Friday, September 14, 2007
Iraq will be a future South Korea
Bush’s long term vision is the right one
by Ferdinand III
In 1960, just after the Korean war [no war for noodles! the moralising left must have screamed], South Korea was one of the poorest, most ravaged and disconnected places on the planet. North Korea, acting as the Communist proxy for China, and supported by the Soviet new world utopian order, [so impressive to socialists ranging from HG Wells to Pierre Trudeau], was repulsed by the US and the UN, in what many regard rightly as the ‘forgotten war’. In most school systems the Korean war is not even taught. No news shows on TV would bother to mention it. Yet the saving of South Korea, has created the world’s 9th biggest economy, a leader in exports and electronics, and a solid ally facing the Chinese hydra. Iraq will be the same – as long as the US Democratic party is kept to the sidelines. Bush’s vision makes sense, regardless of what you think of the Iraqi conflict.
Rewind reality back to South Korea in 1960. The Korean war had just ended. [An excellent site devoted to the Korean war is http://www.koreanwar.org/index1.html], and 300.000 South Korean, US and UN soldiers had been killed defending the peninsula. Many in the media at the time, epitomized by the dark comedy MASH!, seriously questioned the relevance of fighting a war so far from the US mainland. For most critics Korea had nothing to do with US national interests. For many Americans the 54.000 dead and over 100.000 wounded was not only an impossible price to pay to 'save' South Korea, but the conflict also risked generating a wider, and more bloody war with China. When the Chinese poured 300.000 men across the Yalu river in the winter of 1952, the risk of an all out regional conflict was all too apparent. Yet the US and its allies persevered – through much harsher, deeper and more powerful actors than they now experience in Iraq.
North Vietnam, pushed by China and Russia had failed in its bid to dominate a geo-politically important piece of territory. Who now can say with any intelligence or rationality that the Korean conflict should not have been fought? Would the world and Korea today be better off if the Communists had overrun South Korea, installed authoritarian autarchy and taken their orders from Peking? The medieval state of North Korea, which is bankrupt and starving, would be the model foisted upon the innocents in the South. Would the world and US strategic concerns be improved by such a result? Should the US have left Rhe the South Korean Prime Minister in 1950, and his 30 odd million people to the grasping, immoral and barbaric clutches of Communist power mongering?
And guess what the US still has 35.000 troops in Korea. Should we withdraw these forces, realign our vision to ‘re-engage’ world opinion, perhaps toss away Taiwan to appease China, or leave Asia alone to the rising nationalism of the one party Chinese state? Of course not.
In 1960 South Korea had a lower standard of living than Chad. Its only hope for economic reconstruction was a long term alliance with the US. Its only recourse for survival was the continued protection of the US military – the forces that the cultural Marxists and political left-wing warriors want to disembowel. In other words the US had to bring South Korean into the international world order – which it, and it alone, could guarantee.
Did the moralizing Europeans care much about Korea? Not really if one looks at troop deployments during the 1950-53 conflict. Turkey was admitted into NATO for sending the 4th largest UN backed force into Korea. Only the US, Britain and Canada sent more troops. The Europeans, so long on hypocritical speeches about rights, love and ‘engagement’, have always been pretty short on real, hard power, to protect and spread such ideals. Korea was no exception.
Neither is Iraq or Afghanistan.
Fast forward to 2007. Iraq is in the early stages of democratic development. Like Korea in 1960 it is a broken place but with some advantages. Iraq has a literate workforce; a strong and financially powerful diaspora, oil revenues, and currently the full backing of the United States. What sense would it make to abandon Iraq to Iran, Muslim fascists, and terrorist training camps? What sensible policy option is supported by the immoral act of leaving an ally in the death grip of ideological fascism, and mortal terror? What student of history could possibly recommend an untimely American withdrawal without specifying in great detail all of the derivatives, and morbid follow-on activity, that such a precipitate decision would entail?
Here is a prediction. If the US stays in Iraq for the next generation, a number of things will happen. Like Korea, under US military and economic protection Iraq will blossom. In a generation from now, with 50.000 US troops still stationed in Iraq, the Iraqi state will be the most advanced, powerful and richest state in the Middle East, outside of Israel. Per capita income will compete with that of Spain. Iraqi economic growth will rival that of India and China’s, and the Iraqi army will be a well-honed machine, in close collaboration with the new NATO and US forces. Most importantly Iraq will be a Western ally, and Islamic radicalism will have waned dramatically. Jihadic Islam, so desirous of world domination will be marginalised as Iraq shows the Middle East what the real future is. That is the prediction that Bush has laid out.
In short Iraq will be another Korea. It will be a rich street in a bad neighbourhood. The repercussions of Iraqi success circa 2030 will be enormous. Radical Islam will lose its appeal. The West will have a stable ally and protectorate in the world’s most volatile and explosive region. And most importantly, like the South Koreans of today, the Iraqi people will have hope, money, a higher standard of living and will be a part of the global trading system. All of which is under-pinned by American power.
Bush is right on Iraq.