Korean Job Discussion Forums

stevemcgarrett · Joined: 24 Mar 2006

Joo, I'm not only with you on this one but your measured rebuttal to RSR in which you cite several sources is superlative.

Contrarian, ditto for you.

Bruce Cumings, who recently authored a book on North Korea, is married to a Korean educator. While very knowledgable about the history of the peninsula he spares no effort to criticize American military decisions there.

The Nation is a quinessential, longstanding liberal opinion magazine.

Gopher · Joined: 04 Jun 2005

stevemcgarrett · Joined: 24 Mar 2006

Cumings is left-wing, no doubt about it. He almost, I say almost, serves as an apologist for the North Korean government's dealings with the U.S. Of course he can never quite make himself connect the dots for the readers, i.e., to show how it's possible for a ruthless dictator like Kim Jong Il to be reasonable in his reaction to supposed American hegemony.

I'm quite disappointed that the usually staid University of Chicago hired him on, given their sterling reputation. Please tell me they haven't gone utterly PC as of late in the same mold as Berkeley.

hogwonguy1979 · Joined: 22 Dec 2003 Location: the racoon den

I was just re-reading Gleysteen's account of things in Gwangju (he wrote a fascinating account of his experience as Ambassador to Seoul a number of years ago) and he made some interesting points that people need to consider:

1) Wickham the head of the USFK/CFC DID NOT have to give approval to the ROK army to move forces to Gwangju. They had to notify him and supply troops to replace those being redeployed. Wickham was in D.C. at the time when the troops were moved to Gwangju

2) The US was trying to mediate a peaceful resolution to the crisis but was undercut by the Korean gov't. They wanted to drop leaflets on Gwangju to announce this and were promised that the message would be broadcast over Korean networks but the only places such announcements were put out were in the English langauge papers an on AFKN radio/tv

3) The rumor that the US had tactially approved of the crackdown was started by Chun's own govt to shift the blame for the massacre from the ROK Army to the US. When Gleysteen found out about this he was outraged and went to the Blue House to express this.

You can read all of this (sorry I wont loan out my copy, Gleysteen signed it for me, one of my best friends is the acquaitions ed for Brookings and he got me the book).

So yeah even though I'm a devout liberal on most things, Cummings is FOS on this

Mosley · Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Steve, Joo, Gopher, et al.: Good job on your posts; you're all spot on. Hell, even Alias & Hand seem reasonable here. As for the other whack jobs, well....

I was pretty pissed by Jimmy's comments and the fact that I'm a bit taken aback that an ex-president could be so scathing of another while he's still in office. Certainly, he exhibited a shamelessness that I didn't think Carter had in him. I reckon I was wrong....

hogwonguy1979 · Joined: 22 Dec 2003 Location: the racoon den

Gopher · Joined: 04 Jun 2005

On the other hand · Joined: 19 Apr 2003 Location: I walk along the avenue

Hitchens weighs in on Carter...

Gopher · Joined: 04 Jun 2005

On the other hand · Joined: 19 Apr 2003 Location: I walk along the avenue

Gopher · Joined: 04 Jun 2005

I think the Carter Administration consciously and systematically contributed to inducing Moscow's invasion. Doubt that it was decisive, however -- even if once things got going, that is exactly the American govt's dynamic: make them suffer their own Vietnam, as you say.

I also think the Soviets made their own decisions. And we cannot take the credit for Afghanistan anymore than Soviet Russia might take the credit for Vietnam.

In any case, the "clarifications" have begun to roll in...

stevemcgarrett · Joined: 24 Mar 2006

Aloha, bruddahs. This is a dam-n good thread developing here (and not because I started it).

BuckeyeDude:

You never cease to amaze me. Great post on the supposed American complicity in that massacre followed by one without a hint of a reason. Why do you think Carter is entitled to comment more than anyone else on a sitting president in such a sweeping, condemnatory fashion?

Gopher:

Ditto to you, but only when it comes to Bush. I mean, even Bill Clinton stood up at a tribute to Bob Dole at his library in Kansas and said pointblank (referring to both Bushes): "Am I the only American that likes both of these men?"

I don't fault you for taking issue with Bush on many matters, but do you think it's justifiable for Carter to slam him?

Gopher · Joined: 04 Jun 2005

stevemcgarrett · Joined: 24 Mar 2006

Gopher:

What gets under my skin about Carter in addition to his self-promotion is his interference in foreign policy, vis-a-vis North Korea in 1994, and in Cuban "elections," and so on.

Now he publicly ridicules Blair at a time when the latter is still the PM. I've never known a former president to speak out against a longstanding alliance because of his disdain for the supposed nature of the personal relationship between the leaders.

Carter has an axe to grind. His wife is STILL bitter about losing to Reagan in 1980 and he's STILL trying to sculpt his legacy after a disastrous one term as president.

freethought · Joined: 13 Mar 2005

1. If you guys don't see the most important element to the Carter criticism, that's a sign that you don't understand what's going on right now. Carter's presidency was a disaster. His foreign policy even more so. Carter lecturing anyone on who to support based on who is good and 'moral' is an equal joke. The issue in this case, though, with THESE criticisms, is that just about all of them can be not only debated, but in many cases strongly supported.

When a president with Carter's awful record can say with a more than a degree of plausibility that the Bush administration has been one of, if not the worst in history, THAT"S HUGE. It shows just how bad it is. It might just be a case of a person recognizing their kinsmen; 'it takes one to know one,' kind of thing.

2. Carter's lack of success in office don't make his criticisms any less legitimate, and to attack the man, rather than the criticisms is a disservice to your country (for those that are Americans participating in this discussion). Socially and on foreign policy the bush admin has been a disaster.

3. and this is the most pressing fact, nothing carter did, nor do ALL of Carter's f-ups, equal the disaster that is Iraq. And that's ignoring all of Bush's domestic f-ups as well as other foreign policy f-ups.

4. Cumings is a man that should not be said to be left-wing. His assessment of korean events is ALL over the place. As for attacking Gaddis, there isn't a serious leading foreign policy or historical scholar who hasn't been attacking Gaddis for about the last 8 years.