June 24, 2109--Jack: "Disproportunate"

Jack said, "How are you liking your president these days?" Without waiting for something snarky in return he added, "To me he's looking very presidential."

I hadn't seen Jack in a couple of weeks and with so much going on wasn't surprised he showed up at the diner where I was nursing a cup of coffee.

"As Trump put it, he's 'cocked and loaded.'"

"If he knew anything about guns he'd realize it's locked and loaded. Not cocked. But what does he know about guns? Or for that matter very much anything else?"


"I didn't know you were such a gun nut."

"I'm not and neither is he. He grew up in Queens New York for God sakes. The only people there with guns packed Saturday Night Specials."

"You're changing the subject because you don't want to acknowledge him as being presidential."

"This I have to hear."

"It's how he's finessing the Iran situation."

"You mean how he can't make up his mind what to do? Finessing is the last way I'd describe him. One minute he's drawing red lines in the sand and launching missiles, the next he's saying the Iranians shooting down one of our drones doesn't deserve a military response. After how he excoriated Obama for backing away from a red line of his own after the Syrians used chemical weapons on their own people while he blithely does the same thing is sheer hypocrisy. Not that I'm in favor of going to war with Iran over this. We haven't had much luck with war in the Middle East. Even candidate Trump realized that. It was the one few thing about which he was right."

Jack sighed, "You are so closed minded. Trump for you can never do anything right. But anyway, let me try to enlighten you."

Not in the mood but unable to restrain myself, in a weary voice I said, "Start by telling me how his most influential advisors come from Fox News. How Tucker Carlson is advising him not to get involved militarily. That if he does he'll lose the election next year. And Sean Hannity is putting pressure on him to launch strikes otherwise he'll look weak and lose his reelection bid. Trump actually listens to these people?"

"And who is keeping his own counsel? Trump asks their views and then follows his instincts and makes decisions. You call that irresponsible I call it presidential. And don't forget many previous presidents had their favorite reporters and columnists. I looked that up yesterday. Kennedy had Ben Bradley and also leaked information to the Time's Arthur Krock, who was on his father Joe Kennedy's payroll. And there are others. Many others. Like James Reston and the Alsop brothers. All presidential whisperers. So don't try to hang this one exclusively on Trump."

I said, "This is still no way to make foreign policy. Especially when it comes to matters of war and peace. I don't think any of the journalists you cite--and I give you credit for digging that out--advised presidents one way or the other when it came to launching military strikes. They dealt mainly in the political realm. Offering political advice and clearing the way for their presidents. It was straight use-use. Not that Carlson and Hannity are above that. Using Trump to build ratings."

"With this," Jack said, "Trump is having it two ways. On the one hand he threatens to attack Iran and this makes him seem tough."

"With emphasis on the 'seem.'"

"And then he shows moderation," Jack said, "saying he pulled back the attack when he was told 150 Iranians would be killed. He didn't want that blood on his hands. He wanted to appear to be compassionate."

I said, "He tweeted that he didn't want to do anything 'disproportionate.' Shooting down an unarmed drone doesn't cause any deaths."

"What's your problem with that? I thought you'd like your president not to be casual about a loss of life."

"I'm very OK with that. Using force only as a last resort. But this didn't qualify. My problem is his not having a clear, coherent plan so that both our allies and opponents would know what to expect. That, as in this case, we won't inadvertently stumble into a real war."

"Again," Jack said, "I think this is exactly what Trump is doing."

"That's not how I see it. In fact, I'm suspicious of the whole thing. A tipoff for me is his use of the word 'disproportionate.'"

"You have a problem with that? I thought you would see it to be a good thing. Evidence that Trump has a better temperament than he is given credit for."

"A couple of things. First, it appears he endorsed a cyber attack on the Iranians. Not bloody but still an act of war. And then again there's his use of the word 'disproportionate.' Do you really think that's in his vocabulary? Does it sound like the Donald Trump we know?"

"Picky, picky. What will you guys come up with next."

"It reveals to me," I said, "that what we are witnessing is pure fabrication conjured up in his favorite place--the White House basement Situation Room. TV producer that he is he's creating a screenplay. He's spinning out one that's more reality TV than reality. And as in all thrillers this one too has a scene where everyone in danger at the last minute gets pulled back from the brink by a super hero. None other than Donald Trump."

"Again," Jack said, "I don't see why this is making you so crazy. To me it shows him acting responsibly."


"It shows him playing with, not dealing seriously with his awesome commander-in-chief responsibilities."

"I give up," Jack said fully exasperated.

"Good," I said, "Now I can concentrate on my coffee and try to get Trump out of my head."

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

September 26, 2017--Drums of War

I've been trying to distract myself but the insults being hurled back and forth between Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un are scary and my distraction strategies are not working. 

The situation is scary because both Trump and Kim appear to have serious problems handling disparagement. This is psychological and cultural.

So we have the "Little Rocket Man" (Trump is obsessed with anything little) while Kim has Americans looking up "dotard" in the dictionary. It is because of such adolescent ridiculousness that a massive war may be impending.

Sharing coffee yesterday morning, Phil said he thinks at least five things may be going on, one or more of them may provide slight cause, he says, to feel optimistic--

First, secret talks might be underway in Paris about the possibility of a deal. Paralleling the talks that were held in Paris from 1968 to 1973 between Henry Kissinger and North Vietnam's Le Duc Tho about an agreement to end that war. This eventually worked out and things didn't get more out of control than they otherwise might have.

Second, Phil said, China might finally be getting the message that a massive war on its border is looking to be likely. They do not want hundreds of thousands of North Koreans crossing the Yalu River, seeking sanctuary as refugees. They also do not want to see a unified Korea which, of course, our ally, South Korea, would dominate. Given the various unattractive choices, the Chinese might pull the plug on the North Koreans. Cutting off their oil, for example, which would quickly cripple the regime. They could also, with us, privately, end North Korea's access to financial services.

Third, as has already been reported in the New York Times, it appears that South Korea is training a Navy SEALs kind of force to "decapitate" the senior leadership of North Korea, starting with the assassination of Kim. If this is underway, we can assume it has American backing and assistance. 

A corollary to this is the evidence that core members of the North Korean leadership elite are fed up with Kim and would like to see him ousted. A war would mean that they all would be viewed by us through the same lens and for them as a result the party would be over. Thus a few of them might be already sharing information about Kim and his movements with the South Korean assassination squad.

Phil also says it is likely that the U.S. has cyber-warfare weapons that have not been publicly revealed, weapons that have the capacity to shut down all of North Korea's power, communications, banking, and weapon systems. This, he feels, likely exists and is kept secret so as to discourage potential enemies from developing countermeasures.

And, fifth, related to this he feels it is also likely that we have other secret weapon systems similar to the bunker-busting bomb we unveiled and deployed in Afghanistan a number of months ago. We used it as much to draw attention to our capacities as to wipe out an al Qaeda unit. These new weapons might have the ability to track and destroy missiles before or just as they are deployed.

When Phil finished his list, he sat back and smiled. I stared at him, agreeing that some or much of this might be true, but as with all such weapons and strategies human error is the dangerous unknown so therefore do we want to continue to march down the path to war with the belief that we have the means to quickly disable and defeat North Korea?

Where have I heard this kind of boasting before? In Vietnam, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and of course Korea itself back in the 1950s.

I asked Phil how these earlier conflicts turned out. He knows enough history to say, "None of them worked out very well."

We were left with our coffee slowly cooling to room temperature.