For the life of me I can’t figure out what Josh Rogin wants to do, in his words, “bolstering the alliances we depend on, not attacking them”. From his latest Washington Post column:
North Korea has announced that it is planning to break off the nuclear talks at the end of this year and return to a dangerous pattern of provocation and escalation. Is the administration prepared for that huge challenge as President Trump runs for reelection? Its actions toward regional allies suggest the answer is no.
I don’t see any proposals in his column. I’m pretty sure I know what he’s against—Trump. Is that enough? Will there ever be a good time to discuss cost-sharing with our notional allies? How would you identify such a time?
Does he support the status quo? It isn’t working. Under the status quo, North Korea is improving its nuclear weapons and developing intercontinental missile capability.
I don’t agree with Trump’s approach, either, but at least I’ve made some suggestions, e.g. pushing China to stop propping North Korea up which it will continue to do until doing that is more expensive that letting the Kim regime collapse. I also think we should be seizing the opportunity of Kim’s occasional missile tests to do live field testing of our anti-missile capabilities which I guest most would consider irresponsible. IMO it’s better to know if the systems you’re developing work under real world conditions than not to know.
Trump’s original agreement with Kim was for a staged reduction in North Korea’s nuclear programs in parallel with a staged reduction in sanctions: one factory gone, one sanction gone.
That deal was sabotaged by Bolton and Pompeo, who demanded complete surrender by North Korea on all nuclear issues which might or might not have been followed by some sort of reduction in sanctions. Kim is right to reject the Bolton/Pompeo demand. The question is, Does Trump have enough control over his own White House staff to negotiate a deal with Kim.
There is a very widespread revolt in the military and civilian agencies against Trump, which is in effect a rejection of control by elected officials. Vindman testified that it was the civil service bureaucrats who ought to control foreign policy, the Constitution be damned. The seriousness of the present constitutional crises cannot be overstated. We are witnessing an actual coup d’etat by military officers and civil service members against our elected government. Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, Nadler et al. assume they are the beneficiaries of the coup, but they are every bit the target as Trump.
“That deal was sabotaged by Bolton and Pompeo”
Trump cannot fail, he can only be failed by others. Yet another Republican who has no agency.
Steve
We’re going to need an anti-ballistic missle system as N K won’t be the last to acquire nukes.
Not sure what we can do. I would do what I’ve said before and make it clear that we’ll hold China responsible for aggressive North Korean conduct. And that any attack by North Korea on the US or an ally would be considered a de jure attack by China. It’s well past time for China to own many decades of enabling North Korea.
Other than that, I don’t think we need to do much that we’re not already doing.
They arent going to give up their nukes, so negotiate a deal that allows a deep level of inspections and takes the plutonium out of the country. Shouldn’t be too difficult.
Steve