Saddle Up, Lock and Load

In case you've missed it (somehow), North Korea has been ratcheting up their war rhetoric of late. Of course, any actual tactical strike made by Mr. Kim Jong-Un is likely to elicit an extreme response from the US and South Korea. North Korea is far outgunned, because at this point, it's unlikely that they have a capable nuclear arsenal, much less the ability to actually put nuclear warheads on intercontinental ballistic missiles. However, let's assume, at least for the moment, that North Korea is serious in its bellicosity and actually intends to strike at South Korea or Japan (because the US is probably unreachable). What should the international community (re: the US) do?

One obvious answer is, of course, retaliate. Why shouldn't we retaliate, the hawks would say. It's a good question, but there is also a good answer. It isn't the North Korean people who threaten the world with annihilation, it is its untested and frightened leader. Kim Jong-Un stepped into the leadership position not a military man, but a son of a respected leader (in NK) who has a history of enjoying western culture.

When looking at North Korea, one must also look at the military: the military rules, above all else. North Korea has the largest standing army on Earth, mostly due to the fact that its government spouts anti-west and anti-South Korean propaganda. The top generals also wouldn't want a respected leader replaced by someone who has no prior military experience and who has, at least rhetorically, stated that peaceful negotiations are possible. What better way to perpetuate military dominance than to remove the man who threatens their purpose?

Thus, this is likely Jong-Un's proving ground: seeing how far he can push the rest of the world before the clock stops on his decision to push the button or not push the button. Of course, there is always a point of no return for this sort of thing, and it was nearly crossed in the Cuban Missile Crisis; for Jong-Un, that point may be when he recognizes that the NK military generals want to proceed with military action, and he doesn't want to. That would almost certainly lead to the beginning of hostilities, or a coup.

So, let's assume that Jong-Un does decide to strike a target, without being too specific about its location. What does the US do? The US has a military umbrella protecting South Korea and Japan, two of North Korea's assumed targets, leaving it responsible to come to the aid of either country in case of attack. Should it retaliate immediately, however?

In my opinion, no. Even if the US military strikes can be carried out only on government targets, the US should not attack. Why, you ask?

First, let me state that I am not ubiquitously anti-war; if a nation is attacked, obviously they have the right to retaliate, but just because one has the right to retaliate, that does not mean that it should be the first option. Consider the military strength of the US: it is the most technologically advanced military in the world with the highest number of nuclear weapons, fighter jets, etc. etc. etc. Razing a country like North Korea would only be problematic, especially with China right nearby (though that is another story).

The US should, instead, give North Korea, and specifically, Kim Jong-Un, options: First, give him the option of ceding power and dissolving the government (obviously won't happen); Second, give him the option of fleeing North Korea (problematic, but Kim is facing a lot of backlash from the established military leaders, though it still likely won't happen); Third, in conjunction with both China and South Korea, open the borders and allow NK citizens to become refugees (definitely won't happen); Fourth, disarm completely, dissolve the government, place the military under South Korean command, and surrender to a coalition force (definitely won't happen); Fifth, give him the option of disarming and opening the economy AND government.

President Obama has avoided making any aggressive remarks against North Korea, and for that, he is smart. He knows the situation of the country all too well, and is much less likely to engage in any kind of strike, preemptive or otherwise, than his predecessor was. I'm hoping that he can carry this rumination with him should there be some sort of outbreak; otherwise, several million people may die in the process.

Any war instigated by NK would have to be an absolute war, i.e. an all-or-nothing game. Giving Kim the option of an escape from (basically guaranteed) annihilation will likely work, but of course, that doesn't say anything about his generals.

The situation, in itself, is complex, with so many different angles (I avoided talking about China completely, though it fulfills the strange love triangle between them, NK, and the US; the issue of famine in North Korea is also salient, along with the younger population, many of whom are less likely to believe the government propaganda, etc.) that it's hard to see viable options. I'm just hoping that the first option isn't the last one for the people of North Korea.

That's all for now, 
Das Flüg

Personal Diplomacy

This past week, famed discoball Dennis Rodman visited North Korea on what some have called a "diplomatic mission," others a "wrong left turn at China, and oops, let's try to pass this off as actually meaning to come here." He returned, saying that Kim Jong-Un, the Stay-Puft leader of North Korea, had a message for US President Barack Obama: "Call me."

No, seriously, Kim Jong-Un said "call me," like he's a tittering schoolgirl and Obama is the captain of the high school's varsity football team. Of course, the Obama Administration released a statement along the lines of "we are working to reach a constructive dialogue with North Korea regarding their nuclear program, etc. etc. etc.," but all denigration aside, why not call Kim Jong-Un?

Let's state some obvious facts first: North Korea has been "at war" with South Korea since the armistice for the Korean War. The United States holds a sizable force along the border. South Korea falls under the United States' nuclear umbrella. North Korea has been testing nuclear arms, seriously pissing off their closest ally, China. The level of famine within North Korea (according to many sources) kills off a large percentage of the population. Recent defectors state that the level of belief in the state's propaganda is falling. The North Korean regime may be feeling stresses. If now is not the time to engage North Korea directly, it is certainly coming.

The United States and South Korea are the two main "opponents" to North Korea, though the North has always seen the US as the larger threat. At this point, there is nothing "weak" in calling Kim Jong-Un directly and asking, "Are you ready to negotiate your nuclear program?" Who knows, perhaps Kim Jong-Il's son is more reasonable than his father and is willing to let some compromise happen within that humanitarian crisis of a state. Even if he isn't, calling the current leader is certainly a better sign of respect and possible willingness to actually negotiate than implementing harsh sanctions and issuing the same bellicose rhetoric over and over again.

So, President Obama, even though you haven't met him, it's not that crazy, and I'm sure you have his number, so call him, maybe. At least do it with all the starving citizens of North Korea in mind. You did win a Nobel Prize, after all.

That's all for now,
Das Flüg