Dr. Who
09-23-2017, 11:37 AM
In Cuba, Iraq, and Libya, the United States imagined that regime change would flow from the barrel of a gun — from, to be exact, the guns of the U.S. military and its paramilitary allies on the ground. However, with North Korea, even the most die-hard regime-change enthusiasts, like conservative New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/07/opinion/on-north-korea-trumps-on-the-right-track.html) columnist Bret Stephens, are aware of the potentially disastrous consequences of a U.S. strike.
Pyongyang has a dispersed nuclear complex, as well as mobile missile launchers and submarines. Its deeply entrenched artillery and rocket positions near the Demilitarized Zone, long prepared, could devastate the South Korean capital, Seoul, only 35 miles from the border, and the 25 million inhabitants in its metropolitan area. If Washington struck preemptively, the Chinese have been very clear (http://www.newsweek.com/china-north-korea-preemptive-strike-649802) that they would support the North Koreans, which could raise a grim and potentially devastating regional war to the level of a superpower conflict.
No matter how it played out, this would be no “cakewalk” (to use a word once associated with the 2003 invasion of Iraq). Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people — North Koreans, South Koreans, Japanese, even U.S. soldiers and civilians — would be at risk. Former Secretary of Defense William Perry, who considered the option of a preemptive strike during the Clinton administration, now insists (http://www.dw.com/en/preemptive-strike-against-north-korea-not-an-option-says-former-pentagon-chief-perry/a-39376198) that, “whether or not this was a good idea in those days, I am persuaded, I am convinced it's not a good idea today.”
For all these reasons, the top officials in the Pentagon have been risk-averse in discussing military scenarios, with Secretary of Defense James Mattis portraying (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mattis-war-north-korea-catastrophic/story?id=49146747) the consequences of war in the region as “catastrophic” and Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford acknowledging that a military solution would be “horrific.” In fact, the Trump administration’s strategic review (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-trump-north-korea-strategy-20170414-story.html) of North Korea policy explicitly advised against any military option, preferring instead to go with “maximum pressure and engagement.” http://www.salon.com/2017/08/29/trump-and-the-geopolitics-of-crazy_partner/
The article also explores the consequences of the military destruction of NK - the refugee crisis that would ensue, the damage to Asian economies and to global markets. The article also notes that NK, despite its isolation, now has signs of creeping capitalism, in spite of an extremely authoritarian communist state. The best way for NK to change is from within and as was seen with the former USSR and with China today, once it begins it develops rather quickly.
Pyongyang has a dispersed nuclear complex, as well as mobile missile launchers and submarines. Its deeply entrenched artillery and rocket positions near the Demilitarized Zone, long prepared, could devastate the South Korean capital, Seoul, only 35 miles from the border, and the 25 million inhabitants in its metropolitan area. If Washington struck preemptively, the Chinese have been very clear (http://www.newsweek.com/china-north-korea-preemptive-strike-649802) that they would support the North Koreans, which could raise a grim and potentially devastating regional war to the level of a superpower conflict.
No matter how it played out, this would be no “cakewalk” (to use a word once associated with the 2003 invasion of Iraq). Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people — North Koreans, South Koreans, Japanese, even U.S. soldiers and civilians — would be at risk. Former Secretary of Defense William Perry, who considered the option of a preemptive strike during the Clinton administration, now insists (http://www.dw.com/en/preemptive-strike-against-north-korea-not-an-option-says-former-pentagon-chief-perry/a-39376198) that, “whether or not this was a good idea in those days, I am persuaded, I am convinced it's not a good idea today.”
For all these reasons, the top officials in the Pentagon have been risk-averse in discussing military scenarios, with Secretary of Defense James Mattis portraying (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mattis-war-north-korea-catastrophic/story?id=49146747) the consequences of war in the region as “catastrophic” and Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford acknowledging that a military solution would be “horrific.” In fact, the Trump administration’s strategic review (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-trump-north-korea-strategy-20170414-story.html) of North Korea policy explicitly advised against any military option, preferring instead to go with “maximum pressure and engagement.” http://www.salon.com/2017/08/29/trump-and-the-geopolitics-of-crazy_partner/
The article also explores the consequences of the military destruction of NK - the refugee crisis that would ensue, the damage to Asian economies and to global markets. The article also notes that NK, despite its isolation, now has signs of creeping capitalism, in spite of an extremely authoritarian communist state. The best way for NK to change is from within and as was seen with the former USSR and with China today, once it begins it develops rather quickly.