The Korean DilemmaPosted: May 27, 2017 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Aegis, DPRK, ICBMs, North Korea, Nuclear Weapons, Sanctions, Terrorism, THAAD Leave a comment
United States policy for many past presidential administrations firmly states that a nuclear armed North Korea is unacceptable to our national security interests and is a threat to peace around the world. This stance continues with the current administration. Unfortunately, despite sanctions and diplomatic isolation, North Korea already tested five nuclear weapons between 2006 and 2016. Some intelligence reports, as widely cited in the media, indicate that there may soon be another such test. Meanwhile, the North Koreans continue to test ballistic missiles, ever-increasing their sophistication and range.
The threat of a nuclear armed North Korea becomes real when they reach the capability to mount a nuclear weapon on top of a long-range missile. Experts differ on that estimate. Some say it is “years” away and some say it could come as soon as 2018. No one knows for sure, but they do know that the pace of the Korean progress towards that goal is steadily increasing.
When that day arrives, a clear and present danger will exist for the United States and for our friends and allies in the Pacific area. Thus the question: How to implement our stated policy of preventing that danger from becoming real? There is no easy answer.
The Trump Administration, like those before it, states that “all options” are on the table. The implied but not so subtle threat is one of military action. To take such action is not so simple as it may seem to some. In practical terms, North Korean nuclear sites are underground and the intelligence community is not positive that it knows where all of those sites are located. Reaching a hardened underground site with a conventional missile or bomb is difficult, if not impossible. It is possible to destroy such a site with our own nuclear weapons, assuming we have it correctly located, but despite the facile way some people talk about nuclear weapons, no credible official thinks that taking a first strike with nuclear weapons is part of the solution at this point. A bomb without a delivery system is not able to reach the target. To stop the threat, eliminate the delivery system.
However, further complicating the issue is that part of the North’s missile development includes mobile Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) that makes targeting the delivery system before launch that much more difficult. They have also tested submarine launched ballistic missiles, which are even harder to locate without sufficient warning and planning. So while the military option is and should be on the table, the practical aspects of eliminating the threat without a major conflict are daunting.
The ace in the hole held by North Korea is the fact that Seoul, the capital with a population in the city and suburbs of nearly 24 million, is only about 40 miles from the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). The North amassed and maintains large numbers of artillery, rocket, and ballistic missiles along the DMZ, many with a range capable of reaching Seoul. This is a huge deterrent to unilateral U.S. or allied strikes. Additionally, North Korea already has operational ballistic missiles that can reach Japan, the Philippines, Guam and other locations with U.S. military bases and U.S ex-pats. There are other threats as well, but you get the picture.
The Korean War began in 1950, and technically never ended, although an Armistice was reached in 1953. The war resulted in approximately 2.7 million Korean deaths, with an additional 800,000 Chinese and 33,000 American dead. Since then Civil Defense capabilities in the South have vastly improved and the citizens practice taking shelter. Also new are the preemption plans of the United States and South Korean military that in the early stages of conflict would seek to take out the North’s ability to wreak wide-spread damage in the South. However, despite these plans and practices, the devastation of extended combat would be real and with a lasting impact.
The key to a non-military solution in North Korea is China. President Trump tried to impart to Chinese President Xi Jinping during his visit to the U.S. in April the importance we place on this issue and the need for Chinese influence to reign in the North Koreans. Presumably President Xi took the information on board, but China has their own interests on the peninsula. First and foremost, they do not want a united Korea, especially one allied with the United States. Secondly, they are unwilling to deal with the economic fallout of a massive refugee and humanitarian crisis on their border should the regime of Kim Jong-un fall. Kim is the ruthless Chairman of the Worker’s Party of Korea and Supreme Leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), or as we call it, North Korea.
Most of us know of the ruthless leadership of Leader Kim, including having his uncle and half-brother killed. He does not appear to be “crazy” as some would have it, but he is isolated, inexperienced, and convinced of his infallibility. For a minute, take a look at the world from his point of view. Assume that he is committed to his personal and the regime’s survival. Assume also that he believes his own propaganda and that the world really is out to get him. Here is what he sees.
Kim knows well of the fate of two previous strongmen, Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein. Both had programs to develop Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Both were pressured by world leaders, diplomatically and militarily, to give up their WMD programs. We now know that both actually did give them up. One ended up sexually violated and killed in the desert and the other was hung. Kim Jong-un is not about to fall prey, as he sees it, to the same trick. He will not willingly give up his nuclear and missile programs just because the U.S. threatens him or China cajoles him. Economic sanctions seem to hurt only the North Korean population, Kim and his cronies are immune from the deprivations that seriously impact his citizens. Rebellion from within is nearly impossible given the total control over the population wielded by the state and the total immersion into a way of life and a propaganda machine that influences the average citizens from the day that they are born.
During the Cold War, the superpowers possessed nuclear weapons and competed for influence and territory for many decades without nuclear war becoming a reality. There were many reasons for our survival despite some serious crises such as the Cuban Missile Crisis and the lesser known 1973 Arab-Israeli War when the U.S. military world-wide went to DEFCON III (Defense Condition 3), the two closest instances of direct conflict between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. Foremost among these reasons is the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (aptly known as MAD) where the chance of total and equal destruction deterred each side from using their nuclear weapons. (Although in fact, most nuclear war plans did not contemplate an all or nothing use of nuclear weapons. There were (are?) war fighting plans using nuclear weapons in limited strikes that may or may not escalate based on the war aims. It also has to do with hitting counter-value or counter-force targets — in over simplified words, hitting cities or military forces. But I digress, although it useful to remember this concept of counter-value versus counter-force targeting in thinking about North Korea.)
It is unlikely that North Korea can be deterred from using its nuclear force based merely on the concept of MAD. Kim does not want to die, he wants to survive, but he will not go down without a fight. If his survival is threatened in a way he finds credible, he may go down swinging.
Diplomatically, it is difficult to know what will bring the North to the table with a credible negotiating team willing to provide a solution to inhibiting or eliminating their nuclear program. On-site inspections and verification must be part of any solution, but Kim has signaled he will never allow them to occur. Past U.S. administrations have entered into negotiations with them only to find them unserious and uninterested in a real solution. They were only interested in finding out how much they could get from the West before opting out of any reciprocal actions.
There may be some value in taking a similar approach to the one that the world took with Iran. While President Obama is often and furiously “blamed” for “caving” to the Iranians, a few things need to be remembered about the agreement. First, it was not a bilateral U.S.-Iran agreement. It was a multi-lateral agreement that includes, among others, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, the European Union, China and Russia. Second, it in fact did stop Iranian development of nuclear weapons, at least in the short run. The idea is that eventually Iran will benefit sufficiently economically without a nuclear weapons program that they will forgo it rather than suffer more sanctions in the future. Third, it did open the country to outside inspectors. No deal is credible without continued verification. The deal was a result of focused sanctions that hurt the Iranians where it counted.
Using this model may or may not be possible, but it could be a starting point for a meaningful international diplomatic effort to resolve the Kim issue. However, thus far other world leaders have been content to allow the U.S. and China to solve this problem as they are less threatened by the DPRK. China is the key to any solution, but particularly one involving meaningful sanctions. To be meaningful, they must hit Kim and his fellow oligarchs where it hurts — in their pocket books and life styles. So far there is no evidence that current sanctions are having any impact on the leadership, only on the population. Thus China (and others) need to meaningfully and consistently enforce economic sanctions.
For other world leaders that do not seem too concerned, they should consider what may be the biggest threat from the North Korean nuclear program. Cash strapped and looking for a market, it is conceivable that the DPRK will (and maybe already has) export their knowledge and expertise to the highest bidder. This may and probably will in the future include terrorist organizations and rogue states. That alone should be enough to get most of the world on board with solving this problem.
Finally, and, as it should be, a last resort, there are a number of military options that may preclude full-scale war. Cyber attacks that cripple the nuclear infrastructure for example could be carried out. (Remember reports in 2010 that the “Stuxnet” virus crippled the Iranian nuclear centrifuges in what is thought to be a combined U.S.-Israeli operation.) Other clandestine operations are surely in the U.S. playbook.
Should conventional military force be required, a counter-force strike aimed at limiting the DPRK’s ability to do damage in South Korea could be followed by an offer to negotiate with Kim.
Another option is to specifically target Kim and the senior leadership in a decapitation strike that removes the DPRK leadership and thus limits their ability to retaliate. This seems to have the biggest chance of success. If a pre-emptive U.S. military strike could lead to a massive conflict on the peninsula and surrounding areas anyway, then go for the leadership first in the chance that the command and control abilities and the will to fight may be eliminated before the conflict spirals out of control.
While the DPRK is increasing its capabilities, so are the U.S and our regional allies. While we may not be able to locate and eliminate all of the nuclear sites and mobile launchers on the ground, using increasingly sophisticated Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) systems the U.S. can limit the impact of a strike by destroying the missiles in flight. Current systems include Ground Based Mid-Course Defense (GMD) based in California and Alaska which tested well against ICBM targets, the Navy’s Aegis destroyers and cruisers have proven adept at hitting ballistic missiles and the Army’s Patriot and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) systems have as well, depending on the threat and the environment. You may recall that the U.S. is presently deploying the THAAD system in South Korea, although in April President Trump inexplicably called on the Koreans to pay us one billion dollars for the system unless they terminate or renegotiate a bilateral trade agreement — “a horrible deal.” For now, the deployment continues.
It does not take a crystal ball to determine that the Trump Administration will face its toughest international challenge in North Korea. Whether in the coming months, as the DPRK accelerates its testing of missile and weapon systems, or in the coming years, one should expect action in one form or another in the near future. It will take a confident and realistic combination of diplomatic and economic measures from the international community coupled with unparalleled military readiness. What is certain is that the problem will not go away on its own.
A Soup SandwichPosted: May 17, 2017 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Constitution, Divisiveness, Donald Trump, Partisan, Politics, United States Constitution 1 Comment
With increasing frequency, nearly daily, we as a nation wake up to yet another incredible self-created crisis in the Trump Administration. People that care that our nation’s leader is becoming something of a punch line around the world debate whether President Trump’s actions, statements, and yes, tweets are part of a larger plan or simply the reflection of a man with little to no intellectual curiosity, the attention span of a young child, and who is in way over his head. I am increasingly falling into the latter category.
In my day the military term for his administration would be that it is a soup sandwich. The term means exactly what the imagery suggests, something so confused and messy that it cannot be salvaged.
The litany of recent events are well-known. Whether it is his casual revelations to the Russians of highly critical intelligence, his thinly veiled threats to former FBI Director Comey, his stated reason for firing Mr. Comey because of the “Russian thing”, or the possibility that he tried to stop the FBI investigation of the Russian meddling and specifically Lt General Michael Flynn’s possible involvement with the Russians, his actions have shown a president and an administration that have lost their way. Put more bluntly, look in the dictionary for “soup sandwich” and you will see a picture of the president.
Note again that all of the crises that the White House staff have dealt with thus far are all self-created by the president. This does not bode well for handling the inevitable national security crisis or domestic tragedy on the horizon that will test our ability as a nation to deal with all that comes our way.
Most legal scholars and Constitutional law experts point out that nothing that we know about thus far concerning the president’s actions is illegal. Unethical and/or immoral, perhaps, but not illegal. This is very troubling. As Dana Milbank ably points out in a recent opinion piece, just because it is legal, does not mean that it is right. Or as we used to say, just because you can do something, it doesn’t mean that it is a good idea. The basic point is that President Trump knows no boundaries, has no self-control and therefore has the ability to do great damage to our nation, whether deliberate or out of ignorance. As Mr. Milbank points out in his troubling piece, the president is within his rights — legally — to do all of the things that we know about. But the assumption for all modern presidents is that a president would not do all of those things without the proper justifications and explanations. In crafting the Constitution, the Founding Fathers assumed that the chief executive would be virtuous , guided by honor, and exhibit self-restraint. Scholars point out that the Constitution gives many powers to the president, specifically and inherently. The checks and balances that we rely upon cannot stop the president from wreaking havoc in the short-term. Although the ultimate power rests with the Congress — impeachment — and the courts — ruling certain presidential actions unconstitutional — it takes time and political capital to bring those counter balancing powers to bear. In the meantime, significant and even irreparable damage can be done to our nation. With President Trump we have a chief executive that seems to be lacking the knowledge to understand the limits and responsibilities of the presidency combined with unchecked impulsivity that can easily lead to damaging actions and decisions.
Look at President Trump’s background. His success as a businessman by most accounts was not so much because of his personal knowledge and ability. It was more about branding. He sold the Trump Brand to investors and let others actually build the real property. Recently, few of his Trump buildings were actually Trump projects, he merely sold his name and promotional abilities for use by those doing the work. He became famous due to his time as a television reality star. Even today he talks about “ratings” for press conferences and speeches. The pop psychoanalysis could go on and on, but in every instance, it appears that his personality is ill-suited to lead the greatest nation on earth. To me, for example, he related the very highly classified information to the Russian Foreign Minister (information that will probably result in lives lost, and certainly the loss of an important avenue of intelligence) not because he wanted to help the Russians. I think he did it because he was showing off and wanted to impress his visitors. Remember this is the guy that in the midst of the ceremony “celebrating” the House passing Trumpcare, stopped his speech to turn around and ask “How am I doing? Am I doing OK? Hey, I’m president. I’m president. Can you believe it?” Well, no, I can’t believe it. But it is true.
I hear the “I word” — impeachment — bandied about a lot recently. From what we know now, we are not there yet. I also worry that under the current divisive political atmosphere in our country that an impeachment act and subsequent trial would be very bad for our nation. We might not recover from that trauma for many years. Therefore any impeachment proceedings must be based on clear violations of the law, should there be any.
The other proposal that floats around from time to time is that the 25th Amendment can be used to remove him from office. This amendment pertains to the succession to the presidency should the president be unable to fulfill his duties. The relevant section of the amendment in this case is Section Four which provides a procedure for the Vice President and such other “principal officers of the executive departments” (meaning the Cabinet) to declare the president unfit for duty. Should the president contest that declaration, it goes to a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate. This too would be a long drawn out procedure that could seriously divide our country should the president resist the take-over attempt. It seems unlikely in any event that Vice-president Pence and the Trump appointed Cabinet would invoke this avenue of removal, barring some obvious and unassailable problem with the president.
Finally, President Trump could resign. Many pundits and others think this is the most likely scenario for the current president to leave office. President Trump himself said that
“I loved my previous life. I had so many things going. This is more work than in my previous life. I thought it would be easier. I like to work, so that’s not a problem, but this is actually more work and while I had very little privacy in my old life because, you know, I’ve been famous for a long time, I really, this is – this is much less privacy than I’ve ever seen before.”
None-the-less, I doubt very much that the president has any intention of resigning. He likes the attention and being on the “inside” — people have to pay attention to him and he likes that.
Potentially compounding President Trump’s negative impact on the nation is the dilemma many of his top advisers are facing. It is a classic scenario. The president continually throws good, hard-working and upright people under the bus. They go out and defend his actions in, I hope, good faith only to have him personally provide a completely different rationale for his actions. This can only go on for so long before people start to ponder resigning. This is the dilemma such good people face — resign and save my reputation and integrity or stay and try to change things because they could really be a lot worse if no one of significant knowledge and competence is left to try to hold him in check?
I fear that most people consider the recent events as “typical” Washington politics. That’s too bad. This is not typical and it is not normal. And it isn’t “sour grapes” that the Democrats lost the presidency.
Many continue to state that as a nation we should give the guy a chance. He’s only been in office about four months. Give him time. I tried. Sorry, but I do not think that anything is going to cause President Trump to change.
For the Republican majority on Capital Hill I can only say, “Clean up on aisle seven. Soup sandwich in progress.” The Republican agenda depends on a functioning presidency. The deal with the devil is almost gone as more and more of the president’s actions take away from the legislature’s ability to legislate. Clean up the soup sandwich through comprehensive and bipartisan investigations. Find out what actually happened, or did not happen, and get it into the public domain. Use a little Clorox on the clean up of the soup sandwich.
If it turns out there is nothing there involving the Russians or other problems then so much the better. If there is something, hold all involved accountable. The good news/bad news may be that there is nothing there. The good news is that people will not go to jail and the integrity of the system may be restored. The bad news is that we will still be left with a soup sandwich.
Incompetent or Dangerous?Posted: May 10, 2017 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Constitution, Donald Trump, Partisan, Politics, Russia, United States Constitution, Vladimir Putin 3 Comments
Yesterday, President Donald J. Trump fired James B. Comey Jr., the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This came in the midst of an ever-increasing FBI investigation into known Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election and the increasing number of revelations of ties between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Those are actually two different issues, which our president apparently cannot understand.
There is wide-spread consensus based on the truth and, you know, actual facts that the Russians interfered with the election. Most likely they interfered because, as former Bush Administration Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice explained, Russian President Vladimir Putin is a pay-back kind of guy. He hated Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, primarily because she called his election a sham, and sought the opportunity to work against her campaign. According to Secretary Rice’s theory, he relished disrupting the election in and of itself, but to have Secretary Clinton as the recipient only made it sweeter.
Every American should be gravely concerned that a foreign power aggressively and with malice of forethought worked hard to disrupt the very foundation of our Republic. Every American. This is not a political issue. Consequently both the Senate and the House of Representatives are conducting bi-partisan inquiries into what happened and how we can protect against it in the future.
However, President Trump seems to believe this is unnecessary. If one pays only the mildest of attention to the news, you know that he is constantly calling the fact of the interference a “hoax” and the investigations “a waste of taxpayer money.” He won and that’s all he cares about. In his mind, end of story.
Secondarily, as the investigation of the Russian interference deepened, it became apparent that there may have been some interaction between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. The who, why and what questions remain unanswered. This also is considered “fake news” by the president and he constantly tweets about issues he thinks are “ridiculous” in connection with the investigation.
He does so even though his first National Security Adviser Lt. General Michael Flynn USA (ret.) was fired by the president for working with the Russians, being paid by them, and lying about it. I suppose we should just let that go. Nothing to see here, folks, just move along.
This is the short version of the context surrounding the firing of Director Comey. The president showed real class by not notifying Director Comey of his dismissal, rather the Director learned about it on television while giving a speech in Los Angeles.
So the president whose staff members and campaign members are under investigation by the FBI and the Attorney General of the United States who was forced to recuse himself from the Russian investigation because of his own role in the campaign and “forgetting” to reveal his own Russian contacts, are the folks that fired the Director. It most definitely does not pass the smell test.
Thus the question, is the president incompetent of trying to cover up misdeeds in his administration? Does he not know what he is doing or is he deliberately undermining our Constitutional balance? I do not know, but either one is dangerous.
The alleged reason for the firing was the mishandling of the investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s emails back in July. Of 2016. The investigation that then Candidate Trump applauded. Hmmm. The timing is also suspicious. Remember the Trumpian tactic of changing the headlines whenever something critical of him makes the news? On Monday former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates testified before a Senate sub-committee looking into the Russian connections. Their testimony was less than flattering to the Trump Administration and in some cases directly contradicted statements made by the president and his spokespeople. On Tuesday, Director Comey is fired, thus changing the headlines. I’m just sayin’….
From the time Attorney General Yates notified the White House that General Flynn was compromised and a potential agent of the Russians until he was fired — only after it all became public in the Washington Post — was 18 days.
From the time that the current Deputy Attorney General and Attorney General recommended the dismissal to the president and the FBI director was fired — for something that happened in July 2016 — was minutes.
Also remember that the FBI Director is appointed for a 10 year term. This is to keep politics and partisanship out of law enforcement in the most critical areas of our national security. Only one other active Director was fired, and that was William Sessions in 1993 by President Bill Clinton for ethics violations, not for investigating anything to do with the administration.
Many people were upset by the way that Director Comey handled the email investigation of Secretary Clinton. Some even argue that the way he handled it (a news conference about a lack of evidence to prosecute) was unprecedented and unprofessional and effectively handicapped the campaign of Secretary Clinton. In a larger context, even as one may have no love for Director Comey, his firing is very troubling at this particular point. It seems that as the investigation gets closer to the truth, the resistance from the White House increases. Director Comey must have been very close to finding damaging information. It only takes a cursory look at any newspaper or other news source to see that this has raised significant bi-partisan concern in the Congress as to the meaning, appropriateness and impact of the firing. Most Republicans and Democrats have expressed serious concern. It is not right.
Alarm bells should be going off when taken in connection with this quote from White House spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders during an interview last night with Tucker Carlson on Fox News. In the same vein as the president and other spokespeople in the White House, she spoke about the Russian investigations and said:
I think the bigger point on that is, “My gosh, Tucker, when are they gonna let that go?” It’s been going on for nearly a year. Frankly, it’s kinda getting absurd. There’s nothing there. We’ve heard that time and time again. We’ve heard it in the testimonies earlier this week. We’ve heard it for the last 11 months. There is no there there. It’s time to move on.
President Trump wants the investigation to go away. Countless efforts by the president and his spokespeople to undermine the investigations have not worked. They pretend, as does Ms. Sanders, that the American people do not care. We won. End of story. Yet, the investigations continue and it does not go away. Next step — fire the Director of the FBI.
One can only conclude that the president must really be trying to hide something big. Maybe yuuge. Reporting today indicates that last week Director Comey quietly asked Congress for a significant increase in funding for the Russian investigation. Another coincidence?
President Trump undoubtedly thought that by making Director Comey go away, his troubles would go away as well. They are just beginning. Reportedly, the president has little interest in history or understanding exactly how the government works. Fine. But someone should tell him that time and time again the cover-up is what brings folks to their knees, doing more damage than the “crime” ever would have. Maybe he should read up on it. He may learn something about it when he appoints his next Director of the FBI and the Senate holds confirmation hearings. If you think there is a fire in the Senate during the current hearings, you haven’t seen anything yet.
A civics lesson might help as well. Trying to run the United States as a family business operation does not work so well. Unless his aim is to make a lot of money, which that part so far is working. But that’s a piece for another day.
The investigations will not go away. They will be slowed down dramatically in the near term. The FBI is extremely unlikely to report the results of their investigations without a Director in place. That will take weeks or more likely, months. James Comey was a Republican appointed by President Obama. President Trump should appoint a Democrat with an impeccable reputation as the next Director. I am not holding my breath. His appointment will tell us a lot about the future integrity of anything that comes out of the Department of Justice.
The investigations will continue in the interim. However, the integrity of those investigations is now compromised. Only by appointing a special prosecutor — which the White House and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) are mightily resisting — will there be some assurance to the American people that an independent investigation, unencumbered by political and partisan elements, reports believable results.
This is fundamental to our national security. Stay awake and keep the pressure on. Silence and “getting tired of it all” will erode our freedom.