For anyone that likes to read about the Korean War, the Smithsonian Magazine has an interesting article that includes redacted testimony given by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to Congress in regards to General Douglas MacArthur’s request to expand the war into mainland China.  In the redacted testimony the Joint Chiefs made a very good argument on why the limited war against China actually favored the United States military instead of hindering it during the Korean War:

Other remarks contradicted MacArthur’s recurrent complaint about the advantage the Chinese derived from the administration’s refusal to grant him permission to bomb targets beyond the Yalu River in China. Democrat Walter George of Georgia, echoing MacArthur’s assertion that “China is using the maximum of her force against us,” said it was unfair that MacArthur had to fight a limited war while the Chinese fought all out.

Omar Bradley responded that George was quite mistaken—and, by implication, that MacArthur was quite misleading. The Chinese were not fighting all out, not by a great deal. “They have not used air against our front line troops, against our lines of communication in Korea, our ports; they have not used air against our bases in Japan or against our naval air forces.” China’s restraint in these areas had been crucial to the survival of American and U.N. forces in Korea. On balance, Bradley said, the limited nature of the war benefited the United States at least as much as it did the Chinese. “We are fighting under rather favorable rules for ourselves.”

Vandenberg amplified this point. “You made the statement, as I recall it, that we were operating against the Chinese in a limited fashion, and that the Chinese were operating against us in an unlimited fashion,” the air chief said to Republican Harry Cain of Washington.

“Yes, sir,” Cain replied.

“I would like to point out that that operates just as much a limitation, so far, for the Chinese as it has for the United Nations troops in that our main base of supply is the Japanese islands. The port of Pusan is very important to us.”

“It is indeed.”

“Our naval forces are operating on the flanks allowing us naval gunfire support, carrier aircraft strikes, and the landing of such formations as the Inchon landing, all without the Chinese air force projecting itself into the area,” Vandenberg said. “Therefore, the sanctuary business, as it is called, is operating on both sides, and is not completely a limited war on our part.”

George Marshall, the secretary of defense and a five-star general himself, made the same argument. Marshall, insisting on “the greatest concern for confidentiality,” said he had asked the joint chiefs just hours before: “What happens to the Army if we do bomb, and what happens to our Army if we don’t bomb in that way.” The chiefs’ conclusion: “Their general view was that the loss of advantage with our troops on the ground was actually more than equaled by the advantages which we were deriving from not exposing our vulnerability to air attacks.”

In other words—and this was Marshall’s crucial point, as it had been Vandenberg’s—the limitations on the fighting in Korea, so loudly assailed by MacArthur and his supporters, in fact favored the American side.  [Smithsonian Magazine]

You can read much more at the link, but another fact of interest in the article was the assessment of Chiang Kai-shek’s military in Taiwan.  MacArthur had wanted to use Chiang’s army to open another front against the Communists.  His Army was however, assessed by the Joint Chiefs to be of little value due to poor training, equipment, and it was riddled with Communist infiltrators.  Additionally Chiang was assessed to have little to no legitimacy on mainland China.

All of this showed why President Truman fired MacArthur and also why the Republicans in Congress quietly withdrew support for him for President.  The Republicans instead threw their support behind another general, Dwight Eisenhower which history has shown was a far wiser choice for President than MacArthur.

I was born in what was then one of the poorest countries in the world. But my parents had high aspirations for themselves and their children. I became @WorldBank president. Never give up on your dreams. Poverty is not destiny. #InheritPossibility pic.twitter.com/xvGZdsGj8q

— Jim Yong Kim (@JimYongKim) May 4, 2018

Choi Soon-sil, the confidante of ousted President Park Geun-hye, arrives at the Seoul High Court on May 4, 2018, to attend a hearing for her appeals trial over a string of corruption charges that led to Park’s ouster. In February, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced Choi to 20 years in prison for abusing power for personal financial gain and other crimes. (Yonhap)

There is a great guest posting over at One Free Korea that I recommend everyone read.  It is from Tara O an ex-US Air Force intelligence officer who now works for the CSIS.  In her posting she shares many of the same views I have about the current peace negotiations that are ongoing on the Korean peninsula.  Here is an excerpt from the posting:

First, who is actually saying these phrases? President Moon Jae-in, not Kim Jong-un. Kim Jong-un certainly can speak for himself and as the monopolizer of communications and information in North Korea, he would have no problem expressing his positions. Even during the Moon-Kim meeting, Kim never uttered the word “denuclearization” and it was only Moon who said “denuclearization” but not of “North Korea,” but of the “Korean Peninsula.”

Second, the actual term used is “complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula” not “denuclearization of North Korea.” When we hear the word “denuclearization,” we mean North Korea giving up its nuclear weapons. However, “denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula” is what North Korea has long said, and the two ideas are very different. North Korea wants “denuclearization” of South Korea (South Korea is the part of the “Korean Peninsula” that it wants to focus on). South Korea does not have nuclear weapons, but it does have civilian nuclear energy, and more importantly, it has the U.S. nuclear umbrella through extended deterrence. What North Korea wants is the removal of the U.S. nuclear umbrella and the U.S. military capability away from not only South Korea but the region. That is hardly denuclearization of North Korea. It does imply removing the U.S. troops from the Korean Peninsula and ending the alliance.

The “complete” could also mean the extension of denuclearization to the United States, in which case, what Kim really wants is a nuclear arms control negotiation with the U.S., which in turn means he wants to be recognized as a nuclear power. This is in line with what he has told people in North Korea—that North Korea will be recognized as a nuclear power. North Koreans believe that Kim’s meeting with Trump is about North Korea being recognized as a nuclear power.  [One Free Korea]

I highly recommend reading the whole thing at the link.

It looks like President Moon will be able to personally make his case to President Trump to get on the peace train and pretend trust that the Kim regime is going to denuclearize:

President Moon Jae-in will meet U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House on May 22 to discuss the upcoming North Korea-U.S. summit, the Blue House said on Saturday. The date and location of the high-stakes meeting between North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and Trump have yet to be announced.

Moon is expected to share the detailed outcome of his summit with Kim last month and convey the North Korean leader’s intentions to Trump. The presidential office said in a statement that the two leaders would “have an in-depth discussion over ways to make sure the North-U.S. summit will be successful on the back of achievements forged in the April 27 summit.”

On the upcoming Moon-Trump meeting, the White House said the two “will continue their close coordination on developments regarding the Korean Peninsula following the April 27 inter-Korean summit,” and discuss “Trump’s upcoming meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.”  [Joong Ang Ilbo]

You can read more at the link.

That is something the Chosun Ilbo was able to figure out due to last week’s Inter-Korean Summit:

Which brings us to the shoes. Historically, height is thought to be a bone of contention for the Kim dynasty. Some Western sources say that Kim Jong Un’s father, Kim Jong Il, was 5 feet 2 inches tall and wore lifts in his shoes to make himself appear taller. The younger Kim is commonly listed as being around 5 feet 7, though it is not clear where this figure comes from.

Chosun Ilbo, one of South Korea’s most popular newspapers, decided to investigate the mystery. The paper gave footage of Kim meeting Moon to seven experts, who spent hours poring over the footage to see what it could say about the North Korean leader’s physical features.

Perhaps the biggest revelation was in Kim’s footwear. In videos and photographs, they found that Kim appeared to be less than an inch shorter than Moon, who is recorded as being a little over 5 feet 6 inches tall. But they noticed something strange with his shoes: a high slope on the front of the shoe seemed to suggest that Kim was wearing insoles that were pushing his feet upward. One expert suggested that this meant the height difference between the Korean leaders was actually nearly 2 inches and possibly more, making Kim only 5-foot-4.  [Seattle Times]

You can read more at the link, but Kim’s true height means that his body mass index is around 45.  Someone is considered obese at BMI 30.

Nonviolent free speech is not the problem. People who answer nonviolent free speech with threats & violence are the problem. A people who can't comprehend this won't stay free for long.https://t.co/4Dg4YTmQJo

— (((Joshua))) Stanton (@freekorea_us) May 4, 2018

This photo, taken May 5 2018, shows vehicles stuck in a traffic jam on one side of the Gyeongbu Expressway, which links Seoul with southern areas, as travelers leave the city to celebrate Children’s Day. (Yonhap)

So why would North Korea care about removing a purely defensive weapon system that is of no threat to them?  The only reason they would want the THAAD battery gone is so they can more easily target South Korean cities with their ballistic missiles.  That seems contrary to supposedly seeking peace on the peninsula:

North Korea on Thursday urged South Korea and the U.S. to lift sanctions, withdraw the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense battery in southwestern Korea, and stop mentioning human rights abuses in the North.

The demands came after the recent inter-Korean summit and ahead of a summit with the U.S.

“The American plot against human rights practices is a provocative racket that poses an obstacle to the trend towards dialogue and peace,” the official Rodong Sinmun daily said. “We’re doubtful of America’s sincerity whether it really has the intention to have dialogue.”

The Uriminzokkiri propaganda website complained about remarks by U.S. officials in favor of keeping up maximum pressure on the North, calling them “an affront and insult to our sincere efforts towards peace.”

State media also said there is “no longer is any justification or excuse” for the presence of the THAAD battery. Propaganda outlet Meari said, “The THAAD battery is an ill-intentioned act running counter to the inter-Korean relations. The battery should be withdrawn immediately.”  [Chosun Ilbo]

You can read more at the link, but here is where things are getting even more interesting; the White House and Beijing are supposedly negotiating a withdrawal of THAAD from Korea if North Korea denuclearizes:

The U.S. and China are discussing a possible withdrawal of a U.S. missile defense system from South Korea as part of a grand bargain over North Korea’s nuclear program, multiple sources familiar with the talks said.

The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, deployed in South Korea last year, has been a bone of contention with China. China has doubted U.S. claims that the system has the sole purpose of destroying missiles from North Korea, insisting its covert mission is to spy on Chinese airspace.  [Korea Times]

You can read more at the link, but the White House denies this report, but this could be another one of these trial balloons put out by the Trump administration to judge Chinese reactions.

This article below sounds like something right out of a South Korean action movie:

It has been reported that a man identified as Mr. Kang (Senior Colonel, late 50s), the head of the Foreign Counter-Espionage office in charge of North-Eastern China for the Ministry of State Security (MSS) fled overseas in February. He is also known for having a connection to Kim Il Sung’s Mother, Kang Pan Sok.

In a conversation with a source in China close to North Korean affairs, it was revealed that “Mr. Kang was residing at the Chilbosan Hotel (now Zhongpu International Hotel) in China, overseeing operations at the foreign counter-espionage office for Russia, China, and Southeast Asia, before he suddenly disappeared on February 25. He was reported to have taken a machine capable of printing American dollars and a lot of foreign currency with him.”

According to the source, Mr. Kang was a significantly important individual, often being called the “Troika” of the Foreign Counter-Espionage Office. He was in charge of directing intelligence and ground operations in Russia and China, and supervised the development of essential talent for North Korea’s nuclear program by covertly arranging exchanges between Russian and Chinese scientists.  (…….)