Obama and North Korea

I'm going to resist the urge, already cropping up among some on the right, to bash President Obama over the current situation with North Korea. In fact, I think that his statements of resolute support for South Korea, combined with the current show of naval force, and diplomatic efforts directed at China comprise a reasonable response at this time. I've written a number of posts about North Korea, (which can be found by clicking the "North Korea" label below), that outline my views on U.S. policy toward that country. I'll quote myself here,

North Korea doesn't need to be "engaged" or talked to; it needs to be contained & deterred. Our diplomacy in that regard should be directed at China, with the intention of making it very clear to the Chinese that we expect them to maintain a certain degree of control over their insane client state. As a rational actor, we expect China to prevent the insanity of North Korea from spilling over its borders. As long as they keep Kim Jong Ill on a short leash, there will be no need for U.S. involvement - a win/win for both the U.S. and China.

If we do talk to North Korea it should be in a language that it understands: clear, unmistakeable threats. As I've written before, we should do everything possible to make the North understand that if it starts a war it will not be a limited conflict, and we will use the full power of the United States against it -- which would include directly targeting and killing the communist leadership and destroying North Korea as a political entity. This should also be conveyed to China in the strongest possible terms.

I have no confidence in the president to carry out a realistic policy of containment with regard to North Korea. But so far he appears to have reacted well to the current crisis. It is not the job of the U.S. to fight South Korea's battles for it, or to take the lead in responding to an attack on South Korean territory. This isn't 1950. South Korea is now a powerful state in its own right. It has to decide how best to respond. Unfortunately, the best time for a response has now passed. In my opinion the South should have delivered a serious message immediately after the attack, not just counterbattery fire, but air strikes against the North Korean artillery that bombarded South Korea. In other words, they should have made it clear that agression would be met by overwhelming force. That's the sort of thing dictators understand. It may be that South Korea's artillery fire inflicted major damage and wiped out the North Korean batteries, in which case the response was appropriate. We don't have enough information to know.

But what to do now becomes much trickier. A punitive strike of some sort on North Korea after the fact will not go over well with China, and will allow North Korea to pose as a victim for those who choose to see it that way. And from the U.S. perspective, we don't need to get dragged into an unnecessary regional war, so it is in our interests that the South doesn't act recklessly. I'm not sure at this point what can be done that hasn't already been done. 

The Wages of Appeasement

If we needed a reminder about the consequences of appeasement, today's latest act of war by North Korea is a good example. When you tolerate numerous acts of hostilities by a rogue state, including allowing it to get away with sinking one of your warships without significant consequence, don't be surprised when its leadership feels confident in firing artillery into your country. At least this time South Korea struck back with its own guns, albeit in a fairly minor way.

For years, U.S. and South Korean policy toward the North has been essentially one of appeasement and wishful thinking. At the same time, both have supported limited economic sanctions, which while doing nothing to negate the North Korean military threat, created even more hostility. Now the threat has increased and is backed by an unknown number of nuclear weapons. Time and time again North Korea has been allowed to get away with hostile acts, to the point where it has to believe it can do pretty much whatever it wants, and that the South and its U.S. ally are too afraid of war to respond with anything more than empty talk and economic sanctions. Its belligerence has paid off before, forcing negotiations and even agreements which brought direct aid to North Korea.

Although appeasement can delay war, it tends to breed more aggression, confirming the aggressor's views of its enemies as weak and irresolute. But at some point the aggressor is going to miscalculate and go too far, and there will be a war. Hopefully it won't happen now, but it's only a matter of time unless there is a drastic change in policy toward North Korea.

Total War?

Over at The Victorious Opposition there is an interesting post presenting four hypothetical scenarios and asking whether or not readers would support "total war" in response. Total war is defined as,

a war in which our vital interests are at stake, we mobilize our full strength, the enemy commands a modern state, and the war has more of a global or hemispheric rather than a simply regional nature.

I wouldn't call that total war myself, just a major war. I think total war has other implications. But given that definition, here are the scenarios:

1. China attempting to overrun Taiwan?
2. Iran detonating a nuclear weapon in Israel?
3. North Korea sinking an American vessel (something small like a frigate) with a submarine?
4. Russia invading any ex-Soviet republic NATO member nation in the same way it did to Georgia?

In my opinion, only two of those scenarios would likely produce a truly major war of the type the writer is describing: numbers 1 and 4. Here are my answers.

1. It depends on the overall circumstances. In my opinion, China's overall power is grossly exaggerated by many vis a vis the United States. I do not believe China is capable of pulling off the type of massive amphibious assault that would be necessary to overrun Taiwan, with even minimal, largely deniable U.S. involvement. On the other hand, China is certainly capable of unleashing a devastating missile barrage in an attempt to pound Taiwan into submission. Should the U.S. go to war in a major way to save Taiwan? It's a difficult call, and I can't say for certain without more details of the overall picture. Taiwan is a a long-standing ally of the U.S. In my view, loyalty to allies who have been loyal to us is extremely important. We should certainly not sit idly by while China hammers Taiwan. But risking nuclear war for Taiwan is another matter.

2. If Iran detonates a nuclear weapon in Israel, I fully expect Iran to be devastated by an Israeli nuclear response. I don't see this scenario as a major war situation for the U.S. Compared to the United States, even an Iran armed with a some nuclear weapons is extremely weak. Even using conventional weapons, if the gloves were off, the U.S. could cripple Iran, while suffering only regional damage. Should Iran manage to pull off an amazing nuclear first strike that utterly destroyed Israel and its entire nuclear force, I would definitely support a massive retaliatory strike of either a conventional or nuclear variety. A third-rate power such as Iran could not be permitted to destroy a major U.S. ally and get away with it.

3. Again, I don't see this as a major war scenario of the type described -- unless China backed North Korea -- it's a major war, but a regional one. If North Korea dared openly sink a U.S. vessel, I would definitely support a declaration of war. I would also support a first strike with tactical nuclear weapons if necessary to ensure that North Korean nuclear weapons are not used against us. If they covertly sank a U.S. vessel, as with the South Korean one, I would opt for lesser but still violent measures, such as hunting down every North Korean submarine, and possibly bombing submarine bases.

4. I think this and number 3 are probably the most likely of the four scenarios, and this one is the most avoidable. I was not and am not a fan of expanding NATO to include small, weak former Soviet republics. Some allies are not worth having. It would be a disaster if one of these countries, places outside our vital interests, dragged us into a major war with Russia. Should such a scenario develop, I would try to get unified NATO support in an attempt to intimidate the Russians into backing down. If the rest of NATO goes wobbly, I would probably support some attempt to find a way for the U.S. to also weasel out of its treaty obligations.

North Korea is Probably Laughing

Somehow I doubt the North Korean leadership is shaking with fear after the administration trotted out Hillary Clinton to give a speech in response to the unprovoked sinking of a South Korean ship.

"This will not be and cannot be business as usual. There must be an international — not just a regional, but an international — response," she told a press conference in Tokyo

Wow, an "international response." That's pretty frightening.

While it was "premature" to discuss exact options or actions that will be taken, Clinton said it was "important to send a clear message to North Korea that provocative actions have consequences."

Yeah, but in Obama world, "consequences" means a mildly harsh talking-to. The spineless Obama administration, with its instinctual desire to appease, does not scare anyone -- let alone a rogue state such as North Korea. Obama & Hillary can't even summon up the courage to call an obvious act of war an act of war -- even while North Korea routinely screams threats.

U.S. officials have refused to call the North's attack on the ship an act of war or state-sponsored terror, warning that an overreaction could cause the Korean peninsula to "explode." Instead, they said they would explore diplomatic steps through the U.N. or increase Washington's unilateral sanctions against North Korea's Soviet-style state.

Projection of weakness -- it's the Obama way.

So what should be done? As I've argued before, the North Koreans respect one thing and one thing only: overwhelming force and the willingness to use it. Communications from the U.S. to North Korea should be in the form of clear, unmistakable threats -- something the communist thugs running the country will understand. At a minimum, the North should be put on notice that since their submarine force has initiated an act of war against the South, from now on any North Korean submarine detected outside its home waters will be treated as a deadly threat to navigation and sunk without warning. This edict will continue until North Korea apologizes for the sinking, pays compensation and agrees to refrain from further incidents in the future. In addition we should hold direct, private talks with North Korean leaders and make our policies clear and unambiguous in the event that they decide to start a war -- so there is no misunderstanding. The North should be told in no uncertain terms that if they initiate a war, we will use our full power to crush their state forever, including directly targeting and killing the communist leadership. Any offensive use of nuclear weapons will be answered with the utter annihilation of North Korea.

The reason North Korea can act as it does is that it feels it can get away with it -- particularly with a weak president in charge of the U.S. A state willing to starve its own population to build its military doesn't fear the type of weak & ineffective sanctions that Clinton's threatened "international response" might entail. With China as its patron, its nuclear weapons, the U.S. occupied in the Middle East, and its ability to threaten Seoul, it feels it can do whatever it wants with little serious consequence. And so far it has been proven correct. Unfortunately I have no confidence whatsoever that the Obama administration will do anything to change that equation, and is far more likely to embolden the North further.

Clinton's North Korean Mission

Politico has a pretty good summary of reaction & opinion regarding Bill Clinton's successful negotiations that resulted in the release of two U.S. journalists. The more skeptical view from the right is probably best expressed by former Bush administration official Dan Senor, who said,

“It’s unlikely that [dictator] Kim Jong II would have agreed to a pardon [of the journalists] without something tangible in return. No matter how justified, given the lives on the line, those tangibles may make some people nervous, especially among our allies in the region.”

If there is a standard view on the right, this may be it: happiness that Clinton succeeded in freeing the two women, but worry about what we gave the North Koreans, and concern about setting a bad precedent. John Bolton of course is far more negative, but Bolton's views tend to be foreign policy outliers.

My take is as follows. In circumstances where U.S. citizens are seized by third-rate countries, I generally favor making a bloody, lasting example of the country in question. It would be nice if most states understood that molesting U.S. citizens would bring extremely negative consequences. But that clearly isn't practical with regard to North Korea. And even if it were, there is no chance a weak Democratic president with a Democratic Congress would ever contemplate the type of punitive action that might serve as a useful example. Under the circumstances, a Bill Clinton-led negotiating mission was probably one of the best options. And it succeeded. Given what we know at present, I believe criticism is misplaced.

The Obama administration denies that there was any quid pro quo, and there's really no reason to assume that there had to be one. The U.S. wasn't under any obligation to negotiate in good faith with hostage takers. Obama is not exactly known for his honesty, and if Bill Clinton is breathing, he's lying. I can't think of anyone better to flatter the North Koreans, tell them things they wanted to hear, free the hostages, and bring them home. Until we see actual evidence that the U.S. made concessions, why assume any?  No matter what Clinton told them, the Obama administration can deny any North Korean interpretation, or simply refuse to honor any promised concessions exacted under the duress of a hostage situation. Unless further information comes to light, at this point I have to say congratulations to Bill Clinton for freeing the journalists -- at a cost of nothing more than empty talk (a Clinton specialty).

North Korean Ships

There have been various reports about the North Korean ship heading toward Burma. It's been followed by a U.S. destroyer, and is suspected of carrying weapons intended for the Burmese government, another international pariah. But under the pointless U.N. sanctions, the ship can only be inspected if North Korea agrees. 

This situation brings a couple of things to mind. Why are we so concerned about a cargo of small arms getting to Burma? If we are going to force a confrontation with North Korea it should be over something that actually matters. There is no reason for U.S. sanctions on Myanmar. The country doesn't affect U.S. strategic interests, and doesn't threaten the U.S. in any way. If the North Koreans want to sell weapons to the junta, let them. What should concern us are North Korean transfers of ballistic missile or nuclear technology to states hostile to the U.S. or its allies.

How about some real "sanctions"? Any North Korean ship suspected of carrying nuclear materials or missile technology could simply be made to disappear with no survivors. Don't take responsibility, don't say anything. Just sink the ships in a deniable way and claim to be baffled about what might have happened. That course of action could be put into place at any time, and would be infinitely more effective than any U.N. sanctions.

Kissinger on North Korea

Henry Kissinger has an article on North Korea in today's Washington Post. I read it with interest to see his take on the situation, but came away unimpressed. Kissinger correctly points out that our current & recent approaches to North Korea have been utter failures.  And he identifies the key issue,

whether the goal should be to manage North Korea's nuclear arsenal or to eliminate it.

Kissinger comes down on the side of eliminating it. But how?

A wise diplomacy will move urgently to assemble the incentives and pressures to bring about the elimination of nuclear weapons and stockpiles from North Korea. It is not enough to demand unstated pressures from other affected countries, especially China. A concept for the political evolution of Northeast Asia is urgently needed.

Could that be any more vague? "Incentives" and "pressure" are not going to remove North Korea's nuclear capability. Diplomats are never willing to admit it, but the time for diplomacy is over. It hasn't worked, and it isn't going to work. If Kissinger really believes that North Korea's nuclear capability has to be eliminated, then he should be arguing in favor of a preventative war. But Kissinger knows that's not a viable option -- especially with the weak Obama administration & Democrats in charge, the economic situation, and the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The U.S. isn't going to strike North Korea unless they attack us, one of our allies, or do something extreme enough to force a military response.

It would be nice to see Kissinger take a realistic approach and argue for containment and deterrence, especially since he's an expert in those areas. But it appears that he's still clinging to the diplomatic pipe-dream.

Christian Science Monitor Agrees With Me?

This has got to be a first. A few days ago in my post on the North Korean situation, I said that we should make the North Koreans understand, in no uncertain terms, that we would utterly annihilate their country should they misuse their  nuclear weapons. Amazingly enough, it appears that the editorial board of the Christian Science Monitor agrees with me.  

It would be hard to imagine President Obama ever standing only a few feet from the North Korean border and warning its leaders that if they ever used nuclear weapons, "it would be the end of their country."

That's what president Clinton told them back in 1993, and the Monitor argues that Obama needs to do the same.

Tough talk against an enemy is sometimes needed simply to reassure America's allies that the US will live up to its defense promises. Those commitments include its unique role to provide nuclear deterrence, or promised retaliation, if an ally is attacked.

I rarely agree with the Monitor on foreign policy, but this is an excellent article.

What Will Japan Do?

That's one question that should be asked following North Korea's successful nuclear test. There was one interesting story in the aftermath that largely passed under the radar. A member of Japan's governing Liberal Democratic Party is advocating significant changes to the country's military policy.

“North Korea poses a serious and realistic threat to Japan,” former defense chief Gen Nakatani said today in Tokyo at a meeting of Liberal Democratic Party officials. “We must look at active missile defense such as attacking an enemy’s territory and bases.”

Japan has kept a low profile militarily since World War Two, partially because of its constitution, but also because it has focused on economic development and trade under the aegis of U.S. military protection. But here you have a prominent legislator and former defense chief, calling for the country to seriously consider launching preemptive strikes.

Most analysts agree that China is the only country with significant influence over North Korea. It maintains the North as a client state as a counterbalance to South Korea, a U.S. ally. It is unlikely that North Korea could have developed nuclear weapons if the Chinese had seriously opposed it. But China is playing a dangerous game. Does it really want to force Japan's hand? Would a militarily stronger Japan willing to carry out preemptive strikes on potential enemies be in China's best interests?

North Korea as a Nuclear Power

North Korea, a country ruled by a dictator who makes the Iranian mullahs look reasonable & responsible, successfully carried out a nuclear weapons test. President Obama called it "a legal violation that warranted action by the international community." I'm laughing at that, so you can imagine what the North Koreans think. Wouldn't it be nice if North Korea's acquisition of nuclear weapons shocked our naive, appeasement-oriented foreign policy establishment into reality? Maybe they might realize that simply holding talks with hostile dictators, offering them concessions, imposing some minor sanctions, and blathering about international law just aren't effective measures. Maybe they might wake up and understand that countries working on nuclear weapons are going to use negotiations to delay any interference with their program until it's too late to stop it. Maybe they might even realize that offering any concessions, or types of aid to such countries is completely insane. But no, that won't happen.

The same clowns who support such measures will just conclude that we need to talk more, make more concessions, and give more aid. They will learn absolutely nothing.

So what now? Well, for one thing, be glad if you don't live in South Korea or anywhere else within easy reach of North Korea. The U.S. has very few options. We aren't going to launch a preemptive strike against a nuclear power, even if we were prepared to -- which is unlikely. After pretending that we could somehow talk North Korea out of obtaining nuclear weapons, let's not start pretending that we can talk them into giving up the weapons they are now building. It isn't going to happen. The only negotiations the U.S. should conduct with North Korea should be in the form of clear, unmistakable threats. One thing communist dictators do understand is the threat of overwhelming force against which they have no defense. Something like this:

Congratulations on becoming a nuclear power. You succeeded despite our best diplomatic efforts to persuade you otherwise. Take a look at this map. As you can see it's a map of your country. What do all those circles and x's mean you ask? Well, that's what I'm here to talk to you about. The president recently authorized the retargeting of a number of our nuclear deterrence assets. That map shows one possible strike pattern. As you can see we've allotted enough warheads to pretty much kill every man woman and child in North Korea. Actually, we have some extra ones targeted on you also just in case. I'm not here to negotiate, but to give you fair warning that if any North Korean nuclear weapons are used against the U.S., either by North Korea or through a third party, we will respond with massive retaliation. We also reserve the right to respond on behalf of U.S. allies. Have a nice day.

Majority Wants to Attack North Korea?

Rasmussen has a surprising poll out today. The lead result indicates that

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of U.S. voters nationwide favor a military response to eliminate North Korea’s missile launching capability.

It appears that many people are living in a fantasy world, where we can simply destroy North Korea's missile capability in a couple days, go home, and go about our business. The poll doesn't say this, but what else could these people be thinking? Fifty-seven percent really want to launch a preemptive war against North Korea? With all we have going on right now, is this a good time to start a conflict in the far east? Amazingly enough, support is across the political spectrum

Support for a military response comes from 66% of Republicans, 52% of Democrats and 54% of those not affiliated with either major political party. There is no gender gap on the issue as a military response is favored by 57% of men and 57% of women.

It's possible people either don't understand the ramifications of what a military response would entail, or they misinterpreted the question to mean should we shoot down North Korea's missiles. I find it extremely difficult to believe that a majority support a preemptive U.S. attack.

Useless Diplomacy

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned North Korea today against launching any missiles, according to ABC News. Clinton said that if North Korea follows through on its plans, that would

damage its prospects for improved relations with the United States and the world.

Yeah, I'm sure North Korea is really impressed with that warning. No doubt improved relations with the U.S is high on their list of priorities. Clinton also noted that a missile launch would be "very unhelpful in moving our relationship forward." What relationship? While the Secretary of State is making these useless statements, the North Koreans are busy threatening us with "destruction," and claiming that they haven't made

a concession despite threat and blackmail from the U.S. nor will make one in the future"

Why do we insist on pretending that North Korea is anything other than a hostile nation run by a deranged dictator? Diplomatic efforts aimed at North Korea are totally useless, and merely encourage Kim Jong Ill and his cronies to keep doing what they are doing, in the hope that they can extract concessions from U.S. administrations stupid enough to give them something. Anyone who trusts a single word out of North Korea, let alone makes some sort of agreement with them and actually expects it to be honored, is a complete idiot.

North Korea doesn't need to be "engaged" or talked to; it needs to be contained & deterred. Our diplomacy in that regard should be directed at China, with the intention of making it very clear to the Chinese that we expect them to maintain a certain degree of control over their insane client state. As a rational actor, we expect China to prevent the insanity of North Korea from spilling over its borders. As long as they keep Kim Jong Ill on a short leash, there will be no need for U.S. involvement - a win/win for both the U.S. and China.