Volatile President Taunts a Dictator
WASHINGTON — When President Donald J. Trump gave a fiery speech in Huntsville, Alabama, on September 22, he drew a rapturous roar by ridiculing Kim Jongun, the North Korean leader, as “Little Rocket Man.”
Among diplomats and national security specialists, the reaction was decidedly different. After Mr. Trump repeated his taunt in a tweet the following evening and threatened that Mr. Kim and his foreign minister “won’t be around much longer” if they continue their invective against the United States, reactions ranged from nervous disbelief to sheer terror.
Mr. Trump’s willingness to casually threaten to annihilate a nuclear-armed foe was a reminder of the steep risks inherent in his brute-force approach to diplomacy. His strengths as a politician — the ability to appeal in a visceral way to the impulses of ordinary citizens — are a difficult fit for the meticulous calculations that his own advisers concede are crucial in dealing with Pyongyang.
The ambiguity could be strategic, part of an effort to intimidate Mr. Kim and keep him guessing. Or it could reflect a rash impulse to stoke his supporters’ enthusiasm.
His new chief of staff and his national security team have refrained from trying to rein him in; this is a president who bridles at efforts to control him. It is unclear whether they would prevent the president from taking drastic action.
Veterans of diplomacy and national security and specialists on North Korea fear that Mr. Trump’s threats and insults of the sensitive Mr. Kim could cause the United States to careen into a nuclear confrontation driven by bravado.
“It does matter, because you don’t want to get to a situation where North Korea fundamentally miscalculates that an attack is coming,” said Sue Mi Terry, a former intelligence and National Security Council specialist. “It could lead us to stumble into a war that nobody wants.”
And while his bombast may be a thrill to Mr. Trump’s supporters, polls show the broader American public does not trust the president to deal with North Korea, and is opposed to the pre- emptive military strike he has threatened.
The three current and retired generals advising Mr. Trump — Jim Mattis, the defense secretary; Lieutenant General H. R. McMaster, his national security adviser; and John F. Kelly, his chief of staff, have all chosen their words more carefully, emphasizing the role of diplomacy.
“All three of the generals fully realize the carnage that would result from a war on the Korean Peninsula,” said James G. Stavridis, the former NATO commander and a current dean at Tufts University in suburban Boston.
“Knowing each of them personally, I am certain they are counseling operational caution, measured public commentary and building a coalition approach to dealing with Kim Jong-un,” Mr. Stavridis said. “But controlling President Trump seems incredibly difficult.
Clinging to hopes that Trump’s advisers will control him.
Let’s hope they are not engaged in mission impossible, because the stakes are so high.”
Christopher R. Hill, a former ambassador to South Korea, argued that the comments could undercut Mr. Trump’s ability to find a peaceful solution to the dispute, playing into Mr. Kim’s characterization of the United States as an evil nation .
“The comments give the world the sense that he is increasingly unhinged and unreliable,” said Mr. Hill, a dean at the University of Denver.
Mr. Hill, who as envoy to South Korea under George W. Bush was the last American to hold formal talks with Pyongyang, said he routinely advised Mr. Bush to “avoid the personal invectives,” because “they never help.”
“My sense from four years of those talks is that getting personal is not helpful,” Mr. Hill said. “Who could be telling Trump otherwise?”