Danger

We are in the most dangerous period since the 1930’s.  One misstep could threaten the lives of tens of thousands, maybe more.  It is not inconceivable that within the next few days, the world could face its greatest conflagration since WWII.  Only this time, it could unfold over hours, not months, as it did following Germany’s invasion of Poland in 1939.

No shots have been fired as of this writing, but the Carl Vinson and a battle group are steaming towards the Korean peninsula.  Kim Jung Un has not conducted a nuclear test (his 6^th) but continues to threaten to do so.  Dear Leader celebrated the founding of the DPRK with a military parade that showed off new ballistic missile hardware.  It tested a submarine based missile launch last year and while there are doubts as to whether he could actually hit the continental US with an ICBM, he is only a few years away from having that ability in the best case scenario.

Here’s why I believe it’s different this time:

·         We’ve tried everything over decades.  Bill Clinton negotiated a deal under which the North Koreans pocketed the concessions and continued on unimpeded.  George W. Bush was too preoccupied with Iraq to do much of anything.  President Obama, not a confrontational sort anyway, tried “strategic patience”  (which, like “leading from behind” is a meaningless, flaccid phrase).  A negotiated solution is no longer available.  If Donald Trump attempted that, he would appear gullible on the world stage.  A Chinese call for a freeze was promptly and justifiably swept away by the Trump Administration.

·         The North Koreans have capability beyond nuclear.   The cyberattack on Sony and cybertheft from major banks have given us a clue about their capabilities in this realm.  Our power grid and perhaps other systems remain vulnerable and the North Koreans know this.  North Korea also has the biological and chemical capabilities that it can marry up with its missile technology and threaten our bases and our allies in the region.   As David Sanger reported in the New York Times a few weeks ago, we have already been at war with Korea for a couple of years in cyberspace.  Many of their missile failures are attributable to U.S. efforts at sabotage.

·         President Obama discontinued our two theater war policy.  From the end of the Second World War to 2010, the military policy of the United States was to maintain readiness to fight two major conflicts simultaneously.   So, for instance, if war broke out on the Korean peninsula, we would still have sufficient troop strength to deter the Russians in Europe.  Obama ended this policy, and we can only fight a major war in one theater (if that, given the Obama depletion of the military).  We have Putin threatening in Europe, troops engaged in  Syria and Afghanistan.   And do not discount the possibility that the North Koreans and Iranians are acting in concert, at least at some level.   With Trump promising to bolster our military, Kim Jung Un may calculate that he will never again have an opportunity like this to face down the United States.

·         The U.S. is as divided as it has been since the Civil War.  In a speech that I attended that was given a few years ago by Dick Gephardt, he noted that what made American democracy special was that election losers accept the outcome.   This is no longer necessarily the case.  The post-election riots in Portland, the “resist” movement, the claim that President Trump is “illegitimate” and that the “election was hacked,” and yesterday’s riots at Berkeley attest to the erosion of our nonviolent transition of power.   The general rule that Americans will rally around the president during wartime is no longer a given.  Kim Jung Un likely sees this condition as an important weakness to exploit.

Most disconcerting is that actual war may be the most rational choice for both of these actors.  John McCain’s statement that Kim Jung Un is a “crazy fat kid,” is wildly incorrect (and unnecessarily provocative).   Just as Obama mischaracterized ISIS as “not Islamic,” the assumption that Kim Jung Un is not a rational actor is likely false.  He may be very rational, given his reality as he sees it.  He is not interested in his people.  He is only interested in perpetuating the iron rule of his family over his country.  He has also seen what happens to dictators that don’t have nuclear weapons.   Muammer Gaddafi, who voluntarily gave up his WMD program, was a particularly poignant lesson for him.   Because past efforts have demonstrated that the regime is willing to cheat, and because he has little else to leverage, Kim Jung Un will never negotiate away his nuclear forces.   Unfortunately, his rationality clashes directly and irresolvably  with America’s.  We have run out of time.  With North Korea’s program nearly able to deliver an ICBM to America, the status quo is no longer acceptable.  Adding to the direct risk is the possibility that North Korea may sell nuclear devices to Iran or some other bad actor.  The Trump Administration cannot sign on to another deal that either preserves the status quo or permits North Korea to cheat once again.

I do not have high hopes for a diplomatic solution, and that is because a permanent solution would not be palatable to the North Koreans.    A bribe for a freeze of the program should not be acceptable to us.  We have already done that.  Any deal that addresses North Korea’s nuclear program must also address their conventional arsenal.   An important aspect of the tension on the Korean peninsula is the North Korean artillery that is trained on Seoul.  Most analysts estimate that civilian casualties would be in the 50,000 range even without a nuclear detonation.   That reality couple with the risk of Chinese assistance has permitted North Korea to adopt a “porcupine strategy,” i.e., you may eat us but it will be so costly to you that you won’t want to.

But the cost curve has shifted.  The cost of doing nothing has gone up dramatically and appears to be rising daily.

Sadly, the elements of an acceptable negotiated solution do not seem to be there.   The odds of a military confrontation are very high.  If the 20^th century taught us anything, it is that war in Asia is a tough, grinding thing.  Asians fight stubbornly.    We have not won a decisive victory in that theater since 1945 and all of the war gaming, scenario planning and modelling that the Pentagon has done says that this one will be the toughest since then.