I’m afraid the editors of the Washington Post are engaging in a free flight of fancy in pursuit of an effective strategy for keeping North Korea from having the ability to strike the United States with nuclear weapons:
President Trump seems to grasp the dangers of North Korea’s expanding nuclear and missile programs, but it is not clear what he intends to do, aside from his tweeted broadsides at China. Beijing’s role in any solution is large but not singular. This is the kind of security problem that requires deft diplomacy and alliance-building — not the forte of this administration, at least so far. New sanctions are a necessary and potentially useful precondition, but what are the next steps to bring the bellicose North Korean leader to negotiate a verifiable agreement to stop his nuclear and missile programs? We have yet to see a coherent strategy. Nor has Mr. Kim felt the heat.
President Trump’s abilities or inabilities aside what diplomacy or alliance do they have in mind that would have the desired effect? IMO they aren’t more specific because they know that they’re blowing smoke.
The only sanctions that would have any real effect are sanctions against Chinese banks and against China. If we’re not willing to impose those for fear of provoking a trade war, the only available strategy is what I’ve advocated—biding our time.
“We have yet to see a coherent strategy.”
Strategy is ultimately about achieving specific goals by taking specific actions and using available resources. The strategy should also answer the most important question in foreign policy: “…and then what?”
The reason we have yet to see a coherent strategy is that we lack the means to achieve our desired ends at an acceptable cost. The WAPO, stuck in the beltway bubble, doesn’t get this, has never understood rudimentary strategy or strategic theory and exists by repeating desired ends as if their achievement is self-evidently assured if only America had the gumption.
My view is that there is no strategy because one does not exist. North Korean nukes cannot be bargained away, particularly when they are increasing in value as the DPRK’s capabilities increase. Even if one assumes they intend to bargain away their nukes (a position I believe is wishful thinking), they will wait until the value of those nukes in any negotiation is strongest – ie. when they have a credible nuclear ICBM capability.
Let’s Face It: North Korean Nuclear Weapons Can Hit the U.S. – The New York Times
Why would N. Korea stop? They are “first and goal”, and unless the US is willing to guarantee the well-being of the “crazy fat kid”, I do not understand why N. Korea would not want to get into the nuclear end zone.
It would be irrational for Kim-whatever to agree to anything other than joining the nuclear club. I know we are all supposed to recoil in horror, but does anybody really believe that he can be stopped?
The rational response would be either to bomb the hell out of them or to build a working missile defense system. Of course, we could do both.