logo
The Korean War started 75 years ago and is still going

The Korean War started 75 years ago and is still going

The Hill25-06-2025
At dawn on June 25, 1950 — 75 years ago today — soldiers of the communist Korean People's Army crossed the 38th parallel in a coordinated strike south into the non-communist Republic of Korea.
Behind a rolling barrage of artillery, the Korean People's Army, with Soviet-made tanks and aircraft, advanced quickly. The Republic of Korea's Army, unprepared and poorly equipped, suffered heavy losses. Within three days, the North Koreans occupied the South Korean capital, Seoul, and President Syngman Rhee — a protean, brutal autocrat — made a temporary capital in Busan on the south coast.
The Korean War has never formally ended. Although an armistice was signed on July 27, 1953, the conflict remains legally paused, and no peace treaty has ever been agreed to. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea remain separated, north from south, by a 160-mile demilitarized zone that is patrolled by 2 million soldiers.
The U.S. had not expected a war in Korea. The division of the country into a Soviet-sponsored north and an American-backed south was a temporary post-World War II measure, pending reunification. When the Republic of Korea was established in 1948 and began forming its own military, President Harry Truman created a U.S. Military Advisory Group to train and support Rhee's forces.
The U.S. military presence was withdrawn in 1949, leaving only 200 to 300 advisers. Secretary of State Dean Acheson outlined U.S. policy in Asia in his 'Perimeter Speech' in January 1950, but his perimeter did not include Korea. A CIA memorandum the same month described a North Korean invasion as 'unlikely.'
Then the invasion happened. It was immediately condemned by the U.N. Security Council. Washington could not allow South Korea to fall to communism, as a non-hostile Korea was essential for the security of Japan, the lynchpin of American policy in the region.
Gen. Douglas MacArthur was placed in charge of the United Nations Command — still in existence today — to defend South Korea. By the beginning of 1951, there were 498,000 United Nations ground troops in Korea, half of them American. The active conflict phase of the war lasted for three years, with the loss of 35,000 American lives. Today, U.S. Forces Korea numbers around 28,500.
Truman never referred to the conflict as a war but rather a 'police action' under U.N. command. Yet Korea is the ultimate 'forever war,' the lack of a formal treaty rather than an armistice making it easily America's longest conflict. It also prefigured some features of modern warfare, not least in in Ukraine.
The very messiness of definition and outcome in Korea has contemporary resonance, given the difficulty of imagining what a settlement between Ukraine and Russia might look like today. It was also a war conducted at several levels: the acknowledged protagonists were the American-led U.N. coalition on one side against North Korea and (after October 1950) China on the other, but the Soviet Union supplied equipment, aircraft and pilots to North Korea.
As with Ukraine, Western nations were unprepared and ill-equipped to fight in Korea after drawing a huge peace dividend from the end of World War II five years earlier. Between 1945 and 1947, the U.S. armed forces reduced its personnel by nearly 90 percent, the U.K. by 85 percent. As America adapted to a defensive posture, much intellectual and administrative energy was consumed by the closer integration of the armed services in the National Security Act of 1947.
In a similar way, Western nations have rapidly depleted their peacetime inventories of arms and ammunition in supplying Ukraine. The conflict has also forced the U.S. and its allies to reexamine organization, strategy, tactics and doctrine at a breathless pace.
The specter of nuclear weapons hung over the Korean War. At a press conference in November 1950, Truman, pressed on potential use of the atomic bomb, said 'there has always been active consideration of its use.' He denied that it required the authorization of the U.N., insisting 'the military commander in the field will have charge of the use of the weapons, as he always has.'
A press release issued later that day tried to downplay, but not rule out, this prospect. 'Consideration of the use of any weapon is always implicit in the very possession of that weapon,' it read. 'However, it should be emphasized, that, by law, only the President can authorize the use of the atom bomb, and no such authorization has been given.'
MacArthur asked for discretion as commander in the field to use nuclear weapons, then submitted a list of targets for which he would need 34 atomic bombs. His request was denied, but not as a matter of policy. The Joint Chiefs of Staff would consider the nuclear option again after MacArthur was relieved in April 1951.
America had only lost its nuclear monopoly in 1949, when the Soviet Union detonated its first fission bomb, but by 1951 it maintained a massive numerical advantage over the U.S.S.R. There was still a lively debate about whether the atomic bomb was a weapon like any other, albeit vastly more powerful, or a fearful class apart.
Vladimir Putin has several times during the war in Ukraine attempted to use his strategic and tactical nuclear weapons as a threat and deterrent. Seventy-five years on, we are all still playing an unknown game, as nuclear weapons have never been used since August 1945. No one knows — nor can know — where the limits are or what the consequences might be.
Despite 35,000 American dead, the Korean War is often dubbed 'the forgotten war.' That may stem from its lack of genuine conclusion and the absence of a clear narrative. But if history does not repeat itself, it can often rhyme, and Korea has sometimes found its counterpart in Ukraine. Seventy-five years after the Korean War began, that alone is worth pause for reflection.
Eliot Wilson is a freelance writer on politics and international affairs and the co-founder of Pivot Point Group. He was senior official in the U.K. House of Commons from 2005 to 2016, including serving as a clerk of the Defence Committee and secretary of the U.K. delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

How Trump could make it harder for you to see a doctor
How Trump could make it harder for you to see a doctor

Los Angeles Times

time11 minutes ago

  • Los Angeles Times

How Trump could make it harder for you to see a doctor

The Trump administration's One Big Beautiful Bill Act puts so many people at risk of losing their health insurance and food assistance, it's hard to focus on other fires set by the new law. And yet — there's one crucial conflagration I hope the state of California will fight. The budget bill contains multiple changes in federal student loan programs that will make it harder for many students to even think about getting an undergraduate degree at the University of California or at Cal State. Eligibility for Pell Grants and other loans and grants, the way repayment works, and annual and lifetime limits on borrowing by students and their parents (via Parent PLUS loans) are all changing. But let me narrow my focus to students enrolling in law, medical, pharmacy or other professional schools, the segment of the student 'market' I'm most familiar with because of my career as a professor at UC Law San Francisco. When I started teaching, the citizens of California very generously supported professional training. I recall that tuition at UC Law (then UC Hastings) was — well, there was no tuition, just fees. But with dramatically reduced public support over the years, the costs have gone up and up. Tuition and required fees alone at UC Law SF are about $60,000 a year. At medical, dental or pharmacy school? In the $50,000 to $60,000 range as well. And that's without food, housing and other expenses of daily living. (For perspective, UC's tuition costs are still less expensive than private schools: At Stanford Law School tuition will set you back about $77,000 a year and at Stanford School of Medicine, $67,000.) Under the OBBBA, professional-school students will no longer be able to get more than $50,000 a year (up to $200,000 total for a degree) in federal student loans. That leaves a significant gap in annual tuition and fees, and offers no help on the additional costs — UC calculates the total cost for one year of dental school at $104,000. There are private loans available. But federal student loans have more flexibility, particularly in repayment plans, and students need neither a strong credit history nor a co-signer to get them. The students who would need to borrow the most are the least likely to have a strong credit history or a family member who would be an acceptable co-signer for a private loan. And private loan rates are almost always higher than the government's. So just as the tax provisions in this newly passed law make the rich richer, I fear the student loan provisions will be adequate for the better off but prevent many working-class young people from obtaining professional degrees. So much for policies that support the American dream. California could control this fire through its own student loan program, adding funding to fill the gap created by the new federal rules. One option: Create an additional program under the auspices of the California Student Aid Commission, whose current aid programs are limited in scope. It's true that the state budget is already stretched thin — but this is about loans, so the money will, for the most part, be returned with interest. Do we need to be helping future professionals get an education? Absolutely! As our population ages, the demands for health professionals are only increasing. Given the long trajectory of medical, nursing and pharmacy students' education, we can't wait for another administration to come into office and fix the loan situation. We should prevent a reduction in the numbers of practitioners graduated now. We already have shortages of health professionals: Have you tried recently to find a primary care physician or pediatrician who is taking new patients? And the nurse shortage is a major problem — UC San Francisco estimates the state is short 36,000 nurses. As for lawyers, if you doubt the need for more, consider 'the justice gap.' Facing eviction? Have problems with an employer? Unable to access public benefits? Suffering domestic violence? There are not nearly enough legal aid lawyers to help, leaving many at a great disadvantage. And the young people most likely to find the new federal loan rules a barrier to law school are also likely to best understand the need for more lawyers in public interest and public service jobs, and perhaps the most likely to aspire to such jobs. The state has had a loan repayment program for those who practice public interest law. In addition to bolstering federal student loans with state loans, California could reinvigorate and expand the repayment program to cover a greater variety of jobs and to repay more than the $11,000 limit. While the federal government is acting to burn things down, our state should intervene to build things up, including the talent pool we need for the decades ahead. Marsha Cohen, emerita professor of law at UC Law San Francisco, twice served as the school's dean of admissions, which included supervising its financial aid program.

Run for president? Start a podcast? Tackle AI? Kamala Harris' options are wide open
Run for president? Start a podcast? Tackle AI? Kamala Harris' options are wide open

Los Angeles Times

time11 minutes ago

  • Los Angeles Times

Run for president? Start a podcast? Tackle AI? Kamala Harris' options are wide open

Former Vice President Kamala Harris closed a big door when she announced Wednesday that she would not run for California governor. But she left open a heap of others. Departing presidents, vice presidents, first ladies and failed presidential candidates have pursued a wide variety of paths in the past. Empowered with name recognition and influence but with no official role to fill, they possess the freedom to choose their next adventure. Al Gore took up a cause in global warming, while George W. Bush took up painting. John Kerry and Hillary Clinton went on to become secretary of State, while Donald Trump fought off prosecutors, launched new business ventures and plotted his return to power. Barack and Michelle Obama grew their foundation, wrote books and started a production company — and both have done podcasts, too — while remaining prominent voices within the Democratic Party. Of course, Harris could focus all her energy on another run for president in 2028. But how would she do that, and what would she do to remain politically relevant in the meantime? Which other paths might she choose instead? 'She just finished writing a book. She's finally decided she's not running for governor. But to be prescriptive about what role she's going to play next and how it's going to look would be premature,' said Harris senior advisor Kirsten Allen. Experts in power and political leadership expect Harris' next move to be something in the public eye, given she is relatively young at 60 and no doubt wants her last chapter in the spotlight to be something other than her humbling loss to Trump in the 2024 presidential election. 'Even if it isn't the governorship of California, the idea of wanting something else other than the 2024 election to be the last thing Kamala Harris ever did would be very appealing,' said Gregory H. Winger, an assistant professor of public and international affairs at the University of Cincinnati who has studied former presidents' lingering influence. Winger said his research showed those 'most active in trying to be influential' in their post-White House years were those whose time in office ended on a sour note, such as failing to win reelection. 'It's kind of a frustrated ambition that then leads into higher activity,' Winger said — and Harris has that. In her announcement about not running for governor, Harris was careful to leave her options open — framing her hopes for the future around ideals such as 'fighting for the American people.' She said she is a 'devout public servant' who has long believed the best way to make a difference was to 'improve the system from within.' But she also said 'our politics, our government, and our institutions have too often failed the American people,' and that 'we must be willing to pursue change through new methods and fresh thinking — committed to our same values and principles, but not bound by the same playbook.' Harris said she looked forward talking to more Americans while helping to elect other Democrats. Within 24 hours, she had announced a book deal for her forthcoming memoir, '107 Days,' which will chronicle her whirlwind 2024 presidential campaign, and her first interview since the election on 'The Late Show with Stephen Colbert' on Thursday night. Nathanael Fast, director of the Neely Center for Ethical Leadership and Decision Making at the USC Marshall School of Business, said Harris' talk of 'getting back out and listening' is consistent with her wanting to reclaim a prominent national role. That could mean another presidential run, he said, but it could also mean something else — particularly in the short term, where she has work to do recasting people's perceptions of her. 'If she can create a compelling narrative about who she is, what she's done, what happened in the last election and where she's headed next,' Fast said, 'she'll be more likely to succeed.' Fast said his bet is that she runs for president, but he could also see her going the route of Gore — who, after losing the presidential election, decided to move in a different direction to have worldwide impact by addressing climate change. 'I can imagine someone like Harris taking on artificial intelligence and saying, 'My whole thing is trying to influence the national conversation around what's going to happen with AI,'' Fast said. Artificial intelligence was part of her portfolio as vice president and is a topic Harris cares deeply about, said a source familiar with her thinking who asked for anonymity to speak candidly about her next steps. Harris also will have to tread carefully as she works to reassert her influence in the Democratic Party, which is still reeling from a second loss to Trump, experts said. Democrats have struggled to unify the disparate elements of their party and settle on kitchen-table messaging that appeals to voters about the everyday challenges they face, said Sara Sadhwani, a politics professor at Pomona College. After she lost to Trump, a convicted felon targeted with several other criminal investigations, 'Harris exemplifies the inability to thread that needle.' Whatever Harris does to break through, it won't be easy in today's saturated media and political marketplace, which is so vastly different from what other former White House occupants faced. After he declined to run for reelection in 1928, former President Coolidge wrote a nationally syndicated newspaper column. Today, Harris would be more likely to launch a podcast — but whether it will catch on nationally is anyone's guess. Winger said Harris does have massive name recognition, and Fast said she has many of the important forms of 'capital' for a leader to continue being successful and influential — including financial and social. Still, 'it's tough,' Winger said. 'It's a very different media ecosystem just because of how crowded and how fractured it has become.' Kyle Lierman, who worked for more than six years in the Obama White House, is now chief executive of Civic Nation, a nonpartisan nonprofit that houses several education, gender equity and voter initiatives — including When We All Vote, the voter initiative Michelle Obama launched in 2018. Lierman said he is excited to see what Harris does next, as it's likely to show her 'best side.' 'When you're at the White House, you are working on a dozen different topics every day, and you are trying to make as big an impact as possible before the clock runs out,' Lierman said. 'And when you leave, you have an opportunity to step back, think longer term, and go deeper on a few issues that you're particularly passionate about. And I think that's liberating in some ways.' Former Sen. Laphonza Butler, a longtime friend of Harris', said the former vice president might draw from the blueprints laid out by her recent predecessors. 'Whether you're talking about the Clinton Global Initiative or When We All Vote ... or the work that's happening at the Obama Foundation, I think there's plenty of examples,' Butler said. Many former presidents have leveraged their experience in foreign affairs — and existing relationships with foreign leaders — to continue holding sway in international relations, particularly when members of their own party return to power. President Clinton, for instance, used President Carter in that way. Andra Gillespie, a political scientist at Emory University, said Harris could be 'really effective' in bolstering organizations that work for racial justice and to elect women, but said 'that's not what she was organizing her political career around' before the 2024 election and it may not be the path she chooses now. Gillespie said she read Harris' statement as indicating that she was most interested in finding a way to force change outside of government. She said she could see Harris — who is already in California, and whose husband Doug Emhoff is an entertainment lawyer — moving into production and podcasts like the Obamas. Gillespie said she also could see Harris working closely with Howard University, her alma mater in Washington, D.C., on fundraising or building out a new center of study, as Joe Biden did at the University of Delaware. 'She's still relatively young, and still could have a good 15 to 20 years of active engagement ahead of her,' Gillespie said, 'in whatever form she wants that to take.'

Republicans Pan Trump's Idea Of Tariff Rebates
Republicans Pan Trump's Idea Of Tariff Rebates

Yahoo

time12 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Republicans Pan Trump's Idea Of Tariff Rebates

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's proposal to send checks to millions of Americans hurt by his tariff policies is running into resistance from some Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill who'd like to pay down the deficit instead. Last week, Trump said he was considering providing consumers with financial relief from the tens of billions of dollars his administration has collected since it instituted its higher duties earlier this year on nearly every good the U.S. imports. The U.S. Treasury has reported raising about $150 billion from the program so far. 'We're thinking about a little rebate. But the big thing we want to do is pay down debt. But we're thinking about a rebate,' Trump said at the White House, adding that it would likely include an income threshold. Congress would have to approve any such move, and Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) introduced legislation this week that would provide $600 tariff rebates in the form of a tax credit. 'Why not reward the working people who have taken it in the shins for the last four years and give them something out of this? I think they need it, deserve it,' Hawley told HuffPost on Tuesday. In reality, the money pouring into the U.S. Treasury is coming from American businesses and consumers, who are the ones actually paying for Trump's tariffs. So the idea of a tariff rebate is similar to putting a Band-Aid on a wound one intentionally gave oneself. Coincidentally, Congress is essentially doing the same thing by providing financial assistance to rural hospitals hurt by the GOP's recent law cutting funding to Medicaid. Other Republican senators told HuffPost the tariff revenue would be better used to pay down the national debt, as Trump had also suggested in his remarks last week. After all, that was initially one of the reasons the Trump administration gave for instituting the tariffs in the first place. 'We're $37 trillion in debt, running a $2 trillion-a-year deficit. No, we shouldn't be rebating,' said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.). 'That would defeat the purpose that the president may be looking at in terms of reducing the size of the deficit,' added Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.). 'Nonetheless, the reality is tariffs are basically a national sales tax on a lot of products that come from overseas, and it's something that would be worth considering.' The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected that Trump's tariffs could shave $2.8 trillion off the federal debt over the next decade, if they remain in place. However, the CBO also forecast that Trump's tariffs would reduce the size of the U.S. economy by lowering the rate of real GDP growth, and would increase annual average inflation.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store