Running North Korea freakout thread

250,000 US citizens in South Korea, about 40,000 of them military. It wouldn't just be Koreans who'd die.

 

Preaching to the choir.

 

More from the Post ...

The U.S. military is confident it could destroy “most” of the infrastructure underpinning North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s nuclear missile program if necessary in a favorable scenario, a top American general said Tuesday.

Air Force Gen. Paul J. Selva, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the U.S. military could “get at most of his infrastructure” when asked about Kim’s nuclear missile program, but he declined to specify the percentage of North Korean missiles U.S. forces could dismantle in the event of any military action.

His comments indicate that the United States possesses enough information to target not only North Korea’s missiles but also the support facilities that allow a launch in a potential attack on the United States.

“Remember, missile infrastructure is not just the missiles,” Selva said at a roundtable with journalists in Washington. “If you’re the poor sergeant that has to go out and launch the missile, and I blow up your barracks, you’re not available to go do your job.”

U.S. can destroy ‘most’ of N. Korea’s nuclear missile infrastructure, top general says

 

Did Gen. Selva say what happens in an "unfavorable" scenario?

 

Hey, you know those flyboy generals, they always want to prove they've got the biggest and fastest guns around. That's why, long ago, our leaders wisely decided that the Defense Department must always be led by a civilian. It's yet another check and balance that will keep even a reckless president from doing too much damage—

[handed a piece of paper; reading]

Hang on, I'm told we actually have generals installed as Secretary of Defense, National Security Adviser, and Chief of Staff. Maybe that Hawaii guy should get ready to send that alert again.

 

Now that it's become public that Victor Cha was bounced from becoming ambassador to South Korea for expressing (privately, to NSC officials) that he felt the "bloody nose" strategy was too dangerous, he wrote an OpEd in the WaPo.

Victor Cha: Giving North Korea a 'bloody nose' carries a huge risk to Americans

I empathize with the hope, espoused by some Trump officials, that a military strike would shock Pyongyang into appreciating U.S. strength, after years of inaction, and force the regime to the denuclearization negotiating table ... Yet, there is a point at which hope must give in to logic. If we believe that Kim is undeterrable without such a strike, how can we also believe that a strike will deter him from responding in kind? And if Kim is unpredictable, impulsive and bordering on irrational, how can we control the escalation ladder, which is premised on an adversary’s rational understanding of signals and deterrence?

He also lays out an alternate four-part strategy, which includes arming South Korea and Japan more extensively (including more missile defense) and a naval blockade. It's key to note that Cha was considered relatively hawkish on North Korea while in the Bush admin. He's not advocating doing nothing; indeed, his proposals are more active and extensive than what the Trump admin is currently doing. He's simply advocating against the "bloody nose" strategy, which is absolutely being seriously considered – so seriously that they bounced him for privately objecting to it.

Finally, while this is also on the politics thread (as a laugh line from YF), here's a story from Vox about how, in the SOTU, Trump seemed to be pre-emptively giving added justification in case they select the bloody nose strategy.

This was the scariest part of Trump's State of the Union

 

I figure we're at least safe through the Olympics.

 

I dunno. Putin decided to annex Crimea while we were still in Sochi, after all.

 

Any American still in Sochi during the March 16 referendum was sleeping off a three-week hangover.

 

Sorry, just catching up on a busy week on the bloody nose beat.

1. Yesterday, the WaPo had an editorial titled: The dangers of a "bloody nose" for North Korea. As the title suggests, it cautions against the strategy, relying in part on Victor Cha's analysis.

2. Also yesterday, 18 Democratic senators (including according-to-me 2020 presidential dark horse Chris Murphy) sent a letter to the White House "warning President Trump that he lacks the 'legal authority' to carry out a preemptive strike on North Korea." They also want a clear explanation for why Cha's presumed nomination was deep-sixed. A few thoughts:

– I disagree that Trump, or any President, lacks (or should lack) that authority. Which is one of many reasons that I am eager to see a different President.

– I was amused by this pushback by the admin:

White House officials have rejected the notion that they are seriously considering a preemptive strike, pointing to their efforts to increase economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation of Pyongyang. Several administration officials said they have never heard the term “bloody nose” strategy used in their deliberations over North Korea.

I think the admin is trying to make it sound like they've never even heard the term "bloody nose" and are shocked that people think they're contemplating it. But they've worded it so carefully that IMO it really just means that when they discuss it – and I have little doubt that they do – that they don't call it that.

3. On a more comforting note, this WaPo opinion piece by Josh Rogin from last week (Jan. 31) says that nervous nellies like me should stop "hyperventilating," get out of "full freakout mode" and "take a deep breath," because "President Trump isn't about to push the 'bloody nose' button."

While I hope this is true, some parts of it don't really comfort me as much as intended:

James Carafano, vice president for foreign policy at the Heritage Foundation, told me that while he agreed the “bloody nose” option was a “bloody stupid idea,” it’s premature to hyperventilate about it because the administration is simply not at the stage where military options are being debated in earnest. People should follow the new National Security Strategy’s more detailed policy on North Korea, he said: “People need to start reading the translations and stop listening to Trump.”

Sorry, but I am increasingly unpersuaded when the admin argues, "Don't worry, the grownups here will prevent Trump from doing anything too stupid; just ignore him." That's certainly not been true when it comes to the GOP. For instance, after the "shithole countries" comment, Cotton and Perdue first just said they didn't hear Trump say it, and the White House wasn't denying it. Then when Trump pivoted to lying that he never said it, Cotton and Perdue got right down in the mud with him and lied too. When Trump does something unethical and/or dangerous, his flunkies tend to follow and amplify, not rein him in.

I hope "the generals" can better contain Trump, but it seems like a pretty risky strategy. And that "more detailed policy" that Carafano refers to? It's the 68-page document of the supposedly official foreign policy positions of the Trump administration that I would bet anything that Trump has not read in full, never mind that he intends to follow. And you know who does "listen" to Trump's idiocy and saber-rattling on Twitter? Kim and the North Koreans. And that's a problem.

4. Lastly, there was a brief freakout on Friday when an editorial in a South Korean paper alleged, buried deep in the story, that the NSC's senior director for Asian affairs, Matthew Pottinger, had said something "to the effect" that a possible North Korean strike could help the GOP in the 2018 midterms. Pottinger and the White House pushed back strongly. My guess is that it was a misunderstanding, a game of "telephone" gone awry and interpreted second- and third-hand by (legitimately) freaked-out South Koreans, or maybe a dark humor joke in a meeting that was blown way out of proportion.

So I'm dismissing it. Even my freakout tolerance on this issue is only so high.

 

Nice summary, @Pete

 

Better summary: Trump and the GOP are assholes and must be stopped.