Overzealous Korean Brainwashing

For part II of OP's overzealous account of East Asia, I refer, of course, to today's youth who have been completely brainwashed in their understanding of the Korean peninsula and General Douglas MacArthur. My post will not be nearly as interesting or disturbing as Red Hat's on China though.

Recently, the naive, rebellious, desperate-for-identity South Korean left has taken out its existentialist angst on the MacArthur statue at Inchon. People who understand the realities of the Korean war, Korean life, geostrategical issues, and the role MacArthur played, have rightfully counterprotested these kids. Many of them are veterans of the Korean War who have actually done something with their lives. Riot police have been called in to stem the tensions between these two groups, although it is not clear whether they will safeguard the statue anymore, since the Korean government is completely and utterly willing to capitulate to North Korean whims-- in other words, they are the ne plus ultra of appeasers in the world besides France.

So let me take a moment to explain the difference between the two types of people in this conflict, as best I can see it (I freely admit that I'm an armchair General here, but to me, the fact that this is all so obvious makes it all the more heinous and disgusting).


Picture 1: The forces assemble, reigniting MacArthur's memory

On the one side, you have the people with actual knowledge of life, have years of experience, who fought in the war and understand the nature of communist (North Korean) aggression, and on the other side you have a bunch of kids who think that risk is having sex, doing drugs, and all the easiest things anyone could ever do in the world that, of course, do not build identity or character and, if anything, destroy them. You will find no requiems for so-called "gonzo journalism" at OP. Real risk involves serving your country, putting your life on the line for something you believe in, or going into debt to start a business. A lot of people have done this, too, but fewer than the easy things. It's harder to go outside and make a life for yourself than to stay in a den and engage in less-than-godly behavior. It's obvious, so I trust I needn't say anymore.

Therefore what we have here is a battle between the forces of good and evil. Humans, of course, simultaneously encompass both things in paradox, but they can be made to serve these causes.

At Incheon, General Douglas MacArthur changed the course of Korean history. He had the hopes of free peoples riding on his shoulders, that he could complete his job of undoing Japanese damage by reuniting the peninsula under a flag of opportunity and possibility, so that the Korean nation might be as it once was. That's why the statue in question resides there. Victory at High Tide, an extraordinary book, details the battle. As Manchester's American Caesar says,

Casualty reports were still coming in, but the battle was already won, and won spectacularly. The final reckoning would show that at Incheon MacArthur had defeated between 30,000 and 40,000 In Min Gun defenders at a cost of 256 dead, 2,550 wounded, and 65 missing. Halsey called it "the most masterly and audacious strategic course in all history." Heinl [ed: who wrote Victory at High Tide] wrote: "At Inchon, MacArthur was bold, judicious, assured, and unwavering. Those who doubted his judgment-- the lesser men who wanted to play things safe-- exemplified the reverse." p. 380

Picture 2: MacArthur lands at Incheon

William Manchester, who wrote American Caesar, was an unabashed admirer of the General, so we might forgive him his occasional hagiography. The biography is nevertheless thorough and brilliant. I will return to it, but I want to compare his relatively short account of the accolades of MacArthur's achievement with Geoffrey Perret's account in Old Soldiers Never Die, because Perret is scrupulous in his balanced approach throughout:

MacArthur had to get closer to the action. He insisted on going to Wolmi-do [during the battle]. Shells fell around the boat that carried him there, but he wanted to move even closer to the beach, where mortar and machine gun fire indicated a firefight in progress. Shepherd was alarmed and tried to get the admiral commanding the landing force to order the boat to come back, but the admiral declined. To Shepherd, nothing could be more calamitous than to have the theater commander killed by enemy fire. Years later he was still asking people, "Don't you think I was right?" They invariably said yes, but the correct answer was no.

In the life of every great commander there is one battle that stands out above all the rest, the supreme test of generalship that places him among the other military immortals. For MacArthur that battle was Inchon. The landing produced all the results he promised.... The most fitting conclusion to MacArthur's life would have been to die a soldier's death in the waters off Inchon at the height of his glory.... p.548

What neither of these authors points out, either with words or figures, is that this is the day Korea was saved. It is absolutely the day that reversed North Korea's fortunes, turned the tide against communism, and allowed for South Korea to expand beyond its paltry holdings on the Pusan perimeter. More importantly, it preserved the idea that Korea might again be reunified as its people so desired.

The graphic below shows how intrepid the Incheon pincer movement really was. Examine the difference between a South Korea preserved by the Pusan perimter and MacArthur's South Korea, which retook Seoul and saved that for the future.


Figure 1: Korean War movements

In August of 1948, General MacArthur said this in Seoul:

August 1948:

Yet in this hour, as the forces of righteousness advance, the triumph is dulled by one of the great tragedies of contemporary history—an artificial barrier has divided your land. This barrier must and will be torn down! Nothing shall prevent the ultimate unity of your people as free men of a free nation. Koreans come from too proud a stock to sacrifice their sacred cause by yielding to any alien philosophies of disruption.

As early as the year 1882… it was proclaimed that there should be “perpetual peace and friendship between the United States and Korea.” The American people have never deviated from this pledge and you may rely upon the invincible continuance of that friendship.

President Rhee, you and the distinguished group which has been chosen to assist you in the leadership of this infant republic will face issues of the most complex nature known to political experience. The manner in which those issues are resolved will determine in large measure not only the unity and wellbeing of our own people but also the future stability of the continent of Asia. I have faith in you… and pray that Almighty God may sustain you in your hallowed task.

MacArthur was not only Korea's best friend, but he was a visionary as to its role in the course of history. Had we listened to him, China would not brutally repress its people and their expression, and the scourge of the earth that is North Korea would not exist, the people long ago being unified.


Picture 3: MacArthur is welcomed in South Korea

Did MacArthur not have his flaws? If people have flaws, then the answer is "yes." As Manchester writes,

In the Attice tragedies of Aeschylus, Euripides, and Sophocles, the hero is a figure of massive integrity and powerful will, a paradox of outer poise and inner passion who recognizes the inevitability of evil, despair, suffering, and loss. Choosing a perilous course of action despite the counsel of the Greek chorus, he struggles nobly but vainly against fate, enduring cruelty and, ultimately, defeat, his downfall being revealed as the consequence of a fatal defect in his character which, deepened by tumultuous events, eventually shatters him.

So it was with Douglas MacArthur. Brave, brilliant, and majestic, he was a colossus bestriding Korea until the nemesis of his hubris overtook him. He simply could not bear to end his career in checkmate. It would, in his view, be a betrayal of his mission, an acknowledgement that MacArthur was imperfect. Politics had always been his Eve, a lure and a threat, fascinating but ill-boding. p.616

And Perret:

The general was the quintessential twentieth-century incarnation of the tragic hero as immortalized by great playwrights down the ages. MacArthur’s complex nature and dramatic life made him the living breathing brother of Coriolanus, Hamlet or Macbeth. Like the tragic heroes of the theater, he would finally be brought down not by his enemies but by an immutable fault line that ran through the bedrock of his character. When the SCAP got airborne from this remote coral island, MacArthur was set on a direct course to the ultimate destination of all tragic heroes: the spectacular, irreversible fall. p.558

That's why the young Leftists and Tyrant-sympathizers in North Korea should not be so quick to destroy the idea of MacArthur. The idea is complex and not one-sided. And yet, one thing cannot be argued: he made it possible for them to live today, and for all those subversive elements to have a chance to have families, travel, eat good food, and not rely on grass to eat and get stomach ulcers like millions of North Koreans likely do.

These people who sympathize and work to help or support North Korea in any way are condoning the murder of innocent people. That's what you do. That's what you do when you think it's a good idea to merge the Korean olympic teams. Incidentally, North Korea won 5 medals in 2004: 4 silver and 1 bronze. No one's sure how they did that. South Korea won 30, to rank 9th at the total games, with 9 gold, 12 silver, 9 bronze. Who does this Olympic move even help?

This is the mindset of the leftists both in S. Korea and, regrettably, here in the United States as well. It's no surprise that people want to be high-minded and think themselves above the status quo-- what's a shame, however, is that they don't realize they are apart of the murderous and evil status quo.

As Professor Kang Kyu-hyung writes,

Korea is now unexpectedly engulfed in a MacArthur dispute. Some propose that Incheon International Airport be rechristened MacArthur Airport, while others wage a campaign denigrating the general. Some organizations held a rally in Incheon’s Freedom Park on Saturday, calling for the end to “60 years of U.S. military occupation.” They attempted to topple the MacArthur statue by force, asserting that he was a warmonger and the ringleader in Korea's division and massacres of civilians. But that, too, is sadly not a realistic evaluation of the general.

MacArthur not only contributed more than anyone to defeating imperial Japan through his achievements in the Pacific War but also cemented the foundation from which Japan was able to develop as a democratic country. In the Korean War, he successively executed the Incheon Landing.

The essence of the drive to tear down the MacArthur statue lies elsewhere. It is anti-Americanism and pro-North Korean sentiment that attach supreme importance to the country's unification. This notion, which sprouted in the 1980s and gained force recently, says that the Korean War was a national unification war that would have ended swiftly without prodigious bloodshed but for U.S. intervention. Our perspective of MacArthur and the United States has become distorted. It is either pro- or anti-American.

The French writer Frederic Beigbeder says in his novel "Windows on the World" that contained in anti-Americanism is some jealousy and disillusioned love. Doesn't our anti-Americanism, too, contain the anger that arises from unrequited love? It cannot be denied that in our attitude toward the U.S., either for or against, we only spout sentiments, without a cool-headed analysis of America.

When we fail to understand MacArthur, who was a complex man, and the U.S., a country of many facets, we experience the symptoms of extreme jealousy or hatred. One such symptom is a violent attempt to erase the group experience and collective memory of MacArthur and the U.S. presence, without leaving a space where reasonable thoughts can be exchanged.

A wonderful discussion in the same publication with an archivist at the splendid MacArthur Memorial can be found here. One short exchange:

What is wrong with claims that the U.S. sparked or caused the Korean War?

That debate is already finished among historians. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, many supporting materials came to light. It's an unshakable fact that Kim Il-sung invaded South Korea with the support of Mao Zedong. It's hard to understand why this Bruce Cumings-style revisionist history [after a University of Chicago historian who first proposed the theory] about the origins of the Korean War is still accepted in South Korea.

So is it MacArthur and the United States who these people should be blaming or the people they support and give money to? Read a book, ANY book.

Here are some more pictures of the statue, which overlooks a wonderful expanse, that these idiots want to topple.





Only when we understand both sides of the issue, and in so doing confront reality, can we have once more, as Prime Minister Yoshida put it about Japan's relationship with MacArthur and the US, "an understanding [that] grew up between the two peoples which is remarkable in the history of the modern world."

Other links:
Memory of Gen. MacArthur exposes divide in South Korea
U.S. refuses N. Korean nuclear reactor demand
Roh says Korea-U.S. alliance getting better
Cockeyed nationalism [highly recommended]
Progressives rail against General MacArthur