-
The Chinese Waltz
May 24, 2013 | 1 comment
-
The View From the Other Side
May 17, 2013 | 23 comments
-
Cyprus Uber Alles
May 10, 2013 | 9 comments
-
After Hugo
May 3, 2013 | 16 comments
-
Theory and Practice of Terrorism
April 26, 2013 | 24 comments
At Large
War Pyongyang Style
For North Korea the Korean War has never ended. Is that too hard for Washington to understand?
North Korea’s (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea — DPRK) continuing efforts to maintain political and military pressure on the United States is difficult for Washington to understand. It seems so simple in American terms: Pyongyang needs only to reduce its military power, primarily in the field of nuclear weapon development and missile delivery systems, and investment and aid will flow into the North. The problem with this thesis is that the DPRK leadership needs confrontation with South Korea (Republic of Korea — ROK) and the U.S. to maintain control of their country.
For sixty years North Korea has held itself in a state of war, physically and legally. No peace treaty was ever signed after the original Korean War armistice of 1953 and Pyongyang has never allowed the world to forget that fact. That’s Pyongyang’s ultimate justification for the torpedoing in March of the ROK patrol warship, Cheonan. The DPRK Navy had been waiting for a chance to retaliate for an embarrassing confrontation with South Korean naval forces in November 2009, in which a North Korean armed patrol vessel was badly mauled in a firefight with an ROK naval vessel in disputed waters off the western end of South Korea near the ROK-held island of Daecheong.
If Pyongyang had wanted to create an incident to provoke a war they would have followed up with further military action after the latest torpedoing incident. Instead they reacted comparatively mildly by breaking economic ties and denying commercial airline overflights. At the same time the Kaesong joint industrial park project that accounts for more than half of the trade between the two Koreas was left open. Some South Korean workers were expelled, however, which will cause local difficulty — but that’s the extent of it.
Another possible reason for the sinking of the South Korean warship — for which Pyongyang denies any responsibility in spite of detailed analyses by international teams — is the desire on the part of Kim Jong-il to assert his family’s continued commitment to the military ethos of their leadership. The timing would appear to be linked to the evolving succession of Kim Jong-il’s third son, Kim Jong-eun.
The Western world may have moved beyond the concept of military power as a guiding principle of internal political authority, but the revolutionary theme of the deified Great Leader Kim Il-sung was based firmly on the concept of Korean resistance to all invaders. To be eligible to lead in the shadow of the still dominant example of the nation’s founder, the power to “resist” must be regularly exhibited. This is the tenet Kim Jong-il has followed and the one that he seeks to inculcate in his own son and heir.
This doctrine is the essence of the contemporary North Korean political philosophy known as juche. Sovereignty, resistance, and autonomy are the pillars of the self-reliance and self-determination on which the ideology of juche rests. Kim Il-sung firmly believed in this principle and since his death has become for his countrymen the embodiment of its spirit. As North Koreans are regimented to attest, the Great Leader lives on through these beliefs.
Along with a quasi-religious commitment to the rectitude of their philosophy goes an extremely well disciplined ability to carry on their war in what occidental minds would consider a non-physical sense. While the United States struggles to iron out terms of agreement to build a peaceful relationship, the North Koreans work at creating obstacles at each step — even when appearing to agree.
The North Koreans use the American efforts to seek common ground with the DPRK as simply a playing field for a game of their own choosing. In this process the argument can be reinforced or diverted by both intellectual and physical action. Exploding an underground nuclear device on last year’s Memorial Day weekend punctuated the so-called negotiation on the North’s nuclear weapon development.
The new Obama government was surprised and shocked. The South Koreans explained the ploy to Washington and countered with their own attack six months later on a North Korean patrol vessel. Washington finds the negotiating process endlessly frustrating — as the North Korean counterparts intend. Even the effort to pull together a new round of six-party talks is replete with obstacles. Secretary of State Clinton brought a 400-page analysis to meetings with the Chinese to prove the sinking of the ROK vessel was done by a DPRK submarine. Of course, Chinese intelligence officers stationed in Pyongyang already knew that.
Pyongyang just says it’s all lies while the Americans continue to believe that the two sides actually are negotiating toward some mutually acceptable end. President Obama greeted the news of the torpedoing of the Cheonan by what he considers a forceful response when he characterized the military operation as an “act of aggression …one more instance of North Korea’s unacceptable behavior and defiance of international law.”
Meanwhile a leaked United Nations report states Pyongyang is using front companies to export nuclear and missile technology to Iran, Syria, and Burma. After all this time Washington is still asking the same question: “Why are the North Koreans doing this?” And Pyongyang just carries on its war.
About the Author
George H. Wittman writes a weekly column on international affairs for The American Spectator online. He was the founding chairman of the National Institute for Public Policy.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (50) | Leave a comment
More Articles by George H. Wittman
More Articles From At Large
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/06/04/war-pyongyang-style
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Louis Jenkins| 6.4.10 @ 8:08AM
I'll start the conversation by saying N. Korea is armed to the teeth. Many of its bases are underground, far beyond the reach of bunker busting bombs, and tied in with each other via underground passageways. As far as armaments goes they are too many to recount here, but they are sizable. (Bigger than S. Korea ever thought of.) Our small amount of personel, 38,000 or so, are instant toast should a war break out.
The US is in a pickle here. Should they boost the troops (so to speak) or get out while the getting is good? I dare say the US will stick to its guns. The NKs are playing real war. Meanwhile the
Pretender n Chief goes about his business as though nothing has happened, and Hillary is playing the dunce.
Marine Vet| 6.4.10 @ 10:09AM
Nonsense. There have been plenty of blog threads regarding another Korean War.
I don't care how much 1950 vintage equipment the NK's have stored up. They could kill a lot of South Korean civilians during the first couple of days of a conflict. After that, the modern SK and American forces destroy the North Koreans and their antique equipment with ease.
Kim wants attention, pay-offs, and respect. He doesn't want a shooting war.
Christopher Holland| 6.6.10 @ 10:12PM
If Kim doesn't want a shooting war, then give him one and let him choke on it - put those stealth bombers to good use rather than leave them on the shelf for years on end. And if he wants attention, pays-off and respect then that is the last thing he should get. Strategy is all about hitting the weaking spots, not about giving people what they want and playing to their own strengths and your weaknesses.
Tom| 6.4.10 @ 10:18AM
You are ignoring South Koreas military in this equation. If North Korea believed for a moment that it could overrun South Korea as easily as you imply they would have decades ago. It is a classic Mexican standoff, we cannot attack North Korea because their forward placed artillery units would decimate Seoul and they cannot attack us because they would in the end lose.
Ole Sarge| 6.4.10 @ 12:00PM
I know many times WE had to rein in the South from re-igniting the fight.
The war is still "HOT." There is only a cease-fire in effect.
Alan Brooks| 6.4.10 @ 10:45PM
"the North Koreans work at creating obstacles at each step -- even when appearing to agree."
White face, black heart.
Melvin| 6.4.10 @ 8:24AM
Hillary Clinton is as worthless as tits on a boar hog.
All this woman has done is hand out washing machines to Africans and toys made in China to Chinese kids.
This lawyer is not a diplomat, Condi Rice would
never waste valuable time, with N. Korea, and Mideast at each others throats and hand out washing machines.
This woman is a complete and utter mockery. She knows nothing and is just marking time till the 2012 elections.
This woman and her carpet bagging husband belong in prison not the White House.
canuckistani| 6.4.10 @ 11:17AM
"Condi Rice would never waste valuable time, with N. Korea, and Mideast at each others throats"
What would she be doing exactly? She is a coldwar expert and a Russia observer for years. She is in favor of Start, was a proponent of six-party talks for NK, understands the concept of isolation in favor of escalation, and would applaud Clinton and Obama's results at getting China into a neutral position and Russia on board with new real sanctions. Bush 1, 2 or Nixon have never had this progress, and Reagan, as you remember, made deals with any regime.
The end game is nigh, and if they can pull off a bloodless coup, Obama will be given the statesman badge of honor. NK is a wounded dog, and getting it to roll up and die is the only plausible solution. SK has come too far to let simple artillery destroy them. They have learned and are smarter than that. China has also matured.
You, unfortunately, have not.
Ray| 6.4.10 @ 12:01PM
"What would she be doing exactly? "
The same thing she did during the Bush administration, which is exactly what the President tells her to do. No more and no less. No Secretary acts without the advice and consent of the President, not if they want to keep their position in the Administration, anyways. But you already know that, don't you?
Tom| 6.4.10 @ 12:30PM
What progress? NK just sank a ROK Naval vessel. How exactly is this progress?
I do not blame Obama for lack of progress in Korea; the problem is complex and multifaceted. China has no real reason to reign in the North and we have no real leverage to make them do so. In fact in many ways the North's actions serve China's interests; it creates tensions among America's allies, it takes the view of the world off of China, and it allows CHina to garner praise when they reign them in. And in 6-12 months there will be anothe raction from the North and the process will repeat.
There is nothing simple about artillery. It is by far the most deadly weapon in war. If the North let loose with all their tubes the devastion on the northern part of the ROK would be tremendous.
canuckistani| 6.4.10 @ 2:29PM
With simple artillery I meant that for all they have built up in 60 years, in a country that has suffered under invaders for the last 100 years, it would be a shame for it to be blown up that way. SK has more to lose with a military conflict. NK is an empty shell and its citizenry are just cannon fodder. The US has a huge monetary stake in the success of SK and I bet there are degrees of survival that will be accepted before an all out conflict erupts.
Bobby Moon| 6.5.10 @ 3:46PM
The real threat between the Koreas is definitely artillery. Everything is pre-targeted between the two( North and South ). We have one Division there. The South has 52 Divisions above us. The reason the North is such a threat is that they have
13000 long range implaced Russian artillery. They can hit Seoul with 500,000 rounds an hour.
I say this as an american artillery Soldier.
Stuart Koehl| 6.6.10 @ 9:43AM
The threat of the so-called Y-Sites is a bit overblown. Their utility has been severely undermined by the advent of persistent multi-sensor aerial surveillance systems and abundant precision-guided munitions.
While the entrances to the Y-Sites are well camouflaged, and the sites themselves virtually invulnerable to conventional counter-battery fire, once the sites have been located, they can be rapidly targeted and destroyed by JDAMs and other precision aerial munitions. Unless a North Korean attack comes totally out of the blue, the U.S. and South Korea will have time to plan a systematic destruction campaign--if one is not already in the can. It's hard to believe that military commanders on the peninsula would not avail themselves of the opportunity to locate and target as many Y-sites as possible, and to stockpile adequate munitions to destroy the bulk of them in the first day or so of any North Korean attack.
I suspect the North Koreans realize this, which is why they are pressing their advantage now: the recognize that their leverage is diminishing by the day, and within a few years they will no longer be able to threaten Seoul with their conventional forces.
On the other hand, it should be relatively easy to develop an effective theater ballistic missile umbrella for South Korea using both land- and sea-based systems. It is extremely unfortunate that Obama cancelled the Airborne Laser (ABL program, because North Korea is one of the few places where ABL could operate effectively against ballistic missiles in their extremely vulnerable boost phase.
So in a few years, North Korea's nuclear leverage will also be gone, and then what will Kim have with which to bargain for new Blu Ray discs and cases of single malt scotch?
Christopher Holland| 6.6.10 @ 10:17PM
Sounds like rubbish to me. Reagan ended the cold war by standing up to the Russians and refusing to negotiate. Yet when it comes to Korea and Iran, America wets its pants. Reagan had guts and convictions - everybody who came after him was a bed wetter. That is the difference and the lesson nobody wants to learn.
Harry the Horrible| 6.4.10 @ 8:29AM
Depends.
No matter how well armed the Norks are, their training and maintenance has suffered, their country is starving, and they are short on POL. IIRC, "professionals talk logistics." The Nork's logistics are in very poor shape.
On the other hand, South Korea has a good military, and between our air forces and South Korea's, we can assert air dominance from day one.
I don't want a war, but if it comes, I think most of the carnage will be on the Nork's side.
Assuming, of course, we don't hamstring our forces with asinine RoEs.
Tom| 6.4.10 @ 10:28AM
Harry,
I agree with your overall analysis however it is important to remember just how many tubes are pointed south and how close Seoul is to the border. That is totally ignoring the potential presence of atomic weapongs on the North's part. They could not win a long drawn out engagement but they could certainly kill lots of civilians.
Ray| 6.4.10 @ 12:08PM
Yes, they could kill a lot of civilians in the initial attack, They would also lose a lot of their own civilians in the counter-attack. There would be no strategic advantage to their attacking, and no tactical advantage as well. The regime's own military would not allow any attack to occur, as that would be suicide for the military, the civilians, and, ultimately, the regime itself. So, NK is not going to attack directly, and that means that we'll see more and more of these indirect attacks and harassment. A ploy that is used to try to intimidate negotiations in the NK's favor, and one that will backfire on them, just as it has in the past.
So, what are we left with? Stalemate.
Tom| 6.4.10 @ 12:37PM
There is always tactical advantages in attacking first when you believe that war is inevitable.
I think you are thinking too narrowly; in a strictly military equation any massive attack by the North would lead to the ultimate destruction of the military, the regime, and the nation. But wars are not fought just on the battlefield, they never were. And in the world of 24 hour news coverage how much pressure do you think there would be on Obama to broker a deal to end hostilities? Would the ROK fold their northern cities devastated?
While I agree with you that the North attacking the ROK would be most likely suicide it is wrong for us to assign our thinking to their military and civilian leaders. Simply put we do not know what they are thinking. They sank a naval vessel which could have, maybe should have, led to the resumption of the war. What happens if they miscalculate, assume the next provocation will be basically ignored, and the ROK decided to launch a massive attack? Or even mobilize their military leading the North to launch the pre-emptive attack? The regime, including the military, acts on different assumptions than you and I and I will not guess how they will act under different scenarios.
Christopher Holland| 6.6.10 @ 10:23PM
It can't be a stalemate if one side keeps on escalating all the time. North Korea will simply keep on the provocations until a war starts, and then it will be too late - there will be a catastrophe. In that case, the criticisms will be about American dithering for decades and letting a bad problem get worse and worse. It will be Munich all over again - the aggressor was never stopped and a conflagration resulted.
Matt| 6.4.10 @ 9:09AM
I've served with the ROK recently (2008). NK doesn't want war, despite endless pushes in that direction. They want us to appease them, and give them 'free' stuff, to support their piss-poor economy. We have given concessions in the past, and they need these to survive. Kim Jong-il is an half-wit inbred imbecile, but he is predictable. He can obviously see a weakness in the Obama Administration, and he is taking advantage of it. If there is war, Greater Seoul will be destroyed and hundreds of thousands will die before we even have a chance to respond. The ROK would win, obviously, but at what cost. Dismantle Kaesong, avoid NK provocations, and let North Korea starve.
Harry the Horrible| 6.4.10 @ 9:19AM
Darn straight.
There is nothing we can do to North Korea worse than what they are doing to themselves...
NavyBrat | 6.4.10 @ 9:13AM
If anyone hasn't read "Red Phoenix" by Larry Bond yet, they need to. Like "Red Storm Rising," but in Korea. And keep in mind, it was written when we were still in the business of winning such wars, should they have broken out. I wonder at the outcome these days due to our poor leadership in the gov't.
davelnaf| 6.4.10 @ 9:22AM
It’s hard to believe the North Koreans are not trying to provoke another war, but that may be the case. At least by 1939 Hitler had serious back up in the event his aggressions got out of control. The North Koreans have nothing comparable to what is already in the South and, unless they are not drinking an utterly stupefying version of their own Kool-aid, they are well aware of this fact. If things do get out of control they clearly expect the Chicoms to pitch in to help. Meanwhile, the Chicoms will not even publically scold the North for its aggressions, but privately they must be rug chewing furious with them. So, why the brotherly comradeship in public when these weasels might suck you into a ruinous war? One theory is that the Chicoms and the North are doing a psychologically satisfying two-step to keep the US and South Korea guessing and perhaps frustrated. But we come back to the question of why do this if you are a responsible ‘partner’ on the world’s stage. Even if we were to openly acquiesce to Mexico’s exportation of drugs and gang violence to the rest of Central America and beyond would this rise to the same level of irresponsibly that China is putting on display. People that believe China will ever be a responsible ‘partner’ while it is under Chicom management are seriously kidding themselves.
Tom| 6.4.10 @ 10:30AM
China is afraid of the North's collapse and the resulting flood of refugees that would occur.
Tim| 6.4.10 @ 9:33AM
One can't just assume rationality on the part of an adversary. Korea is a flashpoint and will remain so for the immediate future (at least).
The Army Aviator| 6.4.10 @ 10:31AM
Following the defeat of "Jimmuh Cahtuh" and the inauguration of Ronald Reagan, the late Kim Il-Sung lamented that he had not launched an attack on the south during the tenure of peanut magnate Carter. He came to realize too late, that Carter would NOT have resisted a North Korean attack. He also KNEW that the US Forces in South Korea were weak and would have not been able to defend against an all-out assualt from the north. Essentially, Kim Il-Sung BLEW-IT and he knew he would never have another chance to reunify the two Koreas. This lesson has not been lost on the son, Kim Jong-Il, or the grandson Kim Jong-Eun. US Forces are weak in South Korea. Although the ROK Armed Forces are much stronger now, than in "Jimmuh's" day, the north is much stronger as well. The bottom line is this: If Kim Jong-Il ever gets it in his head that Obama and his Chicago thuggery, will NOT stand with the South Koreans and if Obama constinues to weaken our forces in South Korea, an attack by the north may well happen. IF Kim Jong-Il thinks he has an even chance of winning, HE WILL GO FOR IT! With Obama, in Washington and Liberal Socialists in congress, Kim Jong-Il may be the odds-on favorite. Kim Jong-Il is not a well man, and would love to reunite the two Koreas in his lifetime. By doing so, he could eclipse his father as the "greatest" of all Koreans. I guarantee that this too, is on his mind. Obama is a danger to world peace! Just as his mentor and ideal, "Jimmuh Cahtuh," was.
Tom| 6.4.10 @ 10:34AM
If the North launches a convential military attack they will get slaughtered. They simply do not have the capacity to supply an army at war for any amount of time.
Ole Sarge| 6.4.10 @ 11:52AM
The families of U.S. service-members stationed in the Republic of Korea are our trip-wires, they are only there to "show" the Communists in both the People's Republic of Korea and the People's Republic of China, that we (the USA) bear non-hostile will towards them.
When I was stationed in the ROK, the number of dependents were severely capped, so that if the need ever came, they could be NEO (non-combatant evacuation operation) to places like Japan or Guam in very quick order. Have too many, you overload the available capability to handle.
I don't know if in the ten years since I retired if that is still in effect. But the current "saber rattling" has some friends of ours reconsidering trips to visit family there over this summer.
maverick muse| 6.5.10 @ 7:25AM
Hats off for your service, Sarge.
Intentionally or not, N.Korean saber rattling is playing the cry wolf card to desensitize everyone concerned. But these days, alliances are forming between authoritarian nations despite distances between them. For example, what if N.Korea could ally with Iran, or Venezuela, allied with Russia. It isn't as if Red China is still N.Korea's only ally given the complicated economic intrigue in trade and debt.
Christopher Holland| 6.6.10 @ 10:28PM
The solution to somebody rattling a sabre is to point a monster cannon at their head - a fat lot of good the sabre will do if the cannon goes off. Call it the make my day effect. America got out of the monster cannon pointing business a long time ago, so it is no surprise that every sabre rattler in town now fancies his chances.
chuck| 6.4.10 @ 12:12PM
When Truman decided to resist N. Korean aggression in June 1950 he failed to implement two steps. One ask Congress for a declaration of war and two use nuclear bombs to destroy Pyongyang and kill Kim-Il-sung. Now 60 years later offspring Kim-Jong-il is poised to destroy Seoul and kill thousands of Americans with nuclear bombs.
maverick muse| 6.5.10 @ 7:14AM
Yes. Truman utterly failed to heed the advise of our military, sacking Gen. MacArthur in utter humiliation. Instead, Truman was cuddling up to the UN for decisions though it was American troops being slaughtered in the Korean War. And finally, Truman didn't even hold the South Korean leader's feet to the fire in signing a peace treaty to end the damned war.
dw| 6.4.10 @ 1:20PM
naiviety, thy name is obama, clinton, and virtually all democrats.
Tom| 6.4.10 @ 5:03PM
For those who think North Korea will not miscalculate and start a war because doing so would be suicide for the regime remember Iraq.
Nate| 6.4.10 @ 5:48PM
I don't know. It depends. By "Washington" do you mean George W Bush, who let N Korea go nuclear?
maverick muse| 6.5.10 @ 7:09AM
Wasn't that Clinton?
WJC gave our military naval technology to Communist China.
GavInTucson| 6.6.10 @ 10:18PM
Perhaps you're unaware of this, but GWB wasn't president in the late 90's.
maverick muse| 6.5.10 @ 7:07AM
Though the Korean War has never ended, the North Koreans were willing to end it when the South Koreans refused to sign the treaty. Hence, cease fire. And that only applies to the politically correct parties concerned--S.Korea and the USA.
"Instead they reacted comparatively mildly by breaking economic ties and denying commercial airline overflights."
Yes, the "who me?" response. Only sinking a ship and taking the lives of those on board is not the equivalent to letting a fart in a movie theater.
Patzer| 6.5.10 @ 4:03PM
A neutron bomb would be a damned handy thing to have in the inventory right about now...
ghe | 6.6.10 @ 12:59AM
why Americans act so quickly in the north and south korea problem. however, compared to reverse the situation between Israel and the Palestinian. as if America has no idea that events there. irony indeed
Stuart Koehl| 6.6.10 @ 9:00AM
Precedents from the Cold War say a policy of strict reciprocity should apply in the case of the Cheonan. A North Korean submarine torpedoed a South Korean frigate. The most obvious response would be a South Korean submarine torpedoing the next North Korean submarine leaving port.
Most of North Korea's submarines are either ancient Soviet Romeo-class diesel-electric boats, or slightly more modern Chinese knockoffs of the same design. They are relatively noisy and have antiquated sensors and fire control systems (which means the most amazing thing is the North Koreans actually managed to hit the Cheonan in the first place).
South Korea, on the other hand, has a number of modern, highly effective, German-produced Type 209 diesel boats, which are extremely quiet and fast (when they need to be), and equipped with state-of-the-art sensors, fire controls and torpedoes.
It would be a fairly simple matter to put one or two of these subs on patrol outside the main North Korean submarine base, until they hear a Romeo leave port. The South Korean 209-boat falls in behind the North Korean Romeo until it reaches deep water, at which point it puts a torpedo into its screws. Scratch one Romeo.
Meanwhile, through back channel communications, an oral message is passed to the North Korean command authorities, telling them where they can find their missing sub, and letting them know what will happen if there are further repetitions of the Cheonan incident.
This approach has the advantage of conveying the proper message to the North Koreans while being discrete and deniable. The North Koreans, for their part, would have no incentive to announce the incident, which would only point to their own ineptitude. Moreover, lacking deep water survey and salvage capability, they would be hard pressed to bring any credible evidence against South Korea.
Of course, if we were really good allies, we would have done this ourselves, already. A Mk.48 ADCAP may not be subtle, but it gets the job done.
kd| 7.1.10 @ 4:28AM
beijing massage