The Korean War: The Moral Bankruptcy Of Interventionism By Jacob G. Hornberger!!
(2018-11-13 at 11:43:58 )

The Korean War: The Moral Bankruptcy of Interventionism by Jacob G. Hornberger

An article in Sundays New York Times entitled "Remembering the Forgotten War" demonstrates perfectly the moral bankruptcy of the philosophy of foreign interventionism.

Calling for the Korean War to become more highly remembered, the author, Hampton Sides, extols some of the popular justifications for subjecting United States troops to death, injury, and maiming in the Korean War.

Mr. Hampton tells the story of a veteran named Franklin Chapman, who is still alive. Mr. Hampton was sent to fight in Korea, was shot several times, and also hit by shrapnel. He was taken captive by the enemy and was held as a Prisoner Of War for three years.

Today, the 85-year -old suffers from the aftereffects of frostbite, experiences aches and pains from his wounds, and suffers severe memory loss, sometimes unable to recognize his daughter.

Mr. Sides implies that while all this is regrettable, it is all justifiable because Korean War veterans "stopped a naked act of Communist aggression and opposed three malevolent dictators - Stalin, Mao and Kim - while helping South Korea take wing as a democracy."

What is fascinating about Mr. Sidess article is that it is completely bereft of any moral outrage whatsoever against the United States government and, specifically, the United States national-security establishment.

Mr. Sides seems to forget something important: The reason that Mr. Chapman was there in Korea waging war was because the president of the United States and the Pentagon ordered him to be there.

I was curious about Mr. Chapman and so I looked him up.

It turns out that he has written a biography that is posted online, where he tells the reason he joined the military.

No, it was not to stop communist aggression in Korea or to oppose three malevolent communist dictators. Mr. Chapman explains that he joined the military for one reason alone: He needed a job.

My hunch is that like many people who join the military, he believed that his job would be the defend the United States from invasion or attack.

My hunch is that the last thing he ever expected was to be sent to wage a land war in Asia. But that is precisely what the United States government did to him. It ordered him to report to Korea to be kill or be killed.

That does not seem to concern Mr. Hampton Sides, any more than it concerns any interventionist. Equally important, it obviously does not concern Mr. Sides that the order to send Mr. Chapman to fight in the Korean War was illegal under our form of government.

The United States Constitution, which governs the actions of federal officials, including those in the Pentagon, prohibits the president from waging war against a foreign nation without first securing a declaration of war from Congress.

It is undisputed that President Truman, who ordered United States soldiers into Korea, did not secure a congressional declaration of war. That means that he had no legal authority to order Mr. Sides or any other United States soldier to kill or die in Korea.

In claiming that Mr. Chapman was fighting to oppose communist aggression, Mr. Sides ignores the fact that the Korean War was actually a civil war, not a war between two independent and sovereign nations.

The country had been artificially divided into two halves by Soviet communist leader Joseph Stalin, who, ironically, was a partner and ally of the United States government during World War II. (The irony lies in the fact that Mr. Sides extols Mr. Chapman for opposing the man who had been a partner and ally of the United States government just a few years before.)

In any event, every Korean understood that the dividing line between North and South Korea was just an artificial construct based on international politics. Even today, if you ask a person of Korean descent here in the United States where they are from, they always, without exception, say "Korea" rather than "South Korea."

We can concede that the northern half of the country was ruled by a brutal communist regime, one that attempted to unify the country by force.

But why does a nations civil war justify United States intervention??

Why should United States soldiers be sacrificed to help out one side or another in a civil war??

That is not what most United States soldiers were signing up to do after World War II. They were signing up to defend the United States, not help out one side or another in another nations civil war. (By the way, the same principle applies to the Vietnam War, another favorite foreign war of the interventionists.)

Another aspect of the Korean War that Mr. Sides fails to mention is conscription.

The United States military did not have enough men to intervene against the North Korean regime, and not enough American men were volunteering for "service."

So, President Truman and the military resorted to conscription.

That means that they were forcing American men, against their will, to go to Korea and kill or be killed.

An interventionist would say that it was necessary to destroy the freedom of Americans to protect the "freedom" and "democracy" of South Koreans.

Mr. Sides expression "helping South Korea take wing as a democracy" is an interesting one.

It is interesting because South Koreas first elected president, Syngman Rhee, was one of the most brutal dictators in the world. Immediately after taking office, he curtailed political dissent and authorized his goons to engage in indefinite detention, torture, assassination, death squads, and massacres.

On the suspension of hostilities in 1953, it was clear that the National Assembly, which elected the president, was going to boot Rhee out of office. In order to avoid that, he ordered a mass arrest of opposition politicians and then unilaterally changed the Constitution to enable him to be elected directly by the citizenry. He remained in power until 1960, when he was forced to resign after his police shot demonstrators who were protesting his regime.

This is what Mr. Sides and other interventionists calling "democracy taking wing."

It brings to mind the United States-inspired coup in Chile in 1973, which ousted the democratically elected socialist president of the country, Salvador Allende, and installed a brutal right-wing military dictator in his stead, army Gen. Augusto Pinochet.

To this day, interventionists say that the Chilean coup demonstrated that "democracy was taking wing" in Chile with the coup that nullified the presidential election, followed by a 16-year-long brutal military dictatorship entailing round-ups of some 50,000 people, torturing most of them, raping and committing gruesome sexual acts against women, and killing and disappearing around 3,000 people.

Mr. Sides and other interventionists are dead wrong about the Korean War and other foreign interventions.

No United States soldier deserves to be ordered to faraway lands to kill or be killed or maimed, as Mr. Franklin Chapman was.

If Sides or other interventionists want to go overseas and help out one side or another in some faraway civil war, they are free to do so.

Just leave United States soldiers out of it.

The job of a United States soldier is to defend the United States from invasion or attack, not be sent to participate in some bogus fight for "freedom" or "democracy" in a foreign country.

Printed here with permission from Mr. Jacob G. Hornberger of The Future of Freedom Foundation!! Their Great Website!!