NO WIN-WIN WHEN IT’S NORTH KOREA

DECAPITATING THE PYONGYANG REGIME MAY BE THE BEST OF BAD OPTIONS

Some situations do not lend themselves to breezy optimism about “win- win solutions.” For instance North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. But let’s not get hysterical.

OK, maybe a bit. Weapons of mass destruction in the hands of hereditary maniacs backed by an irresponsible great power! Aaaaaaaah!!!

There. Now let’s take a deep breath and assess the situation with the steely calm that comes from grim determination rather than fatuous calm that comes from cluelessness. In Monday’s Post Lawrence Solomon made the case that there are no good outcomes here and he made it well. But let us remember that getting rid of Kim Jong Un’s nukes and possibly his regime as well is a huge gain against which to weigh potential costs.

And then let’s peek at the other guys’ cards and realize our hand isn’t that bad after all.

Donald Trump, Solomon rightly noted, cannot treat North Korea in isolation. It is a close ally of the People’s Republic of China, which tells you something about that regime’s lack of scruples and lack of friends. But “my buddy Kim Jong Un” isn’t exactly an ace in the hole.

Nor are Beijing’s other cards building to a straight flush. For instance, Solomon says Chinese leaders worry that Trump is “a loose cannon.” Good. Let them. Barack Obama was predictably passive while Pyongyang staggered toward the capacity to nuke America’s allies, its Asian bases and possibly its west coast. Whereas Donald Trump may bring a kind of Nixonian unpredictability, a troubling un- certainty not only over what he might do, but when he might do it.

As for North Korea’s bizarre government, it’s quite a few cards short of a pack, including nuclear weapons as unreliable as its leaders’ judgment. The possibility of it staging a dud test or even a failed strike that legitimizes an American attack further diminishes Beijing’s control of the agenda. Would you trade our problems for theirs?

Solomon worries that a surgical strike at North Korea’s nuclear launchers and warhead stockpile would unleash a massive invasion of South Korea accompanied by a chemical barrage. Then a U. S. and South Korean c ounterattack c ould provoke an exchange of nuclear weapons if Pyongyang had any l eft. Either way China would have to enter the fray to prevent reunification of the peninsula because “China wants at all costs to prevent U. S. troops on its southern border.”

Well, no. China may not want U. S. troops on its border, southern or otherwise. But “at all costs”? Including open warfare with a United States, whose nuclear arsenal vastly exceeds its own and whose navy and air force remain far stronger? To send millions of Chinese troops into packed killing zones in North Korea against an already- committed U. S. military in a replay of the lopsided slaughter last time they fought there would expose the Politburo to a humiliating defeat lethal to that shaky regime’s prestige.

As for the prospect of a flood of North Korean refugees into China, assuming they went that way, the more Beijing fears that outcome the more cause they have not to escalate on behalf of their squalidly maniacal scarecrow of an ally.

I’m entirely with Solomon that the Chinese have limited leverage over North Korea. Kim’s regime might seem too weak to be unreasonable. In fact it is so weak it could not afford to seem reasonable even if it knew how, lest demands escalate to the point of disarming and overthrowing it. ( Solomon rightly cites Gadhafi’s fate here.) And sanctions won’t work because Kim’s clique will cheerfully eat smuggled caviar while its people starve. But that’s China’s problem, not ours.

So is the danger of a power struggle erupting if Kim is ousted, by American action or Chinese subversion. Nobody knows what the internal dynamics of Pyongyang politics are, if it even has any and isn’t just an amorphous heap of demoralized terrified courtiers trying not to get fed to dogs. But it’s almost impossible to imagine any new regime worse than the present one, or less concerned about reasonable relations with its Chinese neighbour.

In any case, it’s one more worry for China, not us.

Solomon concludes that Chinese president “Xi has no good options and neither does Trump … ‘All options are on the table,’ the U. S. likes to say. But all options are bad.” I don’t agree. Decapitating t he North Korean regime next time it does something insanely belligerent is a fine choice.

Do I sound hysterical? Obviously it’s possible to botch such an enterprise, by striking at the wrong targets or in the wrong way. But getting rid of a maniac with nuclear weapons is a big gain to weigh against various costs. And what could anyone else do, given their own unattractive options, except smile ingratiatingly and try really hard not to annoy Uncle Sam for years afterward?

AS FOR NORTH KOREA’S BIZARRE GOVERNMENT, IT’S QUITE A FEW CARDS SHORT OF A PACK.