| Submit your comments on this article |
| China-Japan-Koreas |
| After 61 Years, Korean War Offers Modern Lessons |
| 2011-06-26 |
| Posted by:Grunter |
| #5 There were no Satellites back then, + the Chicoms were just as capable or adept as the Japanese + Nazis were in hiding mass troop movements from enemy air recce, in addition to using PYWAR = Disinformation, etc. techniques at the Field, Media, + Diplomatic levels. More, the US + USDOD, Society were still demobilizing from WW2 + getting used to the new Cold War agz the USSR - the USDOD had EQUAL DEFENSE = SECURITY RESPONSIBILITIES IN BOTH WESTERN EUROPE + ASIA, BU WID AN ARMY-IN-POSTWAR-REDUCTION + A MAINSTREAM USA NOT READY OR WILLING TO ENGAGE IN ANY NEW WAR REGARDLESS OF SCALE. Both the Soviets' + Chicoms' claim to trace their ideo, national "People's War/Struggles" to long before WW2, to before Chiang Kai-Shek + 1917 Bolshevik Revolution or even the beginning of the 20th century. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2011-06-26 19:36 |
| #4 *Many nations served in Korea. With no offense, those two mentioned tend to get left out of the mix. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2011-06-26 15:42 |
| #3 This Kind of War Fehrenbach, Foley One premis of early problems was the civilianization of the military, the Army more so than the Marines. Walker did just fine, considering the circumstances. One notable diffiency was the lack of anti-tank weapons. Mac represented a full committment and had such resources. And a bold plan. And no rules of engagement as we know that term today. Another lesson, according to the book, air superiority is nice but not necessarily decisive. Back when the norks and chicoms were able to hide out in valleys without detection. Maybe not congruent nowadays, but perhaps it is as opponents are always looking to exploit weaknesses; this in particular the thinking that total superiority in a subject means it is undeniable and/or hubristic. Just went through Neptune's Inferno, James Hornfischer, and at times Generals are more like baseball pitchers than football quarterbacks, and I don't mean that disparingly. I would like to add that the French, and the Turks, did serve honerably. One could argue that the French, however one wants to look at Vietnam, could possibly have lost the opportunity to stop the communists in their tracks (that teatre, it was a red tide no offense to Alabama) by redeploying a significant number of troops to reinforce Korea, but that is IMHO. Nasty times for what the kids refer to as cold war peace. Nevermind Africa or ME. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2011-06-26 15:40 |
| #2 General Walton Walker pretty much ran the show in Korea until September 1950, when MacArthur took over. I know you will say that everything was MacArthur's plan, and that was true, but it was MacArthurs plan which immolated the US 25th Infantry Division in the early going. Yet,it was Walker rewriting modern US defensive doctrine on the fly in the Pusan Perimeter between June 1950 and September 1950 which won the war for MacArthur. |
| Posted by: badanov 2011-06-26 12:17 |
| #1 "In April of 1951, General Ridgway replaced General MacArthur, who had different views on how to conduct military operations than did many in the Pentagon ... Changes in command during time of war can be dangerous." Well, so there's a lesson that we haven't learned, eh? |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2011-06-26 11:57 |