Gen. Burwell B. Bell III is a graduate of the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga and a Tennessee native. He retired from the U.S. Army in 2008 after 40 years of service and moved to Ooltewah.
His last command was over combined U.S. and South Korean forces in South Korea from 2006-08.
Following recent attacks by North Korean forces on the South that killed several people, Bell returned to South Korea earlier this month to talk to the Korean Foundation, a government group that works to enhance Korea’s worldwide image through academic and cultural programs. A copy of his speech to the foundation is at timesfreepress.com.
Bell spoke recently with the Times Free Press about the Koreas and other recent military-related events. This interview was edited for length.
Q: Why do we see these attacks by North Korea against South Korea?
A: There’s no simple answer as to why they’re conducting attacks. But there are a host of answers taken cumulatively that explain very clearly why today, now, they’re doing this. First is the leadership transition in North Korea between the current leader, Kim Jong-Il, and his designated successor, Kim Jong-Un.
The young Kim Jong is in training to be a good Communist leader like his daddy and his granddaddy. And the training is to put his finger on the trigger, literally and figuratively, ensuring that he is “bloodied” in the contest with the South, so that when he assumes power exclusively he will be boxed into a course of action that will prevent him from being more flexible in his negotiations with the South.
The way they drive us to the negotiating table is to attack South Korea. … It’s not unusual to see them shoot across the DMZ [demilitarized zone] or send a terror squad into South Korea in hopes of making us so nervous that there might be uncontrolled escalation that we come running to the negotiating table, which is what they want.
Q: Why is South Korea important to Americans?
A: We have a signed and Senate-ratified security treaty with South Korea, not unlike our treaty with NATO. Should either party be subjected to military attacks, the other party is obligated to assist them. This is something our nation is committed to in a deep and profound way.
Another reason is the growing economic and military strength of China. Korea is on the mainland of Asia, and the capital of South Korea is closer to Beijing than it is to, say, Tokyo.
South Korea is an outpost of stability, democracy, freedom and individual rights that is on the Asian mainland and represents the single location where the U.S. has treaty obligation and forces stationed ashore. This tends to bring a level of stability to the region that is good for America.
Particularly as China outreaches for resources [and] raw materials and uses shipping lanes, it is to our advantage to have a friend literally in their front yard and forces stationed in that area so that we can talk to them on an even keel as opposed to a disadvantaged keel.
Q: Why is China not doing more to reduce problems with North Korea?
A: China is an enigma in all of this. One, China wants the status quo maintained; it’s to their advantage. It keeps the United States kind of tied down. But more important, it keeps the United States engaged to keep stability in northeast Asia.
There is a certain fear by China of a reunited Korea; a reunited Korea could be an economic powerhouse. South Korea is the 12th-largest economy in the world and could have a very strong military capacity.
They [China] want a little instability; they are desperate to not have a full-blown war break out. So they walk a very thin line, which they have done very well for more than 50 years. And they’re doing it again today.
Q: What should be the strategy to end the attacks directed by the North Korean government?
A: For the last 10 years, the U.S. and South Korea pursued a policy of engagement with North Korea – economic, culturally, DMZ personnel exchanges. This strategy was hoped to bring North Korea out of their reclusive shell.
That policy of engagement has failed, clearly. Consequently, it’s my view that a fundamental policy change by South Korea, the United States and China should change from engagement to containment.
Containment means efforts to ensure North Korea is unable to continue to build their military machine, unable to economically trade with the South and western nations, unable to conduct normal business diplomatically with the West.
Once there is a change of leadership in North Korea, certainly the allies should attempt to engage with him and his stripes will be shown at that time.
Q: President Barack Obama recently spoke about the Afghanistan war policy review. What is your opinion on the current strategy?
A: I am still of a belief that a policy of counterinsurgency, which translates into nation-building, is not the best strategy for America in Afghanistan.
I believe the right policy and strategy are ones of counterterrorism, and counterterrorism is much more narrowly focused and it fundamentally says to focus on al-Qaida and those who have made a choice to attack America, American interests and its affiliates.
We would be less interested in the type and form of government that Afghanistan has and more interested in having strike forces in the area, including ashore in Afghanistan, that would allow us to strike terrorist base camps should they come back into Afghanistan or elsewhere, including in Pakistan.
A counterterrorist mission would probably take about two base camps and about 25,000 troops instead of 140,000 and dozens of camps.
Q: What about critics who say that simply killing terrorists does not eliminate the root of the problem, the rise of terrorist ideology?
A: I believe that is significantly misguided. The more you put American troops, American philosophies of freedom and democracy and, indeed, American culture, dominated by Christianity, the more you put that in the face of Islamist people, the more angst you cause among them.
The fewer troops and lack of domineering military formations I believe would de-escalate the crisis.
Q: How do you think secret information published by the WikiLeaks website has affected military operations, and what should be done about the leaks?
A: This is not about Wiki-Leaks. … This is about treason, where Americans with secret security clearances are copying information from our secret Web and e-mail sites and providing those to an outsider for publication. This is probably Americans doing this to Americans.
This is our problem, and what we have to do is significantly tighten up our classified networks. We must tighten up the procedures with which we provide people with secret security clearances.
I do believe politically, diplomatically, even culturally, it will be much harder for the military to do its nontraditional job, like nation building, than it has been in the past.
And we will take years to overcome this and regain the trust and confidence of those who provided information to us in the past.