However, I don't think that's a good comparison. Though Ivan Eland more fully and convincingly explains why3, my biggest contention with Bush's speech (as cited here) is his declaration that:
He makes two errors. First, as revealed by his choice of words, is his concept of "South Koreans." Koreans don't distinguish between North and South, and the fact that 48 million of them are free only reminds them that 23 million more still live in conditions that are worse than in Vietnam. That's hardly a success."Without America's intervention during the war, and our willingness to stick with the South Koreans after the war, millions of South Koreans would now be living under a brutal and repressive regime."
Second, he assumes that a communist regime in a unified Korea would be equally as brutal and repressive as it is now. But if one is going to draws parallels between Korean and Vietnam, one must go the whole way. And Vietnam is much different than it was twenty, or even ten, years ago.
Part of the reason why North Korea still around is the fact that they feel threatened. The North claims that the U.S., with its "aggressive" policies, is a direct threat to the soveriegnty of the North Korean people.
That might be silly, but it's one of the few things holding the country together. Its massive army (and, by extension, control over its civilian population) is only possible because of the perceived threat.
Just like the U.S. has done in the "War on Terror," North Korea has limited its people's freedoms to ensure its continuance. The difference is merely one of scale. Had a threat not existed, it seems likely that Communism would have fallen at the same time as its Eastern European counterparts in in 1989.
So which of our models is better for Iraq to emulate? Vietnam or Korea? Vietnam is unified, but still under a communist regime. Korea is divided, but at least two-thirds of its people are free.
Personally, I don't believe either of them are good role models.
No comments:
Post a Comment