Gunboat Diplomacy?

[RGMage2]

I came across an interesting article about the North Korean situation that some of you might like to read, or watch for that matter - I'm old school so I read the transcript. It's an interview with Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell. It offers a different perspective than what you are likely to see in mainstream media.

 

 

[Aurielius]

I came across an interesting article about the North Korean situation that some of you might like to read, or watch for that matter - I'm old school so I read the transcript. It's an interview with Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell. It offers a different perspective than what you are likely to see in mainstream media.

 

 

Intriguing pick of an extremely political staff colonel to support the concept that all the prior failed agreements is some form of success.

His thesis contends that since war has not broken out yet that makes strategic patience a success. His secondary contention is that the west failed to give NK the tech for safer reactors thereby reneging on their end of the deal, however he glossed over the fact that NK failed to meet the preconditions of that agreement. Strategic Patience has simply kicked the can down the road so that no current administration would have to make the hard choices. Problem is now we are running out of road.

[RGMage2]

 

I came across an interesting article about the North Korean situation that some of you might like to read, or watch for that matter - I'm old school so I read the transcript. It's an interview with Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell. It offers a different perspective than what you are likely to see in mainstream media.

 

 

Intriguing pick of an extremely political staff colonel to support the concept that all the prior failed agreements is some form of success.

His thesis contends that since war has not broken out yet that makes strategic patience a success. His secondary contention is that the west failed to give NK the tech for safer reactors thereby reneging on their end of the deal, however he glossed over the fact that NK failed to meet the preconditions of that agreement. Strategic Patience has simply kicked the can down the road so that no current administration would have to make the hard choices. Problem is now we are running out of road.

 

To be honest I don't actually know that much about Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, other than what I can Google. He did seem to have a distinguished military career - volunteered to serve in Vietnam, that seems unusual now but at the time probably wasn't. It's more likely that men who believed in things like honor and duty didn't get the same kind of press as the draft dodgers. I do gather that he is well known in American political circles.

 

I brought up his interview primarily because it offers a dissenting opinion, and I think dissenting opinions have value when trying to make an informed decision. If I were Commander in Chief I might want to listen to someone like Wilkerson, not necessarily because he's right, but because he's telling me something I might not be hearing from other advisors. If nothing else, he's not giving me the usual spiel about crazy Kim. He is actually saying that the Kim regime is sane and acting rationally. Politically, that is not a safe opinion for him to put forward publicly. To me that adds some weight to what he is saying, and it is important to know your enemy.

 

I don't have an opinion on the success or failure of past agreements, I'm simply not knowledgeable enough to make any judgements on them.

 

My focus is on his assertion that Kim's decision to push forward with the nuclear program is rational. That fits in with my own thinking. Let me put it this way: If we were gaming this and I am role playing the leader of North Korea, I am definitely going to build as many nukes as I can. My objective is my survival, and the survival of my line, the "Kim Dynasty". I have a responsibility to my ancestors to protect this thing that they built. Let us not forget that I didn't start the nuclear program, my grandfather did, my father continued it, and now I am the guardian. I may be deluding myself with that, but none the less that is what I am thinking if I am Kim Jong-un

 

I'm looking out at the world around me and seeing threats that I cannot defend against. My military is falling behind technologically and my one ally is now so economically integrated with my enemy that I can no longer be sure they will come to my aide. I will very soon be defenseless. The Nuke has deterrent value. it is not that I want to Nuke LA, which would bring about my immediate annihilation, and thus the end of my line, and in fact be a betrayal of my ancestors. Instead it is that I want to be able to threaten to Nuke LA, and by doing so keep my enemy at a distance. It may prove to be a failed strategy, but that's the strategy I would go with if I were in that position.

 

Another interesting point that Wilkerson makes: now he is clearly not a fan of Trump, but he does hold out (slight) hope that Trump is positioning himself for negotiations. If you wanted to negotiate a final peace treaty with North Korea to end this thing for once and for all, then the first thing you need to do is prepare for war by bringing all necessary assets into the theater. Trump sees himself as a deal maker, he is on record prior to his election saying that he would meet with anyone. We know he is not adverse to talking, so just maybe he is going to put his deal making to the test. One way or another I think we will soon see where this is going. Assuming that it is going anywhere. Maybe Trump has no plan and the can will continue rolling down the road for many years to come.

[HeyYou]

Trouble is, NK has already demonstrated, on MANY occasions, that it doesn't matter what "deal" you make with them, they will honor it for a little while, then go right back to the same belligerent behavior. There really is no point in negotiations, as all it does is move the problem further down the road, giving NK time to further develop its weapons programs.

[Fkemman11]

Perhaps this is Trump's way of forcing a resolution to the NK problem once and for all- with the long term plan of withdrawing US troops and closing costly bases and such. NK has other options as far as avoiding potential conflict. For one they can scrap their nuclear weapons ambitions and rely on conventional arms- thus appeasing the US and China and others. I think China would be NK staunch ally just by doing this- so long as that is all they change. NK has been taking an aggressive posture in the world- thus inviting harsh criticism and possible conflict- for a very long time now. Had they not done this then we would not be talking about it now.

 

And I would not be naïve enough to believe that we could handily defeat NK forces even in a conventional war. The US thought the same thing initially against both them and Vietnam and look how those ended.

 

What we see from around the world is that everywhere the US launches this strike or another to demonstrate US resolve just makes more enemies. We think of ourselves as the great savior of the world. The rest of the world views us as belligerent bullies- at best. At worst they see the US as a militant overlord forcing other countries to play by our rules. One president said that we are not the police of the world and that the US should adopt a more passive policy towards world affairs.

 

Keeping troops in SK at this point is more of pride thing for the US. We were forced out of Vietnam and holding onto South Korea is sorta a consolation prize for us. It is time to leave the region and offer our support to SK when they need it. Let Japan play a more prominent role in the region. They have relied on the US military for far too long.

 

And I might add that more passive behavior from the US would give our enemies pause as then they would have to guess our intent instead of having it explicitly stated.

[Aurielius]

I'm old enough to remember Civil Defense Drills as a child. At the time we at least knew the Russians were rational and wanted to avoid self annihilation, something that cannot be said of Kim. Leaving Hawaii at the future mercy of his 'rational ' intentions doesn't seem like a viable plan

[Fkemman11]

I'm old enough to remember Civil Defense Drills as a child. At the time we at least knew the Russians were rational and wanted to avoid self annihilation, something that cannot be said of Kim. Leaving Hawaii at the future mercy of his 'rational ' intentions doesn't seem like a viable plan

 

I never said to stop defending US territory. But having US forces spread throughout the globe is simply not a viable policy for us anymore. Does anyone have an idea how much money it costs to simply deploy a carrier group? The costs of deploying forces everywhere is something that even the US cannot afford. This is true whether our leaders want to admit it or not. And what does it accomplish? It is inflammatory. It takes us steps closer to another costly conflict- not better negotiations as some would have us believe. Even if NK is eliminated as a threat wont that just add to the perception of US aggression? Yes. We will always have enemies. Right now we have friendly enemies to think about in addition to open enemies. So a step back from the world theater would be in the US best interest IMO.

 

The US needs to be much more conservative in foreign affairs and much less visible with regards to our military. Our enemies have coaxed us right where they wanted. On their soil giving them ready targets. Covert op teams could accomplish a great deal without the needless waste of money and manpower. The trick is to outsmart your enemies- not fight them on their own terms.

[Aurielius]

 

I'm old enough to remember Civil Defense Drills as a child. At the time we at least knew the Russians were rational and wanted to avoid self annihilation, something that cannot be said of Kim. Leaving Hawaii at the future mercy of his 'rational ' intentions doesn't seem like a viable plan

 

I never said to stop defending US territory. But having US forces spread throughout the globe is simply not a viable policy for us anymore. Does anyone have an idea how much money it costs to simply deploy a carrier group? The costs of deploying forces everywhere is something that even the US cannot afford. This is true whether our leaders want to admit it or not. And what does it accomplish? It is inflammatory. It takes us steps closer to another costly conflict- not better negotiations as some would have us believe. Even if NK is eliminated as a threat wont that just add to the perception of US aggression? Yes. We will always have enemies. Right now we have friendly enemies to think about in addition to open enemies. So a step back from the world theater would be in the US best interest IMO.

 

The US needs to be much more conservative in foreign affairs and much less visible with regards to our military. Our enemies have coaxed us right where they wanted. On their soil giving them ready targets. Covert op teams could accomplish a great deal without the needless waste of money and manpower. The trick is to outsmart your enemies- not fight them on their own terms.

 

Covert ops in the NK?..you have been playing too much Ghost Recon. Just how would you suggest they make their insertion or their extraction providing they survived? Aside from the fact we have little to no operatives in the NK that could provide on the ground targeting intel..usually a prerequisite for planning these shindigs. For an impoverished country, they have a respectable air defense grid. Choppers below the radar? The NK keeps track of our ships and are familiar with their type and function as are the Chinese....so just how do we get close enough without tipping our hand? Keep in mind the limited range of rotor aircraft would require getting very close to the coast. If you think they could mange a inflatable insertion then hump the ordinance through a heavily monitored countryside to the target/targets without incident, think again.

Sorry, Covert Ops is suicidal wishful thinking unless it is mated with an overwhelming air campaign as cover...which brings us back to the use of conventional forces, that is if we want the job done at the outset.

[Fkemman11]

 

 

I'm old enough to remember Civil Defense Drills as a child. At the time we at least knew the Russians were rational and wanted to avoid self annihilation, something that cannot be said of Kim. Leaving Hawaii at the future mercy of his 'rational ' intentions doesn't seem like a viable plan

 

I never said to stop defending US territory. But having US forces spread throughout the globe is simply not a viable policy for us anymore. Does anyone have an idea how much money it costs to simply deploy a carrier group? The costs of deploying forces everywhere is something that even the US cannot afford. This is true whether our leaders want to admit it or not. And what does it accomplish? It is inflammatory. It takes us steps closer to another costly conflict- not better negotiations as some would have us believe. Even if NK is eliminated as a threat wont that just add to the perception of US aggression? Yes. We will always have enemies. Right now we have friendly enemies to think about in addition to open enemies. So a step back from the world theater would be in the US best interest IMO.

 

The US needs to be much more conservative in foreign affairs and much less visible with regards to our military. Our enemies have coaxed us right where they wanted. On their soil giving them ready targets. Covert op teams could accomplish a great deal without the needless waste of money and manpower. The trick is to outsmart your enemies- not fight them on their own terms.

 

Covert ops in the NK?..you have been playing too much Ghost Recon. Just how would you suggest they make their insertion or their extraction providing they survived? Aside from the fact we have little to no operatives in the NK that could provide on the ground targeting intel..usually a prerequisite for planning these shindigs. For an impoverished country, they have a respectable air defense grid. Choppers below the radar? The NK keeps track of our ships and are familiar with their type and function as are the Chinese....so just how do we get close enough without tipping our hand? Keep in mind the limited range of rotor aircraft would require getting very close to the coast. If you think they could mange a inflatable insertion then hump the ordinance through a heavily monitored countryside to the target/targets without incident, think again.

Sorry, Covert Ops is suicidal wishful thinking unless it is mated with an overwhelming air campaign as cover...which brings us back to the use of conventional forces, that is if we want the job done at the outset.

 

 

The South Koreans would have to have many sleeper agents in the North. I'm willing to bet that the south and the north have been running ops on each other since the cease-fire in the 50s. I said outsmart your enemy, run ops through the SK agencies so as not to directly implicate any US involvement. SK agents with the latest intel and equipment could wreak havoc behind NK lines. Hell maybe they could stage incidents on the Chinese side prompting them to invade. Many options available without risking US forces in a protracted engagement. The point is to explore all other possibilities before committing to a costly war. We have time to plan.

[Aurielius]

<snip>

The South Koreans would have to have many sleeper agents in the North. I'm willing to bet that the south and the north have been running ops on each other since the cease-fire in the 50s. I said outsmart your enemy, run ops through the SK agencies so as not to directly implicate any US involvement. SK agents with the latest intel and equipment could wreak havoc behind NK lines. Hell maybe they could stage incidents on the Chinese side prompting them to invade. Many options available without risking US forces in a protracted engagement. The point is to explore all other possibilities before committing to a costly war. We have time to plan.

South Korean sleeper agents that have tactical, operational and targeting information on the NK's underground nuclear facilities and are not double agents? Keeping in mind that most of our intel in the last decade worth anything came from NK defectors... because we do not have those assets. No offense, but that is a wildly unrealistic premise to bet your life on (read Hawaii) given the facts on the ground.