|
Showing posts with label Kim Jong Un. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kim Jong Un. Show all posts
Sunday, November 03, 2019
Trump's Syrian Oil Shakedown, Plus News of Russia, Spies, ISIS, and More
Saturday, June 16, 2018
Dictator Envy - A brief note on Trump's zero-sum narcissism, and some recent writing
I spoke about this briefly with Katy Tur on MSNBC.
Some of my recent writing on Trump and other would-be dictators:
The Madness of King Trump on Full Display at the G7
The Group of Seven is a club that is supposed to represent shared values. But, um, Trump doesn’t share any of them. No wonder he wanted his buddy Putin back in.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-madness-of-king-trump-on-full-display-at-the-g7
Facing Down the Death Squads of Nicaragua
In Nicaragua’s second great uprising, an aging, corrupt leader of the first revolt has become the savage enemy of the new one.
(with Bianca Jagger reporting from Managua)
https://www.thedailybeast.com/facing-down-the-death-squads-of-nicaragua-33
Former intelligence chief’s argument that Putin did indeed sway the 2016 vote
My review of former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper's memoir, in The Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/former-intelligence-chiefs-argument-that-putin-did-indeed-sway-the-2016-vote/2018/05/22/0d26c13a-53ac-11e8-a551-5b648abe29ef_story.html
Finally, this is the White House transcript of Trump musing with the press on the lawn a couple of days ago:
REMARKS
Remarks by President Trump in Press Gaggle
North Lawn
9:03 A.M. EDT
Q (Inaudible.)
THE PRESIDENT: No, I think that James Comey was (inaudible). I think what he did was a disgrace. I think he goes down as the worst FBI Director in history, by far. There’s nobody close. And I think I did the country a tremendous favor by firing him.
Q (Inaudible.)
THE PRESIDENT: No, I think — actually, if you take a look, when he totally exonerated her — because I call it “Comey Three.” You had one, two, and then you had Comey three. He totally exonerated her. And if anything he’s saying is correct, what she did is they tried to pretend it didn’t happen. I would have gone out there and I would have had the greatest news conference in history. They tried to pretend the exoneration didn’t happen.
Now, the exoneration was incorrect because there’s no way they could have checked that number of emails in just a few days. But if you remember, just before the election, he went out and he exonerated her and they didn’t even talk about it. That was the greatest political mistake.
With all of that being said, I won Wisconsin, I won Michigan, I won states that a Republican hasn’t won in many, many decades, years. She didn’t do a good job and you never gave me credit for doing a great job. But the fact is, I did a great job.
Q Mr. President, there was a Fox news report this week that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is pushing back and threatening to investigate the congressional investigators who just want documents. Do you think that that is appropriate?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I hope that’s not so. And I know they’re getting documents. And I purposely — look, if you see what I’ve done with North Korea and with the State Department, Mike Pompeo, it’s running so well. It’s — I have this running so well. I have purposefully, because of this ridiculous witch hunt, I have said I’m going to stay away from the Justice Department until it’s completed. So I wanted to stay away. Now, that doesn’t mean I have to, because I don’t have to. I can get involved. But I don’t want you people to say that I’m interfering, that I’m doing anything.
I think that the report yesterday, maybe more importantly than anything, it totally exonerates me. There was no collusion. There was no obstruction. And if you read the report, you’ll see that.
What you’ll really —
Q On North Korea —
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me. Wait, wait, wait. What you’ll really see is you’ll see bias against me and millions and tens of millions of my followers. That is really a disgrace.
And yet, if you go — and yet, if you look at the FBI, and you went in and you called the FBI — the real FBI — those guys love me, and I love them.
Q Are you going to suspend Mueller? Are you thinking of suspending Mueller?
THE PRESIDENT: No, but I think that whole investigation now is — look, the problem with the Mueller investigation is everybody has got massive conflicts. You have Weissmann who was at Hillary Clinton’s funeral, meaning, her party that turned into a funeral. And they were screaming and crying and they were going crazy. How can you have people like this? So you have — I call them the “13 Angry Democrats.” You have a tremendous animosity.
Now, here’s the good news: I did nothing wrong. There was no collusion. There was no obstruction. The IG report yesterday went a long way to show that. And I think that the Mueller investigation has been totally discredited.
Q Mr. President, you have spoken so passionately about the circumstances that led to Otto Warmbier’s death.
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah.
Q In the same breath, you’re defending now Kim Jong Un’s human rights records. How can you do that?
THE PRESIDENT: You know why? Because I don’t want to see a nuclear weapon destroy you or your family. I don’t want to see —
Q By the way, you declared the nuclear threat from North Korea is over.
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me. Because I don’t want to see a nuclear weapon destroy you and your family. I want to have a good relationship with North Korea. I want to have a good relationship with many other countries. And what I’ve done, if you remember, if you’re fair, which most of you aren’t — but if you’re fair, when I came in, people thought we were probably going to war with North Korea. If we did —
Q You say the threat is over. Is it over?
THE PRESIDENT: Quiet. Quiet. Quiet. If we did, millions of people would have been killed. I don’t mean like — you know, people are saying 100,000. Seoul has 28 million people 30 miles off the border. You would have had 30, 40, 50 million people killed. Who knows what would have happened?
I came in; that was what I inherited. I should have never inherited. That should have been solved long before I got there. I did a great job this week. The fake news said, “Oh, you met.” But the only thing they saw that I gave up — one broadcast said, “He gave up so much.” You know what I gave up? I met. I met. We had great chemistry. He gave us a lot. You haven’t had a missile test in seven months. You haven’t had a firing. You haven’t had a nuclear test in eight and a half months. You haven’t had missiles flying over Japan. He gave us the remains of our great heroes. I have had so many people begging me — parents, and fathers, mothers, daughters, sons — wherever I went, “Could you please get the remains of my boy back?” They’re giving them back. Nobody thought that was possible.
Q Sir —
THE PRESIDENT: Wait, wait. They’re doing so much. And now we’re well on our way to denuclearization. And the agreement says there will be total denuclearization. Nobody wants to report that.
So the only thing I did was I met. I got along with him great. He is great. We have a great chemistry together. That’s a good thing, not a bad thing.
Q How can Kim love his people if he’s killing them?
THE PRESIDENT: I can’t speak to that. I can only speak to the fact that we signed an incredible agreement. It’s great. And it’s going to be great for them, too. Because now North Korea can develop and North Korea can become a great country economically. It can become whatever they want. But there won’t be nuclear weapons and they won’t be aimed at you and your families.
Q Mr. President, why did you offer to halt the military exercises with South Korea?
THE PRESIDENT: That was my offer. Just so you understand. Military —
Q (Inaudible.)
THE PRESIDENT: Okay, you want to hear?
Q Yeah.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay? Military — I call them “war games.” I hated them from the day I came in. I said, why aren’t we being reimbursed?
Q That’s North Korea’s term. “War games.”
THE PRESIDENT: That’s my term.
Q They use it too.
THE PRESIDENT: They might use it. We pay for it. We pay millions and millions of dollars for planes, and all of this. It’s my term. I said, I’d like to halt it because it’s bad to be negotiating and doing it. It costs us a lot of money. I saved lot of money. That’s a good thing for us.
Okay, go ahead.
Q What did you mean just now when you said you wished Americans would sit up at attention when you spoke —
THE PRESIDENT: I’m kidding. You don’t understand sarcasm. Who are you with?
Wait, wait, who are you with? Who are you with?
Q CNN.
THE PRESIDENT: You’re with CNN! Hey, you are the worst.
Q Mr. President —
Q (Inaudible.)
THE PRESIDENT: Wait, wait, we have time.
Q So there’s some high-profile court cases going on. You’ve got a former campaign manager, your former lawyer. They’re all dealing with legal troubles. Are you paying close attention —
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I feel badly about a lot of them, because I think a lot of it is very unfair. I mean, I look at some of them where they go back 12 years. Like Manafort has nothing to do with our campaign. But I feel so — I tell you, I feel a little badly about it. They went back 12 years to get things that he did 12 years ago?
You know, Paul Manafort worked for me for a very short period of time. He worked for Ronald Reagan. He worked for Bob Dole. He worked for John McCain, or his firm did. He worked for many other Republicans. He worked for me, what, for 49 days or something? A very short period of time.
I feel badly for some people, because they’ve gone back 12 years to find things about somebody, and I don’t think it’s right. I don’t think it’s right that they burst into a lawyer’s office on a weekend and early in the morning. I never heard of that before. I mean, could you imagine if they burst into Barack Obama’s lawyer’s office? It would not be acceptable. It would not be acceptable. I mean, that’s really a terrible thing.
Now, I feel badly for a lot of those people. I feel badly for General Flynn. He’s lost his house. He’s lost his life. And some people say he lied, and some people say he didn’t lie. I mean, really, it turned out maybe he didn’t lie. So how can you do that? How can you do that — because who has lied more than Comey? I mean, Comey lied a tremendous amount.
Q You say that you feel badly. Is there any consideration at any point of a pardon for any of the people that you —
THE PRESIDENT: I don’t want to talk about that. No, I don’t want to talk about that. They’ll (inaudible). But look, I do want to see people treated fairly. That’s what it’s all about.
I mentioned the other day — you saw what I did with the woman — she’s in jail for 23 years on charges where other people are out after three months. I thought it was a very unfair. It was brought to — and she had another 20 years left, okay? She was 63 years old.
Q What about those who don’t have a celebrity talking for them?
THE PRESIDENT: What?
Q What about all those folks who don’t have Kim Kardashian speaking on their behalf?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’m looking at them too, if you don’t mind. I’m looking at them too.
Q Do you worry that Michael Cohen might flip?
THE PRESIDENT: One second.
Q Are you worried that Michael Cohen might flip?
THE PRESIDENT: Look, I did nothing wrong. You have to understand, this stuff would have come out a long time ago. I did nothing wrong. I don’t do anything wrong.
Q Is Michael Cohen still your friend?
THE PRESIDENT: It’s really nice.
Q Is he still your friend?
THE PRESIDENT: I always liked Michael Cohen. I haven’t spoken to Michael in a long time.
Q Is he still your lawyer?
THE PRESIDENT: No, he’s not my lawyer anymore. But I always liked Michael, and he’s a good person. And I think he’s been —
Q Are you worried he will cooperate?
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, do you mind if I talk?
Q I just want to know if you’re worried —
THE PRESIDENT: You’re asking me a question; I’m trying to ask it.
Q I just want to know if you’re worried if he’s going to cooperate with federal investigators.
THE PRESIDENT: No, I’m not worried because I did nothing wrong.
Q Got it. Got it.
THE PRESIDENT: Nothing wrong.
Q Mr. President, did you tape that statement about Don Jr.? Did you dictate the statement about Donald Trump, Jr.?
THE PRESIDENT: Let’s not talk about it. You know what that is?
Q But can you tell us?
THE PRESIDENT: It’s irrelevant. It’s a statement to the New York Times — the phony, failing New York Times.
Q Well, just to clear it up. To clear it up.
THE PRESIDENT: Just wait a minute. Wait a minute. That’s not a statement to a high tribunal of judges.
Q Understood.
THE PRESIDENT: That’s a statement to the phony New York Times.
In fact, frankly, he shouldn’t even speak to the New York Times because they only write phony stories anyway, although yesterday they wrote a nice story about what a (inaudible).
Q Thank you, sir. On the IG report, you’ve said twice now that it exonerated you and it proved there’s no collusion. The IG report —
THE PRESIDENT: Look, if you read the IG report, I’ve been totally exonerated. As far as I’m concerned —
Q It had nothing to do with collusion. It had nothing to do with that.
THE PRESIDENT: Take a little at it. Take — no, take a look at the investigation. Take a look at how it started. Take a look at the horrible statements that Peter Strzok, the chief investigator, said. And take a look at what he did with Hillary Clinton. Take a look at —
Q (Inaudible), sir, that has nothing to do with collusion. Why are you lying about it, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: I’ll tell you what — you’re asking me about Peter Strzok being fired. I am amazed that Peter Strzok is still at the FBI, and so is everybody else that read that report. And I’m not even talking about the report; I’m talking about long before the report. Peter Strzok should have been fired a long time ago, and others should have been fired.
Q Mr. President, are you going to fire Scott Pruitt?
THE PRESIDENT: I’m looking at Scott, and Scott has done a fantastic job at EPA, but — you know, we’ll — we’ll make —
Q You don’t see anything problems with his ethical —
THE PRESIDENT: I’m not happy about certain things, I’ll be honest.
Q Are you going to fire him?
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me. Excuse me. I’m not happy about certain things. But he’s done a fantastic job running the EPA, which is very overriding. But I am not happy about it.
Q Do you think he’s used his position for private gain?
THE PRESIDENT: I hope not.
Q Mr. President, do you agree with children being taken away from (inaudible)?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I hate it. I hate the children being taken away. The Democrats have to change their law. That’s their law. They will force —
Q Sir, that’s your own policy. That’s your own policy. Why do you keep lying about it, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: Quiet. Quiet. That’s the Democrats’ law. We can change it tonight. We can change it right now. I will leave here —
Q You’re the President. You can change it right now.
THE PRESIDENT: I will leave here — no, no. You need their votes. You need their votes. The Democrats, all they have to do —
Q Mr. President, you control both chambers of Congress. The Republicans do.
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me. By one vote? We don’t need it. You need 60 votes.
Q (Inaudible.)
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me. We have the one vote — excuse me. We need a one-vote — we have a one-vote edge. We need 60. So we need 10 votes. We can’t get them from the Democrats.
Q What about executive action?
THE PRESIDENT: Now, wait. Wait. You can’t do it through an executive order.
Q On North Korea, sir. On North Korea.
Q Mr. President, why —
THE PRESIDENT: Can we do one question at a time? Wait. One question at a time.
Q (Inaudible.)
THE PRESIDENT: The children can be taken care of quickly, beautifully, and immediately. The Democrats forced that law upon our nation. I hate it. I hate to see separation of parents and children. The Democrats can come to us as they actually are — in all fairness, we are talking to them — and they can change the whole border security.
We need a wall. We need border security. We got to get rid of catch-and-release. You catch a criminal, you take his name, you release him, and he never shows up again. He goes into our society, and then we end up getting him in a different way, oftentimes after he’s killed somebody. We’ve got to change our laws. The Democrats have control because we don’t have the votes. The Republicans need — we need more Republicans, frankly. And that’s why I think we’re going to do so well in the midterms. That and because —
Q Do you support the immigration compromise, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: Wait. That and because we have the strongest economy in the history of our nation. We have the best jobs numbers in the last 44 years. Top of Drudge: “The best job numbers in 44 years.”
Q But then, Mr. President — but then why did Jeff Sessions announce a zero-tolerance policy at the border on May 7th? Is that not a Republican —
THE PRESIDENT: Because he’s following the law.
Q Is that not a Republican policy?
THE PRESIDENT: No.
Q Is that not a Republican policy?
THE PRESIDENT: No. He’s following laws. He following a law that —
Q But that was a direct order to —
THE PRESIDENT: Can I answer your question, please?
Q Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay? You’re just asking me the same question over and over. He’s following laws, very simply, that were given to us and forced upon us by the Democrats.
Q That’s not true, sir. That’s not true.
Q But there’s no law that says families have to separated at the border. There’s another way to go about it, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Democrats gave us the laws. Now, I want the laws to be beautiful, humane, but strong. I don’t want bad people coming in. I don’t want drugs coming in. And we can solve that problem in one meeting. Tell the Democrats, your friends, to call me.
Q Mr. President, at the end of the “Fox & Friends” interview, you said that you were going to spend Father’s Day weekend doing work, and you said that you were going to have a call with North Korea. Who are you going to talk to in North Korea?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’m going to speak to people in North Korea, and I’m going to speak to my people who are over in North Korea. A lot of things are happening.
And I will tell you this: We now have a very good relationship with North Korea. When I came into this job, it looked like war — not because of me, but because — if you remember the sit-down with Barack Obama, I think you will admit this, he said the biggest problem that the United States has, and by far the most dangerous problem — and he said to me — that we’ve ever had, because of nuclear, is North Korea.
Now, that was shortly before I entered office. I have solved that problem. Now, we’re getting it memorialized and all, but that problem is largely solved, and part of the reason is we signed, number one, a very good document. But you know what? More importantly than the document — more importantly than the document, I have a good relationship with Kim Jong Un. That’s a very important thing.
I can now call him. I can now say, “Well, we have a problem.” I told him — I gave him a very direct number. He can now call me if he has any difficulty. I can call him. We have communication. It’s a very good thing.
People are shocked that this is the kind of — you know, they thought Trump was going to get in and he was going to start throwing bombs all over the place. It’s actually the opposite.
But we’re building a military so strong — $716 billion next year; $700 [billion] this year. We’re building a military so strong, nobody is going to mess with us. But you know what? I never want to have to use it.
Q (Inaudible.)
Q What’s the verification process?
THE PRESIDENT: Quiet.
Q You told Americans that they can sleep well at night, and you declared there’s no more nuclear threat.
Q What’s verification process going to look like?
THE PRESIDENT: We’re going to have a very strong verification process.
Q What’s it’s going to look like?
THE PRESIDENT: Now, if you read the agreement, which most of you didn’t, point after point after point he gave, including getting back our — the remains of our great heroes, okay? Of our great, great heroes. Which made — some people are crying in the streets they’re so happy. Nobody thought we were going to get that. Point after point.
All they said about me is, “You met. He met. It’s terrible you met.” Of course I met. Meeting is a good thing, not a bad thing. By the way, it was good for the United States; it was good for them.
I spoke with China. They are very happy. Actually, they were much happier. Now, they may not be as happy today because of what I’m doing with trade. You probably heard that. I assume it’s been announced by now. But we’re putting tariffs on 50 billion dollars’ worth of technology and other things because we have to, because we’ve been treated very unfairly.
But China has been terrific. President Xi has been terrific. President Moon, everybody — we’re all working together because of me.
Q How long will you give Kim Jong Un to follow through on denuclearization before you —
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we’re working it as fast as possible.
Q Is he coming to the White House soon?
Q — before you put sanctions back on?
THE PRESIDENT: We’re working it as fast as possible.
Q Is he visiting the White House, Mr. Trump?
THE PRESIDENT: We’re working that. We’re working denuclearization as fast as possible.
Q Are you planning to meet with Putin this summer?
THE PRESIDENT: It’s possible that we’ll meet, yeah. And I thought — you know, this all started because somebody — one of you — asked, “Should Putin be in the G7?” I said, no, he should be in the G8.
A few years ago, Putin was in what was called the G8. I think it’s better to have Russia in than to have Russia out, because just like North Korea, just like somebody else, it’s much better if we get along with them than if we don’t.
So it’s possible. Just so you understand —
Q Is Crimea part of Russia? Do you —
THE PRESIDENT: No, no. President Obama lost Crimea, just so you understand. This was long before I got there. Just — I want to make it so the fake news prints it properly. President Obama lost Crimea.
Q So it’s his fault?
THE PRESIDENT: Wait, wait. That’s his fault. Yeah, yeah, it’s his fault. Yeah, it’s his fault.
Q How is it not Putin’s fault, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: The President — just so you understand —
Q How is it not Putin’s fault, sir? How is it not Putin’s fault? He invaded them.
THE PRESIDENT: Because — because Putin didn’t respect President Obama. President Obama lost Crimea because President Putin didn’t respect President Obama, didn’t respect our country, and didn’t respect Ukraine.
But President Obama, not Trump — when it’s my fault, I’ll tell you. But President Obama gave away that. Now, President Obama, by not going across the red line in the sand that he drew — I went across it with the 59 missile hits. But President Obama, when he didn’t go across the red line, what he gave away, nobody even knows.
But just to put it — one more time, President Obama gave away Crimea. That should have never happened.
END
9:21 A.M. EDT
Saturday, April 15, 2017
North Korea and "The Tyranny of Proximity"
A new post on The Daily Beast by Tom Rogan sketches the kind of strategy and tactics the U.S. might use if it takes military action against North Korea. What I am posting here is background information about the gravity of the risks, even putting aside the threat of containerised or component-smuggled nukes detonated in the U.S., or bottles of VX used, well, almost anywhere in retaliation. And then there are the plagues.
For decades, and for the present, the risk evaluations of war with the North Koreans have been focused on the city of Seoul, South Korea's capital, which lies only 25 to 35 miles south of North Korean territory that is bristling with big guns and ballistic missiles. To give an idea of that proximity, I am posting here several Google Earth screen shots. Thirty-five miles is roughly the distance, as the missile flies, from Baltimore to Washington, D.C.; Bridgeport CT to Manhattan; Reading to London; Joliet to Chicago; Silicon Valley to San Francisco.
This L.A. Times article from 14 years ago lays out the basics of the military option and its perils very well. Note that it was published at the mas macho moment of the George W. Bush administration, weeks after the fall of Baghdad, when the American government and many of the American people still believed in the salutary power of "shock and awe"—an attitude we see returning with the Trump administration. And it was written before Pyongyang had any serious nuclear capability. But the scenarios even then ranged from "bad to apocalyptic." I found it reprinted on the website of the UCLA School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, under the heading "Bioterrorism," and this passage is particularly arresting:
The arsenal [in range of Seoul's 12 million people and tens of thousands of U.S. troops] includes 13,000 artillery pieces, along with rockets, multiple-rocket launchers and more than 650 ballistic missiles. Warheads on the missiles can be armed with nerve gas and blistering and choking agents. The North Koreans continue to develop biological weapons such as anthrax, plague, cholera and even smallpox, according to U.S. intelligence.
Some more excerpts:
Source: Los Angeles Times, May 27, 2003
Seoul's Vulnerability Is Key to War Scenarios
A U.S. strike on the North may provoke a catastrophic retaliation against South's capital.
By Barbara Demick, Times Staff Writer
SEOUL -- When the U.S. military tries to explain the difficulty of using force to stop North Korea's development of nuclear weapons, the oddly poetic phrase it turns to is the "tyranny of proximity."
The phrase, which has been in the lexicon of the U.S. forces in South Korea for years, stems from the imposing array of conventional artillery that the North Koreans have dug into the hills just north of the demilitarized zone, a mere 30 miles from this capital city of 12 million. The nightmare scenario is that if the United States opts for a more forceful approach to curb North Korea's nuclear ambitions, the communist regime would retaliate not only against the 38,000 American troops stationed in South Korea, but also against South Korea itself.
North Korea last Tuesday bluntly reminded Seoul of its vulnerability when an envoy threatened the South with "unspeakable disaster" if it sides with Washington in the crisis.
The comment — which ironically was made at the opening of talks about South Korean economic assistance to the impoverished North — underscores the degree to which Seoul is being held hostage.
Although the North Koreans later apologized, it goes a long way toward explaining the predicament of South Korea's new president, Roh Moo Hyun, as he tries to walk a fine line between a menacing neighbor and his country's most important ally.
At their recent summit in Washington, Roh and President Bush did much handshaking and smiling. But behind the outward bonhomie, they were able to agree on little more than the basic view that nuclear weapons are bad and that a diplomatic solution is preferable to war.
The South Koreans have consistently urged the United States to show more patience toward North Korea and have made it clear that they would prefer that Bush officials not speak openly about the use of military strikes against the North.
To some extent, the differences boil down to this: where one sits affects how one thinks.
"Given the geography of the Korean peninsula, there is no alternative to resolving this issue but dialogue," said South Korean Foreign Minister Yoon Young Kwan at a recent meeting of foreign correspondents.
For the moment, the Bush administration is pushing hard on the diplomatic track, and another round of talks with North Korea and others is expected to be announced shortly, according to diplomats. Options short of attack that are also under discussion include a naval blockade and economic sanctions.
But the military option hovers over South Korea, quietly depressing stock markets and bond ratings. Even the slightest, off-the-cuff comment by Bush or Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld can rattle the financial markets.
South Koreans are nervous as well about the Pentagon's determination to move the main U.S. garrison out of Seoul within the year and then start relocating 2nd Infantry troops from the Demilitarized Zone, or DMZ.
The moves give the United States more flexibility to eventually take military action by getting its troops out of the same hostage position as millions of South Koreans. The Bush administration reportedly turned down a request by Roh's delegation to delay the move until the North Korean crisis is resolved.
Seoul's location so close to the potential front line is a result of post-World War II partitioning, when U.S. officials picked the 38th parallel to divide the peninsula in half while barely keeping Seoul out of the communist-controlled sector. In the rapid postwar development of South Korea, nearly half the country's population ended up within a three-minute flight of the DMZ.
Estimates of the damage that could be inflicted by a North Korean attack range from bad to apocalyptic. Lee Yang Ho, defense minister during a similar nuclear crisis in 1994, said one computer simulation conducted during his term projected 1 million dead, including thousands of Americans.
"It is assumed that if the United States were to strike North Korea that the North Koreans would fight back," Lee said. "All industry would be destroyed, gas stations, power plants. This is such a densely populated area that even if North Korean artillery were not very accurate, anyplace you would hit there would be huge numbers of casualties."
U.S. military experts who have contemplated strikes on North Korea agree.
A senior U.S. intelligence officer speaking on condition of anonymity said that any war on the peninsula would be far deadlier than what took place in the desert terrain of Iraq.
North Korea — one of the world's poorest nations, and one with only 22 million people — has the world's fifth-largest armed forces and third-largest army.
Roughly 30% of the country's gross domestic product is devoted to the military, about 10 times the percentage of most countries. Its submarine force and 100,000-strong special operations forces are the world's largest.
Moreover, most of the regime's weaponry is deployed within easy striking distance of Seoul, and the troops have continued to mass closer to the frontier even during the last few years of outwardly cozy relations with South Korea.
If South Koreans have at times seemed almost blase about North Korea's development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, one reason is that the North could inflict serious enough damage even with garden-variety weapons.
The arsenal includes 13,000 artillery pieces, along with rockets, multiple-rocket launchers and more than 650 ballistic missiles. Warheads on the missiles can be armed with nerve gas and blistering and choking agents. The North Koreans continue to develop biological weapons such as anthrax, plague, cholera and even smallpox, according to U.S. intelligence.
"It is not a modern military, but it is a very capable military," another U.S. intelligence officer said. "They have studied our military very carefully, and they have shaped their strengths accordingly."
The officer added that the North Koreans would most likely strike first if they thought the U.S. was massing troops in the South, as it had in the Persian Gulf region just before the 1991 war against Iraq.
"Unlike Saddam Hussein, who gave us six months to bring in half a million troops, [North Korean leader Kim Jong Il] can prevent us from bringing soldiers into the theater," the officer said.
There is little doubt that American and South Korean forces would prevail in a direct clash with North Korea. U.S. military intelligence believes that an advance by the North would be stopped short of Seoul — but at great cost to human life....
According to subsequent accounts, President Clinton was about to order additional U.S. troops to South Korea and an evacuation of American civilians from Seoul. But former President Carter went to Pyongyang and managed to strike a deal.
A commentary read Wednesday on state-run North Korean television credited the communist nation's formidable military for the decision not to go to war.
"The U.S. imperialists did not dare ignite the fuse of war — because they feared our physical strength [and] military power. Had we not had such power at the time, we would have long fallen into the current Iraqi situation," the unnamed commentator declared.
William J. Perry, defense secretary at the time, described at a recent Brookings Institution forum the dilemma in which the administration found itself trying to stop North Korea from developing nuclear weapons.
"There are overwhelmingly strong reasons for not wanting a war with North Korea.... The million-man army they have lined up, the thousands of artillery pieces they have targeted at Seoul, all of those guarantee that even in the absence of nuclear weapons, a war would be a catastrophe," Perry said. "In spite of that, we risked a war in 1994 to stop that nuclear program and I think we would do it again."
* * *
For more on how the Clinton administration almost went to war with North Korea in 1994, why it didn't, and what happened to avert the apocalypse, see these excellent interviews from a Frontline series made during the G.W. Bush administration.
* * *
For more on how the Clinton administration almost went to war with North Korea in 1994, why it didn't, and what happened to avert the apocalypse, see these excellent interviews from a Frontline series made during the G.W. Bush administration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)