The Atlantic Discusses the Collapse of President Trump’s North Korea Policy
The Atlantic has an article they recently published criticizing President Trump for his North Korea policy:
Pronouncing the diplomacy dead would be premature. There’s a chance that the North Koreans are simply trying to pressure Trump into making a deal on their terms as he faces reelection. Nevertheless, it’s a remarkable comedown for the Trump administration’s signature initiative to address what it has billed as the country’s top security threat. This is the policy in which the president has invested the most time and resources, the one that he has touted as his greatest success and made a model (maximum pressure + personal engagement by the president = wins for America) in his dealings everywhere from China to Iran. What’s at stake, though, isn’t just Trump’s legacy in foreign affairs or the Nobel Peace Prize he so clearly desires. Also at the mercy of what comes next are global efforts to stop the spread of the world’s most destructive weapons and potentially one of the last opportunities to reconcile North and South Korea after 70 years of alienation.
The Atlantic
You can read the whole thing at the link, but as I have been saying for years, the North Koreans are never going to denuclearize. The best the U.S. can hope for is the “Pretend Denuclearization” deal that Pyongyang has been pushing for. The Trump administration has resisted this which has predictably led to where we are at today. Pyongyang will create a “crisis” in the lead up to the U.S. presidential election, the media will breathlessly report on the “crisis”, and publications like the The Atlantic will write opinion pieces like this on how Trump’s policies have failed.
This is North Korea’s version of a pressure campaign to get what it wants which is the “Pretend Denuclearization” deal. This leaves the President with the choice of signing a “Pretend Denuclearization” deal that his critics will then claim he gave into North Korean pressure in return for a bad deal. The other option is to put pressure back on Pyongyang both diplomatically, economically, and militarily like back in 2017 that could lead to potential miscalculations.
I guess we will see what happens, but neither option will lead to the Kim regime denuclearizing.
GI, so far Trump has been keeping his promises. I doubt that he’s going to cave on Norkistani Nukes.
@setnaffa, we will see what happens. He may not pay the Kim regime off, but he is not going to be able to denuclearize them either.
GI, I tend to agree; but I’ve heard there is a Pyongyang strain of the old “Moscow Flu”; and there may be others willing to deal in such a way that there is a win-win…
Everyone knows what I mean. Trump doesn’t play for trophies. He pays for cash. And this video reminds me of Trump: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIJk7f85ly8
Ooops: He
paysplays for cashIt’s time to have a second (third, fourth, etc.) look at the outline for my plan for the attack and toppling of the Kim Regime:
Timing – The two best times of the year to attack North Korea (from a South Korean perspective) would be Chuseok or the Lunar New Year.
Reasoning – Seoul and its environs are virtually deserted; fewer casualties at the onset in the case of an NK counterattack, and more logistically sound for the evacuation of civilians from the peninsula in the event of sparking a new war. Especially during Lunar New Year, China is also less of a threat.
I admit there are several flaws in this strategy. Still, I am only outlining the framework that will possibly assuage the reasons why we have not attacked up until now (massive casualties of Korean civilians and Chinese interference a la the Korean War).
I am ready… bring on the criticisms….
There is no need to attack North Korea.
They are not a threat… even with nukes… unless they are made into one.
They are not even an influence.
More plans and preparations should be made to manage an eventual collapse than defend against attack or plot invasion.
The ruling elite of North Korea has only one goal… remain the ruling elite.
That desire is super easy to satisfy while maintaining the status quo of containment and isolation.
Iran, with expansionist fever dreams is a bigger problem.
CH – I always pictured you as more of a radical. This “wait and let die on its own” attitude disappoints me. Although I do agree that Obama opened a can of worms shipping those billions of taxpayer dollars off to Iran, and they are the bigger threat to global peace than the tiny DPRK could ever hope to be. Our biggest concern with the NK is neighboring countries (ROK, Japan, and Southeast Asia). It’s quite strategic compared to Iran because if Iran starts a war with Iraq, Israel, or even the Saudi’s, we are going to be in it whether we want to be or not. Either that, or we’ll get to try out the Green New Deal ahead of schedule.
“This “wait and let die on its own” attitude disappoints me.”
i just can’t think of a single short or long-term benefit to attacking North Korea.
As they are causing no actual problem, nor is there a problem they would cause, what is the gain in doing anything but isolating and containing them. Strategic lollygagging at this time seems cheap and not counterproductive. Of course keep and eye on things and spring into action if they look like they are going to get the drop on us. But why provoke change with unknown side effects when the current situation is fine. They have nothing we want either.
Bonus: They remain a great bogeyman to develop and sell more advanced anti-missile systems just the way they are.
As for Iran, I am a bit more hawkish… perhaps nicely give them a list of demands, such as stop developing missiles and exporting terror. This is enforceable. Combined with sanctions and blockades in the age of total surveillance, they are only 9 bombed refineries away from returning to a preindustrial society.
If this triggers regional war, great! Saudi, Israel, all the devious crappy-attitude countries in the region, and the pansies of Europe will enjoy most of the repercussions. They all deserve various forms of misery for various reason.
Any terrorist attacks in the USA will be BENEFICIAL to the country… as it will likely be against majority leftist cities with a majority of leftist victims and it will energize America-centric patriotism and marginalize the noisy infestation of snowflakes and communists and globalists and muzzielovers that are clogging up national progress.
America doesn’t want middle east oil… America just wants to CONTROL middle east oil… a very important distinction to be aware of when observing events and calculating their motivations. Regional disruption will greatly affect China, India, Japan, and South Korea’s energy supply. As America is already a net oil EXPORTER… well… it will certainly create fracking jobs and raise tax revenues… a net gain as long as America resists the temptation to commit anything more than drone and missile strikes on any infrastructure that makes the region productive as well as covert aid to whichever side is losing at the time to insure there is no quick resolution.
While it would be amusing to see some of the world burn, primarily to burn out the weakness and self-hatred that has engulfed the Snowflake Generation in western civilization, we must pick and choose our battles… avoiding the ones that have no effect on quality of life or don’t help America progress.
@CH, what you missed is that North Korea does has expansionist plans, the confederation with South Korea. If there is a confederated Korea over time and with Chinese backing could become a threat to Japan. Anyway I am more concerned about proliferation of their nuclear and missile technology which they have already tried to do.
You are right that we don’t need a war with North Korea. There are still other options to try out such as seizing and selling off merchant ships doing business for North Korea:
https://www.rokdrop.net/2019/05/us-seizes-north-korean-ship-caught-breaking-international-sanctions/
Where things get tricky though is if North Korea responds with a Yeonpyeong Island like provocation in response to more aggressive sanctions. A miscalculation in response could lead to a wider war, but their definitely needs to be a strong response if something like that was to happen again.
Trump is a wuss. KJU knows that he will not order a pre-emptive strike on the DPRK.
“KJU knows that he will not order a pre-emptive strike on the DPRK.”
True, President Trump is just like every US President that valued South Koreans over whatever bad but manageable thing the North Koreans did.