Casualties of War

As I grow older, I often look back and wonder, of all things, what kind of life I would have had if I had been born a girl. The answer, of course, is simple and clear. Women's lives on the whole are not any easier than men's. Nonetheless, I have engaged in that idle speculation ever since I heard that when my mother conceived me, she and my father wanted a boy so desperately that she locked herself in a room at a Buddhist temple and prayed for 100 days. They had enough daughters and felt they deserved a boy.

In Korea at that time (and even now, I might add), a married couple has to have a boy in order to keep the family's bloodline going--for what that is worth.

When the Korean War broke out, and I was drafted into the South Korean army to fight the Communist invaders from the North, my parents prayed for my life in a Catholic Church every day. Shortly before the war, my mother had died and Father married a Christian woman. So, my father moved from the Buddhist temple to the Christian church to pray with my stepmother for my safety. I don't know how influential their prayers were but I somehow survived that brutal war.

During the war, it appeared that women were better off than men, who had to risk their lives on the frontline. Then again, women were not safe either. To back up this point, I'll tell you a story of a girl I knew.

She was the younger sister of the wife of one of my cousins. She was a year younger than I was but girls mature sooner than boys of the same age, as they say. She had apparently taken an unusual interest in a boy--me--when we were still in middle school. I knew for a fact because when our girl servant went to her house on errands, she asked all kinds of questions about me. She even sent me a couple of letters. I couldn't make sense out of what she was trying to say in her letters, but thinking back later, I figured they must have been something akin to a "confession" of love.

The trouble was I was too shy to respond to her approach. I couldn't event look at her without blushing, much less talk to her whenever we met at family gatherings. Then, the war broke out, and I forgot all about her--that was until I heard the shocking and sad news of her death while I was away in the army.

What happened was that while the North Korean forces occupied Seoul, the capital of South Korea, her brother-in-laws--that is my cousin--worked for the so-called people's committee of the city, which was set up by the Communist party.

After the North Korean forces were repelled from Seoul by South Korean and U.S. troops, my cousin was captured and summarily executed by nothing more than a squad of South Korean soldiers. That is not all. They went to the dead man's house and gang raped the girl. Overwhelmed by the shame and despair, she later hanged herself.

Hearing that story, I felt intense anger and hatred toward those who had perpetrated the crime taking advantage of the chaos of war. I also felt a vague sense of regret that I had been unable to reciprocate her feeling toward me. Anyway, the incident showed me that women were not any safer than men nor were their lives any easier.

Throughout the war, brutality and inhuman acts that often led to death were inflicted nonchalantly as though they were routine exercises. And as an infantry solder, I had to witness them countless times so that, in the end, I became very insensitive and callous like most of my fellow soldiers. I simply stopped feeling any sense of outrage or indignation. But those scenes must have been buried deep in my unconciousness; years later, they would float to the surface, as it were, like nightmares.

One of those nightmares also involved a woman. She must have been the wife of a farmer, who had no doubt been hiding in her isolated house near a mountain pass, unable to flee from her village when the other did. She was caught either by a group of retreating Communist troops or by the advancing forces of the democratic South.

As our platoon searched the house, we happened to come upon her body. She was obviously in an advanced stage of pregnancy, and yet she had been raped before being stabbed in her abdomen with a bayonet.

Cynically, the man who committed the crime had stuck a Chrysanthemum in between her legs. The whole scene was so gruesome and sickening, I almost threw up as I ran out of the room. At the same time, I was so totally indignant and angry at all men in general that I had a hard time resisting an urge to shoot one of my superiors, who laughed at me and said, "Hey, kid you have a long way to go to become a real soldier."

How could the man who obviously liked flowers enough to pick one and carry it along with him in the battlefield, turn around the next moment and commit such a beastly and heinous crime? I simply couldn't figure it out.

Talking about war, I have noticed a recurring phenomenon in time of war, namely, the killing of "innocent civilians." Many people, especially so-called humanitarians and other self-righteous persons, beat their breasts and condemn the combatants, including and especially the soldiers of their own country. But as every soldier who has been to war knows "civilian casualties" are often unavoidable, however, regrettable they may be. That actually is one of the reasons, I believe, why so many people oppose war in the first place. But war occurs regardless of our beliefs and wishes.

And once you are at war, you are in it up to your neck.

While I was also in the thick of it for more than and half years during the Korean War, I never shot my rifle in anger, that is to say, I did not shoot with an aim to kill anyone, It was possible someone on the enemy side got wounded or even killed by the bullets I fired blindly, but as far as I know no one was. That means that I was a pretty bad solider. But to this day, I think I was fortunate--fortunate that I didn't have to kill anyone.

Nevertheless, I become exasperated whenever some self-righteous people get upset and condemn soldiers for killing "innocent civilians" without knowing the precise circumstances. Few soldiers in their right mind would kill another human being knowing that he or she was a non-combatant. But in a situation where you have to kill your enemy or get killed by them and where you have to make a decision instantaneously, you have no choice but shoot first and ask questions later. Innocent civilians get killed by stray bullets or shot at when they are forced to become a shield by the enemy. These situation occur often and they are regrettably unavoidable.

But what I cannot forgive or forget are those--soldiers on both sides--who take advantage of the confusion and chaos to commit crimes that have nothing to do with war. They include rape and the killing of innocent and helpless women as well as plundering and stealing other people's valuables with impunity.

After I became a newsman years later, I thought about digging into the aforementioned incident in which one of my distant relatives was brutally killed by a group of soldiers. But I came to realize that investigating such a killing during the war that took place a quarter of a century before and especially by the soldiers of "our own side" was well nigh impossible.

Looking back on my life, I have no particular complaint on the whole. In fact, I feel I have been fortunate in many ways, except when the horrible war ruined what should have been the best period in my life. Because of those bitter nightmarish experiences of war, I have come to believe that we must try and avoid war at any cost.

(END)

A Chinese Maneuver

The Lunar New Year's Day that fell on February 14 this year by the Gregorian calendar, is one of the most joyous holidays for most Asians, including the people of North Korea.

However, for our cousins in the North, this year was an exception. They were reported to have cast the Lunary New Year's holiday aside in order to celebrate the birthday of their dictator Kim Jong-il, which happened to be a day after New Year's Day.

The traditional holiday, in other words, meant nothing when it was pitted against the mother of all festive days in North Korea--that is the birthday of the current ruler and the son of the founder of the pseudo-Communist regime, Kim Il-sung, who is worshipped by the North Koreans as a demigod.

While starving North Koreans wished "many happy returns" and a long, long life for their Dear Leader, his lackeys searched far and wide and bought many exotic animals and offered them to him as birthday presents, according to South Korean press reports. The animals included, it was said, some turtles that symbolize long life and rhinoceros.

Kim Jong-il, who reportedly survived a stroke a few years back and is suffering from other illnesses such as chronic diabetes, was able to bounce back physically, thanks to Chinese herbal medicine that included doses of the boiled horns of rhinos. They, of course, are an endangered species and poaching is prohibited under international law.

Earlier in November last year, the Kim regime undertook currency reform, entailing the redenomination of the North Korean currency, won, at the rate of 100 to 1. The unexpected reform wreacked havoc on the country's crumbling economy. It was also said to have brought extreme hardship to people who were already suffering acute shortages of food and other daily necessities.

As the level of public discontent and anger rose sharply, Pyongyang has been trying its best to divert atttention, resorting to its old trick of blaming "the U.S. imperialists and their puppets" in South Korea for their economic hardship. Pyongyang has also been threatening armed strikes against the South all winter while telling its people that it is only the military that can insure their safety from foreign aggression.

Meanwhile, partly due to the chronic mismanagement of the nation by the reclusive regime and partly due to the sanctions imposed by the United Nations to force Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons development plans, the country is in the throes of struggling with a sagging economy.

We all remember that in the late 1990s, North Korea faced total collapse but was saved in the nick of time by the then South Korean president, Kim Dae-jung, who provided Kim Jong-il with billions of dollars in emergency bailouts. North Korea, however, lost sympathetic South Korean leaders after 10 years of leftist government in Seoul, which was replaced in 2008 by that of the conservative Lee Myong-bak Administration which has been reluctant to help the North unless Pyongyang promises to scrap its nuclear program.

Now faced with another economic meltdown, North Korea has turned to China, its only remaining ally. China was reported to have agreed to invest US$10 billion in North Korea to help build railways, harbors and other social-infrastructures, presumably creating jobs for North Koreans.

And some members of the news media in South Korea and elsewhere said that China appeared to have made the decision in an effort to motivate the impoverished neighbor to rejoin the Six-Party Talks on the North Korean nuclear issue. This, however, is only wishful thinking. For I firmly believe that North Korea will never give up its nuclear weapons under any circumstance because they are the only guarantee or lifeline, if you like, for the existence of Kim Jong-il and his regime.

What's more, China will never press Kim hard enough for North Korea to give up its nuclear bombs even though it often pretends to share international concerns over North Korea's nuclear ambition. There is no reason for Beijing to worry about Pyongyang's possession of nuclear weapons as it literally holds the fate of the Kim Jong-il regime in its hand.

China's decision to invest so much money in North Korea is part of its strategy to lay the groundwork--or pretext--to go into North Korea and install a puppet government should the Kim Jong-il regime collapses and civil unrest and political chaos ensue. For such an eventuality, China will never allow South Korea, one of the staunchest allies of the United States, to intervene in North Korea, much less try to unify the two Koreas.

In any event, chances for the Korean people to see their countries reunite in the foreseeable future seems to have receded further by China's latest sly maneuver.

(END)

At War?

Al-Qaeda and other Islamic militant groups have been terrorizing and killing innocent people in the United States and the rest of the non-Moslem world, calling their cowardly and heinous acts necessary steps in what they call jihad or holy war. Al Qaeda soldiers sent by their leaders to blow themselves up with bombs to kill "enemies" are considered warriors who are willing to sacrifice their life for victory.

But not all suicide bombers succeeded in their mission as we have seen in the failed bomb attack against a Northwest airliner over Detroit by the 23-year-old Nigerian on Christmas day.

As soon as the plane landed in Detroit, the Nigerian terrorist was taken into custody by American civilian authorities that provided him with a lawyer and advised him that he has Miranda rights.

In short, the jihad fighter was going to be investigated and tried as a common criminal in an American civilian court, not in a military court as a prisoner of war, even though President Obama has finally acknowledged that America is at war with al-Qaeda.

The reasoning of the Obama administration goes like this: the bombing that could have killed nearly 300 passengers was attepted aboard an American airplane over an American city. Therefore, the would-be murderer should be tried in a civilian court in the United States.

But not many people in this country seem to realize that this way of thinking, based on the spirit of fairness and justice, will, nevertheless, infuriate the al-Qaeda leadership. Just try to imagine the intensity of anger and frustration that al-Qaeda leaders felt when they heard that their "warriors" who had failed to carry out their mission were caught by the enemy and were being held for a jury trial as a criminal by an American court.

They would think, "How dare the Americans treat our valiant and invincible warriors" as common criminals? If the situation were reversed, al-Qaeda leaders would put their American captives on television for all the world to see and forced them to confess their crime before executing them.

"But we are not like them," one liberral American politician declared in a televised debate here the other day. "We are not like the ruthless barbarians who ignore the basic rights of other people and who refuse to abide by international rules."

He said that unlike many of our aqdversaries, Americans believe even a terrorist who tries to kill hundreds of people deserves a day in court and that he should be treated fairly with a firm sense of justice, at least until he is proven guilty. He added that that is why Americans believe all those terrorists should be tried in civilian courts.

That is also why, they insist, all the Islamic prisoners held at Guantanamo prison should be moved to civilian prisons elsewhere and some of them should even be released.

These, of course, are admirable--even noble--thoughts and beliefs. But would our enemies understand, much less appreciate, the American sense of fairness and justice? I doubt it. In fact, I would be surprised if the members of al-Qaeda and other enemies of America, didn't laugh at what they believe was the "hypocritical attitude of the Americans" as well as "the naivety" of U.S. foreign policymakers.

The truth of the matter is that all those callous al-Qaeda leaders could not care less about the fate of their failed fighters while it is the Americans, especially the breast-beating liberals, who are concerned about the rights and well-being of the enemy soldiers in their captivity.

"We don't care how our adversaries behave," the afore-mentioned politician said. "We should simply do what we believe is right." But the problem is that this kind of thinking is taken by al-Qaeda as a sign of weakness; it also encourages them to keep attacking Americans.

This means that we cannot always be idealistic in politics in general and in our relations with other nations in particular, especially when the people of some of these countries are out to kill us for one reason or anolther. Nor can we ignore the mentality as well as cultures of those people and try to judge them with our own standard alone. We should try and understand their way of thinking, if we are to counter their future attacks and eventually defeat them.

It is often impossible to talk sensibly to an irrational people. There is a saying in Asia that the only medicine that works on mad dogs is a club with which we can beat sense into them. This saying, I realize, has an unfortunate choice of words, but the fact is, the only that will compel fanatical people to come to their senses is brute and merciless force with which we can deal a decisive and crippling blow to them.

If we are at war with al-Qaeda, as the president declared, then we must fight with full force and unwavering determination in order to win. We shouldn't, in other words, make half-hearted and ludicrous efforts like, for instance, attempting to try the captured enemy combatants in civilian courts like common domestic criminals.
(END)

At the Airport

Our life gets tougher every time a terrorist or a group of terrorists blew up or tried to blow up civilian airliners, killing hundreds of innocent people.

Luckily, I didn't have the need for traveling by air over this past holiday season. But even without paying any attention to press reports these days, I knew security checks at all airports throughout America and elsewhere have become extremely tight in the wake of the failed attempt by a young Nigerian terrorist to bomb a Northwest/Delta airline plane on Christmas day.

I know what it is like to go through the security check at an airport because I have had an unpleasant experience of being singled out for more thorough check than others at the San Francisco International Airport in 2003.

Having lived nearly three quarters of a century, I thought I have learned the truth: what you think of yourself can be quite different from what others think of you. Nevertheless, I got a little upset when I was picked out of literally hundreds of individuals by airport officers as one of the passengers who, they apparently thought, needed a thorough bodily search before being allowed to board the airplane.

Why me? What made them think that this old, harmless man who can't kill a fly without feeling queasy could be a possible terrorist? I may not look like a refined gentleman. But neither do I look like a man of action, I am sure, with a pair of burning eyes, who would pursue a political or religious cause single-mindedly and at the expense of his own life.

"Would you step this way, please?" one of the security officers led me to a small cordoned off area where several men were waiting their turns to be checked and questioned.

I had just come through a metal detector successfully, that is, without triggering an alarm. Heaving a little sigh of relief, I went to a table where I picked up my carry-on bag, which had been x-rayed and was about to leave the area when the officer told me that they wantede to check me further.

First, the officer asked me if it was all right to look in my bag. It contained photographic film that I was carrying in a special lead container that was supposed to protect them from the x-ray.

"What's in it?" the officer asked me, pointing at the bag.

"Some 35-millimeter film," I told him.

"Are you a photographer?"

"A sort of...," I replied under my breath. I did not want to tell him that I was a retired journalist who happened to have developed a life-long habit of carrying a camera during all waking hours. You never knew what kind of newsworthy incident you might run into and become a valuable witness. Why you may even get a Pulitzer Prize, if you're lucky.

The officer took all 30 rolls of films out of the bag and checked them before putting them back. He then knocked the heels of my shoes with a small metal rod to see if I had something hidden in them.

Satisfied apparently that I was clean, the officer finally told me to go.

Although I knew I had to hurry up as I was running out of time to board the plane, I asked him what standard the security officers used to pick certain passengers to give a thorough check. "There is no such rule," he said, explaining that officers mostly rely on their "hunch."

"But in your case, it was different," he added.

"Oh? What was wrong with me?"

He said he had to check me becasue the airline clerk at the check-in counter "flagged" certain passengers for them to give a more than routine check to. Only then, I remembered a small incident earlier at the check-in countger. The airline clerk, seeing that my baggage was overweigh by half a pound, told me to take something out right there. I had to unpack the back while so many people behind me waited impatiently in line. I took half a pound of things from the luggage and stuffed them into my carry-on bag.

I knew I should have kept my mouth shut then, but since I was more embarrassed than annoyed, I made a snide remark to the clerk, point out that "the poor airplane is gonna carry that half a pound anyway, isn't it?"

With that remark, I must have succeeded in upsetting the clerk. I may be wrong, but he could have tried to settle the score with me by singling me out to the security officers as a passenger who should be scrutinized before being allowing on board.

In any event, I had forgotten all about that incident until I ran into an old friend at a party in Korea. He told me about a similar experience he had when he visited America. It was quite an unpleasant and demeaning experience, he said. I did not tell my story. I just said he shouldn't take such security procedures personally.

After all, the security officers at airports in America as well as in other countries are doing their job as they are required to do in order to prevent hijacking or other terrorist acts. Actually, we should rather be thankful that they carry out their work dutifully and thoroughly so that all of us can travel by air safely.

If there is anyone we should get mad at, it should be the terrorists who do not hesitate to blow up airplanes with bombs or take you and a whole lot of other innocent people in an airplane and crash it into tall buildings or other targets in a futile and senseless attempt to terrorize the world.
(END)

Burning Bright?

Let me make it clear from the outset that I, like so many people around the globe, was dismayed by the scandal of Tiger Woods' extramarital affairs and deeply disappointed in the famous golfer. I have been one of those who admired him for his superb athletic ability and extraordinary talent in playing the sport.

At the same time, however, I was amazed by the sharp and critical reaction of the general public here in America as well as in the rest of the world to what seemed to be a string of unending disclosures by the overzealous news media of Tiger's alleged adulterous affairs.

Displaying characteristic voyeurism and a penchant for scandal mongering, some newspaper and television reporters seemed to have had a field day digging up morsels of juicy tidbits as well as rumors and speculatgion day after day while self-righteous commentators and opinion leaders criticized, some even condemned, the golfer for his alleged "immoral" past. They predicted that most of the big corporations that had commercially endorsed Tiger would terminate their support for him.

But what I don't understand is this: who made Tiger Woods more than a great golfer? I mean aside from having become one of the world's richest athletes, who anointed him to be an unblemished and morally upright human being? Who made him to be a "role model," especially for the young? Who, in other words, placed him on the social and moral pedestal?

Weren't they those who are now working hard to bring him down sneering and laughing at him?

Tiger Woods himself said he is an imperfect man with all the human frailties and shortcomings. I don't think he asked or behaved as though he was superior to his fellow humans. Playing the game of golf better than other people does not make him a grea human being, and I think he knew it. It is true that victory after victory in professional golf tournaments, winning millions of dollars and commercial endorsements, could have possibly made him feel like a "superman" as some journalists put it. He could have become overconfident, even arrogant, as a man. But the fact remains that he did not seek to be a leader, or a model, if you will, or least of all, a great man in our society.

In this sense, the case of Tiger Woods should not be seen in the same light as that of President Clinton and even North Carolina Governor Sanford as both were leaders elected by the people. As far as I can remember, Tiger did not ask to be seen and reated as anything other than a good golfer. That doesn't, of course, mean that he should act like a jerk or oversexed fiend in his private life. After all, he is a public man--a celebrity, as they say--and as such, he had certain unwritten obligations to be a descent--not to mention law-abiding--person.

In addition to his inexhaustible energy for practicing and playing golf, he apparently has an unquenchable, strong sex drive so that he allegedly engaged in sleazy affairs with women, some of whom were reportedly "of ill-repute."

But as long as he did not violated the law, what he did in his family and with other women were private affairs and no one, especially reporters, has the right to pry into them.

As I said all this does not mean that we should try to understand or even condone his alleged adulteries. But he said he would stop playing golf indefinitely and set his family affairs straight and, above all, try to become a decent man. Indeed, I believe, more than anything he should try and grow up and be a mature person.

I am not a golf enthusiast. In fact, I have never been interested enough in the sport to be tempted to have a go at it. And yet, I said all this because I feel his talent is too great and too precious to waste because of his youthful, immature and moral misdemeanors of the past.

(END)

"We Don't Get No Respect!"

In a United Nations poll of young people in 17 nations in the Asia-Pacific region, conducted a few years ago, South Korean youths ranked last in showing respect for the elderly. The result of the poll, I remember, came as a big surprise to many in Korea that is more Confucian than China where Confucius was born and taught some 2,500 years ago.

South Korea was said to be just about the only country in the world where many people were following Confucian teachings, one of which is respect the elderly.

Korean educators and civic and religious leaders moaned and groaned over the finding and, as expected, blamed the elderly for letting down the younger generation and failing to earn their respect.

And, indeed, if young people are contemptuous of the elderly, or at least cannot respect them, they have good reasons, I believe.

The nation's politicians, divided into two groups, fight day in and day out, like a bunch of gangsters, while letting national administration and the economy go down the drain; many people, including businessmen, demonstrating their limitless greed, are out to cheat or extort money from the next guy to gain a few measly won; and last but not the least, most grown-ups violate the law routinely and without the slighrest heistation while their children look on.

Nearer to the problem that affects young people, though, let us take a look at the way we teach our childresn.

A majority of parents are said to be spending millions of won for their children's extracurricular studies in cram schools so that they can beat others into a better university. In the process, they unintentionally plant the seeds of distrust and contempt for schoolteachers in the minds of their children. The parents are, in effect, telling their childlren that their teachers at school are not good enough.

While we are doing this, then, how can we turn around the ask our chilldren to respect their elders in general and teachers in particular?

A great irony, however, lies in the fact that we, grown-ups, are doing all these things for the well being of our own children and grandchildren, and yet, these are precisely the things that cause us to lose respect in the eyes of the young.

But a more serious problem is the anachronistic--and to a large extent, irrelevant--Confucian idea that young people should respect the elderly blindly. Respect, needless to say, is something that everyone should earn by behaving correctly in public and living a respectable life. To put it another way, just because one is old, one cannot and should not expect the young to respect him or her. For as someone once said, "Wisdom does not always come with age. Sometimes, age comes by itself."

Nevertheless, our customs and tradition, formed by Confucianism over centuries, still demand that the young treat the old with respect. The Korean language, which we use to form our thoughts and communicate with each other, also forces us to show respect for the elderly: we have to use the honorific form when we address someone older than us.

Incidentally, I have seen some old people demanding that the young give up their seats for them in areas other than those designated for the elderly in the subway or city buses. Of course, they have no right to do so; it is up to young people to concede their seats voluntarily out of consideration for the aged and weak.

This demand for respect creeps into close personal relationship as well. Senior, or sonbae, as they called in Korean, at university or in the workplace, for instance, expect varying degrees of respect from their juniors, or hubae, regardless of their position or ability. This is one of the serious drawbacks in our country that is trying to become an advanced society where individual ability and drive--and not age--count.

Despite our customs and language, we are now living in a free, open and democratic society. And whether we like it or not, the attitude of young people is changing rapidly, often veerying away from traditional values, in time with worldwide trends.

Therefore, instead of shouting, "we don't get any respect any more," older people must do their part, face reality and give up the outdated notion that they deserve respect just because they are old.
(END)

Dear Friends

Noticing that I have not posted any article for nearly two months, you may have wondered what had happened to me. I bet some of you might have wondered if I was seriously ill or even dead--or if something had happened to my family. Well, nothing of the kind happened, although I must admit I have been running out of steam of late. During the long absence from this blog, I made a trip to my native South Korea. I then visited Hawaii for a week on my way back.

The world, needless to say, still remains a fascinating place with lots of interesting and strange, even absurd, events taking place every day, and I have felt the urge to express my two cents worth. But I was too busy with family and friends to sit down in front of a computer and write down what I saw and share my thoughts with you.

Anyway, I am now back in the saddle, in a manner of speaking, and trying to adjust my life to my old routine, posting an article from time to time in the hope that you will continue to visit this site as you have done in the past.

In closing, I would also like to extend season's greerings to all my friends.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!