October 5, 2017--Back to North Korea

While the country has been preoccupied with hurricane news and now the mass murder in Las Vegas, concern about North Korea has largely faded from the front pages. 

It will be back.

In the meantime, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was in China last week where he openly stated that the U.S. and North Korea are seeking channels through which to talk with each other about a way forward--"Stay tuned," he said.

Donald Trump, though, did/or did not chide him for that, tweeting, "Rex, don't waste your energy" trying to talk with them. Soon enough they will bear the consequences of their intransigence.

Were they playing good cop/bad cop or did Tillerson go rogue and got slapped down for it?

The over/under betting line is that Tillerson will be gone in a few weeks, or days, especially after he called Trump a "moron." This reliable reported by NBC, among others.

Apparently, after hearing about that, Vice President Mike Pence frantically tried to talk Rex down. We'll see how that works out.

My comment about Trump and Tillerson--that he "did/or did not" chide his Secretary of State--suggests that some or all of this public back forth might be more an act than a reality. To confuse the North Koreans and terrify them that Trump is not bluffing but is actually as crazy as he seems. If true, Trump and Tillerson may be concocting confusing signals that remind one of the crazy-act Nixon put on which was orchestrated by his Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, to perplex and frighten the Russians and Chinese.

Last week I wrote about a breakfast conversation with Phil, who laid out four options that might explain what is going on between us and the Kim Jong-un regime.

I have heard from quite a few people about that blog posting, including my ex-wife yesterday who asked, among those options, which I think are most likely. 

Here then is how I see the possibilities, acknowledging I have no special insights or inside knowledge about to what is transpiring. Who does?  

I have ranked these possibilities from the most likely scenario to the least--

Most likely--back channel discussions are in fact inching along. Recall that it took two years back in the early 1950s for us to work out an agreement to suspend the war between North and South Korea, with us, of course, the principal player on the side of the South. 

Are you old enough or immersed in history enough to recall the months it took just to work out the shape of the negotiating table and the height of the chairs? Yes, that was a complicated point of contention. It finally was resolved and the negotiations proceeded. The war was eventually suspended via an armistice (we are thus still technically at war with North Korea) and the rest should have been history. 

I suspect something of this sort is underway now. Tillerson, no Kissinger, carelessly leaked what is happening and therefore needed to be publicly chided to assure the North Koreans we can be trusted to keep our diplomatic mouths shut.

Second most likely--Kim Jong-un will be assassinated. The South Koreans have revealed that they are making plans for this and I suspect they are with our direct assistance. The gamble is that there is enough under-the-surface dissatisfaction with Kim on the part of the North Korean leadership class and that though they may be cowed and/or terrified by him, they also want to live on and not be bombed to smithereens by us. They have their Swiss bank accounts and condos in the West and are as a result not part of a suicide cult. Thus, some of them are likely involved in helping to overthrow Kim, or worse. Or better.

Next--The U.S. has all-encompassing cyber warfare and traditional military capabilities that we have not revealed to potential adversaries. Capacities, if they were known to the Russians or Chinese they could devise ways to counter. 

According to this scenario, using these weapon systems, we pull the plug on North Korea--we bunker-bust their underground facilities, using cyber methods we cut off their power supply, their connection to the Internet, disrupt their financial system, their access to fuel and food supplies, and even disrupt, perhaps disable their nuclear and missile activities. In other words, we may have the ability to shut them down and dramatically reduce their ability to engage in warfare. 

If we did this, if we have the capacity to do this, unleashing these new kinds of weapons would, the theory holds, bring them rapidly to negotiations. It would also mean war. But of a less bloody sort. But a war, nonetheless, with all its surprises, complexity, and dangers.

The good news: least likely--all-out war itself. Shock and awe times ten. What Trump said about "totally destroying" them. This puts Saigon's millions and our 28,000 troops currently in South Korea at great risk, and, who knows, more players in the region--Japan also gets bombed as does Guam and the Seventh Fleet. 

And then there is China--what would they do about the outbreak of a major war, perhaps a nuclear war, on their border? Back in 1950 when U.S. troops pushed across the 38th parallel and began an advance toward the Yalu River that separates Korea from China, China sent nearly 3.0 million "volunteers" across the Yalu to directly confront the American military. 180,000 Chinese were killed as were many thousands of Americans.

They hate Kim and the North Koreans but they do provide a buffer for the Chinese who do not want to see a united Korea with the South and the U.S. dominating. They also do not want millions of North Korean refugees pouring into China.

If I have this right, of the four most likely scenarios, I am seeing the most optimistic one as most likely--negotiations--and the most cataclysmic one--all-out war--as most unlikely. 

At least that's my hope.

Negotiations in Panmunjom