North Korea fires on South Korea

[incarcerated]

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/c...L7PQLai_i8P77U

Jimmy Carter: For U.S., the hard or soft option on North Korea?

The North wants direct talks. Let's consider it. We can't expect to negotiate nuclear weapons away.
FORMER PRESIDENT Jimmy Carter, in the Washington Post
Last update: November 24, 2010 - 5:55 PM

No one can completely understand the motivations of the North Koreans. But it is possible that their recent revelation of uranium enrichment centrifuges and Pyongyang's shelling of a South Korean island Tuesday are designed to remind the world that they deserve respect in negotiations....


:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...from_obam.html

Duped in North Korea: From Obama's Mentor to Jimmy Carter

November 26, 2010
By Paul Kengor
The North Korea situation is not going away. Personally, I'm sympathetic to the complexities of the situation. I've dealt with it since the early 1990s, beginning at the Center for Strategic & International Studies. I had few answers then, and still few today.

What I do know, however, is that much of the American left has been misled on North Korea since the very division of the peninsula in the early 1950s. The left has suffered two threats in particular -- call them "internal": First, there was the deception and manipulation by the communist left, which, by its nature, refused to openly acknowledge that it was communist and serving the Communist Party line. Second, there was dangerous self-delusion and gullibility among some leading Democrats. As to the first, there's the case of Frank Marshall Davis; on the second, there's Jimmy Carter.

As I've written here and elsewhere, Frank Marshall Davis was a mentor to Barack Obama and an actual CPUSA member. The Senate Judiciary Committee asked Davis about that association in 1956, under oath, where Davis pleaded the Fifth Amendment. No matter -- the next year, the Senate, in a report titled "Scope of Soviet Activity in the United States," definitively listed Davis as an "identified member of the Communist Party." (Click here to view the documents at my website.)

Only recently, with the declassification of Davis's 600-page FBI file, can we see the evidence. In my book, Dupes, on page 507, I reprint an FBI document that features Davis's Communist Party number: 47544.

As to the point of Korea, I found all the columns Davis wrote for the Honolulu Record, the CPUSA organ in Hawaii, in 1950. That was the period when Korea erupted into a hot war that killed tens of thousands of American boys, with the peninsula divided into a communist north and non-communist south.

Many American liberals/progressives were unsure where to stand on U.S. involvement, even as President Harry Truman, a Democrat, sent troops. For communists, however, this was a no-brainer: They wanted no U.S. involvement because they wanted all of Korea to be communist, following Red China's recent path. This was the Stalinist line, the Maoist line, and the worldwide communist line. Thus, American communists ridiculed the very idea of U.S. engagement as a McCarthyite manifestation of paranoid anti-communism, as an "inordinate fear" of communism, as U.S. imperialism, as Uncle Sam sticking his nose where it didn't belong, as...well, whatever worked.

For Frank Marshall Davis, this stance is evident in a February 9, 1950 piece he wrote for the Honolulu Record, where he accused President Truman of "manufacturing crises" for the sake of Big Business and U.S. imperialism. This was the standard party line for Davis. Most interesting about this piece, however, is how Davis applied the assertion to two countries that today remain our most persistent challenges: North Korea and Iran.

"Temporarily balked but not defeated, our dividend diplomats, with the willing hands of President Truman, went into the crisis-making business," wrote Davis. "If Molotov coughed, it threatened our 'security' in Iran. If Vishinsky laughed, we were 'endangered' in Korea."

This was, maintained Davis, a bunch of bluster, a phony "propaganda barrage" by Truman, as were the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, and the creation of NATO, all of which Davis (following Moscow's lead) adamantly opposed. "We manufacture crises so rapidly," claimed Davis, "that a new one is shoved in front of us before we can examine yesterday's or the one rushed in this morning."

And Korea, insisted Davis, was the latest such case.

How many liberals/progressives fell for this communist line? How many Americans communists pushed the line?

Well, without delineating which were liberals/progressives or communists, dupes or dupers, among those strongly against our Korea involvement were playwright Arthur Miller, the ACLU's Corliss Lamont, and Hollywood writers like Dalton Trumbo and the snarling Lillian Hellman.

The communist left didn't stop pushing this line until the north was firmly in communist hands. It has been a murderous dungeon ever since, run by two lunatics from the Kim family. These two men, of course, can't be trusted, which brings me to my second case, involving Jimmy Carter.

In June 1994, Carter visited North Korea. He was hosted by Kim Il-sung, a tyrant, who died mere days later. And yet, Carter reported that Kim was "vigorous, alert, [and] intelligent" and had engaged in "very free discussions with his ministers." Kim spearheaded a militantly atheistic regime, which jailed Christians; Carter, however, discovered a Kim "very friendly toward Christianity."

For the impressionable ex-president, Kim provided the full Potemkin village treatment. To say Carter was suckered is an understatement. He wrote this report:


"People are busy. They work 48 hours a week. ... We found Pyongyang to be a bustling city. The only difference is that during working hours there are very few people on the street. They all have jobs or go to school. And after working hours, they pack the department stores, which Rosalynn visited. I went in one of them. It's like Wal-Mart in American stores on a Saturday afternoon. They all walk around in there, and they seem in fairly good spirits. Pyongyang at night looks like Times Square. They are really heavily into bright neon lights and pictures and things like that."


Of course, in truth, North Korea is draped in darkness, as well-known satellite photos attest (click here). Worse, within just one year of this incredibly gullible appraisal by Carter, 10%-15% of the North Korean population (two to three million people) starved to death -- the worst famine in modern times.

Adding insult to injury, a few years after that, North Korea announced that it was a nuclear state, a direct violation of the "Agreed Framework" brokered by Carter in 1994. Then, Carter triumphantly assured us that "the crisis is over" -- words headlined by both the New York Times and Washington Post.

Needless to say, the crisis was far from over. And when George W. Bush, saddled with this agreement, which North Korea was clearly violating, declared the Kim regime part of an "axis of evil," Carter protested. "I think it will take years before we can repair the damage done by that statement," sniffed Carter.

No, it will take years before we can repair the damage done by Carter's mistakes, from North Korea to Iran.

I don't have the answer for resolving the North Korea situation, but I do know what hasn't helped. Jimmy Carter hasn't, and neither did the communist left, embodied by the likes of Frank Marshall Davis.

In both cases, America has been poorly served. It doesn't help that we've been duped, first by communists who concealed their loyalties and intentions from their liberal/progressive "friends" -- as Korea was split in two -- and then by the ever-present naïveté that has plagued Jimmy Carter's judgment for decades. Deception and delusion on the left have exacerbated an already complex situation.


Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College. His books include The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism and the newly released Dupes: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.

[longrange1947]

And now that China has warned the US not to send the carriers into the area what?

[EX-Gold Falcon]

Originally Posted by Green Light

In order for the DPRK to launch a massive artillery prep/pre-emptive strike they would necessarily tip their hand before it happened. This arty strike on the island was small potatoes and could easily be done without signalling their intent.

The US (if there is the will at the NCA) could preempt the preemption with surgical strikes of our own. The nuke option probably wouldn't be necessary.

IIRC, the DPRK has neither the warhead technology nor the delivery systems to make a nuke strike anything other than a exercise in suicide.

What does it take for people to look beyond nukes and recognize the other real threats that N. Korea possesss!?!?

Chemical and biological assets and the viable means to deploy them.

If the US hits the DPRK, then we had better be prepared to accept gas clouds wafering over Honolulu, Tokyo and Fairbanks.

This entire scenario has been played out in The Atlantic Magazine by SENIOR military and civilian leadership. They at least, were not so target fixated on nukes and had a holistic viewpoint.


Travis

[rdret1]

Originally Posted by incarcerated

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/c...L7PQLai_i8P77U

Jimmy Carter: For U.S., the hard or soft option on North Korea?

The North wants direct talks. Let's consider it. We can't expect to negotiate nuclear weapons away.
FORMER PRESIDENT Jimmy Carter, in the Washington Post
Last update: November 24, 2010 - 5:55 PM

No one can completely understand the motivations of the North Koreans. But it is possible that their recent revelation of uranium enrichment centrifuges and Pyongyang's shelling of a South Korean island Tuesday are designed to remind the world that they deserve respect in negotiations....


:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...from_obam.html

Duped in North Korea: From Obama's Mentor to Jimmy Carter

November 26, 2010
By Paul Kengor
The North Korea situation is not going away. Personally, I'm sympathetic to the complexities of the situation. I've dealt with it since the early 1990s, beginning at the Center for Strategic & International Studies. I had few answers then, and still few today.

.

Comparing Carter and Obama seems to be the fad these days, not that I disagree, it just seems funny to me for some reason. I guess because they both appear as totally inept and neither of them will admit it. They both think they are just misunderstood.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by EX-Gold Falcon

This entire scenario has been played out in The Atlantic Magazine by SENIOR military and civilian leadership. They at least, were not so target fixated on nukes and had a holistic viewpoint.

With respect, if you're referring to a 2005 article in The Atlantic (available here), I don't think you're presenting the best evidence to support your argument. The Atlantic is a middle brow magazine with a left of center editorial focus. The publication habitually bowdlerizes arguments that direct military confrontation with America's adversaries may be necessary--especially if Republicans are the ones making those arguments. (That magazine's thoughtful analysis of the Maritime Strategy [SEA PLAN 2000] comes to mind.)

Moreover, some of the participants in the 'war game' have not exactly set the world on fire with their professional and political judgment. (And do former NSC back benchers really qualify as "SENIOR" leadership?)

Finally, I must ask: How relevant can a war game involving a Pacific rim nation be if none of the participants are navalists?

YMMV.

[Dusty]

We'll just get Michelle to put Kim Jr. on a "time out".

[35NCO]

To start off, I appreciate the thanks I received on here for being over here in South Korea. We just are doing our job though. I slightly regret my comment “of people remembering we are here. “ More what was on my mind is how unstable the DMZ is and how little coverage it ever gets on the media.

“As much as everyone likes to talk trash about "nuking" someone, realistically, that would not be a feasible option these days IMO”-rdret1

Thank you for speaking up about that. Not only would it destroy much of this
downfall of the world and all its superpowers. It is not exactly just a red button people hit whenever they need a trump card. God have mercy on us for the next time someone detonates a nuke in a military attack. That day will be frightening for us all. Besides, both sides NK and SK are fighting over this land. I really doubt that either side would want to destroy any bit of it.

I have been watching this thread closely each day. I am interested in the educated opinions of those who post here. I have to say though and maybe the moderators would agree with me, can we keep this professional? This started our serious and then some people just started to make it jokes off the deep end. You are talking about a lot of people over here whose future and lives are at risk for them and their families. Imagine if this was happening to you in the United States. How would you discuss it then? I am not trying to piss anyone off, just asking please be respectful and professional about this.
With that said, here is how I see it.

The problem with any sort of issue in cold war is that it is a very delicate diplomatic balancing act. The next move of the more conservative South Korea as well as the United States is very slow and post-event response. It is very much quid-pro-quo. If the DMZ remains silent we all remain silent, if our soldiers die, NK’s soldiers will die. The bottom line is neither side appears to want all out war again. In this situation we are in now, any next preemptive move on South Koreas part will lead to all out war. Because it has become rather evident that NK will respond full force now to anything. A direct attack on SK’s or the US’s responsibility directly against NK would be enough provocation for NK to let loose. They would more than likely at this point hit SK with all they have got.

Maybe not today or tomorrow, but in the near future. To add to that, the situation with the North would have to be completely neutralized in order to prevent such actions from occurring again in the future. That is a huge step for both sides, however the upper hand still appears to be in our court.

The biggest trouble with the invasion of North Korea, if and when it were to ever occur, is a complete mystery into how it would take place and to what resistance the invading force may encounter. North Korea due to its excellent disconnection from the world creates an enigma of military capability: based on personnel, logistics, economics, and current and accurate intelligence of politics and international ties.

For this instance the problem presents itself as how does one defeat an enemy that one knows little to nothing about. What little information is leaked from NK publicly is few and far between. And even in those cases it is difficult to decide what is real. NK’s “misinformation” counter-intelligence program is chaotic, but it is so chaotic that it effectively does what it was meant to do. Create a lot of questions about what really happens in their government.

Another deep and troubling problem is what is the end game answer? If an invasion took place to whom would NK control belong to, and whom is willing to take on an entire country that has been disconnected from the entire world for so long. Some things to consider:

-Culturally how re-education would be handled in NK, explaining to NK children and the people, that the rest of the world is not flesh eating zombies, and that American soldiers do not in fact eat babies for breakfast.

-Logistically, how a new nation state would be created from the ground up, what is needed there for infrastructure, food, military, supplies, government operational standards.

-Economically, who would fund it, who would want to adopt this lost child of the world that has forever been lost in time?

From the guy on the ground perspective, there is a great concern here to an attack from NK at any moment. What can be said is there does appear to be a destabilization of culture, infrastructure, and government to how NK functions.
With NK’s heavy Russian/Chinese communism influence, they made every attempt for years to appear to be strong and powerful and to discredit any media indication that they are otherwise.

The show NK put on went “well” for a good run, but as the rest of the world knows, the theory of communism works, but in practice it will fail over time. K.J.I. made a critical mistake fairly recently economically. The trouble was, the classes started to exist, there was a lower, middle and upper class of wealth as there is in a capitalist nation state. Some people started to get very wealthy, had exit plans, and retirement funds. When K.J.I realized this he had a great problem as a dictator, that problem is a loss of control for his people. With wealth comes power, as well as the power to disobey the dictators will. K.J.I.’s solution was to completely change the currency and its value, which overnight made everyone poor again.

It was at this point that the people of NK finally have had enough, and they are starting to rebel.

The secondary factor to a possible collapse of NK sooner than later, is agriculture and ration control. To be frank, the people are starving. K.J.I.’s program of ration control is logistically poorly organized; this created a huge problem of people not getting enough rations to feed themselves or their families. Again, this caused uprisings, and rebellion to the oppressive government that put the people in this situation. The mindset of K.J.I. is to keep the military and government powerful. What this means is that only the military and the government get most the rations. The people know this as well, so they started to attack government posts, and local military, killing each other over food. This method of destabilization in its own right could lead to the overthrow of an oppressive dictatorship as it has before in Africa, and South America. Maybe this is what our government is thinking as well. Let it sit, and see what becomes of it.

My last thought is it may appear we are doing “nothing.” But I wanted to point out that to bring our carrier here is a strong move on our part. Aircraft carriers do not float alone. They always have large escorts that ride with them. The group of naval ships although it may seem small, is a remarkable amount of firepower. Think of it like this, during the gulf war what did we do to disable all of Iraq’s air defense nearly over night? We used Tomahawk missiles and good intelligence. The reason we did this is because nap of the earth bombing with pilots these days is yesterdays news. We don’t always fight like that anymore. To have the ships here, shows we are ready to be serious if we need to.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by 35NCO

. To have the ships here, shows we are ready to be serious if we need to.

Nukes indicate serious intent, as well.

My opinion is, whatever we use, we need to damn well use it quickly. I don't think this cat-and-mouse crap is gonna cut it much longer.

[Richard]

To have the ships here, shows we are ready to be serious if we need to.

Nukes indicate serious intent, as well.

Having those ships (and 'cargo' * ) there is a not so subtle implication of just such an intention.

Richard

*wink-wink

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Richard

Having those ships (and 'cargo' * ) there is a not so subtle implication of just such an intention.

Richard

*wink-wink

Roger that.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

With respect, if you're referring to a 2005 article in The Atlantic (available here), I don't think you're presenting the best evidence to support your argument. The Atlantic is a middle brow magazine with a left of center editorial focus. The publication habitually bowdlerizes arguments that direct military confrontation with America's adversaries may be necessary--especially if Republicans are the ones making those arguments. (That magazine's thoughtful analysis of the Maritime Strategy [SEA PLAN 2000] comes to mind.)

Moreover, some of the participants in the 'war game' have not exactly set the world on fire with their professional and political judgment. (And do former NSC back benchers really qualify as "SENIOR" leadership?)

Finally, I must ask: How relevant can a war game involving a Pacific rim nation be if none of the participants are navalists?

YMMV.

Sigaba,

Let me assist you in our thinking, the Navy and Air Force are considered "support" elements to the Army, you know the ones that actually see the enemy.

Now on the real side of planning the Navy and Air Force only take care of "one" aspect of the fight. Well that is unless you think the NK Navy is going to send warships to attack Okinawa, Guam, and the United States.......

I think your Naval wargaming might just be stuck in the 1950's.

TS

[The Reaper]

I think we could execute a limited strike against the NK Navy or AF and teach them a lesson without starting WW III.

A covert op with plausible deniability would be even better, but I have doubts we could pull that one off successfully.

The real problem remains that we are dealing with irrational players.

TR

[Five-O]

Is it time to see just how good/tough and well trained the SK Army is? If they won't repond immediately to a deliberate sinking of one of their Naval vessels and the loss of nearly 50 lives and the deliberate shelling of their soveriegn territory...why TF should we care? For this one..... maybe we can just sit on the sidelines and dry off the football inbetween plays for them.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Five-O

Is it time to see just how good/tough and well trained the SK Army is? If they won't repond immediately to a deliberate sinking of one of their Naval vessels and the loss of nearly 50 lives and the deliberate shelling of their soveriegn territory...why TF should we care? For this one..... maybe we can just sit on the sidelines and dry off the football inbetween plays for them.

The South Koreans are in the unenviable position of having their most lucrative civilian target (Seoul) within range of the majority of the NK camouflaged and well-protected heavy artillery. Furthermore, the NKs have metric tons of chem and bio weapons.

I believe that the ROKs can win, militarily, but it might be a Pyrrhic victory with millions of casualites and hundreds of billions of dollars in damage.

Then you would still have the enormous post-war cost of trying to integrate the North.

And you have to keep the Chinese out of it, and they do not want millions of refugees pouring across their border either.

TR

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

Sigaba,

Let me assist you in our thinking, the Navy and Air Force are considered "support" elements to the Army, you know the ones that actually see the enemy.

Now on the real side of planning the Navy and Air Force only take care of "one" aspect of the fight. Well that is unless you think the NK Navy is going to send warships to attack Okinawa, Guam, and the United States.......

I think your Naval wargaming might just be stuck in the 1950's.

TS

TS--

With respect, IMO contemporaneous discussions about strategy are less than they might be because American navalism is in decline.

Since 1945, navalism has served as a necessary--and under appreciated--counter weight to those air power enthusiasts and advocates of 'transformation' who believe that there are sustainable high tech short cuts to fighting wars.

Moreover, from a historical perspective, American navalism has frequently served to keep rank and file Americans focused on "big picture" concepts. These concepts include nationalism and a sense of mission.

IMO, the army does not yet have this type of influence. This influence has not fully flowered for several reasons including:

• America's long standing ambivalence towards standing armies;
• William Sherman's and Emory Upton's lasting influence on civil-military relations,
• widely held popular misconceptions about the Vietnam War; and
• the increasingly fetishized discourse over military affairs in mass popular culture.

Consequently, when I made my tongue in cheek aside, I was not arguing that the U.S. Navy would be at the forefront of a solution to the ongoing crisis with North Korea. I was simply suggesting that navalists could bring something to the discussion.

My $0.02.