fellow democracy, as they're supposed to under the UN Mandate.Sixth, I have to disagree with Dan on the extent to which the Bush Administration has been relying on bluff. I don't think they're bluffing - they are willing to attack if necessary, just as Clinton was, they just don't want to.
Since 1776, various world leaders have tried to move on their neighbours in the hope that the US will choose not to get involved. Sometimes it has worked (eg Stalin 1956). Sometimes it has almost worked (eg Hitler 1939). Sometimes it has failed spectacularly (eg Saddam 1990). Sometimes it worked because they asked the US for permission first (eg Suharto 1975). But for Il Jong in 2003, there can be no doubt. To move on ROK WILL without any possibility of escape, bring in the US, because you don't inflict 37,000 casualties against the USA and negotiate your way out of it.
While the USA may have a questionable position on dealing with what DPRK does inside its borders (and I don't have a better answer so I reserve judgement) at least they have a clear position on what it does outside it borders.
Cheers
Russell C.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
