Contain or Liberate?

During the Korean War, President Truman intended to contain the North Koreans above the 38th parallel. The only incursions into North Korea by our forces should be strictly to take out military targets. His intention was "to restore peace there and to restore the border." These intentions would remain as long as the Chinese and the Russians didn't get directly involved.
After a few months, though, a massive Chinese force did enter the war. Truman shifted his focus on not allowing them to spread any farther.
The commanding general in Korea, Douglas MacArthur opposed this tactic. He wanted to drive the forces back into China and continue the fight there.
Truman saw MacArthur's hawkishness as a recipe for the start of World War III, and fired him.
MacArthur's view was "There is no substitute for victory."
Truman replied that MacArthur's kind of victory "would have been the wrong kind of victory."
Truman then quotedGeneral Omar Bradley in support of his postion: "To have extended the fighting to the mainland of Asia would have been the wrong war, at the wrong time and in the wrong place." Did Kerry give him credit? I don't remember.
The debate waged then was, in essense, the same debate being waged now. Do we contain, or liberate? However, our enemy is no longer strictly Communism and Socialism, but now includes Islamic Fascism. Do we contain these dangerous enemies, hoping that they will eventually implode or be overtaken by their neighbors? Or, do we liberate them from their despotic heads, and give them the freedom to be our allies?
John Kerry would continue the policy of containment. How do I know this? His record. The record of his party. Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter's records.
One may argue that containment was very effective during the Cold War. I would assert that millions of people in Eastern Europe and South East Asia would fervently disagree. If America had had the chutzpa to stand up to the Soviet Union when they rolled into Hungary, or to China when they flooded into North Korea, millions of lives would have been spared.
Today, the economic and human rights disparities between North and South Korea are enormous. South Korea is rich, free and vibrant. North Korea is a prison. We could have changed that. Even if it had meant World War III. It could have meant the end of Communism a lot sooner.
George Bush believes in the policy of liberation because it is ultimately humane. War is a filthy thing, but it is an effective machine. It is responsible for the demise of Nazi Germany and Imperialistic Japan, both of whom were reborn as strong, contributive societies. They were liberated. It will work for Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, too. It has to, because if it doesn't, western society will soon cease.