North Korea

Usually, I like being right. 

Especially about predictions because making predictions is hard.  As the wise Yogi Berra once said, “It’s hard to make predictions, especially about the future.”  Consequently, I try not to make too many of them, and, having learned a thing or two from my brothers and sisters in the field of economics, I usually hedge them when I make them.

It was especially difficult to make predictions about Donald Trump, a sometimes impulsive and outsider to the Washington game.  But I did make two.  I predicted that on many dimensions, African Americans as a group would be better off under a Trump administration than they were under Obama.  My second prediction was that after 8 years of American acquiescence and withdrawal from the world stage, he would be tested early in his term.  While the first prediction has yet to be determined, the international test came earlier and with more at stake than I would have thought.  Hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of lives are on the line as North Korea has revealed its nuclear capability.  North Korea has apparently achieved the ability to miniaturize a warhead (this ability was known to Obama since 2013) and possesses more warheads than was previously thought to be the case.  Kim Jung Un continues to issue threats to the U.S. and, as of this writing, have threatened to fire missiles at or near Guam by mid-August.  The situation presents Donald Trump with the most serious crisis since the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 (for an excellent analysis of the decisions by the Kennedy Administration read Essence of Decision by Graham Allison).

Former National Security Advisor Susan Rice (and others) have criticized Donald Trump for his clear, direct, and unequivocal threats against North Korea.  She further asserts that we could tolerate a nuclear North Korea, and rely on deterrence.

She couldn’t be more wrong.

The U.S. has kicked this can down the road as far as it can be kicked.  As I warned in my blog post of April 16, I think we are in the most dangerous period since the 1930’s and I don’t see a feasible deal with the North Koreans.  Kim Jung Un will not give up his nuclear weapons.  Susan Rice is dead wrong.  We cannot live with them.  A nuclear North Korean regime must end one way or the other and it must happen within the next few months.

I am loath to criticize prior administrations for not wanting to make the hard decisions sooner.  The horrible calculus always involved a tremendous loss of life.   The North Korean artillery would certainly inflict 50,000-100,000 casualties in Seoul and no American leader has been able to stomach the sentencing of South Korean civilians to death in those numbers.

So we skated along with the Agreed Accord which the Norks violated.  Then Bush tried to appease them by sending cash and aid in exchange for shutting down their reactor, and even took North Korea off the list of state sponsors of terror.  They predictably took the cash and aid and restarted.  The North Koreans continued to test under Barack Obama (4 tests), who put more sanctions in place that did nothing to deter the North Koreans program.  Obama at least took a more aggressive stance and launched a cyberwar against their program.

But here we are.   Kim Jung Un has an arsenal of approximately 60 warheads and at least 2 legs of the nuclear triad at his disposal--- ICBM’s and submarine capability (although his submarines are generally older and more trackable, he has 70). He has threatened to launch against the mainland and has unveiled a plan to fire missiles at Guam.

No, Ms. Rice, we cannot tolerate a nuclear North Korea.  This Lucy, Charlie Brown and football charade needs to end now.  This crisis takes us way beyond the vacuous policies of “leading from behind,” and “strategic patience.”   There are several reasons why tolerating a nuclear North Korea is folly.   Aside from the risks associated with relying on Mutual Assured Destruction (which one may argue prevented nuclear catastrophe in the Cold War) with a small nation that is not a peer power, there is the risk that North Korea will become a manufacturer, distributor and licensor of nuclear materials.  Always starved for cash, North Korea would be tempted to sell warheads or know-how to a willing purchaser, whether it be ISIS, the mullahs in Iran or Al-Qaeda.  There is already quite a bit of evidence that Iran and North Korea are cooperating on missile technology.  “Tolerating” a nuclear North Korea is tantamount to “tolerating” a nuclear Iran, which has the destruction of the Great Satan and destruction of the Little Satan written into its charter. Furthermore, permitting North Korea to retain a limited nuclear arsenal is unacceptable because of the risk associated with the electromagnetic pulse (EMP).  A single warhead detonated over the U.S. could wreak havoc and have dire consequences.  Trump was absolutely correct to reject the initial bid of China to propose a nuclear freeze.

Kim Jung Un must not be permitted to remain in power with his nuclear toys.   Period.  He has now changed the risk matrix, making a violent outcome –the unthinkable more thinkable.

The conventional wisdom is that China hold the key to solving the North Korea problem.  That is true and more than we even know and at many levels.  North Korea is an important client state of China.  It exists in its hostile bellicose posture toward the U.S.  because that is exactly what China wants.  China is not our friend.  It seeks to overtake the U.S. and become a dominant world power.  Its actions in the South China Sea over the past few years belie its intent.  North Korea is a useful client state.   North Korea continuously challenges the U.S. and that is of value to the Chinese, because it gives the Chinese plausible deniability.   Moreover, North Korea gives the Chinese a “free look” at our military exercises and our responses on the South Korean peninsula.   General Jack Keane said outright that the Chinese are not only complicit in the North Korean nuclear program, the speed at which the North Koreans advanced their program suggests that the Chinese supplied some of the parts and technology.   The fact that Chinese trade with North Korea actually expanded during this period says a great deal.  As I wrote in my prior blog post—follow the money. I’m sure that they secretly hope that we decide to attempt to knock down the next North Korean missile test.  The Chinese would love to see how our systems respond under battlefield conditions.    All the while the Chinese are shrugging their shoulders, claiming that their influence over the North Korean dictator is limited.   The status quo exists because China likes it this way.

Those that criticize Trump for his rhetoric are mistaken.  Kim Jung Un needs to be told clearly and publicly that an attack on U.S. soil or one of our allies will end his regime.  Trump is doing his best to send this message personally and through General Mattis.  We’ll see if it actually sinks in.  Kim Jung Un may conclude that the U.S. draws false “red lines” and that he has the upper hand.  It would be a miscalculation of historic proportions.  But it is a miscalculation that Saddam Hussein made.

War in the Korean Peninsula would be horrific and would entail massive loss of life.  And unlike our wars with Iraq, in which the Iraqi army did not put up much of a fight, our experiences in Asia have been quite different.  In WWII, the first Korean War and in Vietnam, we learned that Asians will fight and will fight until the end.   We have 1 win, 1 loss and 1 draw in Asia and we won against Japan by going nuclear.  In order to save Seoul, we might very well be forced to go nuclear in Asia again.  On the plus side, unlike 9/11 where we were caught by surprise, we have been preparing, scenario planning and war gaming a war with North Korea for over half a century. 

If there is a diplomatic way out, it is by bargaining directly with China.  I would consider offering this bargain to China:  Kim Jung Un goes.  His nuclear program goes.  The artillery gets pulled back from the DMZ.  You may install a puppet government more or less to your liking.   We would offer to pull back a certain amount of our troops, take out the THAAD system and put a moratorium on war games on the peninsula for a period of time- say three years.   I would also point out to the Chinese that they would not tolerate a threat such as North Korea against them, and that the alternative is either (1) a catastrophic war on the peninsula or at best (2) a massive deterrence that includes arming up the South Koreans and Japanese and that arming up may include nuclear forces.   But any bargain cannot include maintaining North Korea as a nuclear power.

Where this ends, I cannot predict.  Since China has said that they will defend the Norks if we act pre-emptively, I suspect that Kim Jung Un will test that line in an ambiguous way by firing missiles in the direction of Guam but not close enough to cause casualties or damage property.  I also suspect that there will be some form of military engagement before it is over.  This crisis will come to the brink before it is resolved—one way or another.

The crisis with North Korea must be seen in conjunction with Trump's actions in Syria.  Leon Panetta's statement that "this is not a reality show" is irresponsible and misguided.  What we are seeing emerge is a form of a Trump doctrine in foreign policy.  And it is this, "IF YOU USE WMD AGAINST ANYONE OR THREATEN TO USE WMD AGAINST US OR OUR ALLIES, THERE WILL BE AN IMMEDIATE, FORCEFUL AND UNAMBIGUOUS RESPONSE."  

This is a deadly serious chess game.  So far, Trump is playing it correctly by messaging the Chinese as well as the North Koreans that we will respond if the situation requires it.