The Policy of Irrelevancy

Wow. This fisking rocks. Nice job. 😉

Ya get what ya give…invest wisely

Didn''t the ROK kick serious ass in Vientnam? Seems I read that somewhere long ago.

Tom obviously did read to closely I wrote nothing about Japanese doing battle in Iraq, I said the Japanese did just as much in Iraq as the ROK Army did. Politically the Japanese have done way more for US interests than Korea.

Dan, like I mentioned in my posting this is not the fault of the ROK Army. The ROK Army is highly capable. The ROK Army served galantly in Vietnam and would serve galantly in Kirkuk as well. If the Korean government accepted the Kirkuk mission this would have elevated the ROK Army to nearly equal status of the British who are in charge of the Basra sector. Unfortunately the Korean government made the decision of irrelevancy.

Tom, then you are making my point for me. That is why I said from when the Zaytun unit first deployed to not deploy the Zaytun unit to Iraq if they are not going there to provide real reconstruction and security. The Korean government made the proud ROK Army nothing more than a window dressing army in Iraq. The ROK Army deserves better than that.

When your government implements policies that make your Army look like a window dressing army than don't be surprised when people treat it like one.

Last I heard was that the 200 Korean troops composed of civil affairs, engineers, and doctors were actually in Krygistan and from there they would do selective aid missions into Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is another missed opportunity for Korea to be relevant in world affairs. Imagine if Korea sent combat forces to reinforce NATO when European countries like France would not send any. This would sky rocket Korea's profile in the world internationally.

A few of my ROK army buddies I know would love to do a real world operation and they are frustrated by the lack of political support for the ROK Army. There are plenty of competent Korean units that can carry out real world missions but their is no governmental will to do so.

Such a deployment would mean Korean politicians would have to show leadership and statesmanship to the Korean people. Statesmanship and especially leadership are in short supply in the Korean government, it is easier to appease the masses by saying Dokto is Korea while remaining irrelevant in major world affairs.

"This would sky rocket Korea’s profile in the world internationally."

I just cannot believe anyone would spew out this BS and be allowed to get away with this. Give me a break. Korea could have sent 20,000 combat troops and most Americans excepting a few, would bat an eye, let alone raise "Korea's profile in the world internationally". How many Americans even know that there are international troops other then americans, in Afghanistan? Very few. GI mentioned Vietnam War. That's an interesting fact there too. Yeah that sure raised Korea's international profile.

I'm sorry to break it to the masturbory fantisizing expats, but it's just the chosun ilbo, nobody else cares what mr. dickie cheney does, in Korea. This is not even a big news yet it's so funny that it's plastered all over expat blogs such as this.

Seoulmilk you are correct with the initial political relevance but since then the Zaytun unit has been irrelevant but the VP visited Korea in 2004 to thanks Korea's troop deployment, during the last ASEAN summit that Bush attended in Pusan he thanked Korea for the troop deployment and Rumsfeld actually flew to Iraq and traveled to Irbil to thank the Zaytun soldiers there. Korea has been recognized for the deployment, but the Chosun article makes it appear they want more recognition than what they are entitled to compared to US allies Japan and Australia.

In response to Tom, Korea received huge benefits from their involvement in the Vietnam War. The economic success of Korea's major conglomerates is linked to the ROK's involvement in the Vietnam War. They made huge profits with contracts during the Vietnam War not to mention favorable trade deals given to the ROK on exports to the US.
http://www.kisc.org/kti/issues/1998/7-8/koreana.h…

Quote:

"The Vietnam War was a boon to the growing Korean chaebol, especially Hyundai and Hanjin. With the backing of the U.S. Army, Hanjin became virtually the sole operator of the key Vietnamese port of Qui Nhon, and provided both marine and land transportation for the American forces in Vietnam. In support of this effort, Hanjin established an air and sea transport company in Korea to ferry supplies and workers to Vietnam. Using the enormous profits generated by this activity and paid for by the American military forces in Vietnam, Hanjin bought the then ailing Korean Air Lines from the Korean government and subsequently turned it into one of the world's premiere airline companies.

Hyundai and the hurriedly established construction divisions of other chaebol were given major construction contracts in Korea by the U.S. Army, providing them with a fund of experience as well as huge profits, which made it possible for them to bid on and win numerous construction contracts in the Middle East and elsewhere when the Vietnam war ended. Records show that in just four years in the latter part of the 1970s Korea's top 10 chaebol made $22 billion on construction projects in the Middle East."

The Koreans are relevant props for the mythical coalition of the willing; thus, they are relevant. Zaytun, however, will not be allowed to snoop, and interfere. Korean loyalty to Anglo-American interests is highly questionable, and just might tattle on the Americans if they blunder onto what is really going on. Best leave them harmless up in Kurdistan building toilets and obsessed with StarCraft.

Former British Ambassador to the Central Asian Republic of Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, wrote that he suspects the ongoing sectarian violence in Iraq has been intentionally provoked and continued by US and UK special forces in occupation of the country.

The Koreans can only be trusted to spill the beans.

Murray states:

"As the catastrophe in Iraq continues to unfold, an unresolved question remains on the role of Bush, Blair, and the US/UK military. To what extent were they passively incompetent in facilitating the decline into civil war, and to what extent were they actively pursuing policies that promoted that outcome?"

Murray suspects that as part of a "divide and conquer" strategy, the same strategy used by British forces in Iraq 85 years ago, Special Forces are being used to intentionally foment civil war by training and equipping Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Shiite militiamen, to target Sunni insurgents and their sympathizers.

The adoption of the 'Salvador Option' by the US in Iraq was reported and discussed from the beginning of 2005 onwards.

Newsweek reported that this Pentagon or CIA handled operation "would even extend across the border into Syria, according to military insiders familiar with the discussions… The current thinking is that while U.S. Special Forces would lead operations in, say, Syria, activities inside Iraq itself would be carried out by Iraqi paramilitaries."

"The evidence that the US directly contributes to the creation of the current civil war in Iraq by its own secretive security strategy is compelling." Murray added.

Thus, Zaytun is highly relevant in Kurdistan. They are window dressing without a clue. Best that way.

I agree, gi korea. Zaytun is no longer needed for legitimacy. The agenda now in Iraq is to set down permanent bases and dominate the Middle East from there. Being incompetant just enough to allow a civil war to rage justifies keeping our forces in the area for a long time. This is good for American geo-strategy, and blocks the Russians and Chinese before they go for the big Middle East land grab. What the U.S. military needs now is another 9-11 attack back in the states to get even the liberals behind us. Lots of dead babies and women will do the job. They did this with the Gladio operations: government black operations killing civilians to make them beg for state security and cooperate. Even you can agree it's hard to get a Democracy to do the right thing, without a little help.

GI Korea,

You are dead-on about Silly Sally's pernicious ability to brainwash; look how she brainwashed

Zbigniew Brzezinski, a man with decades of experience in the top echelons of the US foreign policy establishment, a man who has the closest links to the military and intelligence agencies, now issues Silly Sally's ominous inferences at an open hearing of the US Senate. Thank God, we have low-level minions like you denouncing victims of Sally's mind control. I believe this is your God-given calling.

Former National Security Advisor and founding member of the Trilateral Commission Zbigniew Brzezinski tacitly warned a Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week that an attack on Iran could be launched following a staged provocation in Iraq or a false flag terror attack within the U.S.

Brzezinski alluded to the potential for the Bush administration to manufacture a false flag Gulf of Tonkin type incident in describing a "plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran," which would revolve around "some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran, culminating in a ‘defensive' US military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

Brzezinski was careful to highlight the word "defensive" as if to discount its credibility, suggesting that the Bush White House itself would be behind the attack or provocation and subsequently use it as a pretext for war.

Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski arrived to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, February 1, 2007. REUTERS/Jim Young (UNITED STATES)

After Senators asked Brzezinski for clarification of exactly what he meant, the Polish-American political scientist referenced the infamous White House memo in which Bush and Blair discussed staging a provocation for an invasion of Iraq following the absence of weapons of mass destruction. Brzezinski cited how Bush "described the several ways in which this could be done," but refused to elaborate, stating only, "the ways were quite sensational, at least one of them."

Brzezinski is of course referring to the plan to fly a U2 spy plane painted with UN colors over Iraq and goading Saddam to order the aircraft shot down, resulting in widespread international support for the war. Bush and Blair openly discussed the possibility of staging this provocation along with others during their January 31 2003 meeting.

"If one is of the view that one is dealing with an implacable enemy that has to be removed, that course of action may under certain circumstances be appealing. I'm afraid that if this situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate, and if Iran is perceived as in some fashion involved or responsible, or a potential beneficiary, that temptation could arise," said Brzezinski.

From what I understand GI, you have no problem giving Democracy little kick-starts (false-flaggery, sexed-up intelligence, etc.) in the name of Democracy and Freedom.

Do most military Christians "practice" their faith like you? I am curious about the military Christian culture, these days. Do you boys now consider the ends justifying the means? Will you boys resort to anything … to make this a better world? Tell us.