Why Didn't the US Win In Korea?

[Marc James Small <msmall@infi.net>]

At 06:30 PM 9/23/02 -0400, Joe Brennan wrote:
>It was said it was a "political" decision to settle for a half loaf in
>Korea. True but also an unavoidable decision w/o nuclear war IMO.

The settlement of any and all wars is always political, by definition, and
not military.

Had the UN determined prior to CHROMITE to push to the Yalu and had so told
the Soviets and firmly, and had then been prepared to invest a LOT of
airpower in dumping napalm on the river to fry the incoming, yes, the war
certainly could have had a different outcome, and one without the use of
nuclear ironmongery.

But, then, no one in Washington listened to what FEC and X Corps and 8th
Army was saying.  They turned this over to the politicals for resolution
and, in the end, after weeks of worry, they gave what are arguably the most
elastic of orders ever given a military force.

Blame the SecDef, Marshall, as he is, arguably, the most marked with this
shame.  Blame Truman, the President, as he backed every call Marshall made.
 Blame Bradley, the Chairman of the JCS, as he never had an original
thought in his life and certainly did not begin to think during this time.
Blame the Chief of Staff of the Army, "Lightning Joe" Collins, for trying
to live up to his reputation by reversing himself every twelve or eighteen
hours.

In the end, the Korean War could have been "won", had the US had the
determination to do so.  But Truman, Marshall, Bradley, Collins, et al.,
did not have that determination.  Cf Kerensky and the Duma and the Russian
Revolution.  Those who want intelligently and ably, get.  We had the
capacity, but Washington chose not to use it.

Now, had the US and UN forces accomplished a firm northern line at the Yalu
and enforced it, would that have been a "win"?

Marc

msmall@roanoke.infi.net  FAX:  +540/343-7315
Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!