Solving the problem of North Korea
The more things change, the more they stay the same, at least when it comes to America’s handling of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.
For all of President Trump’s campaign bluster about how he was going to neutralize the threat and bring peace to the peninsula, his approach has been identical to that of President Obama: Talk, talk, issue a few meaningless threats, and talk some more. It is a strategy that will prove effective only if it bores Kim to death.
It’s growing old, but more ominously, it is emboldening Kim to continue rattling his nuclear sabre with accelerated ballistic missile development. If decisive action is not taken quickly, we run the risk of another “Iran” – where America talked incessantly, replete with idle threats warning the Iranians not to construct facilities that could manufacture nuclear weapons. And where did all the talk get us? Right behind the eight-ball, because they built those facilities anyway. The cat is now forever out of the bag, as Iran has multiple nuclear installations in areas virtually impossible to attack, all but ensuing that it will soon become nuclear armed, if it isn’t already.
North Korea has several nuclear weapons, and while they haven’t yet developed the capability to deliver them over long distances, they’re getting closer each day. Currently, they could likely hit South Korea and Japan, given that nukes don’t need to be particularly accurate. At some point, however, they’ll have the ability to deliver a warhead to Hawaii and possibly our West Coast.
And of course, irrelevant to missile delivery, they could simply give a nuke to a terror group like al-Qaida.
Given that it’s a no-brainer to take pre-emptive action, why hasn’t this administration done so, or the administrations before it? Likely, it’s the impotence of leaders who are unable to make the hard but necessary decisions.
To lend a helping hand, here’s a look at the Korea problem, and some common-sense solutions:
1) First, let’s address the tragic death of American citizen and University of Virginia student Otto Warmbier at the hands of the North Koreans. Otto chose to vacation in North Korea, and while there, was (rightly) convicted of stealing a political poster from a strictly off-limits floor at his hotel. Such theft would be considered a slap-on-the-wrist misdemeanor here, but there, defacement or theft of government property amounts to a serious crime against not just the state, but Kim himself. Otto suffered severe brain damage (likely from torture) after being sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.
Several things: A) horrifying as that situation is, American policy cannot – must not – be dictated by emotion related to an individual case, especially given that Otto committed several crimes; B) of all places, going to the most closed, most repressive regime on Earth, where every American is presumed a spy, was not a prudent decision; and C) why are Americans permitted there at all? For decades, U.S. citizens were barred from Cuba, a country far less brutal than North Korea. Allowing Americans entry to North Korea generates massive diplomatic headaches and negatively impacts America’s broader interests.
2) It is imperative to understand Kim’s nature and motivations.
North Korea effectively declared war against the United States last year after President Obama sanctioned Kim personally for human rights abuses.
“The United States has crossed the red line in our showdown ... we regard this crime as a declaration of war,” a government spokesman stated. Since then, Kim’s threats, from sinking our aircraft carriers to launching missiles at the U.S., continue to escalate.
Why are we so up in arms, literally, about this situation? And why should we be the least bit worried about some young punk’s bellicose rhetoric to attack the U.S., since more often than not, his missiles travel 6 feet before blowing up?
Because North Korea’s push for a serious nuclear arsenal is accelerating. And that threatens everyone.
Kim is different from most dictators, taking “wild card” to a new level. Sure, he is smart. Strong, ruthless, and paranoid, too. But those traits in a strongman, while dangerous, are not uncommon. Kim is in a league of his own.
He is a leader who, if capable, will likely follow through on his threats. Naturally, he would try to save himself and retain power should he start a war, but if he dies “gloriously” in defense of North Korea, and in doing so honors the “Kim Dynasty” by making his deceased father and grandfather proud (both of whom were North Korean leaders during the Cold War), so be it.
That is an unacceptable risk.
3) Before any action is taken, America must get its troops out of South Korea, once and for all. The 30,000 soldiers stationed there are merely symbolic, standing no chance of staving off a North Korean invasion, given that they’d be facing the world’s fourth-largest army, over 1.2 million strong. Being political pawns – and sitting ducks – is not the proper role for the United States Army.
The Republic of South Korea is a strong, prosperous country with world-class industrial facilities and an educated work force. It is eminently capable of defending itself conventionally.
Yes, we fought a bitter war there, which ended in a stalemate in 1953. And yes, it made strategic sense to maintain a large military presence in South Korea during the raging Cold War.
But apparently no one in Congress, the White House or Defense Department has yet realized the Cold War ended. Instead, they continue to act in archaic ways, married to outdated (and onesided) treaties. And it doesn’t take a genius to figure out who gets the short end of the stick. It’s Uncle Sam, who, despite an inability to pay his own bills – hence our $20 trillion debt – continues to fund military operations for other countries, with little return for American citizens.
The American military is operating in at least 150 countries, with roughly 175,000 personnel stationed overseas. There are 70,000 troops in Europe, and, at last count, 29,000 in Korea. Conveniently, the Defense Department won’t specify exactly how many are actually there, so it is safe to assume the number is considerably greater.
It’s bad enough the majority of troops serve no military purpose, but they are spending their paychecks – American taxpayer money – in foreign countries. If even half of those troops were stateside, instead of playing policeman to the world, the economic impact would be immense. More important, especially in the case of Korea, it would be one fewer place where American blood and treasure will be needlessly expended when the inevitable hostilities begin.
4) There is something fundamentally wrong about America securing the borders of foreign countries while its own borders remain wide open. And it’s not just illegal aliens, human traffickers and drug smugglers crossing unimpeded, but terrorists possibly carrying nuclear, biological and chemical weapons – a threat that will exponentially increase should Kim be able to smuggle a nuke into Mexico.
That’s inexcusable. “Charity” starts at home.