The Military Intervention of South Korea during Park Era

The authors and editors of The Transformation of South Korea identify the era when South Korea was under the ruling of Park Chung Hee as the "transformation" of South Korea. When I firstly looked at the cover of this book, it seemed like a smart (cold-blood) politician was controling the fate of a state. Therefore, I was wondering why Park is identified as the pivotal or even determing figure towards the transformation of post-war South Korea. Meanwhile, how did he complete this transformation? First of all, what the editors and authors mean by "transformation" is the modernization, including political and economic developments. And then, I'd like to say this book is about the intersection of economy, politics, military, and international elements of so called "Park era". (page1) One point I find very striking and I want to focus on is South Korea's intervention in Vietnam War. Before reading this chapter (chapter14), I did not even know there are South Korean armies and soldiers in Vietnam War. Here I would like to combine Chapter 9 with Chapter 14 to discuss the military intervention / participation of South Korea. Min Yong Lee argues in Chapter 14 that instead of U.S. political pressure, South Korea is more like to participate the Vietnam War voluntarily. (page 403) The supportive evidences can be the Tiger Division and the White Horse Division, which are the best troops in South Korea's army and which were dispatched by Park to take part in the Vietnam War. At the same time, the data is also very striking, as "at the height of the allied military intervention, some 50,000 South Korean soldiers fought side by side with 550,000 U.S. troops in South Vietnam." (page 403) And then, after that war, we can see another seires of datas, "South Korea faced a huge downside of approximately 16,000 casualities, 4960 of whom were killed, 10,962 wounded, and 6 missing in action." (page 426) Given that these series of data, the number of soldiers and the death rate, are after Asian-Pacific War as well as Korean War. And "50,000" are not a normal number of people. It probably is a huge expense. Therefore, the question is why Park would utilize such a huge expense to join the Vietnam War, and what advantages could be taken from the military intervention. There are several reasons which are very clearly given in this chapter: "despite the huge economic benefits, Park's most compelling reason to intervene militarily in the Vietnam War was political: ...to acquire a modern armed forces with combat experience; and to make himself an indispensable strategic ally of the United States in its cold war campaigns, with and eye to discouraging U.S. political forces from joining South Korean opposition politicians and chaeya activists in an anti-Park transnational coalition." (page 404) To connect this point to the point of Chapter 9, the military intervention can be the efforts to avoid the abandonment by U.S., because there were the cheabol of South Korea which was in huge debts because of the strategies of development. "the chaebol had become heavily indebted after five years of hypergrowth, with a large portion of capital financced by short-term private loans on the curb market and foreign commercial loans." (page 284)

Qustions: How can we compare South Korea's intervention in the Vietnam War and Chinese "aid" in the Korean War? If South Korea's intervention is considered as a positive/voluntary "self-protection" for the national security, can Chinese intervention be considered as a pure "aid/help"? How can we understand the word "voluntary" in "Chinese Voluntary Army"? Can we consider "the Vietnam War - South Korea" and "the Korean War - China" as two parallel events (analog)?

In addition, can South Korea's military intervention of Vietnam War be considered as a continuity of Cold War (or it is about Cold War)?

(Chapter 14 reminds me of the question "what cold war is about". Last time, the answer "it is about ideology" is mentioned, but after reading this chapter, I will never think that Cold War is about ideology. I would like to say that it has little to do with ideology.)