book reviews and summaries, comments, analysis
It also hurts me that I have lived in Korea for a few years and love its people and culture so deeply. A book like this, describing an assault on Korean civilians, women and children, touches a soft spot.
Unfortunately, the authors were not satisfied just telling the story. Too bad. Again in the book “We Were Soldiers” Hal Moore pleads with the reader: “So please, just this once…” forget the politics, forget the preconceived notions. Just look at the soldiers, on their battlefield without our 21st century living room morals and talk shows and collective sense of guilt and innocence. If Hanley et alhad done this the book would have been fine. But no, no no. Instead what we get are a lot of off-the cuff comments about the conduct of the war, the way the (South) Korean government works, and of course—now you know where all those Pulitzer prizes come from—the USA and the ‘west’ take all the lumps. You know the story from here—western shortcomings line the newspapers, communist shortcomings line the graveyards. Syngman Rhee was just, just so heavyhanded with gosh darned leftist radicals. (Of course Kim Il Sung wore kid gloves.) MacArthur was just, just so arrogant! (He promised men and materiel when asked by the Koreans and delivered it. What did Stalin deliver to the Chinese?) And on and on ad nauseum. It is a pity that an Island of such fine research about the Korean War has to sit in such a sea of one sided spite for western values. Sure, the authors make reference to South Korea’s economic dynamism, not only with an air of apology, but even one of contempt for its success. If it is sheer body counts that measure the dimension of a tragedy at no Gun Ri or elsewhere, what are we to make of the untold thousands, perhaps millions, who have died of starvation, disease, malnourishment in the North? You get the impression reading this book that the authors wish the Americans would just pick up and leave—a long cherished goal of the Korean left—and not once anywhere near a majority in polls of Korean citizens.
Nor are the authors happy that no (American ) military brass was hung out to dry for this atrocity. Again, this outrage is fine as far as it goes; but surely another purpose of investigating and exposing this sort of atrocity is to make sure it never happens again? If so, the authors should make some suggestions about how such incidents can be avoided in the future. Assume General ‘X’ is deemed responsible. How should he be punished? Asssume order ‘Y’ should have been clarified. How so? Assume policy ‘Z’ should have been rescinded. What policy would these three musketeers have followed in a war zone where civilian refugees were ubiquitous and there was bona fide evidence many were enemy sympathizers and collaborators?
In summary, read the book and cry for the Koo-pils and Choon-jas, the Buddy Wenzels and Arts Hunters. But forget the rest.