The Front Burner: Is war or peace next for Korea?

Bring Kim to his senses, then knees — or to his knees first?

Military action in Korea should and must always be the last resort.

It’s time for everyone to take a deep breath, count to 10, and then relax. We are not on the brink of disaster. This is not, by any stretch of the imagination, another Cuban missile crisis — recall the U.S. and USSR were capable of destroying the Earth multiple times over; few believe North Korea can today put a nuclear warhead on a missile and deliver it against the United States. If it tries to do so, then it risks being rapidly removed from the face of the Earth, a fact Pyongyang’s leaders clearly understand. The whole point behind their acquiring nuclear weapons is to enhance their survival, not to bring about certain destruction.

The main difference between today and prior periods of tension (note I do not say “crisis”) is the hyperbole is flying in both directions. For years now, we have learned to not take Pyongyang seriously when it lets loose with its colorful rhetorical barrages. Why we see some advantage in emulating this is beyond me. I do take some solace in the view that barking dogs don’t bite, but a little less growling would not be a bad thing.

Breathless headlines to the contrary, the probability of conflict breaking out remains low. Although the headlines cry out that “Trump escalates rhetoric” or “doubles down” on his threats to Pyongyang, in truth he went from threatening “fire and fury” if the North

said bad things (which it immediately did, regarding Guam) to if it did bad things against the U.S. or allies:

“Military solutions are now fully in place, locked and loaded,” Trump warned, “should

North Korea act unwisely.” (Emphasis added.) The operative word is act. This brings President Trump squarely in line, not only with recent comments made by Defense Secretary James Mattis (among others), but also with longstanding U.S. policy. The U.S. has no intention of initiating hostilities but will respond with great force (“the likes of which this world has never seen before”) if we or our allies are attacked.

The official U.S. position is that “all options are on the table” in dealing with the North Korea nuclear and missile challenge. This is as it should be, but timing is everything. While the day may come when a preemptive attack or a preventive war is the only thing standing between us and an attack on the U.S. homeland, we are clearly not there yet. Military action should and must always be the last resort; we will be putting the lives of millions of South Koreans (not to mention tens of thousands of Americans based, living in or visiting Seoul on any given day) at severe risk, even if victory is eventually assured.

While there are dozens of variations on the theme, there are really only four categories of options in dealing with Pyongyang. The two extremes — regime acceptance (agreeing to the North’s outlandish demands) and regime removal (via preventive or preemptive military action) — need to be set aside for now. This leaves regime transformation — “bringing Kim Jong Un to his senses, not to his knees,” as one American admiral put it — or regime destabilization or regime change through nonmilitary means; i.e., bringing him to his knees to bring him to his senses.

Washington, through at least four previous administrations, has been trying to transform the regime; that is the primary stated purpose of the various U.N. Security Council Resolutions as well. But neither the incentives nor the consequences have thus far been sufficient to persuade Pyongyang to give up its nuclear ambitions. The recent Security Council resolution 2371 represents the first real attempt to make the consequences severe enough to bring the North back to the negotiating table, where it has been suggested that economic incentives will be provided if denuclearization proceeds. But it remains to be seen if 2371, unlike previous iterations, will be vigorously enforced by all (this means you, China).

If not, regime destabilization or regime change via nonmilitary means may become the least worst option short of acquiescence or war.