Truce?

This is coolbert:

When a foreign military who is fighting U.S. forces calls for a truce, you know they are getting their ass kicked good and want a cessation of hostilities for their own survival. There are several instances of this being so, one in the not-so-distant past, and one occurring just recently.

It is generally accepted by the public that the Korean War was a stalemate. That neither side could militarily prevail over the other and that a truce and armistice was the best bet for both sides. This is not true!

The situation during the Korean War was:

First, North Korean forces invaded the south of the country and nearly forced an evacuation of U.N. [I have termed the defenders of the South as U.N., even though the bulk of the troops were American] forces from the Pusan perimeter.

Second, U.N. forces then launched a counter-attack at Inchon and regained control of the south and drove the North Koreans all the way to the Yalu River.

Third, invading Chinese Communist forces then entered the fray and U.N. forces had to retreat to a point somewhat south of Seoul. The Chinese offensive was stalled, then another U.N. counter-offensive pushed Chinese forces north of the 38th parallel.

Fourth, again, in the spring of 1951, the Chinese Communists attempted another offensive. Not only was this offensive stopped cold, but U.N. forces then began their own counter-offensive.

It was at this point that something phenomenal began. Chicom [Chinese Communist] forces began to surrender. And surrender en masse. First platoons, then companies, and finally battalions began to surrender, and surrender as I have said, in a group. This is a sure and certain sign of a major crack up. Demoralization had set in among the Chinese and they were losing, and big time.

At that point: The Communist forces called for a truce and negotiations. This was accepted by Truman who then began two grueling years of negotiations that led to the current armistice. The Chinese were on the ropes, and Truman let them off! Now, you can argue that Truman had good reasons for doing so [to prevent a wider conflict, prevent nuclear weapons from being used, to prevent a conflict between the U.S. and the Soviets, etc.].

Nonetheless, the Chinese Communist forces in Korea were losing big time, and rather that pursue the enemy, give them no respite, and defeat them conclusively, Truman gave into to political considerations and agreed to negotiations. But to say that neither side could prevail over the other in Korea is just not so.

Now, just this month, in Iraq, we see something similar.

This gadfly "cleric", Sadr, a thirty year old murderer who wants to run the whole place, set his "militia" against U.S. forces. Running battles lasting for days went on. And then Sadr calls for a truce.

Why did he do so?

His militia was losing a lot of men. And he did not have but a few thousand rag tag "fighters" under his control in the first place. Most of them were killed. His power base [all power grows out of the barrel of a gun should be his motto], was being destroyed before his eyes. And what option did he have? Call for a truce. Which was obligingly given to him by U.S. commanders. Plain and simple, this "cleric" did what he did because he was getting beat, and beat bad.

coolbert.