How do you solve a problem like Korea

This is going to be on the test: which President won the Second World War? Answer: Ronald Reagan. If I need to explain that, let me know. Now: which President won the Korean War? Answer: Barack Obama.

I do need to explain that. The explanation is "wishful thinking." The circumstances might be in place for this President to really deserve the Nobel Prize that was awarded to him in a fit of cognitive dissonance on the part of the Nobel Committee. Whether there is a chance to bring this conflict to an end is doubtful. That this President has the virtú required to realize such fortuna is more doubtful. Allow me to be optimistic.

Yesterday the Gangster Regime in North Korea started shooting.

The 50-minute barrage on the island of Yeonpyeong - which killed two South Korean marines, wounded at least 19 other people and set buildings and forests ablaze - marked the first time in years that North Korea has trained the firepower of its 1.1 million-strong military on South Korea's civilian population. It prompted a withering round of return fire from South Korean batteries, the scrambling of the South's air force and concerns that the firefight could spiral into all-out war.

This is the second act of aggression by Pyongyang this year. In March, a North Korea submarine torpedoed a South Korean naval vessel.

It is thought that this belligerence has something to do with the dynastic succession in Pyongyang. Kim Jong Il is ill, so the regime is grooming his son, Kim Jong-un to take over. No one outside the inner circles really understands all this. The same might be true of those in the inner circles. Kim Il Sung was the founding Al Capone of the North Korean regime. A cult was built around him, and that cult has necessitated a dynastic succession. It seems unlikely that Kim 2 or Kim 3 had or have any of the awful powers of their great predecessor. That the Party and the Army think they need to keep the bloodline suggests that the regime has no real center. That is interesting.

North Korea is the worst government on the planet. That would be merely appalling if it only starved, raped, and pillaged its own people. Unfortunately, it also threatens the genuine republics and dynamic economies around it. It's like the Playboy Gangster Crips, only with Nukes.

For decades the United States has tried to deal with the problem by negotiation, on the basis of a Jimmy Carteresque view of the situation. With the recent revelation of a large, sophisticated, and hitherto unsuspected uranium enrichment site, it is clear that the Pyongyang cannot be reasoned with. The North Koreans will never honor any agreement. This hideous regime is a threat to everyone. They are producing nuclear weapons and may well sell them to other regimes or to terrorists.

So what is to be done? A war against the North would certainly result in a victory for the U.S. and its allies, assuming China allowed it. But the North Koreans could do terrible damage to South Korea and Japan before it was over.

There are two strategies that might work with less peril. The regime in Pyongyang survives because the workers, if malnourished, don't all die and the soldiers aren't malnourished. This is largely because China supplies the regime with food and fuel, and the South also supports Pyongyang with direct aid and a small free trade zone on the border.

China doesn't want to see the regime collapse because it doesn't want to see a flood of Koreans across its borders. China also likes to watch North Korea distract and irritate the United States. One way to encourage China to change its strategy would be to offer a few nuclear weapons to Seoul and Tokyo. We could also help the Japanese build a real army. Beijing would rather put the pressure on North Korea, by threatening to shut the spigot, than see South Korea and Japan join the ranks of nuclear powers.

Meanwhile the U.S. and South Korea could cut off all aid. It looks like the totalitarian regime is already tottering. That alone might push it over the edge. The end of the regime should be our aim. The world just can't afford to tolerate it anymore.

This is the moment for the President to act. He needs to be imaginative and bold. If he is both, he might earn his place in history. I am not optimistic. I think the Jimmy Carter in him is the closest thing to a center than he has. Imagination and courage he has not. I hope I am wrong.

Comments

[Stan Gibilisco]

The idea of helping any country build a new army makes me uneasy. So does the idea of giving any country nuclear weapons.

I suspect that someday, some U.S. President will have to ask himself or herself the question, "Should I kill 10 million people to potentially save 100 million?" It will constitute the Truman Dilemma on steroids.

Maybe the best deterrent to Pyongyang, and one that they might take seriously, would be the Billy Jack approach. Tell that rogue state, "You nuke Seoul and we'll nuke you -- just like that."

First, cut off all aid.

Then take out all their centrifuges in a timespan of about two minutes.

Then park a nuclear submarine off their coast and wait forever if necessary. And make sure that Kim Jung Whatever knows it's there.

We need a far leaner, far meaner military machine. In my opinion.

[AnaVar]

Instead of kill 10 million, one should just kill the few important one on the top. It's their wish and their fault for the war!

[George Mason]

After Obama's comments last night it is obvious the second Carter Administration foreign policy will continue. Stan is following the policy that was once used when Communist China threatened Tawain or Quemoy and Matsu. The Pacific Fleet would appear off the coast to let the bad guys know that we would stand by our friends. This was a policy that had the desired effects because the bad guys respect force. Buying them off, as Carter, Clinton and Obama have advocated or attempted only encourages them to continue.

[Donald Pay]

You've got to be kidding. Offering nuclear weapons to others? You might as well just give nukes to al Qaeda. Making the United States an illegal proliferator would undermine US policy since 1945, and make it likely that Russia or Pakistan would sell nukes to people or regimes we don'twant to have nukes. I suspect the South Korean and Japanese governments have a bit more common sense than you.

Obama sent an aircraft carrier. That's a measured step, but it sends a message to North Korea. China won't like it, and it might mean China now will expand its navy, which becomes more of a problem in years to come. But it also might mean China puts increased pressure on North Korea to cut the crap.

[Bill Fleming]

"Kim Jong Il is ill..." Great! I wish I had written it.

[KB]

Donald and Stan illustrate the difficulty of foreign policy. When you are afraid to do anything risky you end up with no choices except retreat or war. If you Chinese thought we were serious about giving Nukes to their neighbors, they would never let it go that far. They'd bring the boot down on Pyongyang in a minute.

Donald: sending an Aircraft carrier to the region is not "taking a step." Unless, that is, they think you intend to use it. They know full well that we aren't really going to do anything.

[larry kurtz]

Economic development for South Dakota: Peace is our Profession. In the words of President Thomas J. Whitmore: "Nuke the bastards!"

[Jimi]

"How do you solve a problem like Korea?"

Change the map! There is no North Korea problem if there is no North Korea! Give it to the Israelis....kill two birds with one stone! I'd bet the Israelis would get aloong just fine with Chinese, South Koreans, and the Japanese!

[George Mason]

We have stationed nuclear weapons in friendly countries for 60 years to contain the expansionist intentions of bad actors. Putting tactical nukes in Japan and South Korea threatens no one except those with evil intentions. This is not morally equivalent to giving nukes to Al Queada. This is acting in the best interests of ourselves, our allies and the free peoples of the region. If Obama is going to send a carrier he better make it crystal clear to the North Koreans that if they repeat yesterdays actions their artillery crews can expect to learn the full capabilities of the F/A-18.

[Donald Pay]

Now we know the rightwing foreign/military policy is based on weakness. Boy, you guys prove everyday why you can't be trusted in power.

The response from the South Korean government has been far more level-headed than the rightwing scaredy cats here, and South Korea was attacked! Hey, righties, you can get out from under your beds now. The pussy response, which you all seem to be dittoing, is to arm some client state and let them get obliterated. Mighty nice of you, and likely to destabilize the region. You think China and Russia wouldn't respond? The response from strength is to show our force in the region, which happens to be the navy, especially in the Pacific.

You would have to declare war on Japan to get them to accept your nukes, so that ends up opening a second front in our plan to end the world.

Jimi: "There is no North Korea problem if there is no North Korea!" Roll another one, Jimi.

[larry kurtz]

From Democracy Now! Tim Shorrock: Direct Talks With North Korea Are the Only Answer to End Korean War. "The United States has only one choice in dealing with North Korea, even after its deadly artillery attack on a South Korean island," writes Tim Shorrock, an investigative journalist who has covered Korea for more than 30 years. "Negotiate directly with its government, forge an agreement to end Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program, and move towards a peace agreement to formally end the Korean War."

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/24/tim_shorrock_direct_talks_with_north

From The Progressive's Matthew Rothschilds: "Over at Fox, they’re ready to risk nuclear war on the Korean peninsula right now after the North’s foolish shelling of that South Korean island.

Michael Scheuer, Fox’s terrorism expert, said Obama should immediately destroy North Korea’s navy.

“The North Koreans can do without a navy for a while,” he said. “Instead of spending money on nuclear stuff, they can build new boats."

At that, the host, Brian Kilmeade, added compassionately: "Yeah, let their people starve.”

http://www.progressive.org/wx112410.html

[George Mason]

Donald as usual resorts to the ad hominem. And as usual he is either 20 years behind the time or off in his own little world. Having North Korea fire rockets over her islands has provided a new prospective for the Japanese. Donald of course has no clue as to South Korea's response. We are all still waiting. I'd bet on their resuming their war games with the U.S. forces. If they go into Donald's left-wing posture (fetal position) the North Koreans will soon be in Seoul. Donald seems to forget that Mao (a favorite Obama source)stated that "power comes from the mouth of a gun." When dealing with his progeny it is well to keep that in mind The other half of the purpose of the North Koreans actions is domestic consumption. This is indicated by the continuous alerts that the South Koreans and Americans are about to attack. Dictators need enemies to draw the focus away from their own evil. This will continue until the North collapses, as all dictatorships do into starvation and/or chaos.

[Donald Pay]

George gets it wrong again. He writes, "Donald of course has no clue as to South Korea's response. We are all still waiting. I'd bet on their resuming their war games with the U.S. forces. If they go into Donald's left-wing posture (fetal position) the North Koreans will soon be in Seoul."

George, yes I do have a clue about South Korea's response because I happen to have read press accounts of that response. And, no, we aren't all waiting for that response. South Korea responded immediately to the attack, launching a bombing attack against North Korean barracks near the North Korean articllery batteries that launched the attack. Other press accounts indicate that South Korea indicated it would respond with "massive" force if there were any further attacks, and that South Korea is in consultation with the US about any further response. South Korea is also continuing war games, and will engage in joint maneuvers with the US aircraft carrier as it approaches the area. This is precisely what should be done, not the cowardly response of nuclear overkill and proliferation advocated by the rightwing nuts.

[George Mason]

Donald, as usual misses the big picture. How are you going to deter a nuclear North Korea. Donald's response is to avoid the long term problem and insult those who disagree with him. Once again demonstrating the weakness of his argument and the shallowness of his intellect.

[larry kurtz]

The most likely way the North Koreans "will be in Seoul" will be as refugees. Reunification is about 2 nukes away.

[larry kurtz]

John Le Carre' http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/25/british_novelist_john_le_carr_on

[Donald Pay]

Now George, ever wanting to switch topics when he's lost an argument, pretends he's concerned about the long-term and "the big picture." Above we have George complaining about the Carter approach, and the approaches of the Democratic presidents since Carter. He doesn't mention that there was Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43 in there. too, but then George forgets a lot of things. One thing he forgets is that 30 years have passed since Jimmy Carter and within those 30 years, 20 have been Republican administrations. If our Korean policy is so bad, it seems at least a majority of the problem would rest with Republican misrule. In fact, there is a pretty clear bipartisan consensus on Korean policy, and it doesn't involve cuckoo ideas of proliferating nuclear weapons, Remember the Reagan administration proliferated chemical and biological weapons capabilities to Saddam Hussein and backed the precursors of the Taliban and al Qaeda. Those efforts didn't work our too well "in the long term," George, and you would think you might want to avoid other failures like that.

[hsr0601]

Pretty sure North Korea = China in the different names of one country, or a military branch & a lapdog.