Korea Model

I'll admit first off that I have not really looked seriously at what all the hype is with the supposed re-envisioning of the U.S. occupation of Iraq on the so-called Korea model. I've basically assumed there is no there there, that this -- to repackage an old analogy -- is a case of bad-tasting 4-year old wine repackaged into 50-year old bottles and resealed to make it seem both fresh and of good vintage. I mean, haven't they trotted out post-war occupations of Germany, Japan, Korea, and other places every time they wanted to encourage patience? What is there new about this? And at the same time, what is there of any venerability that we can apply? How is this anything like Korea, except that the occupation will strive for high-duration, low-footprint passive vigilence?

Is that a model? A model shows how something was done, not what the result will be. Otherwise, let's pick a better model, like Solonic Athens, or Paradise, or Eden, or one of those Star Trek planets where everything was kept in order by a benign computer or alien caretaker that never made a mistake. Or even a good Japanese car factory. Let's have our "model" be perfection, or at least continuous quality improvement.

Actually, some of those models are not what they once were. Restoring Paradise may require a crusade, and only al Qaida and the Coral Ridge folks want that. Eden was part of pre-Islamic Iraq, and although I would agree with preserving the origins of civilization, this seems to be a minority view, at least in terms of preservation in situ -- I understand that there may be some private collections enjoying a nice steroidal plumping off the work of those odd looters who do not feel compelled to smash every 20,000 year old vase they encounter. And as far as the Star Trek model, I'm sure Bill Gates' preserved head-in-a-vat could appoint a crack team of AIs to run Iraq from Washington state or from an orbital platorm after the required electrical grid is restored sometime in the 23rd century. Until then, few good options.

Actually, what I started out wanting to say is just that the Korea model is an ironic concept to be pushing now. Didn't we have the Korea model under the last administration? Hmmm...

I see the 50s. There's this country divided North-South. We call the North part Iraq and the South part Kuwait. Over time, lots of things happen, in no particular order. The Southern part, divided off and placed under separate leadership, remains subject to greater influence from the "Free World" has a free market and a less-free populace. The north has to be threatened with nukes because it is too independent. It plays both sides of the cold war. It is geographically prone to Communist bloc influence and receives selective support, and the West seeks various means of influence. Eventually, the North invades the South. (Though the hidden history of the war is that the North was lured or provoked because the U.S. wanted the war.) The North is driven from the South and could be crushed and occupied, perhaps, except that the President of the U.S. resists, knowing that this could turn to disaster as the North's more powerful regional allies could use it as a proxy to fight the U.S. By the 90s, the U.S. has a large force permanently garrisoned in the South, whose tasks include enforcing sanctions on the North, and defending the South from renewed attack. The North flirts with building a nuclear capability.

On this analogy, the Korean model went off the rails in 2003, when the U.S. invaded North Korea, destroyed its infrastructure, found no WMDs and is being bled to death by local and foreign-based insurgents, whom we claim are basically pawns of China, against whom we are threatening a broader, and nuclear, war. If this were actually the case in Korea, what would our model be for dialing that down? You'd withdraw as fast as possible to the old North-South line, and rely on China for help in stabilizing the situation, recognizing that its influence would be greatly expanded, and try to minimize that inevitable strategic loss. Am I wrong?

Of course, Iraq turns out to be more complex. Maybe Iraq will be partitioned, although it seems clear that if Iraq is divided into three countries, those countries will probably be called Iran, Syria and Turkey. Just what we wanted all along? Doubtful.