By What is it with people no longer in power advocating for bombing North Korea?
Philip Zelikow
In 2006, the United Nations drew a clear line, acting under Chapter VII of its Charter. Today, in 2009, the United States need not stand by and watch North Korea cross that line. Non-military measures were given a fair try. Now the political predicate for the Carter-Perry recommendations has been well laid.
The logical next step, after high-level discussions in the U.S. government and consultation with our allies, is to issue North Korea a warning to stand down (conveyed either directly, indirectly, or through a leak of planning to strike and destroy the missile). Pyongyang would either then stand down silently or they would not. We lose little from the warning if I’m right in estimating that the North Koreans cannot protect the test missile from a U.S. strike once they stand it up on the gantry. Our warning would be that, if you stand up the missile (itself a plain violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1718), the United States will take it down. [Philip Zelikow - Foreign Policy via the Marmot's Hole]
Philip Zelikow worked in the State Department during the Bush Administration where he then was against bombing North Korea as for Defense Secretary to President Clinton, William Perry was advocating for. Now he is advocating for the very same policy that William Perry was for except now Zelikow says we will have more global support for bombing North Korea. I can’t imagine what reasoning Zelikow is using to even think the US would have much global support for bombing North Korea?
Any I thought the idea to bomb North Korea by Perry was ridiculous and Zelikow’s idea to bomb North Korea is just as equally ridiculous and here is why:
- The US had more to gain from the North Koreans firing the missile because we can accurately gauge exactly how far along the North Korean missile program is. Their last missile test proved that their missile program was not as advanced as previously though.
- The test continued the isolation of the Kim regime with additional sanctions put on the country and Kim becoming even more of an international pariah.
- The bombing of North Korea would play right into the Kim regime’s propaganda that perpetuates the myth that the iron tight control of North Korea by the Kim regime is needed in order to keep the country strong to keep the country safe from the Yankee imperialists.
- North Korea would respond to such a bombing in some way such as provoking a DMZ confrontation or naval battle along the NLL. I would not be surprised if North Korea even launched a mass casualty terrorist attack with in South Korea.
The response by North Korea to any US bombing would assuredly kill Koreans, which the pro-North & anti-US groups in South Korea would pounce on to denounce the United States with. If non-dangerous US beef could get tens of thousands of people into the streets imagine what a mass casualty attack from North Korea in retaliation to a US bombing would do?
An even more dangerous consequence would be if the North Korean response inadvertantly turns into a full scale war. Any war on the Korean peninsula would cause casualties that would dwarf the Iraq War. Especially US casualties with the 2nd Infantry Division continuing to remain located near the DMZ.
The bottomline is that bombing North Korea’s missile facilities would play right into Kim Jong-il’s hands and is not in the US’s interest. I believe Presient Obama is not foolish enough to even risk such an attack. That is why I think that much like when William Perry recommended bombing North Korea when Bush was in office, that this latest call to attack the country is driven more by politics then strategy. It is easy to advocate for a bombing campaign when you are not the one held responsible for it.
9:24 pm on February 21st, 2009 1
I hope there is advance warning if the United States ever does anything as miscalculated as bombing the North Koreans, that way I would either have a little time to get my family out of here or at least could try to put together my last will and testament. Not to worry, President Obama would never do it.
10:58 pm on February 21st, 2009 2
I suggest we bug bomb these last lingering neocons instead.
12:30 am on February 22nd, 2009 3
I have to agree with Mr. Zelikow. The global support needed would be Japan – who is in harms way. China would need to give support – even though this would probably be done in private. I think China recognizes that without the US their economic progress is doomed. S. Korea probably realizes that taking out the nukes would save lives and I don't think the North would have the will to srike across the border. After all it was the US that attacked them – not S Korea.
If we take out a missile after they "stand it up" it would be self-defense. They have indicated many times they wish to do harm to Japan and the US. I don't think China trust them either. The Hebrews did this to Iran and will probably do it again if necessary. If we do this in N Korea other terrorist countries will probably think twice before they play the nuke card. I for one am not willing to wait until we have nukes striking US soil before we take action. Because I do no have intel on this subject it is impossible to say what is right – but if our leaders believe this is right then we should do it. However, I am a little confused when group says bring more American families to Korea and then another indicates nukes could fall anytime.
11:37 am on February 22nd, 2009 4
Its not a decision the US should make anyways, its a South Korean decision. The US is not under the threat, South Korea is.
I also agree that it is more in our interest to see what the north has got. Of which I believe is very little.
Should a situation arise where a war is probable these sites should be first strike, primary targets. One 2000lb bomb should do the trick.
5:52 pm on February 23rd, 2009 5
What Mr. Zelikow is preaching right now is not an option. They will launch it and the if all goes well will try to sell it to countries like Iran or Syria, or other country wiling to acquire long range capacities. Long range capacities seems to be a preety tempting target these days. Off course Mr. Kim will have a nuke warhead prepared at any time to be fired to US. It is too tempting. Bombing by US is not an option and will trigger a harsh response from these guys just because you want to destroy their merchandise. The LRM is aprecious merchandise for them.
But what troubles me most is the increase with 50% of the special NK army forces – the guerilla one, aiming at a conmventional warfare rather than nuclear. If the North will invade the South these special forces will be the point of the dagger. Sometimes is unsound to emphasize the special forces, especially when your country is ravaged by famine and major social problems. This could mean that in fact that Kim is loosing confidence on regular troops and raises question of trust inside the NK army forces.
2:54 am on February 25th, 2009 6
This is why I wrote a posting dedicated to the ROK white paper citing this increase in the DPRK SOF forces:
http://rokdrop.com/2009/02/23/seouls-defense-whit…
This massive increase in SOF concerns me more then their missile test.
11:11 am on February 25th, 2009 7
My understanding of the norths commandos is one of paratroops and lightly armed. Certainly not to be dismissed but are they really as big a threat as an armored brigade.
The order of battle for any North Korean attack is to drop most of these commandos (approx 100,000) behind SK lines by Colt aircraft. However the number is limited by the number of Colt aircraft available and the number still able to fly.
So what are the additional "50,000 commandos" going to do? Do the NKs really believe the Colts are going to be able to make more than one trip?