Korea
Here’s what I remember learning about the Korean War: it was fought from 1950-53, the US supported the South Koreans, the Chinese supported the North, and it ended in a tie.
I visited the Korean War Memorial in Seoul recently. It reminded me less of a sterile monument, and more of a large bandage wrapped around a still bleeding wound.
The Korean War Memorial.
Image Credit: Christina Brzustoski
It is a massive complex, dominated in the front by two triangular spires which rise skyward, achingly close to one another, but separated. There is a large museum complex, flanked on each side by long columned halls that list the names of the dead carved into black stone. One wing is in Korean, and the other lists the names of those who died from every country who fought, and every state in America. Inside the museum is a long interactive history of the Korean military, from the Prehistoric to the present (and the entrance fee was only about $3- definitely check it out the next time you’re in Seoul).
The history books tell us that Korea was occupied by Imperial Japan from 1910-1945, but they can’t explain how humiliating it was to a nation that had been ruled independently under the Joseon dynasty for 500 years. After Japan’s defeat at the end of WWII, Korea was divided along the 38th Parallel into spheres of influence: America and the Allies in the South, and China and the USSR in the North.
On June 25, 1950, North Korea invaded. After an emergency meeting of the UN, the United States, with UN approval, elected to intervene, along with several other nations.
The initial Northern invasion swept southwards. By September, the remaining South Korean and American troops occupied only a small area around the city of Busan in the southeast corner of the peninsula. The US and South managed to hold the Busan perimeter. As American aircraft and ground reinforcements poured in, the tide began to turn. The North Korean forces were pushed back, with the help of the daring Incheon landing. The South pushed so far north that the Chinese feared for an invasion of their territory, and intervened on the side of the North.
The Chinese counterattack drove the Americans back to the south. Eventually a stalemate near the modern border was reached in 1951. Peace negotiations dragged on, and an armistice was finally signed July 27, 1953.
What the history books can’t convey is a sense of the impact that the war had on the Korean nation. There are people who have not seen family members on the other side for nearly 60 years. A nation that shares a common language, history, and culture is split in half by one of the most heavily defended borders on earth.
Image Credit: Christina Brzustoski
At the monument, there is a statue of two men embracing atop a divided hemisphere. The two men are brothers, and they met on the battlefield, one fighting for the South, the other for the North.
Gallipoli
A couple of years ago, I toured Turkey. Our bus was filled with Australians, and I couldn’t figure out why. The trip from Australia to Turkey involves at least two 8-9 hour flights, and there are certainly a number of exciting destinations in southeast Asia that are more accessible.
The tour stopped at the Gallipoli battles ite. I knew even less about the battle than I did about the Korean War: it took place in WWI, and the British lost.
In April of 1915, following a naval bombardment, the forces of the British Empire landed on the Gallipoli peninsula in an attempt to control the Dardanelles strait. Much of the force was composed of ANZAC troops: Australia and New Zealand Army Corp, fighting thousands of miles away from their homeland.
The Turks had several weeks to prepare for the British landing, and they held the high ground. The initial ANZAC attacks were repulsed, but the Turkish counterattacks failed to push the British from the beaches. Within a month, the fighting had degenerated into close trench warfare, similar to that seen across Europe during WWI. In January of 1916, the British acknowledged the failure of their assault and withdrew their forces.
There were horrible casualties on both sides, with 44,000 Allied dead, 96,000 wounded and 86,000 Ottoman dead, 164,000 wounded in the span of less than nine months.
Our guide, a retired submarine commander in the Turkish Navy, told us of how his own grandfather had died at the battle. He took us to places where the trenches of each army where within 20 feet of each other, and showed us the steep and rugged hills that the ANZAC soldiers had been told to take.
The Battle of Gallipoli was a defining moment in the history of three countries: Turkey, Australia and New Zealand.
Mustafa Kemal was a Turkish military commander at the battle. After WWI, when the victorious Allies began to carve Turkey up among themselves, Kemal raised an army in the east, and drove the foreigners out. He united Turkey into the modern secular republic it is today, and he took the name Ataturk, meaning father of the Turks. His picture still hangs in every office and home in Istanbul, and marks every Turkish Lira. Gallipoli is seen as the place where Turkey stepped out from the crumbling Ottoman Empire and began its path towards nationhood.
For Australia and New Zealand, Gallipoli also represents a major step towards nationhood after years of being a British colony. ANZAC Day is celebrated every year on April 25 in both countries, and many people make the long trip to Turkey to visit the battlefield.
The words of Ataturk in commemorating the battlefield are incredible:
Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives… you are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets where they lie side by side here in this country of ours… You the mothers who sent their sons from far away countries, wipe away your tears. Your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. Having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well.
Other Battles
There are battles that mark the conciousness of every nation. I remember being surprised when no one in Europe had heard of Gettysburg or Bunker Hill.
In Israel, a band of Jewish rebels took refuge on a hilltop fortress called Masada after the burning of Solomon’s Temple in 70 A.D. The Romans surrounded the fortress and spent months building a road up the rocky hill so they could attack. When they arrived, they found that the inhabitants had all committed suicide rather than be captured. To this day, Israeli soldiers perform the swearing-in ceremony on the top of Masada.
When most people think of the Napoleanic Wars, they think of Waterloo, Austerlitz and the Russian Campaign. In Spain, however, the Napoleanic Wars were characterized by long and brutal fighting between the Spanish and the French after Napolean had annexed Spain and installed his brother as king. The conflict is immortalized in the Goya paintings The 2nd of May and The 3rd of May. There are still scars from the Spanish Civil War from 1936-39, even though the only way Americans know of the conflict is from reading For Whom the Bell Tolls.
There are some conflicts, battles, or wars that are regarded as historically important. There are many others that are ignored or forgotten. Yet for every unfamiliar conflict, there is a nation that bears the damage, and sons and brothers who never come home.
It’s always amazing how conflicts come and go, and while they dominate the thoughts of those involved while they occur they do fade over time. The United States Congress has authorized the use of military force 6 times since World War II, and most people don’t remember more than three (we’re involved in two right now, and no, Korea wasn’t one of the 6).
With memorialization of conflict comes a closure of sorts, which lends itself to the healing process of old wounds…but there are scars that still remain. As symbolized by the massive black scar digging itself into the heart of Washington DC with the names of the Americans who perished during the US time of involvement during the Vietnam conflict, society doesn’t always remember the why’s behind conflict but tends to remember the who’s, the when’s, and the how’s.
Conflict is neither inherent in our species, nor is it contengent our our survival. Violent aggression is simply the result of a building of resentment and desire that culminates in the untamed reaction to jealousy by inflicting the destruction of our basic needs and emotions: security and hope. There are no memorials to those who died in peaceful pursuits to secure those ideals. Where is the monument to the moon landing? Certianly that monumental event established some level of hope. What about the curing of different diseases? Some of the worst suffering imaginable comes from these sources, but there are no major monuments to these actions.
Conflict memorialization reminds us of the horrors of the past to honor sacrifice, duty, and nationalistic ideology. With these reminders comes both a sense of history and pride, but does nothing to remind us of the ‘why’s’. Perhaps it’s time to do something about that.
The thing that struck me when visiting the memorial was this: it’s huge. While that’s a simple thing, it reminded me that this conflict is still a really big deal to people here. Basically, the conflict that matters most to you is the one where you or your buddy is getting shot at.
I toured Sarajevo last year, and could easily have included this as well. Our guide took us to places where there were still bomb marks in the pavement (Sarajevo Roses) and told of friends who had died during the Serbian invasion.
Marcus, I agree that memorials don’t often address the issue of why. I think their role is something different- perhaps to remind us of the soldier’s sacrifice. You are rite that the issue of why wars happen whould be addressed more often, especially in history classes and political discourse.
For the 6 authorizations of force, I’m going with: Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan (no google). Altho I suppose Congress could also have authorized force when we sent troops to Somalia.
Another interesting fact: after Eisenhower negotiated an end to the Korean war in 1953, no US servicemen were killed during his administration. No other president since then can make that claim.
Just to let you know about the 6 authorizations, they are:
1) Lebanon (July 1958),
2) Vietnam (August 1964)
3) Lebanon (September 1983)
4) Iraq (January 1991)
5) Against those who were behind the 9/11 attacks, AKA ‘the Global War on Terror’ (September 2001) - This may be the vaguest piece of crap ever, by the way
6) Iraq (October 2002)
None of these were formal declarations of war
All other uses of force come under the 1973 War Powers Act, (that allows for the president to use force without congressional consent for upto 60 days and has been declared unconstitutional by every president since Nixon due to it’s infringements on their authority as ‘Commander in Chief’), or with previously agreed to treaties and ‘collective security agreements’ (such as NATO and the UN). Through this agreement, the US engaged in Korea without declaring war. Grenada, Panama, and others were less than 60 days.
Proxy cold war battles in places like Afghanistan, Angola, Chile, and El Salvador are ‘covert ops’ and don’t show up on any official de-classified register. Maybe we can get them out through FOIA someday.
Another point about Eisenhower:
US Service personel were killed under Eisenhower, as Cuba, China, the initial Vietnam conflict, and several sub-Saharan wars in Africa (during the 3rd wave of independence there) involved US soldiers who were KIA.
On a technicality, Eisenhower didn’t negotiate the end of the Korean War, just a ‘cease fire’. There never was a signed armistice. Legally the US (and 17 other nations) are still at war with the DPRK
I remember reading that bit about Eisenhower somewhere. I looked on the internet for a quote, but this site was the best I could do: http://www.militaryfactory.com/american_war_deaths.asp. It lists American War deaths, and includes conflicts like El Salvador form 1980-92, so there’s a decent level of detail. It does not list any regular duty soldiers killed in action during Eisenhower’s term after the end (technically cease fire) of the Korean War.
I’m certainly not an Eisenhower expert, and I know he was not shy about using the CIA to do dirty work, but I didn’t see anyone offically listed on the site. I’m happy to retract my trivium if you can show otherwise.
I thot 4/6 was pretty good on the authorizations. It’s hard to know when the President bothered to ask Congress, and when he just sent the troops in.
The link that you posted is a list of what are called ‘principal wars’, or major conflicts. My first rebuttal to the Eisenhower statment about him being the only recent president without US Military deaths on his recors is one that ties in with your memorialization article: The Vietnam Memorial in Washington, D.C. Anyone who has seen the wall knows that it lists all the US military casualties from that conflict by year. The first year listed? 1956, or Eisenhower’s first term.
Wikipedia lists a couple hundred military deaths during Eisenhower’s terms in office: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_casualties_of_war
For historical Navy/Marines data, go here:http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq56-1.htm *Note: Army doesnt tend to get involved unless it is a prolonged campaign, so their casualty rates dont show up in ’shorter engagements’.
For something more recent and better organized, check out this DoD site(although it only goes back to 1980): http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MMIDHOME.HTM
Or this for the official CRS (Congressional Research Service) listings for all deaths since 1980 (about 1200 per year): http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
There are more records, but this is a start to get some of the raw data out there.
I finally found where I read that item about Ike: http://100days.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/11/how-to-end-a-war-eisenhowers-way/?apage=11.
The article states: “After Eisenhower made peace in Korea, not one American serviceman was killed in action during the remaining seven and a half years of his presidency. No American president since Ike can make that claim.”
Perhaps the NY Times was incorrect, or the soldiers listed on the Wikipedia site were not considered killed in action. There was an incident in 1956 (according to both the wiki and mil records pages you sent me) where an aircraft was shot down over China and 16 died, but I don’t know if that’s considered KIA or not.
The point is, I didn’t just make that up. Maybe the NY Times did, but there’s my source.
The main point of the anecdote was that almost every president has intervened somewhere around the world militarily and gotten Americans killed, something both of us agree is not something to be happy about.
Here’s another site that talks about Presidents using force and covert ops: http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/us-presidents.html.
While I’m definately not an advocate of American Isolationism, I do agree that US military force is used too often with too much indiference. I blame the Marshall Plan for making our nation the defenders of the world (particularly Europe). That is something I’m not happy about, but my long list of ‘disgruntlements’ about Europe is for another time.
We should remember that the consequences of what happens around the world does directly affect us at home (whenever you and I are at home
), making the problems and conflicts of the world our problem as well. There are many other avenues of participation and ’soft power’ to be exercised in lieu of military force at affect change around the world to benefit all of us around the globe. Maybe we should memoralize that.