South Korea has joined the only other two countries in the world that have dropped the name of the forthcoming film Captain America and replaced it with the subtitle, The First Avenger. The other two countries are Russia and Ukraine. According to the New York Times, “Although that country [South Korea] is one of Hollywood’s top-performing territories, resentment about the continued presence of the United States military runs deep.”
For years now I have intended to write a column about the most glaring case of international ingratitude of which I am aware. The Captain America story has finally pushed me over the edge.
Advertisement
For decades, there have been anti–U.S. demonstrations in South Korea. And each time I wonder the same thing: Do these people have any idea what that living hell known as North Korea is like? Do these people understand that the United States is the reason they are so free and prosperous, completely unlike their fellow Koreans who had the horrible luck not to be liberated by America? Do these people know how many Americans died to enable them to be free?
Whenever I confront someone who claims that America’s wars abroad were fought for economic gain or to extend its alleged imperialist empire, I ask the person about the Korean War: What imperialist or economic reasons were there to fight in that country?
The answer I most often receive is, “Frankly I don’t know too much about the Korean War.” And it’s a good thing for the critics of America’s wars that they don’t know much about the Korean War. If they did, they would either experience cognitive dissonance or have to severely modify their position on America.
Just five years after a war-weary America celebrated the end of World War II, Americans were asked to fight the successor evil to Nazism — Communism — in Korea, a country most Americans could not identify on a map. In an earlier version of what happened in Vietnam, the Soviet Union and China backed a Communist attempt to take over the southern half of the Korean peninsula — the northern half had been Communist since the end of World War II — and install a Stalinist tyranny over the non-Communist southern half.
Over 36,000 Americans died in America’s successful attempt to keep South Korea from becoming Communist. And another 92,000 were wounded.
So, forgive me for the contempt I feel for South Koreans who demonstrate against the United States and for the two-thirds of South Koreans who, according to a 2002 Gallup-Korea poll, view the United States unfavorably. Whenever I see those anti-American demonstrators or read such polls, all I can think about are the tens of thousands of Americans who died so that South Koreans would not live in the Communist hell their fellow Koreans live in.
Younger South Koreans want American troops to leave their country? Do these young people not know that on planet earth no other country suffers the mass enslavement, mass incarceration, mass death, or the deadening of the mind and soul that North Koreans endure because of the psychopaths who run that country?
And if they do know all this about North Korea, how do they explain why South Korea is so different?
Here is a suggestion: The South Korean government should conduct a national plebiscite on whether America should withdraw its troops from that country. Before the South Korean people vote, the United States should make it clear that if it withdraws its troops and North Korea later invades the south, we will send no troops to die again for South Korea; but we will vote to condemn North Korea’s aggression at the U.N.
If a majority of the South Korean people want us to leave, we should.
The beauty of such a plebiscite is that if a majority of the South Korean people wants American troops out, we have no moral obligation to stay there. And if a majority wants us to stay, the South Korean Left and other ingrates in that country should shut up.
I have been to South Korea and I live in a community with many Koreans. I have always admired their industriousness, work ethic, and strong families. But South Korea is surely the most ungrateful country in the world. And that is all the more remarkable — because it is also the luckiest.
— Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. He may be contacted through his website, dennisprager.com.
I agree with the thrust of the article, but disagree with the conclusion. Canada is the luckiest country on earth. It has the amazing good fortune of being situated next to the only dominant power in the history of the world that has not used its might for territorial expansion. Canada is an enormous country with a huge border, abundant natural resources, and a tiny population, yet it has to spend nearly nothing on defense because its only neighbor not only never would attack it, but would defend it for free against any external threat. How does Canada repay this unprecedented generosity? By denigrating the USA and failing to join US-led coalitions, and by bragging about how much it spends per capita on social programs compared to the US. I live on the border and have seen the ads on Canadian television.
I've encountered the same phenomenon in Europe - eastern and western.
While sitting around a cafe table in the Polish city of Wroclaw a few years back, an Englishwoman was going on and on about America in Iraq (not favorably you may be sure.)
I said, "You're not going to get far with that line in this country, where for two generations they'd have been overjoyed to see an American army pouring across their borders."
She of course, denounced this as propaganda.
I nodded towards two young Poles at the table and said, "Ask them."
She turned to them and said, "Is this true?"
They nodded and said yes it was, if anything slightly dumbfounded anyone would ask such a silly question.
She was... perhaps "taken aback" describes it with British understatement.
In the end though, I think we took on too much of the burden of defending Western Europe - and South Korea. When we took that responsibility, we took their manhood, and they hate us for it.
I agree with the thrust of the article but disagree with the final sentence. Canada is the luckiest country on earth. It combines a huge territory containing abundant and valuable natural resources with a tiny pupulation that would be incapable of defending it, yet its only neighbor -- the most powerful military might on the planet -- not only never would attack it, but would defend it for free against any external threat. This allows Canada to have a tiny defense budget and to spend all of its money on social programs, while bragging about how progressive it is and lecturing the US to the rest of the world. The word "luckiest" doesn't begin to describe Canada's good fortune.
Amen, Mr. Prager.
I live abroad, and the South Koreans I've had the unpleasant misfortune to meet are exactly as you describe. 0% gratitude, 100% indignation and outrage. It disgusts me. I've met folks from all over the world, and the South Koreans are by far the least grateful towards the US. The Chinese and Vietnamese I've met have a far more positive view of the US.
There's no great strategic loss for the US if North Korea or China absorb South Korea. In fact, the US troops now in South Korea are little more than an expensive cannon fodder deterrent to North Korea. It's time to get them out of harm's way.
The truth, as you allude to in your article, is that these whiners are so spoiled and soft that they wouldn't last a day picking rice in a North Korean field. I seriously doubt South Korea has the willpower to fight back a North Korean invasion on its own. Maybe a couple decades of poverty and oppression will toughen them up. I fully endorse your idea of letting these brats vote on whether or not they should defend their own country.
If there is a side to take at this point with regard to Korea, we should stand with the North Korean civilians. They're the real victims here, not the South Koreans who live in one of the most advanced countries in the world whilst a third party (the USA) picks up the tab for their collective defense.
South Korea is the France of Asia. No, I take that back, because it's way too disrespectful to the French.
While I release foreign aid cannot do much to drop the deficit it can be highly symbolic.
Given the Dems want defense cuts as part of a budget deal I think we have a great one right here. A country in a deep budget crisis has no business defending ungrateful peoples out of its own pocket.
I've lived in Korea for about 2 years now, teaching English. I have never seen or received any anti-American insults while I've been here. I do live in one of the most conservative areas of the country, however (in the southeast; if you go two or three hours west, political opinions change drastically). The 2002 poll cited is out of date--during that time Korea was in the middle of its "Sunshine Policy" regarding the North, when it wanted to make friends at almost any cost. Since then they've elected the conservative pro-American president Lee Myung-bak, and the North has committed provocative and outright hostile acts (launching missiles, conducting nuclear tests, sinking the ROKS Cheonan, attacking Yeonpeong island, etc). These acts have changed opinions of North Korea.
If there is any "ingratitude" it is from the younger generation. Older people who remember the war and the generation after that tend to view the US much more favorably. I don't know how much Korean twentysomethings know about North Korea, besides just being run by a "crazy guy". I don't think most of them know how evil the regime is. But I don't think, on the whole, that South Korea is "the most ungrateful country in the world."
I just returned from South Korea and did not find that attitude at all. I've never been in a country where saying you were from USA (United States did not translate well) brought such a positive response. I even had a very positive discussion (well, there was a lot of pantomime) of USA and the Korean War with a cab driver on the anniversary of it starting.
On the other hand, they do desperately want a unified Korea. That might explain the poll.
Sorry but I disagree with the point of the article. Just like the Hollywood left does not represent the totality of values and beliefs of United States it's a fallacy to believe that whatever the Korean Hollywood-left that uses the sub-title of the movie is a representation of the totality of the beliefs of Korean people.
Let's recall that Korea has been a good ally to the United States during and since the Korean war. Their soldiers stood, and died, shoulder to shoulder with our troops; I know from personal experience serving along the DMZ. They've sent their troops in support of the US in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan -- despite having a very real and dangerous military threat (remember the Korean ship Cheonan as well as the island of Yeonpgeong??) just a few miles north of the capital of Seoul.
But I do agree that Korea looks to it's own interests first which some might assume is ingratitude.
But we might also ask: does the US do the same? I seem to recall that the US-Korea free trade agreement is comatose in the US Senate because pandering to trade unions is more important then free trade.
Do you suppose the Korean people wonder about ingratitude too?
The upcoming Captain America movie is targeted to your typical high school/college aged male. Part of the youth culture in South Korea is being Anti-American (think Churchill's famous quote about being 20...). I know a Marine veteran who was a survivor of the Chosin Reservoir battle and he went to South Korea last year. The trip was paid for by the South Korean government who appeared to spare no expense and he raved about the welcome he received while he was there. Yeah there are South Korean college students who think its cool to be Anti-American but they grow up. The same demographic in the US got all the publicity for protesting the Vietnam War, think Che is a cool dude, thought Reagan was a warmonger and helped put Obama into office.
Sure there are ads like that on Canadian TV. They are targeted at Canadians in what is admittedly a cynical, generations long effort by progressives to propagandize us. There are fewer now that we have a federal government miles more conservative than your and federal money is no longer behind that sort of thing. Again, targeted at Canadians. If you are insulted, don't watch. There is little good on Canadian broadcast TV anyway.
Yes, Canada lectures the world as though the affairs of the world are all Canada's business and all the world is aching to adopt our model of government and society. I hardly think Americans are in any position to lecture any country on taking that approach to the world. American public discourse on such matters is the only one in the world more insular and unworldly than Canada's. No one is saying you can't take pride in what you have and extol its merits, and we can do the same. That doesn't meant the entire human race cares to follow either example.
[As it happens, neither the Westminster parliamentary system we inherited or the separation of powers presidential republic you invented proved particularly exportable, for example. Look at Africa and Latin America. I am not sure most of the world has it in them to run either system properly, or wants to.]
I am well aware that the US would most likely defend us if attacked, but under no illusions that Americans would do it out of the goodness of their hearts. If there were ever a war that could get America something [oil, water], that would likely be it.
Besides, anyone capable of reaching and attacking Canada, let alone overwhelming even our small forces and getting across our territory or airspace in strength, would be a threat to the US and most likely aiming for the US in the first place. That's what NORAD was all about. We had to agitate for it so that we could have a role in defending our own airspace rather than just have the USAF fly wherever it wanted. The Russians weren't going to send bombers over to kill us for our own sake.
In other words, we needed help to defend ourselves because we are your neighbours. Things may change now, but from 1776 until the early 20th century, only the US posed a direct threat to Canada. And since then, only people gunning for the US.
And I should point out that you all invaded us in 1776, and repeatedly during 1812-14, and permitted US soil to be used to support insurgency in the 1830s and a foreign terrorist campaign against us in the late 1860s. The latter, the Fenians, comprising largely Union veterans with surplus arms and equipment. How does the US feel about state sponsored terrorism, again?
I have a fairly positive view of the history of the expansion and development of the US, but how can you expect anyone to take with a straight face the statement that the US has never used its power for territorial expansion. Fine, the Mississipi frontier was by the Treaty of Paris, and you bought Louisiana from its French owners, albeit actually settling it with a fair amount of force against the locals. But how about the Mexican war? The coup that overthrew the Hawaiian government and allowed an oligarchy of American planters to bring it into the US? The Spanish American War? I notice that Cuban independence was pretty paper thin and Philippine independence was not initially in the cards at all.
That's a pretty good record as dominant powers go, but not exactly clean hands. And you did invade us several times with the aim of annexing our territory. people didn't care for that.
So, we didn't go to Iraq, and the then Liberal government was stupid and loudmouthed about it when it should have just said we have nothing of real value to offer a campaign on that scale and no direct national interests. I am not sure the US government would have acceopted such a reasonable response, but that's what Canada should have said.
On the other hand, we have just spent most of 10 years with you in Afghanistan, with Canadians dying in what amounts to America's pretty stumbling about war plan. Our interest in that war was real, but hardly as direct as America's. We were still there, though. Making the third most militarily significant effort and taking the third highest losses until just now, and we will still be there for 2 more years.
I call that fairly strong support for American global strategy, such as it is.
The U.S. has a president that has convinced many of us that we need to be a lot less great and a lot less arrogant. For one thing, he's brought me around to isolationism. Sure, we should trade with nations that are willing to open their markets to us, but I've come to favor bringing the troops home from Germany, from the Middle East, South Asia, and Korea. They can buy their own security, using their own money and the blood of their own children. It's not our job to be the perpetual stewards of their liberty.
I served in Germany at the end of the Cold War and helped liberate Kuwait / protect the Saudis. I've come to regret the fact that the U.S. chose to spend money and lives doing that. We'd have our oil, and the petty tyrants would have their states, and it'd be a comfy business deal. No, morality and idealism shouldn't figure into a nation's choices; our morality and our ideals have been roundly rejected by the powers that rule most foreign nations, and we should respect their choice. We should look after our own self interest, be non-interventionist unless imminently and immediately threatened, and let the Lilliputians wither on the vine. It is not our job to preserve them.
I could live with it if the U.S.'s role in the world was thankless. Thanklessness, however, would be a big step up from the major ingratitude one experiences abroad. It's no longer a pose of the young; it's becoming deeply ingrained in the governing and business classes.
You exanded my observation on Canada's fortunate geography into a number of different topics, perhaps in the mistaken view that I am anti-Canadian. Not true. I like the country and the people. I stand by my view, however, that Canada is the most furtunate country on earth, enjoying an expansive, abundant territory (second-largest in the world) that it could not possibly defend on its own and that would have been plucked away from it if it shared a border with just about any powerful country in history other than the USA.
I agree with or have no basis to comment on much of what you say in your response but your suggestion that the US invaded "Canada" in 1776 and again during the War of 1812 is a stretch. Canada did not exist as such at that time, and was instead an English colony. We were at war with England. "Canada" welcomed British troops to its territory launched its own incursions into the US (including, I might add, burning Buffalo, where I am right now).
Your point about mutual defense of North America is apt, but that was my point as well. Canada can count on the fact that the US will be there for it, whether out of self interest or altruism. More significantly, Canada doesn't have to worry about the US annexing southern Ontario, or confiscating the Alberta oil fields. Accordingly, Canada doesn't have make any expenditures defending the longest continuous border in the world, because it has nothing to fear from its much more powerful neighbor.
You credit the US for having a "pretty good record" as a dominant power, but you take points off for alleged imperialistic, territory-grabbing wars here and there. If points come off the US record for those episodes (several of which could be debated), then what about the much larger wars that the US unselfishly fought at great expense in lives and money to liberate or keep free Europe (both World Wars), Kuwait, South Korea, etc., etc., etc.? If you look at the entire record, and then consider that the US gets tangled up in a lot of international issues simply because it is the world's only superpower, the record is a lot better than "pretty good." In fact, it is unprecedented and unparalleled in world history. No other large country even comes close. (Kudos to the Australians, who always suck it up when asked to contribute.)
If I were Canadian, I would consider myself extremely fortunate to be situated next to the US and not to have to worry constantly about the threat of invasion. While I don't expect Canadians to thank the US for being nice, it does bug me a little when Candians hector and lecture Americans on foreign-policy issues, when Canada has benefited in the past and continues to benefit mightily from the US's role in the world.
We should leave South Korea even IF a majority there want us to stay. I'm not resentful, I spent a year at Camp Hovey in the 2/17 Field Artillery in 1997. Nice place. Nice people.
North Korea is bad, but the dirty little secret is that South Korea could defend themselves from them without our help.
NK has neither the quantitative or qualitative forces to take the South. And the ROK Army would be MOTIVATED.
I could see that for myself, but others of much, much higher rank have suggested the same thing. Quietly, but nevertheless.
Ingratitude? Perhaps some. But try to think how we'd feel if another army had achieved the status of permanent guest in America.
As far as the movie, it will be hard to escape the Americanism inherent in the script. Nor the Old Glory motif on his shield.
On the whole, I sympathize with your views. Looked at from outside, most of the time America has been pursuing what its leaders deemed to be American interests, most of the time and even when they put the values up front. That doesn't mean the values weren't real, just that America was also doing what was best for its own future in the world. I have no objection.
Now whether those leaders defined American interests WELL, or connected them properly with American values, is a far more difficult question. I for one will be sorry to see it if it has so profound an effect on contemporary America as you suggest. There were some great things done in the past as well as the mistakes.
We in Canada are lucky on that score. Most of the forgetfulness about our own soldiers' achievements has been on the part of our own country. We have been doing better on that front the last 10-12 years. Our history seems to be alive and welcome again.
The only country where Canadians were more or less the largest liberating army, the Netherlands, does not forget. They remember and honour Canadian veterans every year. Maybe it would be different if we were both bigger powers and competing in the world, but it is nice the way it is.
While I agree that lots of South Koreans are very ungrateful -- even resentful about it all -- as a political matter, ROK remains one of our staunchest allies and is one of *two* countries that have been with us in all five of our big post-WW2 wars (Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Afghanistan and Iraq). Sure, the Korean War itself counts as a base-on-balls, but still that's 4-for-4 (Australia has been with us in all five). Lots of Korean individuals don't like America, but ultimately the country as a whole does.
MikeB: "How does he feel about Canadians? Mexicans?
How about Armenians? Jews? Kurds?
How about black people?"
Irrelevant. The article was about South Koreans, not any of the other groups you mentioned. If Prager says something positive about Ford, is he also required to say something positive about GM and Chrysler as well?
The British Empire seized control of NEW FRANCE in the French and Indian War of 1760. The Continental Army invaded ~Quebec~ during the American Revolution, a British-occupied conquered territory since there was no nation of Canada then.
One of the reasons Benedict Arnold and company thought their invasion would work was that they expected the French Canadiens to welcome the opportunity to throw off their British oppressors. The Quebec Act of 1774 and the Catholic Church's teachings against insurgency, however, had largely pacified the population.
Likewise in the War of 1812 the American Army invaded Quebec again as they were at war with the British Empire that owned, occupied, and garrisoned the territory. There was no nation of Canada to invade.
Eventually children grow up and leave the house. South Korea ("ROK") can defend itself against a North Korean invasion because it has more than twice the population and an economy that is more than 30 times as large.
It is too expensive for us and we have no critical national interest that is furthered by stationing troops in the ROK. I hope the people of the ROK prosper and continue to enjoy their freedom.
