The Korean Stand-Off
I have never met Edward Luttwak. I spoke to him on the phone once – when I talked two other then-young and now-distinguished historians to agree to join with me in giving papers at the American Historical Association on the origins of particular wars, and I called Professor Luttwak to ask him to be a respondent. He generously agreed, and, of course, the program committee of the AHA turned the panel down. Already, thirty years ago, the study of war and diplomacy was regarded by those dominant within the academy as something distasteful.
But I stray. I have never met Edward Luttwak, as I said. But I have a soft spot in my heart for him. Shortly before I called him, he published a wonderful book entitled The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire. More recently, he has published another provocative work entitled The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire. And one has to love a professor who has the cojones to write a book entitled Coup d’État: A Practical Handbook. I mention Luttwak now, however, because yesterday he posted a piece entitled The Guns of December that captures nicely what just happened on the Korean peninsula.
“It is,” as he rightly put it, “hard to recall a better example of successful deterrence than what failed to happen on Monday, Dec. 20, on the Korean peninsula” – when the North Koreans attempted to bully the South Koreans into cancelling an artillery drill on Yeonpyeong Island less than eight miles off the North Korean coast, which the North Koreans had bombarded on 23 November, and the South Koreans called their bluff.
Here is the bit I most like:
Ominous is the right tone in the threatening business, not wild exaggeration, as we all learned in my elementary school in Palermo, Sicily, from the luckier kids whose fathers were ranking Mafiosi. Yet despite its overheated language, North Korea had credibility on its side: Just a month earlier, on Nov. 23, it did react to a Southern live-fire drill on Yeonpyeong Island with an artillery barrage that wrecked dozens of houses, damaged and set afire military base buildings, wounded 18 civilians, and killed four, including two South Korean marines. It also frightened the population at large, which knows full well that the North has tens of thousands of guns, howitzers, mortars, rockets, and missiles that could quickly devastate the capital city of Seoul, whose northern edges are less than 25 miles from the border.
In very different ways, that bloody episode in November marked a low point: not only for North Korea, whose aggression was entirely blatant, but also for South Korea, whose deterrence has plainly failed; for the U.N. Security Council, which was reduced to impotence by China's refusal to condemn North Korea; and for various peace-mongering interlopers, who foolishly echoed the Security Council's dispiriting call for "restraint" from both sides.
Even amid that inane company, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter stood out: His own spectacularly ill-judged response was to call for bilateral U.S.-North Korean talks. Nothing sounds more logical -- after all, only madmen talk to themselves as opposed to an interlocutor, and it is with enemies that one must talk, even more so than with friends.
But in that particular case, "bilateral" would have meant to talk about the Korean peninsula without the government of South Korea at the table -- giving the greatest possible political victory to Pyongyang by confirming in spades its central claim that it is the only true Korean government, while South Korea is a mere American puppet. Without seemingly understanding what he was saying, Carter explained the need for bilateral talks by noting that "Leaders in Pyongyang consider South Korea's armed forces to be controlled from Washington." Hence the very fact of negotiating at all would have been amply destructive, simultaneously delegitimizing South Korea's democratic government and anointing the bizarrely monstrous Kim dynasty as Korea's sole legitimate rulers.
When it comes to folly, have we ever had a former President as embarrassing as James Earl Carter? Whom would you nominate?
- Comment (17)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: The Korean Stand-Off
"...former" Hands down, James Earl Carter.
But embarrassing as a sitting President? There may be a debate.
Edited on Dec 22, 2010 at 3:57pmNov '10
Re: The Korean Stand-Off
They should take his name off that submarine and close down his presidential library.
Jul '10
Re: The Korean Stand-Off
The same psychological defects that drive some people to seek power manifest themselves in very ugly ways once they've been rejected by the electorate.
Jimmy Carter long ago went off the deep end. As did Al Gore. And as has John Kerry. And Arlen Specter, in his bitter farewell speech.
Sadly, it's not just Democrats. Some of the Republicans turned out in the recent election haven't gone out with dignity either. Bob Bennett, Mike Castle and Bob Inglis come to mind.
Truly great public servants - Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher - suffer defeat with dignity.
Re: The Korean Stand-Off
Kenneth: The same psychological defects that drive some people to seek power manifest themselves in very ugly ways once they've been rejected by the electorate.
Jimmy Carter long ago went off the deep end. As did Al Gore. And as has John Kerry. And Arlen Specter, in his bitter farewell speech.
Sadly, it's not just Democrats. Some of the Republicans turned out in the recent election haven't gone out with dignity either. Bob Bennett, Mike Castle and Bob Inglis come to mind.
Truly great public servants - Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher - suffer defeat with dignity. · Dec 22 at 3:57pm
One way or another, I suppose, it always ends with defeat.
Nov '10
Re: The Korean Stand-Off
Carter has to be the worst, as sitting president, when he refused immediately to ask Congress for a declaration of war against Iran at the time of the attack on our embassy, and ever since, with his efforts to eradicate Israel and his self-important posturing around the world with respect to overseeeing foreign elections. He is a mean little man who probably wasn't even a good peanut broker.
Jul '10
Re: The Korean Stand-Off
Paul A. Rahe
Kenneth: The same psychological defects that drive some people to seek power manifest themselves in very ugly ways once they've been rejected by the electorate.
Jimmy Carter long ago went off the deep end. As did Al Gore. And as has John Kerry. And Arlen Specter, in his bitter farewell speech.
Sadly, it's not just Democrats. Some of the Republicans turned out in the recent election haven't gone out with dignity either. Bob Bennett, Mike Castle and Bob Inglis come to mind.
Truly great public servants - Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher - suffer defeat with dignity. · Dec 22 at 3:57pm
One way or another, I suppose, it always ends with defeat. · Dec 22 at 4:35pm
Au contraire. Ronald Reagan marched out into the pantheon. And Margaret Thatcher, though betrayed by her own party, joins him there.
Re: The Korean Stand-Off
Kenneth
Paul A. Rahe
Kenneth: The same psychological defects that drive some people to seek power manifest themselves in very ugly ways once they've been rejected by the electorate.
Jimmy Carter long ago went off the deep end. As did Al Gore. And as has John Kerry. And Arlen Specter, in his bitter farewell speech.
Sadly, it's not just Democrats. Some of the Republicans turned out in the recent election haven't gone out with dignity either. Bob Bennett, Mike Castle and Bob Inglis come to mind.
Truly great public servants - Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher - suffer defeat with dignity. · Dec 22 at 3:57pm
One way or another, I suppose, it always ends with defeat. · Dec 22 at 4:35pm
Au contraire. Ronald Reagan marched out into the pantheon. And Margaret Thatcher, though betrayed by her own party, joins him there. · Dec 22 at 4:47pm
Actually, Thatcher was repudiated by her party and ousted from its leadership, and Reagan -- after Iran Contra -- was a mere shell of what he had been. I do not intend to deny their grandeur. But near the end it must have been dispiriting for both. Consider Churchill at the end of WWII.
Jul '10
Re: The Korean Stand-Off
Jimmy Carter is the daft uncle digging the Panama Canal in the basement. Clinton's use of him as an emissary was just scary.
H.W. skydiving. A national treasure.
Bill Clinton is a riot. From the office in Harlem to taking over from Obama at the first opportunity to receiving lavish, unreciprocated praise from the Bush family.
Watching W. in interview is so refreshing, a man who speaks in terms of principle rather than foisting expensive, crackpot programs on the country. No wonder the left vilified him.
Jul '10
Re: The Korean Stand-Off
Paul A. Rahe
Kenneth
Paul A. Rahe
One way or another, I suppose, it always ends with defeat. · Dec 22 at 4:35pm
Au contraire. Ronald Reagan marched out into the pantheon. And Margaret Thatcher, though betrayed by her own party, joins him there. · Dec 22 at 4:47pm
Actually, Thatcher was repudiated by her party and ousted from its leadership, and Reagan -- after Iran Contra -- was a mere shell of what he had been. I do not intend to deny their grandeur. But near the end it must have been dispiriting for both. Consider Churchill at the end of WWII. · Dec 22 at 5:28pm
You know, Professor, the Iran Contra thing interests me. Honestly, it wasn't my impression at the time that the country - the actual people- really cared about it. And to the extent that they payed any attention to it, what registered with them was how Oliver North ate the Democrats' lunch during the hearings.
I thought Reagan came out of it just fine - outside the Beltway. Am I wrong?
Nov '10
Re: The Korean Stand-Off
Dr. Rahe, I may be wrong, but I think the Iran Hostage Crisis was a diplomatic outrage unprecedented in history — a violation of 6000 years of international protocol and etiquette — and that President Carter was entitled (perhaps even obligated) to unleash the full power of the US military against Iran. And that his failure to do so gave a huge boost to the forces of radical Islam that plague the world today.
Am I mistaken?
Re: The Korean Stand-Off
Kenneth
Paul A. Rahe
Kenneth
Paul A. Rahe
One way or another, I suppose, it always ends with defeat. · Dec 22 at 4:35pm
Au contraire. Ronald Reagan marched out into the pantheon. And Margaret Thatcher, though betrayed by her own party, joins him there. · Dec 22 at 4:47pm
Actually, Thatcher was repudiated by her party and ousted from its leadership, and Reagan -- after Iran Contra -- was a mere shell of what he had been. I do not intend to deny their grandeur. But near the end it must have been dispiriting for both. Consider Churchill at the end of WWII. · Dec 22 at 5:28pm
You know, Professor, the Iran Contra thing interests me. Honestly, it wasn't my impression at the time that the country - the actual people- really cared about it. And to the extent that they payed any attention to it, what registered with them was how Oliver North ate the Democrats' lunch during the hearings.
I thought Reagan came out of it just fine - outside the Beltway. Am I wrong? · Dec 22 at 5:43pm
You are right about Oliver North. My sense is that it damaged Reagan a lot . . . short term.
Jun '10
Re: The Korean Stand-Off
Carter wins in a landslide. He's a combination of moral superiority, smarminess, and stupidity. To him Yasser Arafat was just a sweet little family man (does anyone remember the Munich Olympics?), Kim Jong-Il is a man who just wants peace (if only we'd give him a little love), and each time a tinpot dictator wishes to rig an election, they call in Carter to validate it. His recent book on the Middle East is embarrassment and an assault on the truth.
Reagan and Thatcher (Churchill too) suffered their own political defeats, but then they had some accomplishments to look back on in their retirements (during which they had the good sense to keep their mouths shut).
Edited on Dec 22, 2010 at 5:58pmJun '10
Re: The Korean Stand-Off
Kenneth
Paul A. Rahe
Kenneth
Paul A. Rahe
One way or another, I suppose, it always ends with defeat. · Dec 22 at 4:35pm
Au contraire. Ronald Reagan marched out into the pantheon. And Margaret Thatcher, though betrayed by her own party, joins him there. · Dec 22 at 4:47pm
Actually, Thatcher was repudiated by her party and ousted from its leadership, and Reagan -- after Iran Contra -- was a mere shell of what he had been. I do not intend to deny their grandeur. But near the end it must have been dispiriting for both. Consider Churchill at the end of WWII. · Dec 22 at 5:28pm
You know, Professor, the Iran Contra thing interests me. Honestly, it wasn't my impression at the time that the country - the actual people- really cared about it. And to the extent that they payed any attention to it, what registered with them was how Oliver North ate the Democrats' lunch during the hearings.
I thought Reagan came out of it just fine - outside the Beltway. Am I wrong? · Dec 22 at 5:43pm
May I respond with a simple test. Reagan's legacy is continually invoked (even by Democrats). Carter: never.
Jul '10
Re: The Korean Stand-Off
Iran-Contra was a mistake and a policy dispute that the Democrats tried to criminalize. When I want to get a whispy-eyed Reaganites to come down and speak with the rest of us, Iran-Contra is the universally effective device. When Reagan was elected I distrusted both of the major parties, having been raised in the DC burbs.
By the re-election campaign it was obvious that this man had saved my country economically and was prevailing in the Cold War. And that he shared my distrust of both parties. As a presidential mistake, Iran-Contra was mind bogglingly misguided, but it was no Bay of Pigs or Iran hostage crisis. Having a president overreach in his passion for defense was almost refreshing after Carter, if still sordid and, especially in hindsight, ironic.
Those that were inclined to like Reagan were not impressed, those that always hated him had found a club to beat him with. I certainly hope he did not allow himself to be consumed by it. How many of us would just once like to be the object of the kind of loyalty Oliver North showed Ronald Reagan.
Re: The Korean Stand-Off
Lady Kurobara
Dr. Rahe, I may be wrong, but I think the Iran Hostage Crisis was a diplomatic outrage unprecedented in history — a violation of 6000 years of international protocol and etiquette — and that President Carter was entitled (perhaps even obligated) to unleash the full power of the US military against Iran. And that his failure to do so gave a huge boost to the forces of radical Islam that plague the world today.
Am I mistaken? · Dec 22 at 5:47pm
No, not on the basic point. Whether the diplomatic outrage was unprecedented, about that I wonder. On everything else you are right.
May '10
Re: The Korean Stand-Off
I would have to nominate: Barack Hussein Obama.
Dec '10
Re: The Korean Stand-Off
I would frankly not be surprised if some file surfaces in Moscow that documents how the GRU turned a young officer in the US nuclear submarine corps and groomed him to become their most spectacularly successful Western sleeper agent in their history. When the Carter Administration revealed Stealth -- then the US's foremost top-secret military-industrial program -- simply to make the political point that they weren't going soft on the Soviets, that was a pretty good hint.