To What Extent Was the American War in Korea a Failure?

In early 1950, the diplomatic campaign to contain Communism was well underway. The surprise attack by the North Koreans across the 38th parallel on June 25, 1950 into South Korean territory was when most say, "the Cold War turned hot." The Americans, hoping to retain democracy in South Korea, entered the conflict to aid the South Koreans. Following over three years of fighting, an armistice was declared and a cease-fire given to soldiers. This investigation aims to determine the extent to which the Korean War was a failure from an American perspective. The investigation will cover why the U.S. entered the conflict and determine if their goals were accomplished. Also, the short and long-term results following the Korean War will be assessed in order to indicate the extent of the failures of the war. The primary sources of information for this investigation come from secondary book sources. To establish factual and credible arguments based on this information, the investigator will evaluate two of the sources.

Summary of Evidence:

1. Potsdam Conference
At the Potsdam Conference in July 1945, during the conclusion of World War II, the Allied Powers came to an agreement to allow the Soviets to control the northern portion of Korea down to the 38th parallel, while the Americans would control the remainder of the Korean peninsula (Stokesbury 24). On September 9, the Americans reached Seoul, Korea and accepted the surrender of the Japanese(24). At this point the Soviets and Americans had accomplished all that had been set out at the Potsdam Conference. Thereafter, the American President Franklin Roosevelt felt the conquered Koreans would need "tutelage" in the process of democracy and wanted to help install a democratic government in South Korea (25). On the other hand, the Soviets felt the necessity of friendly neighbors, which meant North Korea would need to be a communist government. Elections to decide a government type were to be in 2 years.(25)

2. The North Korean Invasion
On Saturday June 25, 1950 at approximately 0400 hours ("the dying hour of the night"), the North Koreans crossed the 38th parallel into South Korea (Stokesbury 14). The North Koreans met little resistance for the first 25 miles and easily took Seoul within days (14). With very limited heavy weaponry, the South Koreans could do little to stop the North Korean tanks (14). Within a day of the attack, the United Nations security council held an emergency meeting and decided that North Korea was a "disturber of peace" and therefore the UN's member nations were to assist South Korea (15). The action was declared a peace action and therefore it was never declared an actual war (15).

3. The U.S. involvement
The United States entered the conflict in Korea for two main reasons: the first was to maintain American honor and credibility. The U.S. also felt that tolerance of North Korean aggression would be seen as "appeasement" much similar to that during Hitler's reign of terror only two decades earlier (HistoryChannel.com). The main reason, however, was the task of containing Communism (HistoryChannel.com). From June to September 1950, the North Korean offensive into South Korea continued and eventually backed the UN forces under Douglas MacArthur into the southeastern portion of the Korean peninsula (HistoryChannel.com). However, MacArthur's forces would use naval dominance at Inchon to roll-back the North Korean forces. MacArthur's forces then proceeded into North Korea in an attempt to liberate all of Korea (HistoryChannel.com). However, 300,000 Chinese crossed the Yalu River into North Korea and the UN forces were pushed back below the 38th parallel. Fearing "total war" with the Chinese, the Americans used limited warfare and the Chinese pushed the front back to the original line of demarcation, the 38th parallel, where it stabilized in 1953 (HistoryChannel.com).

4. Containment of Communism
In almost all previous outsets, America had utilized the foreign policy of swift answers to foreign problems, with very little other connection to foreign problems. The foreign policy used by Truman during the Korean War was that of "containment" of Communism (Spanier 42). Containment stressed prevention of Communism's spread rather than attacking it and eliminating Communism. This was directly opposite to the conventional foreign policy used in America, because Truman did not aim to destroy the Soviets, yet he intended to create a "balance in power" between Communism and Democracy (42). The consensus from the American public was that such a diplomatic policy toward the Soviet conflict would lead to a long continuance of the Cold War (43). The long-term goal of Truman's diplomatic plan, however, was to create stresses among the Soviet society and have their leaders realize the downfalls of Communism and resort to other alternatives (43).

5. Results of the war
In 1951, President Truman resorted back to the original objectives and later an armistice was declared in 1953 to end the Korean conflict. After the war, little if any land changes occurred, but in the process over 36,000 American lives were lost (Thompson 22) and over $54 billion were spent. The war also caused the U.S. defense budget to increase from one-third to two-thirds of the entire federal budget (Enduring 914). Also, by committing US forces to war without a congressional declaration, Truman expanded the presidential powers (915).

Evaluation of Sources:
Stokesbury, James L. 1988. A Short History of the Korean War. New York. Morrow and Company, Inc.
This book is based on information gathered from other sources at Acadia University and Truman R. Strobridge of Washington, D.C. The book deals mainly with the actual combat of the Korean War, detailing the strategies, weapons, naval and aerial campaigns of the war. The book was written over thirty years after the conclusion of the Korean conflict and by this time, some valuable information about the war may have been released. However, the published date is still before the conclusion of the Cold War in 1991, and a lot of classified documents and information was still not available at the time. This source was valuable to the investigator because it offers details of the military successes and failures of the conflict.

Spanier, John W. 1959. The Truman-MacArthur Controversy and the Korean War. Cambridge, Massachusetts. The Belknap Press.

This book was written in the 1950's following the Korean War and published in 1959. The author based the information detailed in the book on several official documents from the U.S., Britain, and the United Nations, a few periodicals, and a significant amount of books and articles. This book details the political policies in America from its democratic president, Harry Truman, in comparison to the war-like mentality of an American military commander, General MacArthur. The book is especially useful for information about the foreign policy in America and the political repercussions and problems with the Korean War. Its limitations include its early date of publishing in comparison to the events of the Korean War. Often, information about foreign conflicts takes an extensive amount of time to be released and accepted as credible. Also, the author is American, and therefore will have a tendency toward reflecting American aspects more than detailing Soviet of North Korean perspectives. However, this is not a problem because the focus of this investigation is to determine failures from an American viewpoint. The insight into the political mindset of American leaders out-weights any limitations to this source.

Analysis:
Following World War II, the U.S. grew increasingly wary of the spread of Communism throughout the Far East. The main reason the U.S. entered the war in Korea was to establish containment of Communism (HistoryChannel.com). The conventional response for a normally isolationist U.S. to any foreign conflict was a decisive military action to settle the dispute. However, President Truman's "containment" policy in the Far East was based on concepts that would be overly passive. The eventual aim of the containment policy would be to create economic strains and force Communism to fall. The problem with this policy was that it would take decades to accomplish such a task, and even then, it wouldn't be a decisive defeat of Communism. The containment of Communism was economically draining for the Soviets; however, it prolonged the Cold War for almost 40 years.

The U.S. public was very critical of the "containment" policy and rightfully so after its many failures in the Far East. The economic funding given to Chiang Kae-shek's nationalist regime in China to fight Mae Tse-dong's Chinese Communist Party failed to prevent the CCP from gaining control of China and making it a Communist state. Moreover, the "limited war" Truman waged on the Communist forces of North Korea and China seemed to many in America to be a failure to contain Communism. After all, following the armistice of the Korean War, the majority of the Asian continent still remained communist, which allowed the Soviets to maintain their power and the Communist bloc. With Communist neighbors and allies, the Soviet Union had a vast amount of world power and ability to control other nations. Therefore by not eliminating any communist neighbors of the Soviet Union during the Korean conflict, the Cold War was inevitably prolonged. The war was also deemed a failure because the Americans lost over 36,000 lives (Thompson 22) and yet did nothing but produce a return to the original 38th parallel.

However, despite all the criticisms, the Korean War was still a success on some terms. President Truman's "containment" policy and plan to eliminate the Soviet Communism over time through economic stresses eventually turned into a success in 1991 when the USSR fell on economic hardship and eventually became a democracy later in the 1990's following the conclusion of the Cold War. The claim that a "limited war" was unsuccessful can also be negated by pointing out that Truman stated that the "limited war" was for a "limited cause", which was to push the North Korean's back across the 38th parallel (Enduring 913). Only after MacArthur's forces made the offensive into North Korea after the Battle of Inchon did the Americans consider total liberation of Korea a goal of the war. Even though that failed, the original goal of holding the Korean line at the 38th parallel was accomplished.

Moreover, the other cause of U.S. intervention in Korea was to show that the U.S. would not appease Communism's spread in the East. By fighting the N. Koreans, the U.S. successfully accomplished the goal of establishing a policy of intolerance. Also, Truman's decision not to have "total war" with China was advantageous in the long-term because many theorize that the Soviet Union would have taken advantage of U.S. involvement with China to attack Europe. By taking the limited approach to the Korean conflict, Truman salvaged for the future. Under heavy criticism from many in the public, Truman stood strong and did what was best for America at the time. Even though secondary goals weren't achieved, Truman's original goals were accomplished and Communism was contained in Korea. Also, this conflict encouraged other stands, such as in Vietnam, and set the foundation for future fronts against Communism.

Conclusion:
Although the possibility of liberating all of Korea and possibly confronting the Chinese and finishing what Chiang Kae-Shek's armies could not arose at one time during the Korean War, it is necessary to focus on assessing the successes and failures from an overall perspective. Before and during the war, Truman's containment policy seemed to be a failure because it didn't conventionally resolve the problem like Americans were used to with past foreign policies. Also, the Republicans in the American Congress criticized Truman for not winning or making the conclusion of the conflict decisive, which also made the general consensus throughout the 1950's and 60's that Truman's plan had not achieved the "total victory".

However, from a post-Cold War viewpoint, Truman's plan seems to have become a success. By not fighting the Chinese in a "total war", Truman salvaged the ability to remain in competition with the Soviets who were not involved in the war (with troops). More importantly though, the original goal of reestablishing 38th parallel as the division between North and South Korea was accomplished along with other goals such as non-appeasement. Furthermore, the inconclusive nature of the Korean War sparked renewed hatred for Communism among the American public and helped lead America into other fronts against Communism, such as aiding the French in Vietnam.

Overall, it could be argued that the Korean War was a failure diplomatically and militarily. However, it can just as easily be considered a success because the original goal of containing Communism was accomplished and the U.S. did not tolerate international aggression.

Boyer, Clark, Kett, Salisbury, Sitkoff, Woloch. Ed. 1996. The Enduring Vision: A History of the American People. Lexington, Massachusetts. D.C. Health & Company. James, D. Clayton. "The Korean War."[online] http://www.historychannel.com/cgi-bin/frameit2.cgi?p=%2Fperl%2Fsearch.pl&word=korean+war . Spanier, John W. 1959. The Truman-MacArthur Controversy and the Korean War. Cambridge, Massachusetts. The Belknap Press. Stokesbury, James L. 1988. A Short History of the Korean War. New York. Morrow and Company, Inc. Thompson, Mark. "The Military: Reports of Their Deaths Were Greatly Exaggerated." Time. 12 June 2000: p24. Infotrac Web. Gale Group Databases. Rock Hill, SC. 3 March 2003. http://www.infotrac.galegroup.com .