UPDATE: The ransom money negotiations must have gone well because the Taliban have reportedly planned to release two female hostages.  The reported going rate for the Korean hostages is $1 million per hostage.  So in theory $19 million dollars should be enough to end the hostage crisis.  How come I don’t think things will end that easily?

More over at Marmot and Nomad.

___________________________________________

The announcement of the Second Inter-Korean summit has pretty much knocked the hostage crisis out of the headlines for now, but there has only been a few developments to report anyway.  The Taliban and the Korean government were still haggling on a place to conduct face to face talks, but the Taliban were still demanding that the UN protect them.  This demand continued to be quite ironic considering the fact that the Taliban has been committed to killing UN aid workers in Afghanistan. 

Since the UN would not provide a security guarantee the Taliban instead turned to the Red Cross, which also ironically happens to be another organization that the Taliban has murdered aid workers from.  The Red Cross has agreed to facilitating the talks which have already reportedly been concluded. 

After all the talk that the Taliban did not want ransom money, but only a hostage exchange, it appears that they have now changed their mind and they in fact want ransom money.  Also the Korean government has withdrawn all Korean aid workers from Afghanistan in some kind of hope that this would please the Taliban.  As if the Taliban cares.

The families of the hostages have sent a letter to the Taliban.  I don’t want to make light of what the families are going through, but it is clear where the naivety of these young people who went to Afghanistan came from after reading this letter.  Mothers of the hostages are also traveling to Dubai to appeal to Arab countries to help end the hostage crisis.  Here is the reported reason why they are going:

"The reason why we are sending women, especially mothers, to Dubai is that Islamic culture has more sympathy for women," said the spokesman, Cha Sung-min.

It is not often you hear "Islamic culture" and "sympathy for women" in the same sentence. 

It is interesting to watch this whole crisis play out because the Korean government is basically implementing the Taliban version of the Sunshine Policy.  Retreat on all fronts, kiss as much ass as possible, and offer bribes for little in return. 

Police have released more information that the Virginia Tech shooter Cho Seung-hui may have conducted a dry run of his shooting rampage just two days before the shootings.  Additionally the police still have not been able to link why Cho shot certain victims as well as why he shot students in the building that he did. 

The strangest thing is that Cho hid hard drives from multiple computers that he owned.  The police have been unable to find where Cho had the hard drives.  If those hard drives could be found I bet a lot of questions about why Cho did what he did could be answered.

Kim is back in Arizona and not a whole lot has changed:

Making his first start since rejoining his former Arizona Diamondbacks team last week, Kim gave up five runs on seven hits in just 2 1/3 innings at home against the Pittsburgh Pirates, the worst team in the National League.  […]

He left the game with the bases loaded and Arizona fans booed Kim as he trotted off the mound.

How come I have this feeling that this won’t be the last time he is booed off the mound in Arizona?

Well it looks like the annual Ulchi Focus Lens exercise between the US and Korean militaries may be delayed or reduced in order to appease the North Koreans. There is much rejoicing in contractor and augmentee land. 

I have long chronicled the misinformation campaign being waged by the media in regards to US military recruiting and today the Associated Press has again offered another dubious article about recruiting.  To be fair this article is by far not the worst I have seen, but it is still pretty bad.  Check out how this article begins:

Need a down-payment for your home? Seed money to start a business? The Army wants to help — if you’re willing to join up. Despite spending nearly $1 billion last year on recruiting bonuses and ads, Army leaders say an even bolder approach is needed to fill wartime ranks. […]

An Associated Press review of the increasingly aggressive recruiting offerings found the Army is not only dangling more sign up rewards  – its loosening rules on age and weight limits, education, and drug and criminal records.

Click here to read the rest of this entry.

Second Infantry Division officials plan on cracking down on dishonest housing brokers in Area 1:

More than 700 2nd ID soldiers live off post with their families in Area I; only 14 percent are on accompanied orders. The other soldiers with families are not command-sponsored families, meaning they must pay out of pocket to travel to South Korea. Since 2005, soldiers with non-command-sponsored families residing in South Korea are eligible to request an overseas housing allowance.

During the past few weeks, Area I and 2nd ID officials have taken notice of living conditions for soldiers like Tegels and have begun developing a plan to help families find better off-post housing.

They presented that plan to soldiers at a town-hall meeting Monday on Camp Red Cloud and planned another presentation at Camp Casey on Tuesday.

“We owe it to you that you live in a decent place,” 2nd ID commander Maj. Gen. James Coggin said from the audience Monday.

Real estate brokers must speak English or have co-workers who speak English and can work with soldiers. They must also be licensed, though officials said they haven’t yet looked at whether an unlicensed broker can team with a licensed broker — a common practice in South Korea.

Area I also is requiring approved brokers to provide transportation to and from bases.

That should include two or three morning trips, three or four midday trips and two to three evening trips, Area I commander Col. Larry Jackson said at the meeting.

Most apartments near 2nd Infantry Division camps are usually quite substandard and soldiers not familiar with Korea do get screwed around by the local land lords.  I hope this new licensed broker system improves things, but judging by the housing scams I have seen in areas south of 2ID that have this same type of policy, this is definitely something I would have to see to believe. 

My best advice to people looking for housing off post is to have a trusted Korean friend such as a KATUSA to go with you and help you out.  Also never go for the first place you see.  You need to spend the time to look at as many apartments as possible and then play the landlords against each other to get the best deal.  Also you need to have the housing contract translated and verified by JAG. 

When I lived off post I intentionally did not live in an apartment that was near the camp.  Farther away from a camp you are usually better the apartments are and more trustworthy the landlords because they are not used to dealing with US soldiers and do not play the various scam games that landlords near the US camps like to play.  I just had to take a jog every morning to get to work which is no big deal since I had PT every morning anyway. 

I lived in a high rise apartment in Uijongbu that was only four years old that had three bedrooms, two bathrooms for $700 bucks a month.  I did have to buy a refrigerator and a washing machine.  At least for Uijongbu this kind of gives people an idea of housing prices available off post.  You should not be paying anymore that $700 bucks and when I left the apartment I had no issues at all.  Often landlords will try and scam soldiers who are renting by keeping deposits or charging secret fees among a host of other scams they like to play. 

I had no issues at all when I left and I hope the new licensed broker system does the same thing for all soldiers living off post in 2ID, but like I said before I have to see it to believe it. 

In what would become the final days of World War II, the two Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were destroyed by atomic bombs dropped by the US Air Force, first on August 6, 1945 and then again on August 9, killing at least 120,000 people initially, and around twice as many over time due to radiation poisoning.

The primary reasons given for dropping the two bombs was that it would force Japan to unconditionally surrender. Japan did ultimately surrender on August 15, 1945. The other reason was that it would save American and Japanese lives overall due to the US military not needing to invade the Japanese main land.

With this week’s anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there has been a run up of articles in the media and elsewhere chronicling the anniversary of this event.

First of all the main question many people ask is if the atomic bombings of Japan were necessary?

Setting up surrender talks sanctioned by both the U.S. and the Japanese governments would likely have been difficult. But there is no easy way of ending a war. The primary question is not what is the easier path, but what path will bring a lasting peace while sparing the most Allied lives and, secondarily, “enemy” civilian lives.

While it cannot be proven, had officially sanctioned communication been made by the Allies or the U.S. to Japan thru Konoye, the various peace feelers, or other credible diplomatic channel stating that Japan’s time had completely run out due to the impending threats of nuclear destruction and Soviet invasion, and that immediate surrender would mean the opportunity to retain their throne, there is a good chance the Japanese doves would have enlisted the Emperor to bring Japan to surrender in late July or early August of 1945.

I disagree that setting up surrender talks would of led to the unconditional surrender of Japan. The Japanese at the time practiced the samurai code of Bushido where they would not surrender. Any deal made in peace talks would likely not be called a surrender but a cease fire to save face for the Japanese militarists in charge of the country. Plus I believe the militarists would never of allowed a complete American occupation of Japan because then that would be a symbol of defeat.

With a cease fire in a place and no occupation how different would Japan be today? The militarists would of still been in power after the war and deeply bitter about their failure to win the war. This scenario sounds very familiar to World War I when the Germans were not forced to unconditionally surrender due to the allied armies, particularly the French and English, being worn down with heavy casualties and looking to end the war any way possible, thus the Armistice Agreement was reached. The Armistice directly led to Hitler’s popularity and rise because the Germans never felt defeated after World War I.

The attitude in Japan would of been much the same way if the militarists stayed in power. Why do I think this you ask?  It is pretty clear that the mentality in Japan would never accept a complete surrender through negotiations. It took the fire bombing of Tokyo, the bloody fights on Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the Russian entry into the war, plus not one but two atomic bombs before they finally surrendered nearly a week after the second atomic bomb on August 15th. The Japanese did not initially feel compelled to surrender when they believed they could win a bloody fight on their home islands which could of caused the US to eventually seek a ceasefire instead of conquering all of Japan.

So yes, I agree surrender talks may have potentially worked and saved the lives lost from the atomic bombings, but without the unconditional surrender of Japan would it have led to another war years later? Who knows, but this is the thought that General MacArthur and many other people of this generation that fought in World War I had in the back of their minds. They did not want to repeat the mistakes of World War I, thus MacArthur’s famous saying, “There is no substitute for victory.”

In addition there was great thought put into determining the amount of American casualties that the US would potentially lose in an invasion of the Japanese mainland. Operation Olympic was the code name for the US military operational plan to invade the southern Japanese mainland island of Kyushu. The casualty estimate of the invasion of this island range anywhere from 63,000 – 100,000 US lives. Keep in mind these are just the estimates of the one southern Japanese island.

The Japanese were preparing for the all out defense of their homeland called Operation Ketsu-go. Read the link for an in depth look at the defensive plan to protect the Japanese main land. It is obvious that this would have been a bloody fight which was backed up by the American losses of 10,000 Americans dead and missing in the Marianas, 5,500 dead at Leyte, 9,000 dead during the Luzon campaign, 6,800 at Iwo Jima, 12,600 at Okinawa, and 2,000 killed at Peleliu that weighed heavily on the minds of America’s leaders.

The vicious fighting on Okinawa saw the US versus Japanese casualties approaching a 2-1 ratio. Just imagine if someone invaded the United States how hard would Americans fight to protect their homeland? I can guarantee that just about every able body person with a gun besides the citizens of San Francisco and Berkley would take up arms against the invaders. Plus the amount of civilians killed on Okinawa due to the fighting was heavy, not to mention villagers that killed themselves by jumping off of cliffs with their children instead of surrendering to the Americans. Would the Japanese mainland be any different.

Operation Olympic, the proposed invasion plan of the Japanese main land during World War II. Notice no plans were ever made to occupy Korea initially.

An additional factor weighing on the minds of US leaders was the fact this would be primarily a lone US invasion. The fall of Germany was helped by the combined allied armies in the western front and the Russian offensive in the east. In fact, the Russian Army during their 23 day invasion of East Germany lost 78,291 dead. Just an incredible number. Should the US leaders have expected anything different in Japan?

Then the final factor is the, Revenge Factor. Any politician that would of allowed the Japanese to end the war without unconditional surrender would have committed political suicide. The American public wanted revenge and complete victory after what happened at Pearl Harbor. Allowing the Japanese regime that initiated the attack on Pearl Harbor to stay in place would not be acceptable to the American public.

As you can see there are many factors that went into the nuclear bombings. This was not a rash decision made to kill as many people as possible. It was a shrewd calculated strategic decision made at the highest echelons of the US leadership to end the war quickly with the least amount of lives lost. I know many people would also dispute bombing civilians but World War II was fought by the rules of “total war” where civilians were considered legitimate targets in order to break national will power. Look what the Japanese did in China and other areas in Asia. Look what the Germans did in their bombing of Britian. The US military and other allied nations responded in kind in both theaters with the carpet bombings of Germany most notably Dresden and the fire bombings of Japan. In fact the fire bombing of Tokyo cost more lives than dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. “Total War” may not seem like a humanitarian concept, but when the survival of the nation is at stake countries will do whatever is necessary to save their nation. Does anyone doubt if the Germans or the Japanese developed the bomb before the Americans that they would of use it on American or allied targets?

I really do not see another alternative that would of worked that would of caused the unconditional surrender of Japan and the occupation of Japan that followed other than dropping the atomic bomb.

Now one thing I do dispute was the need to drop the second atomic bomb. I can understand Hiroshima, but Truman may have been to quick to bomb Nagasaki. The city must not have been a big military target since it had not received heavy bombing prior to the dropping of the nuclear bomb. So for stategic purposes it was not necessary to bomb for any other reason to break national will power.

A factor I think Truman probably took into account was the fact that the Soviet military entered the war on August 8, 1945 one day before the bombing of Nagasaki. The Soviet invasion had both pros and cons for Truman. The pro was that the invasion would put more pressure on the Japanese to surrender. The negative was that the Soviets were gobbling up territory before the US military could claim territory which I think Truman took into account. If the war dragged on any longer the Soviets could of very welled occupied all of Korea and the northern Japanese main land island of Hokkaido since they had already occupied the Kuril islands.

Maybe a few more days should have been alloted for the Japanese leadership to judge the effects of the Russian entry into the war. Maybe the threat of Soviet occupation would of finally made the Japanese surrender and allow the Americans to occupy them. If this didn’t work then the nuclear option was available.

I feel Truman didn’t take this option into account because he ordered the bombing of Nagasaki only one day after the Soviet entry into the war. I think the fear of the Soviets gobbling up large chunks of territory in Japan is what forced Truman’s hand to bomb Nagasaki. The American leadership felt that the occupation of Japan was critical in the soon to be developed containment policy of the Soviet Union. If the United States did not control all of Japan or ended up with a split Japan then the Soviets would have the advantage in controlling all of northeast Asia. This was definitely geo-politics at its most cunning level.

In a history class I took in college a Japanese student explained in class that he believed the US should have dropped the first atomic bomb out in the ocean in order to show the ruling militarist the might of the atomic bomb without targeting civilians. I countered his point that if dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima did not force the militarists to surrender than how was dropping a bomb in the ocean going to make them surrender? In fact it took two atomic bombings of Japanese cities and the entry of the Russians into the war in order to get the Japanese to finally surrender.

The other argument the Japanese student brought up was why the US did not drop a nuclear bomb on Berlin. That is because the US did not have a nuclear capability by the time Germany surrendered and even if it did the casualty ratio of an invasion of Germany is much lower compared to Japan. First of all it was a land battle where US tanks were able to roll right into Germany from France, secondly Germany was beat and actually was fighting harder to stop the Russian advance in order to be occupied by the Americans. With Japan the US forces would have had to do an amphibious landing followed by a vicious fight against fanatical defenders, which would have made casualties on both sides extremely high. There are clear differences between nuking Japan and Germany.

With 50 years of hindsight it is easy to sharpshoot Truman’s decision, but ultimately he did what he felt was in the best interest of the United States; not the best interest of Japan. This is important to keep in mind because I’m sure he felt the cost of Japanese civilian lives were secondary to protecting the lives of US serviceman and the geo-politics of protecting US national security by implementing the containment strategy of the Soviet Union. I still think that the bombing of Nagasaki may have been to quick, but today you really can’t argue with the results because the Soviet Union is history and Japan is one of the world’s wealthiest countries with the world’s second largest economy. However, I do fully agree with the Hiroshima Peace Park’s motto of never letting this tragedy happen again.

Previous Posting: Remembering Nagasaki

I have long chronicled the misinformation campaign being waged by the media in regards to US military recruiting and today the Associated Press has again offered another dubious article about recruiting.  To be fair this article is by far not the worst I have seen, but it is still pretty bad.  Check out how this article begins:

Need a down-payment for your home? Seed money to start a business? The Army wants to help — if you’re willing to join up. Despite spending nearly $1 billion last year on recruiting bonuses and ads, Army leaders say an even bolder approach is needed to fill wartime ranks. […]

An Associated Press review of the increasingly aggressive recruiting offerings found the Army is not only dangling more sign up rewards  – its loosening rules on age and weight limits, education, and drug and criminal records.

By just reading the opening paragraphs of this article you would think the Army is throwing a bunch of money to recruit elderly, obese, uneducated, criminals because of the war in Iraq.  Does this line of reasoning sound familiar?  Well it should because I have long demonstrated how the left and their media allies have been doing everything possible to label soldiers as uneducated, low life, criminals responsible for committing war crimes all over Iraq and are not worthy of the nation’s respect.  This AP article is clearly keeping in tune with this leftist narrative.  The only thing wrong with this narrative is that it is not true, but since when has the media been concerned about facts?  Perception is all that matters and this article is one in the long line of articles trying to create negative perceptions of the US military through dubious reporting.

Now after leading people on that there is a recruiting crisis due to the war in Iraq that is requiring the military to throw all this money at a bunch of elderly, obese, uneducated, criminals, the AP writer suddenly admits that the military is on track to meet this year’s recruiting goals:

In June, the Army failed to meet its recruitment target for the second month in a row, although it apparently met its goal to recruit 9,750 troops in July and is on target for 80,000 for the year that ends Sept. 30.

Notice the sneering “apparently met its goal”, no not “apparently”, the military did meet their recruiting goal.  Not only is the military on target to meet recruiting numbers for the year, but the numbers are actually above the needed percentage.  But once again since when has the media been concerned about facts?  Obviously not Kimberly Hefling from the AP who wrote this article.

So what exactly is this expensive program to throw money at obese, uneducated, low lives you may ask?  Well, just one of the best recruiting ideas since the GI Bill in my humble opinion:

The Army would like to start a pilot program targeting 500 people who might not otherwise considering joining. In the pilot, the takers who complete a 4-year enlistment would be eligible for up to $30,000 in incentives — including money for a home loan or business. Eventually, the Army wants to offer up to $45,000.

This is a fantastic idea and yet the AP writer from the start of the article has made this program out to be something that is intended to recruit obese criminals.  Since when have criminals been concerned about getting a down payment for a home?  This program is going to appeal to whole different class of people who maybe don’t want to go to college or maybe have already gone to college, but they know that in four years they could not save up the $45,000 for a down payment on a home that the Army is offering.

Instead of insinuating that this program is intended to recruit obese criminals, the AP writer should be highlighting the great ingenuity of this program, but that doesn’t fit the leftist narrative, thus readers are lead to believe obese criminals want a down payment for a home mortgage.  This is the type of ridiculousness that passes as journalism in the US now a days.

Believe it or not, the article actually gets better before it ultimately gets far worse.  More than half way through the article Hefling actually includes some facts that probably has more effects on recruiting than the Iraq War:

Beyond the Iraq war, the military says other factors have affected its ability to recruit. More high school graduates are going to college, and the economy is strong, providing lots of civilian jobs. At the same time, only three of 10 people between 17 and 24 fully meet the military’s standards.

Less obvious factors have also decreased the recruitment pool. They include higher obesity rates, more people diagnosed with mental health conditions such as attention-deficit disorder, more criminal citations due to the increase of the drinking age from 18 to 21.

“The numbers of people who meet our enlistment standards is astonishingly low,” said Michael Dominguez, principal deputy undersecretary of defense.

Wow, this seems like some pertinent information that should have been in the front of the article and not towards the end.  By reading this it is clear that this new recruiting program was designed to compete against a strong economy offering good jobs to potential recruits and not uneducated, low life criminals.

At least the AP writer actually allowed some facts to actually seep into the article which is why I said in the beginning of this posting that it wasn’t the worst posting on recruiting I have read; usually the journalists just leave out such facts all together.  This journalist just decided to bury the facts, but at least she included them.

However, not to far after actually offering some real facts, our AP writer has decided to delve back into the realm of fiction again:

Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said her organization is concerned that low-income young people and minorities are targeted by recruiters and lured with promises into making decisions they would not otherwise have made.

The old recruiters are targeting poor helpless minorities claim again.  I don’t know how many times I’m going to have to keep shooting down this ficticious claim, but here I go again.  Let’s go back to the land of facts instead of conventional wisdom.  The facts are that recruiters are actually recruiting less blacks than in years past.  Guess who is taking the place of potential black recruits?  You guessed it, white recruits!  Is the AP going to write an article condemning the “targeting” of white recruits by the US military any time soon?  I think we all know the answer to this question.

What is even more ridiculous about this claim is that the military is offering low income and minority kids a college education and a down payment on a home is some how a bad thing.  I suppose Ms. Lieberman would prefer these kids go on government programs where for their whole lives they are dependent on people like her to ensure they keep getting their free hand outs.  How dare the US military do something like offer these kids a college education, a down payment on a home, job skills, and leadership training that would break this cycle of government dependence that many low income minorities find themselves in?

Of course Hefling wraps up her whole absurd article by going back to the narrative that their is a recruiting crisis caused by the Iraq War, which I have already pointed out in great detail there isn’t:

It’s not just the attitudes of young people that have seemingly shifted. In 2005, statistical surveys revealed that because of the Iraq war, adults who work with students were less likely to suggest joining the military.

“The willingness of coaches, teachers, counselors and parents to commend military service to America’s youth is lower than is good for our nation and our military,” said Dominguez, the Defense Department official.

The journalistic incompetence of the AP continues with no end in sight.

Just for the record, the facts clearly show that military recruits are smarter, increasingly middle class, (even the numbers of wealthy enlisting is up) and the number of poor and minority recruits are dropping with more whites joining and the overall numbers are nearing the make up of the average US population.

Facts are hard for the demagogues, the race baiters, and class warfare specialists to accept, but longer the War on Terror goes on, more the demographic make up of the US military is becoming a direct reflection of American society itself.  What is so bad about that?

The Chosun Ilbo has an article about the increasing amount of outsourcing for the Zaytun unit in Iraq.  I found this note about the unit quite interesting:

In October 2004, an advance team of the Zaytun Unit arrived in Irbil in northern Iraq, at the end of a 1,115 km trip under U.S. aerial protection. The location was a barren field, where soldiers faced huge difficulties. At one point, they had difficulty securing even tent cloth. They could not afford to roam about the downtown area to buy more: if any of them should be attacked by insurgents, public opinion back in the country would turn immediately against their presence in Iraq.

What is your army doing in Iraq when you are afraid to go to the local market to buy cloth?  Especially in the peaceful area of Kurdistan where they are stationed at.  US soldiers go to Kurdistan for R&R, while the ROK Army goes there to pretend they are at war.  The Korean government might as well as just outsource the entire Zaytun unit and bring them all home. 

Just for the record I have been against the Zaytun deployment since before the unit was ever deployed because I figured the unit would not be allowed to do much of anything meaningful which is evident by the fact they can’t go to the market to buy cloth.  Plus if there was a mass casualty attack or as we see with the Taliban, a pro-longed hostage crisis, the anti-US groups, politicians, and media would waste no time capitalizing on it.  Additionally, the Korean government would expect unrealistic political benefits from the dispatch. 

I’m not the only thinking this way either; Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki has already hinted that he would prefer 2,300 Korean businessmen instead of 2,300 Zaytun soldiers.  The Kurds are literally laughing at the Zaytun "occupation force".  Plus soldiers that have served in the Zaytun unit have voiced their frustrations with the deployment, which has been echoed by the Korean media as well. 

The Korean government should outsource the Zaytun mission to all the Korean Christian missionaries.  It would keep them out of Afghanistan, be a lot cheaper, and I bet they will be willing to go to the local marketplace to buy their own cloth. 

It is going to be interesting to see how well this is implemented:

Beginning Oct. 1, U.S. Forces Korea will require South Koreans to prove they are part of the Good Neighbor Program to renew their guest passes to U.S. military bases.

Approximately 5,100 South Korean guest pass holders will be affected by the peninsula-wide change, which is designed to increase security and eliminate the practice of “buying” passes.

“Our old practice allowed anyone who was a member of a recognized friendship organization to gain access to USFK bases. In some cases, the pass holder was merely someone buying base access through the payment of (an organization’s) membership,” a statement on the policy changes said.

Under the current policy, South Korean organizations can submit the names of members who do community relations work on base and, with military approval, get yearlong passes that allow them to enter bases unescorted.

The new command policy will require South Koreans to document their work in USFK’s Good Neighbor Program and require them to have higher-ranking U.S. military sponsors who know them personally.

Passes will be called “Good Neighbor passes” instead of guest passes.

How come I have the feeling that the slot machines and golf courses will still be filled with Korean civilains?  However, instead of being part of a "friendship organization" they will be considered "Good Neighbors".