Wednesday, August 6, 2008

Korea: Shooting Refugess (or is it the AP) in a Barrel

See Sunday's entry on the 1800 word article by the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" (always use official, complete name in original reference)--an article bashing alleged actions by the U.S., and U.S. soldiers, 58 years ago!  See my additional entry yesterday, and Dan's entry (on his blog) linked on his comment to yesterday's entry here.  This is a continuation of my analysis of this disgraceful, anti-American AP article--an analysis which I fully intend to last all week.

Now the excuse for the AP story (an excuse that might justify a paragraph--not 1800 words) is that a South Korean Commission criticized these U.S. actions during the Korean conflict.  A later entry will discuss the "WHY" of such a Commitssion at this time, but this entry will continue to concentrate on the disgraceful AP.

How do we know that the "Commission" is only an EXCUSE for the anti-American Assoiciated Press?  Well, for one thing there were those two OTHER AP stories trying to blame the U.S. for the alleged machine gunning of 3500 prisoners by SOUTH KOREAN troops.  See the archives of this blog.  The Commission was hardly even mentioned in those prior articles, as the anti-American AP went through hoops to blame the U.S. for the actions of the SOUTH KOREANS.  However, we do not have to go back.

I want you to consider this (paraphrased, but accurately reported by me) statement from the AP/AOL story:   "Review by the AP of recently declassified documents supports that the U.S. deliberately targeted Korean refugees."

Isn't that a marvelous (sarcasm) example of modern "journalism".  The facts are not presented.  We are given OPINION.  But it is not even the opinion of this South Korean Commmission--worthless as that might be.  It is the opinion of th eASSOCIATED PRTESS.  Plus, it is an obvious LIE--an anti-American SMEAR--in the sense of providing no perspective at all to a situation that was clearly not that simple.

See the actual DOCUMENT quoted by the AP that I quoted in Sunday's entry.  There, Americans were quoted as saying that our pilots could not distinguish refugees from North Koreans--resulting in dead civilians.

Now is that deliberately "targeting" refugees?  Of course not. 

"War is Hell" (William Sherman).  See yesterday's entry about how U.S. trrops were backed up against the wall in Korea, and facing a desperate situation.  Could American pilots afford to worry too much about a POSITIVE ID of every person hit by an American bomb or bullet?  Give me a break.  You can Monday morning quarterback all you want, but in war civilians die.  They certainly die if you want to win.  In fact, often the enemy will deliberately use civilians as a SCREEN for combat troops.  Did North Koreans use refugees as a screen to move against U.S. (U.N.) troops?  Of course they did.  The idea that U.S. planes could simply let North Korean soldiers use refugees as a screen to advance on American troops is ridiculous.

The AP further quotes American concerns that North Koreans were "infiltrating" among refugees as a reason refugees may have been shot.  Note that this is very little different from the "screen" idea.  Now you can, in calm hindsight, question this decision or that decision.  But the idea that the U.S. command. and U.S. planes, could afford to let North Korean troops overrun American positions by mingling with refugees is ridiculous.

There are other problems with refugees.  I recently saw an old war mobive set in China in Woirld War II telling the story of a demolition team trying to halt the advance of Japanese troops.  That menat DESTORYING THE ROAD.  It meant DOOMING refugees.  If it were necessarty to kill refugees to destroy the road, that was usrely done (not just in the movie, but in real life).  You can't lose a war by being too squeamish.  Winston Churchill supposedly (I think this is exaggerated) allowed the English city of Coventry to be destroyed rather than reveal that the British had broken the German code.  The leftists of the anti-American AP, and leftists in general, have no concept of war (except when they want to have, such as during World War II when they owrried a lot about the help we were giving Joseph Stalin and Russia--darlings of the left then).  Individual lives don't stand for much in a war.

Now I have no problem with HISTORIANS suggesting that some military men are too cavalier with civilian lives (like in Tokyo and Dresden).  Air Force people especially have a tunnel vison overestimating the virtues of bombing and underestimating its undesirable effects.  However, it is still war, and the deicisons made are not only of life and death of individuals, but of like and death of entire armies and countries.  Second guessing those decisions has to be done with some humility, or you are no better than the people at the despicable AP.  I can't tell you how BAD that is.

Read that AP assertiona above again.  Did the U.S. really "target" woment and children?  Antother part of the story suggests that victims of these air raids were primarily women and children.  Die the U.S. really "target" refugees because we wanted to kill REFUGEES.  That is what the AP SAYS, but that is clearly wrong.  IF we "targeted" refugess, it was for a MILITARY PURPOSE.  We had nothing against refugees.  It is insane to suggest we did.  But refugees fleeing before an invading North Korean army were a big military problem.  You had to do something to keep them from costing you the war, and killing thousands of Americans as our army got wiped out (almost happened, until that brilliant MacArthur landing at INchon). 

Desptie the despicable AP, it is not a matter of "targeting" refugees.  It is a matter of handling the PROBLEM presented by refugees.  As in China in World War II (and the Phillippines and elsewhere), you HAD to stop the advance of the enemy.  The refugees could not be allowed to stand in the way of that.  It is ridiculous to say that Americans were ORDERED to kill women and children  The AP presents nothing to support that kind of ridiculous charge.  But things might be ordered which are KNOWN will result in women and children being killed. It is WAR.  You can only do the best you can.

Nope.  The whole 1800 word AP article is ANTI-AMERIcAN propaganda, with no perspective at all.  It is a DELIBERATE (much more deliberate than the "targeting" of refugees) effort to advance a Reverend Wright type agenda labeling the U.S.A. as an evil country, which has been repsonsible for a good part of the evil in the world.

As I stated before, the reall killers of the refugees were the NORTH KOREANS (plus the Soviet Uniton, and Joseph Stalin).  Bombing kills civilians.  It did so in Kosovo and IRAQ, when Bill Clinton bombed those places.  It did so in Japan and Germany.  It did so in Chiana and the Philippines, as we resisted the Japanese advance.  You can analyze what type of bombing is "justified", and what type is not, in rational hindsight.  But to do so without perspective makes you no better than the despicable AP.  I would not wish it on anywbody tobe that despicable a human being, and I trust you (the reader) is not.

No comments: