WAS GEN. DOUGLAS MAC ARTHUR RIGHT? TIME TO RETHINK?

WAS GEN. DOUGLAS MAC ARTHUR RIGHT?        

             TIME TO RETHINK?      

 As reward for keeping his promise to FDR to enter the war against Japan, the US had promised rewards to Stalin.  At the time of the promise, Germany had been defeated, but super bombs were still fantasies of scientists.  The fantasies became reality, first in the New Mexico desert, then in Hiroshima.  Stalin rushed to get more troops to the borders of Asia, and entered the war against Japan.  A 2nd new bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, and though many high-ranking Japanese wanted to continue the war, the news of 2 horribly destroyed cities, and the news that neutral Stalin had now joined the Americans in a war to defeat Japan, these realities were pusing the Japanese to surrender.  Emperor Hirohito spoke to the people for the first time on radio - it is time to surrender.

     POWs and enemy aliens would not be killed, but returned to their homelands, Britain, France, Netherlands, America, etc.  Russian troops looted factories in Manchukwo, and soon gave weapons to Mao's guerrillas in China, as Imperial troops retreated to sea ports for repatriation.  Without much thought an American drew a line along the 38th parallel, dividing Korea into the north for Soviet and the south for American occupations.

     The North would be headed by Kim Il Sung, a communist guerrilla fighter during the war; the South would be led by Syngman Rhee. chosen in hasty elections.  There was a major civil war in China, and the new Pres. Truman sent Gen. Marshall to demand that it stop, and both sides form a coalition government.  Nationalist leader Chiang Kai Check rejected such a compromise, so the Americans stopped supplying Chiang with supplies, while the Soviets aided Mao.  By 1949 Mao declared victory from a balcony in Beijing, and almost all the mainland was now led by the Communists.

     Korean Communist leader Kim Il Sung thought he could take all of Korea, and asked Stalin for his permission to invade South Korea.  Stalin gave Kim the green light, and North Koreans swarmed down the peninsular.  Suddenly, only a small area around Pusan remained beyond Kim's power.

    Should America help?  Alone or with allies?  The Soviets were then boycotting the new UN's Security Council because Nationalist China was still recognized as China.  Without the vote of the USSR, the UN voted to join in the American defense of South Korea.  Gen. Mac Arthur responded by landing troops near Inchon, behind communist lines.  They were cut off from supplies and had to retreat or surrender.  They did both,  The Americans did not stop at the 38th parallel, and marched north.  The UN forces - small contingent from other UN nations aided the Americans.  As we approached the Yalu River, that is the border with China, and a little also with the USSR.  Mao called upon Chinese volunteers to help the communist cause in Korea.  Massive numbers of Chinese "volunteers" now joined the fight against the Americans.  Soon, a very cold winter.  Many Koreans, Chinese, Americans and others fighting in misery and dying in larger numbers.  What to do?

     Gen. Mac Arthur had the solution - use the A-bomb.    We can try to endure a painful war of attrition, deadly to both sides, or we can drop the A-bomb behind the enemy lines, totally disrupting their supply lines, which would give us a quick victory.  Yes, it's a terrible weapon, but that can be said of all effective weapons.  The question, we have the power to end the war, IN VICTORY, or the war can continue one way or another (it continues to this day, 74 years later!!).  If we have a weapon that can end a war, it is our duty to use it.  That, in essence was the demand of Gen. Mac Arthur.

     President Truman opposed Mac Arthur's solution.  Truman was President and relieved Mac Arthur of his command.  The war continued till cease fires and prisoner exchanges.  The two Koreas remain unfriendly neighbors.  Different today North Korea has it's own A-bomb, and works on missiles and hypersonic weapons.  Seemingly there is little freedom in the North.  Had America used the bomb, the North would probably have surrendered to the South, and Kim Jong Un, instead of continuing a dynasty, might have become a K-pop entertainer.  Meanwhile, Gen. Mac Arthur, like other old soldiers, faded away.

    Should America have used the bomb to end the war in Korea in 1950? Or in other no-end wars since?  Or now in Iran??   A QUESTION FOR TODAY    

     Hugh Murray

THE ZELENSKY-TRUMP MEETING IN THE WHITE HOUSE, FEB 2024 -- 2 ANALOGIES

     This morning on America's usual left-wing National Public Radio, they had an interview with a foreign policy expert, a Republican, to analyze the Trump-Zelensky White House shouting match.  Normally, PBS invites liberal Democrats and quizzes them with soft-ball questions so they can present their views at length.  When interviewing a populist Republican, the questions are hostile, and when the guest tries to answer, the NPR reporter interrupts often so you may never hear the full reply.

     This morning, the NPR guest was a Republican, for mer American Ambassador to the UN, and an official during the first Trump administration, John Bolton.  Bolton thought the White House spat was a disaster.  He thought Zelensky was trying to defend his country, while Trump is on a mission to sell it our.  Trump is simply repeating Putin propaganda.  In effect, what Trump is planning is a new 1938 Munich conference, in which Chamberlain allowed Hitler to carve up Czechoslovakia in a way so it could no longer be defended from the growing German military under Hitler.  Trump is planning a sell out of Ukraine in the same way.  The West did not stand by Czechoslovakia, the democratic state, so Hitler swallowed it in pieces.  Chamberlain's Peace in Our Time led directly to WWII.  Bolton, a Republican, is a known war-hawk, and some have quipped , there has never been a war he disapproved.  Like Lynn Cheney and the J-6 Committee, Bolton is no fried of  Trump?

     But is Trump the new Chamberlain?  Is Trump a modern appeaser of a dictator, betraying a democratic ally?  Is his Peace in Our Time another mirage?  Should Trump be waving an umbrella?  Is he a Putin puppet?

    A BETTER ANALOGY.  In 1950 Kim Il Sung, leader of the New North Korean Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, got permission from Soviet leader Josef Stalin to invade South Korea.  So began the Korean War.  Or was it a war?  Soldiers and civilians died.  In America, pressure mounted on Dem. Pres. Harry Truman.  South Korea, surprised by the attack, was losing.  Would the war be lost before America could decide? To intervene or not?  Truman decided to intervene, but not alone.  He asked the UN to do so too.  The only way the resolution passed was because the USSR was boycotting because the UN Security Council because the seat for China was still occupied by he Republic of China (Nationalist) and not the new Peoples Republic of China (Mao's Communists who had control of the mainland and proclaimed the PRC from a Beijing balcony in 1949.)  Gen. Douglas Mac Arthur would lead the American effort and any smaller efforts by our allies.)

     In South Korea, only a small south-east corner round Pusan was still free from the invaders.  Mac Arthur ordered naval invasions around Inchon, near the middle of the peninsular cutting supply lines to the North, and the Communists began their retreat.  Some Brits, Filipinos, and other American allies joined the fray, and the anti-communists now invaded the North.  Suddenly the North was crumpling. retreating toward the Yalu River, the border, mainly with China, and a little bit with the USSR.

     If the Communists were surprised by the naval invasion of the center of the 2 nations at Inchon by Mac Arthur's counter attack, now Mac Arthur was caught off-guard.  Mao had called for a mass of Chinese volunteers to help the comrades in Korea against the capitalist imperialists.  Vast numbers of Chinese were suddenly crossing the Yalu, pushing back the Americans, in extremely cold winter conditions.  America had almost won, and victory was now being snatched from them by the masses of Asia and the bitter cold.  Mac Arthur had a plan to steal back the victory form the Chinese "volunteers" - he would up the ante of the war by using a nuclear bomb.  Truman had played the international card; this was not an official war; it was a police action, with the UN.  Truman decided, no nukes, and no more Mac Arthur.  He fired the general.  The war dragged on with more and more casualties.  Korea was the first of America's No Win Wars.  The fighting, and casualties continued.

     For the Presidential election of 1952, Truman's polling was dismal, about 25%.  He chose not to run again, but Adlai Stevenson, who sounded like a liberal elitist became the Democratic candidate.  Gen. Eisenhower led the Republicans with Richard Nixon as his VP candidate.  In the campaign, Ike announced he would go to Korea to END THE WAR.

     Officially, Ike failed.  Officially, North and South Korea are STILL at war.  But, with difficulties, which POWs should be returned, etc., still, the fighting generally came to an end.  Without Ike's promise, the fighting war might still be going on in Korea, with killing Koreans AND Americans.  Was Ike a weakling for pushing peace?  Was Ike like Chamberlain encouraging Hitler?  Or was Ike a very wise man?  Ike was not perfect, no one is.  But he was wise in ending a no-win war (police action).  Trump is not like Chamberlain bringing on WWIII; Trump is like Ike.  Bolton is wrong.  So are the European leaders: Macron, Starmer, King Charles, et al.  By contrast, Trump is a wise leader, trying to find a way to peace and prosperity for most.

     ANOTHER QUESTION - How many foreign prime ministers and presidents actively campaign in American Presidential elections?  In the campaign of 2024, Zelensky actively campaigned for Kamala Harris and the Democrats, against Republican Trump.  Was this not an example of foreign influence on the campaign?  Trying to sway America to keep up the flow of dollars and arms?  Was this not also an example of "foreign collusion" in our affairs?  When Zelensky arrived at the White House in February 2025, Pres. Trump should have met him at the door, "If you are here to request help, I suggest you go instead to the offices of Kamala Harris.  You campaigned for my defeat.  Ask her for help instead." 

     Bottom line - Trump is for peace, but he is not an appeaser.  He follows the tradition of Pres. Eisenhower, who did not want never ending, no-win wars that were detrimental to our nation, (but profitable for some in the military-industrial complex.  Ike had courage to use Operation Wetback to round up illegal aliens, and send them back to Mexico.

    Is Trump a puppet of Moscow?  It was Bill Clinton who received $500,000 for a speech in Moscow.  It was the Biden family that received special deals, getting millions of dollars from Chinese firms, and even getting Hunter on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy firm.  And the American corrupt deep state *remember the 51 American intelligence agent leaders, who without seeing the Hunter laptop, but at the behest of then Democratic Party operative Anthony Blinken, LIED to the American public signing their names that the Hunter laptop was Russian disinformation.  Doing this just before the 2020 election to help corrupt Biden and help defeat Trump.  But when Hunter finally went to trial, no one challenged ther validity of Hunter's laptop.  It shows that the head of CIA, and other agencies were Deep State, liars, not to defend America, but to defend their private intersts and harm their personal foes.  One more reason for Trump to have a clean sweep of the swolen government.

     In the end, all we are saying - is give Trump a chance!          

HUGH MURRAY