Between the Scylla of dictatorship and the Charybdis of anarchy, Part II: North Korea
North Korea is a country formed by a war that never ended.
Pacifists are fond of saying that war never solves anything. I beg to differ–war, for example, solved the problem of Adolf Hitler and German expansionist aggressiveness, although at great cost.
But that war was fought to the bitter end, unlike many subsequent ones. Revulsion at war–which I share, by the way, although my critics won’t credit that–has led to a series of unfinished, prematurely truncated wars. And like most unfinished business, there’s a tendency for these conflicts to come back to bite us.
The Korean War was the first modern “limited war,” a concept with which we’ve grown familiar. (The division of Korea was a result of the conclusion of World War II, by the way–so you might say that, if that Second World War solved the problem of Hitler, it led indirectly to the creation of the problem of Kim Jong il.)
Why was the Korean War not fought to a conclusion, but rather a stalemate? Each side wanted to unify the peninsula under its leadership, and each side failed. Each side was supported by a much larger power in its endeavors, but the larger powers were both exhausted, partly from fighting the Second World War. The US was reluctant to use the atomic bomb again, which would certainly have broken the stalemate–although MacArthur was purportedly in favor of it.
Little was accomplished by the Korean War in terms of change in the borders between the two countries, unless you consider the killing of hundreds of thousands of people an accomplishment (I don’t). The best you can say is that it kept the South from being swallowed up by the North–which, given what the North has become, is certainly a good thing.
But now the long-postponed conflict is coming to a head once again. And now North Korea is a dictatorship of such tyranny and oppression that it’s hard to find anyone who wouldn’t consider the end of such a regime to be an unequivocally good thing.
But as I wrote in yesterday’s piece, it’s not always so simple. This article by Robert Kaplan, appearing in the Atlantic, poses the question: what will happen when [and if] North Korea fails?
Answer: a potentially chaotic humanitarian and political disaster, as the tyrannical structure that holds together the failed state and its suffering people fails apart:
“It could be the mother of all humanitarian relief operations,” Army Special Forces Colonel David Maxwell told me. On one day, a semi-starving population of 23 million people would be Kim Jong Il’s responsibility; on the next, it would be the U.S. military’s, which would have to work out an arrangement with the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (among others) about how to manage the crisis…
In order to prevent a debacle of the sort that occurred in Iraq””but with potentially deadlier consequences, because of the free-floating WMD””a successful relief operation would require making contacts with KFR generals and various factions of the former North Korean military, who would be vying for control in different regions. If the generals were not absorbed into the operational command structure of the occupying force, Maxwell says, they might form the basis of an insurgency. The Chinese, who have connections inside the North Korean military, would be best positioned to make these contacts””but the role of U.S. Army Special Forces in this effort might be substantial. Green Berets and the CIA would be among the first in, much like in Afghanistan in 2001.
Does this mean it’s best to keep Kim Jong il in power? Of course not. But be careful what you wish for, and be prepared–much better prepared–to deal with the consequences than you were in Iraq.
After the horrors of World War II, we faced the problem of reconstruction in Germany and in Japan, as well as most of Europe, which was in near ruins.
But, just as World War II was a total war, the reconstruction was an all-out effort as well. At the time, the US held no fear of words like “occupation” in Japan. If we were imperialist, so be it; we were out to change the country we had conquered. And change it we did, and most agree it was for the better.
Reconstructing North Korea would probably be a much more daunting task than reconstructing Japan. And all-out war, plus all-out reconstruction, doesn’t seem to be an option. But without the latter, the prospects seem grim.
Scylla and Chraybdis, indeed.
[Part I here.]
I think the key issue in all of these discussions about foreign policy, whether involving Korea, Iraq, Iran, is that the majority of people are not interested in long term wars, or long term sacrifices, right now. Quick bombings or overthrows will not work (vide Iraq), and we don’t have the manpower to do anything else. So ….
You mention that you became a neocon as the result of 9/11. Just curious, as a neo-neocon have you read the PNAC document “Rebuilidng Americas Defenses” that was published in September 2000?
It basicly foretold the attack on the WTC labeling it as a new pearl harbor.
The military build up since 9/11 and the fact the neocons state there was no connection between Irag and terrorism or 9/11. We are in there to control the world’s oil supply.
How do you sleep at night being a neocon? Do you work for the CIA?
So glad to see someone talking about this- and that someone in SpecFor is as well. I had been thinking about this issue for a while now. Clearly, it will not be possible to simply throw open the border bewteen South and North and have hugs all around- Unifying East and West Germany was (and still is) difficult, and that was a much better situation by factors of ten compared to Korea.
Hopefully, someone in some office in the pentagon and/or state department is working on contingencies right now…
Oh, and I don’t think it’ll ever come to “all out” war. We don’t want it, ROK doesn’t want it, the Norks, who knows, but I don’t think so, and even if Kim Jong Il does, most of his military is too hungry and undermotivated to be effective, not to mention their equipment can’t be anywhere near top shape. We would mostly be using Naval and Air forces, which we have plenty of available right now- it would not be a ground pounder intensive operation as Iraq is. Hopefully it never gets to that, but if it does, we can handle it
If we could end the family dynasty that runs the place, perhaps a reunification (a la Germany) could occur.
A lot of Koreans (North and South) want that…
*sigh* I hope this doesn’t double post. Blogger sometimes gives me an error, fails to post, but tells me it’s a duplicate post when I try and post again. Then it sometimes happily allows multi-posting of the same things. Oh well.
Since the comments on this post are pretty much dead, I’ll feed the troll:
“It basicly foretold the attack on the WTC labeling it as a new pearl harbor.”
Ok, I agree. In 2000 they pretty much nailed it how events in the middle east and the US would be played out, including the leftist response to it. Isn’t it great we have people that understand the world and how you will play politics even to the ruin of the US?
“The military build up since 9/11 and the fact the neocons state there was no connection between Irag and terrorism or 9/11. We are in there to control the world’s oil supply.”
You got this from the PNAC document? Wasn’t it written in 2000 – how could they know links to the 9/11/2001 attacks. As per my reading of it Iraq is listed as one of the supporters of Islamic terrorism against the US.
They basically said that terrorism was going in that direction (major attack on the US in the next 5-10 years), gave a list of countries that could further those goals (Iraq and Afghanastan being two of them), and how they wanted to deal with them.
Do you mean more current? My understanding is that the “neocons” believe there is a link – read the 9/11 commission report.
Again, they were the most accurate of the bunch of pundits and this angers you in some way?
“How do you sleep at night being a neocon? Do you work for the CIA?”
I’m not a neocon – never been on the left side of the political sphere – so I do not know how to answer that. I have always been a conservative. If we had done as I wished (followed through after Desert Storm) we wouldn’t be here today. But it seems the same group of people in both cases want to sit and do nothing, ????, WIN!!!
Really, I never understood in the slightest how this was a scandel. It’s one of the things I wish was talked about more. “Bush and his cabinet knew that Islamic terrorist are getting close to a major attack and the leftist block any ability to resolve this – evil Republicans!!!!” Oooh, that’ll show them Rethuglicans!!!
I’m not sure how one can sleep at night knowing that your political party winning is more important than others lives. But then, I guess that’s why I am politically the way I am. Go figure.
Hell, the trolls can see neocon agendas in the fact that the US military has had plans to invade Canada since 1908.
The part of “covering every possibility” they fail to understand is the part that says “including ones you’d rather not think about.”
Oh yeah, and I sleep on a bed made of money. You should try it sometime, when you finally figure out where your chains really are.
It’s a bit a stretch to say Neoconservatives were the most ‘accurate’ of the bunch of pundits predicting increased terrorism against the U.S.
Many pundits either side of the ideological divide were predicting that – and the fact is that Clinton made it clear that Islamic terrorism would be the primary threat during Bush’s term – and it is also clear that he completely ignored the threat.
And by any accounts he sat on his ass until 9/11.
By my estimates the level of inaction in the face of heated warnings from various intelligence agencys borded on the criminally negligent.
And then Bush and Co. went about doing everything possible to make the situation worse.
Go figure…
While I have no political affiliation or bias towards the two peas from the same pod in the U.S corporate dictatorship – I think it’s undeniable that Bush’s policy in N.Korea has led to that country’s possible acquirement of nuclear weapons.
It was Bush that torpedoed negogiations when he came to office.
It was Bush who labelled Korea part of an ‘axis of evil’.
These are the kinds of actions that encourage people to disarm themselves, clearly.
And now what we have is a seriously deranged regime that, with further sanctions leveled at it, might well be willing to sell nuclear technology to anybody looking for it.
Not good.
That would be ‘these are NOT actions that encourage…”…
Regarding “Rebuilding America’s Defences,” you guys should at least read the document before you start arguing about it. You are both seriously overstating its prescience.
Pearl Harbor is mentioned twice in purely speculative terms, terrorism is mentioned only a few times in passing, and Islam is nowhere to be found.
The squeeze on NK is not going to work because they will incite violence via conventional means believing they can then bully the civilized world into some free money. Simply ignoring the NK rants while beefing up security is the only route to be taken, because sooner or later some NKs are going to have to be killed. The NK economy is tanked out, more starvation is on the way, more recriminations and oppression. The madman has no alternative but to attempt to bully and extort money. I would bolster forces on the southern flank and lob some artillery into SK then demand an ongoing, lucrative settlement to disban the nuke program. It’s a move he has to make thus forcing the rest of us to use conventional means to decimate NK, which of course he thinks won’t happen. China then goes in and sets up a more friendly military puppet who won’t antagonize the rest of the neighbors. The stupid West will foot most of the bill for reconstruction while patting themselves on the back for stopping nuclear proliferation and China gets the future trade benefits and a puppet nation on their southern flank. China comes out the real winner no matter how you cut it. They are going to be the world’s only super power in about 30 years so your grandkids had better develop a taste for chop sooey while they can. Only a fool would view China’s mind boggling ecocomic expansion over the past 20 years and think they won’t have a need to project military force as well. they are too practical and efficient not to be the world’s only super power. When the 3 Gorge Dam is fully operational, it will have 9 times the output of Hoover dam and most of that will go to expanding industry. The benefits of that immense electrical production damn sure won’t be going to pet shelters and spouse abuse shelters and special ed kindergartens and historical building preservation and petting zoos for handicapped children and meals on wheels and disability accessability services, nor for OSHA and EPA and FAA and AMA and ACLU and PETA type agencies. We are, when it comes to China, paper tigers musing in the wind with our moral codes and interpretations of human nature.
Nobody really knows what will follow collapse of NK. Not only such regimes are totally unpredictable, consequencies of their demise are also defy calculation. Remember what becomes with Romania after toppling and execution of Chaushescu? It was in comparably bad condition before it, but no real chaos emerged. There were rumors (and I inclined to believe them) that this madman was toppled by his own generals and Seguritad. They also took responsibility of the state after this putsch, disguised as popular rebellion. May be, the same will happen in NK.
Goesh, annual increase of US economy is bigger than all volume of Chinese economy. And I do not expect that Chinese communist government would survive fo 30 years ahead. It can collapse much faster.
“We would mostly be using Naval and Air forces, which we have plenty of available right now- it would not be a ground pounder intensive operation as Iraq is.”
Douglas, I hope that would be true, but part of me remembers the late David Hackworth’s opinion about North Korea, and the difficulties of using air power there. Too much is dug in, and too much is protected by terrain, very rough with deep valleys and hard to strike areas. Plus, apparently the North Koreans have worked hard for decades now in their tunnelling work. Much of their artillery would be hidden in hard to spot man-made caverns, hardened against airstrikes.
I’m no military man, so I have no way to judge this for myself, but Hackworth’s analysis was that Korea would actually be far more manpower intensive than Iraq I was (this analysis was made after the first Iraq war at the time of the death of Kim Il Sung).
On the other hand, the mobility of the US military is simply unmatched by anyone, let alone North Korea’s military, so it’s not like the US doesn’t have any advantages. On the contrary, we have many. It’s just that the terrain and winter weather is very much a hinderance, possibly offsetting some or (hopefully not!) much of the air and technical advantage the US has.
Stephen Britton:
“…While I have no political affiliation or bias towards the two peas from the same pod in the U.S corporate dictatorship…”
Corporate dictatorship? I like to think of it as one big “Sam’s Club”. Do they have those where your from? Its like a discount warehouse where everything is cheap and plentiful.
Not feelin’ too oppressed at all by the dictatorship today. I guess I’ll vote to continue with it since it doesn’t seem to be so bad.
Long live capitalism baby!
NYTimes 10/13/06
Top General Urges Britain to Leave Iraq
By ALAN COWELL
ST. ANDREWS, Scotland, Friday, Oct. 13 — In a surprising challenge to the government, Britain’s most senior military officer was quoted Friday as saying the British Army should leave Iraq, where it is America’s main ally, “sometime soon.”
The remarks, in an interview with The Daily Mail, contradicted policy enunciated by Prime Minister Tony Blair that British troops should leave Iraq only when Iraqi forces can take over security duties from them.
Gen. Sir Richard Dannatt, who took over as the army commander this year, has emerged as a contentious figure, challenging various policies. The new comments were his most outspoken and seemed likely to revive not only the debate about Mr. Blair’s decision to join the United States in the Iraq invasion in 2003 but also a passionate discussion about how long British troops should stay there.
The Daily Mail quoted Sir Richard as saying that Britain should “get ourselves out sometime soon, because our presence exacerbates the security problems.”
More 600,000 dead in a preemptive war that preempted nothing. As they say: “Payback is a bitch”. When the world comes to seize the architects and supporters of the BushCo regime I will be pointing the way.
“It was Bush that torpedoed negogiations when he came to office.”
Yeah, those negotiations that were working soooo well.
Sergey, if only NorKo was anywhere near in as good shape as Romania under Ceaucescu. There is serious and deep cultural damage their that will take generations (plural) to overcome, I fear.
Mondo, I think that
A) underground bunkers aren’t the protection they used to be.
B) You have to have surface access to fire artillery- that is vulnerable in the age of smart bombs (I hope we’re building lots of ’em right now- we’ll need thousands).
C) How much manpower you need depends on your objective. I don’t think occupation is an objective in the NorK scenario. Do we fear a Chinese occupation? Perhaps, but it’d be an improvement, and of what strategic value is NorK anyway? Who really wants to take over millions of starving people with no industry, or natural resources? Our only objective, as I see it is knocking out Lil Kim, and keeping the number of shells flying toward Seoul to a minimum. Then I guess we’d have to head a humanitarian aid project… but that’s it.
Make sense?
US nuclear experts doubt that there was real nuclear blast in NK. And they have a lot of experience with modelling conventional high explosives blasts which include large amounts of this stuff, so they can tell one from another. (Velocity of detonation front differs by orders of magnitude, so seismic signal profiles are different.) The most intricate matter with nuckes is not how to get enough fissible material, but how to induce chain reaction in sufficiently large proportion of it before it break apart and fly away. It really takes high-tech skills, so you can sit on your plutonium stock for years without ability to use it. And even bigger challenge is to make this device compact enough to accomodate it in rocket warhead, or even into bomber. As a mechanical engineer, I can appreciate these challenges, and I see them insurmountable for NK. Rapid progress of Manhattan Project was supported by brilliant team of geniuses and almost nonlimited funding. (The same for Russian nuckes.) These factors are absent in NK.
Sergey, what will follow from the collapse of NK is a return of the better educated, middle-class type NKs that have fled NK in droves to China where they bide their time. Order will be maintained by the People’s Army of China and these folks will return to run their country. NK will then know less starvation and harsh oppression under Chinese guidance. You really don’t think China would allow South Korea to enforce order in the north after a collapse, do you? who else would do it? Japan? France? Russia? The US? The UN? (what a joke that would be)All China has to say is our trade and security interests are being threatened by the chaos and anarchy of the collapse, we going in only to maintain order and protect destruction of property and life and to keep essential services going. Who is going to stop them, the united beggars of the 3rd world under the authority of the UN?? China could put 5 divisions across the border in a matter of a few days while air dropping forces into critical infrastructure sites at the same time. NK’s military is dependent on China already and very friendly with them. “Resistance is futile – we will help feed you and upgrade your standard of living – we will assimilate you” By securing NK on their southern flank, China can significantly improve their southern trade routes and expand their strategic, military capability. It’s all about production, expansion and protection of the same these days in China – it’s no longer about cultural revolution and the communist ideology. The essence of Chinese civilization has been around consistently for 5,000 years now. View them as the Borg or a hive of bees, it matters not – they are coming. They are about ready to start putting their own cars on the world’s market for instance and they have already put people in outer space. With 1.3 billion people and their 5,000 year penchant for practicality and efficiency, they can out-do any 3rd world country in cheap manufacturing. All they need is more electricity. The needs of the few are not considered to be essential pieces of the national fabric and never have been and never will and their economy will not be bled with social service programs and notions of equality that do not result in some measurable production by said recipients. No way, Jose – err, I mean no way, Lao Ming.
Since the Seoul goal is to have NO artillery fire, they are not quite on the same page as the US.
China’s a big winner, despite the faux “losing face” of a client-puppet disobeying (real or was it winked at?).
I suggest attempts to bribe the generals to institute a coup, but even communications with the generals isn’t certain.
Tight blockade is good. Trade tarrifs on China for allowing N. Korea to import anything other than food (and medicine?).
Few options, none good.
I think all this will be quite analogous to Vietnam forces ending Khmer Rouge debacle. They made exactly what goesh described. This is nearly the same culture, nearly the same strategic implications. And balance of power is also very much the same. Nobody intervened or protested too much against Vietnam invasion to Cambodia.
…but maybe a NOKO with nukes might be useful to our longterm interests? If it inspires our defenseless friends out there, Japan, Taiwan, S. Korea, to build their own, then it’s China (and Putin?) who must think twice, not us. Also, heaven forfend, should the trigger ever be pulled against some a**hole whack regime, it’s better that some fed-up neighbor do it, allowing the USA to publically roll its eyes heavenward, heave a melancholy sigh, and offer humanitarian relief. Too bad about non-proliferation; it was good while it lasted.
All-out war is symonymous with “nuclear armageddon” these days, even if the war is waged against an entirely unrelated foe. If the US had nuked Iraq, instead of practicing its limited war, Russia and China, and probably Europe and even Canada, would have nuked us back, not out of love for Saddam, but fear, however unreasonable, of meeting the same fate.
All-out reconstruction would be less likely to trigger such a response, but given the world’s reaction to the “excesses” of our limited reconstruction, I think there would be an unacceptable risk of it. Imagine if even our “secret torture facilities” had actually existed. Once the nukes start flying, it doesn’t really matter who’s right, who’s wrong, or even who shot first.
It’s a different world from 1945.
I still do not believe in real nuclear proliferation. India and Pakistan do perform nuclear tests, but can their weapons fly? I doubt it. It can be bluff. Stationary device is much easier to build than compact one, and technology needed for later hardly can be reproduced from the first principles. It involves some very intricate parts, like cryotrones, and one never can be sure that some design is workable without multiple actual testing. No such testing obviously was performed until now.
Tatterdemalian, only Russia has now nuclear arsenal capable to inflict US any substantial damage. It still can not prevent overwhelming retaliation, so MAD is still in place. Russian liders are not suicidal-bent psychopats, they never would gamble “Russian roulette”.
By itself, it wouldn’t, Sergey. But what if it could rely on a coalition of terrified nuclear-armed nations, all firing at once? As impressive as the US’s nuclear arsenal still is, I don’t know if we could overwhelmingly retaliate against the entire rest of the world.
As far I know, US have several dozen thousand nuckes. This is so great overkill, that only fraction of it can devastate the whole planet. And this fraction is virtually impossible to destroy because it is deployed at submarines in autonomous patrolling. This is basic requirement of MAD strategy. No comparable stockpile exists anywhere except Russia. So any third-world nuckes are no match to it and can be considered only as tool of blackmail.
and one never can be sure that some design is workable without multiple actual testing. No such testing obviously was performed until now
Sergey,
This would apply to Israel too, wouldn’t it? Does anybody know if they have ever actually tested their nuke weapons? Or, perhaps, the USA has done that for them, as, perhaps, China will for N. Korea. One way to circumvent MAD would be to have small proxy states, ones sufficiently desperate or insane to threaten, or even do, what the large nations dare not. But this is pure armchair speculation.
My own hope is that China’s pet pitbull scares Japan, Taiwan and others into acquiring their own nukes, so they can establish their own mini-MADs.
Israel is known to test their nukes in Zair and Southern Africa. There also were underground tests in their center in Negev. Assessments indicate that they have around 100 nukes, not termonuclear type, but Hiroshima type bombs, and 3 diesel submarines in Mediterranian for retaliation potential. By US and Russian standarts, this is tactical, not strategical weaponry, but in ME situation it is enough for containment of potential Arab aggression, and it bought Israel peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and keeps Syria from direct assault.
Goesh, “China can significantly improve their southern trade routes and expand their strategic, military capability.”
Really? China’s got all the access to trade it could ever need. I don’t see how NorK is more valuable to them under their direct control. When Lil Kim was a good little puppet, it was useful, but now? Not so much. You’re pretty much right about the Chinese culture though, individual rights mean little next to the pragmatic requirements of the state, and they assimilate, and have been for 5000 years- but it’s typically been attempts at invading that have been assimilated. They haven’t been too terribly imperialistic historically. The ‘Middle Kingdom’ mentality. I suppose you could try to convince me that NorK is comperable to Tibet, but I’m not so sure- I still think they’d see it as a better buffer then frontier…
Sergey, I think you’re right, it was an only semi-successful nuke test- Chain reaction initiated but not sustained. It still doesn’t make me feel real good about things, though.
I don’t know that Tatter is thinking, but it makes no sense for Russia to “nuke” the US for “nuking Iraq”, because they fear being nuked. Why would they fear being nuked when the US just wants Iraq? Unless Russia wants Iraq as well or documents in Iraq would make the US declare war on America?
It is very irrational for people to take one war in Iraq and extrapolate it as meaning their entire existence across the world is in jeopardy.
Use a nuke in Iraq, and China and Russia won’t do a thing. Except probably petition for a negotiation that says so long as we don’t use nukes on each other, we are free to intimidate the little countries. Everyone is satisfied then, except the little countries.