The author suggests there is some benefit to involving South Korea in a “coalition”. There isn’t. Puffing up a “coalition” of the unwilling and unable means nothing unless someone is willing to do more than talk. Its simply more fluff that distracts us from realities.
The South Koreans’ most recent contribution to the US that protected them for 40 years was demonstrating against the US presence there. Then they elected a President who sought to make nice with NorKo. A “new way” and so on. Rumsfeld obliged and pulled 6,000 troops. We should have pulled them all from this latter-day Vichy state. So the kids there think George Bush is more of a risk than NorKo? Have a nice life!
Sticking out our neck for the SoKo’s makes little sense. They’re not the Brits; I don’t want to bail out ingrates: nor I see any strategic advantage to SoKo. I’m tired of defending people who are only interested in penetrating US markets and how much US cash they can take home. The SoKo’s ought to make fewer KIA’s, hold fewer demonstrations behind our soldiers and plan on defending themselves. But don’t look to the US for troops in this one.
Japan at least has an ocean barrier from China and NoKo. Its a sustainable base with motivated people and a decent military. If they are willing to do somehing material, terrific. Bt they are the only people that need be involved in any discussions.
Absent US willingness to take decisive unilateral action meaning; (a) a costly blockade risking a confrontation with the Chinese or Russia; or (b) air strikes on the reactors, there is only talk left. That’s what Bush did since 2000; its what Obama will probably do. Pretending that “involving” South Korea will change this is silly.
