Normally, I have great respect for Ralph Peters, but I think he's allowed himself to be led astray here as you do, Stephen. Jim Dunnigan is great fun as an iconoclast on defense matters.

I tend to side with Ralph Peters. I really like Dunnigan, but one not only has to look at real combat power, but how the US is stretched thin in the intelligence area, logistics, airpower, and naval forces.

1. Ralph Peters is a former army officer with years of experience. Dunnigan is not. Reading, writing, and wargaming about millitary issues does not qualify one to be an expert at war fighting.
2. South Korea depends on US logistics and airpower. These assets(tankers, recon, etc.) are deployed or are being deployed to Southwest Asia. Yes, South Korea can defend itself, but at what cost? Seoul can and probably will be overrun by the NKA. What would that do to the world economy?
3. we may have 10 army divisions, but in what shape are they in? Are they ready to deploy to a crisis zone quickly?
4. Naval assets: Our navy is stretched thin--it's amazing that the Navy is going to be able to deploy 4 carriers to the Gulf area by november.
5. The way I look at it, there is nothing easy in a war. Iraq may keel over. They may not. Are we prepared to place forces there for years? I do not disagree with invading Iraq, just that we are prepare to pay the cost of the post-war enviroment.
6. Ralph Peters may sound like a pessimist,
but he brings up very valid points--which contribute to dialogue and improvement to new ideas.

Wow, Kevin, do you think that the US Army will ask for all the consulting money they paid Dunnigan?

Minor point: the Army does not have its own Air Force. We have attack helicopters, but are forbidden by Congressional mandate from putting weapons on fixed-wing aircraft.

I think the truth lies in the middle here. Our forces aren't as in good shape as we need them to be, but if we play the divide and conquer game properly, they should be sufficient.

The US Army would be better off listening to its soldiers in the field, and not paid consultants. That's the point I'm trying to make. And even with writing that, I like Dunnigan and most of everything he writes.

The difference between pre-Clinton forces ability to fight in two theaters simultaneously and the newer version of "nearly simultaneously" may be minor in a semantic sense, but in reality the difference is huge.
Our forces may not be stretched to the point of ineffectiveness, but they are stretched enough that morale is sacrificed to meet the committments. Training is also trimmed to meet immediate needs which makes the long-term outlook more ominous.

there's nothing wrong with being hard on the air force.. i've got a little spat going with sgt. stryker right now about their "crybaby mentalitiy"

here's the deal with korea. i was stationed there for 2 years at CinC HQ in seoul. i worked in Deep Operations targeting nKorea targets. what we currently have on the ground in asia will wipe nKorea out should we chose to do so. the problem is the south doesn't want us to.

seoul will get pounded by artillery but it won't get overrun. the north won't even clear the 38th parallel. the north's capabilities are smoke and mirrors backed with fear. when we finish with Iraq.. we should really turn up the heat on the north.

What I'm trying to state here, as of now, we cannot support an invasion of Iraq, while entertaining the thought of a strike on NK's nuclear capabilities.
Fine, maybe the NKA can't take Seoul-I wouldn't bet money on it-let's say they get a little more crazy and pop a nuke, and they will defintely use chemical weapons to take down the airfields in the south. Smoke and mirrors they may be, but they'll cause plenty of damage first. These guys aren't Iraqi's

it is difficult for me to discuss this with someone that isn't familiar with the terrain of korea. it will be impossible for the north to make it through the current terrain with the forces currently arrayed against it. that's why they were digging tunnels several years ago.

i can't discuss operational details of chem use. but don't worry about it.. they are a non issue.

The question isn't just whether or not the DPRK can successfully attack the South but also whether or not they think they can.

With all due respect to Wesley's background, I find the timing of North Korea's nuclear weapons admission rather alarming.

It sounds too much like a warning.

And whether or not they really have chance of taking South Korea, there will never be a better opportunity than during the upcoming Iraqi campaign.

That is if the Iraqi campaign goes sour. Otherwise I don't think that we have anything to worry about.

ray,
it is less of a warning.. more of a threat. they are using it to get financial aid from surrounding countries. it will backfire in their face though. it would have worked if clinton was in office but they have the glare of Bush on them now. IMO, bush will set us up for a show down with nKorea after Iraq. hopefully sooner.

Wesley,

I hope you're right.