The best piece I have ever read about the North Korea situation is an article by Mark Bowden in the most recent edition of
The Atlantic.
As tensions flared in recent months,
fanned by bluster from both Washington and Pyongyang, I talked with a
number of national-security experts and military officers who have
wrestled with the problem for years, and who have held responsibility to
plan and prepare for real conflict. Among those I spoke with were
former officials from the White House, the National Security Council,
and the Pentagon; military officers who have commanded forces in the
region; and academic experts.
From these conversations, I learned
that the U.S. has four broad strategic options for dealing with North
Korea and its burgeoning nuclear program.
1. Prevention: A
crushing U.S. military strike to eliminate Pyongyang’s arsenals of mass
destruction, take out its leadership, and destroy its military. It would
end North Korea’s standoff with the United States and South Korea, as
well as the Kim dynasty, once and for all.
2. Turning the screws: A
limited conventional military attack—or more likely a continuing series
of such attacks—using aerial and naval assets, and possibly including
narrowly targeted Special Forces operations. These would have to be
punishing enough to significantly damage North Korea’s capability—but
small enough to avoid being perceived as the beginning of a preventive
strike. The goal would be to leave Kim Jong Un in power, but force him
to abandon his pursuit of nuclear ICBMs.
3. Decapitation:
Removing Kim and his inner circle, most likely by assassination, and
replacing the leadership with a more moderate regime willing to open
North Korea to the rest of the world.
4. Acceptance: The
hardest pill to swallow—acquiescing to Kim’s developing the weapons he
wants, while continuing efforts to contain his ambition.
Let’s consider each option. All of them are bad.
If the topic interests you and you would like to be able to discuss/debate the alternatives intelligently with friends, the article is essential background reading. For starters, pick one of the four options above that you would tentatively favor, then read the pros and cons of that choice.
Interesting ... BUT ... the article glosses over NK's abuse of its own people, which I for one care about far more than I do about NK as a threat to other nations. I cannot endorse any analysis of the NK problem that frames it purely, or even primarily, in terms of the latter.
ReplyDeleteAmerica has tried the first option before. Most recently in Iraq. And, well... we were left with a greater mess than we had before we started. The fourth option is not really an option either, as it will simply fuel the Kim dynasty's arrogance and certainty that they are living gods. I don't really care for the idea of assassination, either, because there's no guarantee that whoever comes to power would be any better, and they would definitely hate the US even more. This leaves option 2, conventional military methods, as the only reasonable, if still unpleasant, option. And even then, only as a response to a direct attack on our own people or a military ally. We do not have the right to start a war of aggression, even if it is with good intention. The debacles of Vietnam, Korea, and Iraq prove that rather clearly.
ReplyDelete