A really good idea: US pulls troops out of S. Korea

Great Debates
41

A “tough inspections regime” backed by what? That strategy only works if you are genuinely prepared to enforce it with war.

In order to have any chance of accomplishing anything, you’d need hundreds if not thousands of inspectors, backed up with things like U2 overflights. So say we demand that, and they say no. Now what?

Or say we do like we did in 1994, and they agree to the inspections in exchange for an aid package. We give them the money, and then when they tire of us, or when the inspectors actaully find something, they cancel the deal. We’re out X million dollars, and we’re back to square one, only now they want more money.

A non-aggression pact would be valuable to them now as a PR coup, and even more so down the road … if the US announces in 2006 that “we are voiding the non-aggression pact,” that will be seen in New York, Moscow, Beijing, etc. as a tremendously provocative move by the US; I mean, the only reason you void a non-aggression pact is if you’re thinking about aggression, right? The fact that such a voiding may legally be “automatic” is irrelevant in the real world. Very little of the current Iraq debate has centered on the technicalities of what constitutes “material breach.”

But more importantly, is the US really prepared to invade, or even heavily bomb NK? Any US military action would result in massive, massive death and destruction in Seoul and Japan; hundreds of thousands if not millions dead. That is simply not a price we are willing to pay.

The question is [Connery voice] what are you prepared to do? [/Connery] And if the answer is not “I am prepared to risk millions of lives in an effort to force North Korea to disarm,” then you’re better off going home.

I’m not betting on the Chinese. I’m hoping to get them involved.
If they don’t, so much the worse, but I still don’t see any real options out there. The fundamental reality is that *we don’t have any cards to play. * We don’t have the stomach for war with them. they’re already about as much of a pariah state as is possible. They have no civil economy to sanction, and they really aren’t terribly interested in developing one. They want money, and we can give them that, but there really aren’t any strings we can attach to it, and they know it.

They’re the guy with one bullet holding off the five of us. We won’t attack him, because nobody wants to be the first to die. But in return, he knows that once he fires that gun, he’s dead. So what do you do? Wait, wait, wait. Sooner or later, he’ll fall asleep, the gun will rust, or maybe we get lucky and a meteor falls from the sky. Worst case scenario, he gets pissed and shoots one of us out of spite; which would have happened if we charged him anyway.

Make the occasional concession agreeing to talks, which I expect we will in another year or so. Throw a million here and there at them. Sooner or later, just like the USSR and eastern Europe, the system will collapse under its own weight. Hopefully, nobody gets hurt in the process.

I don’t see any feasible alternatives.

42

“The fundamental reality is that we don’t have any cards to play”
This isn’t true. The US can offer economic aid and relations. It can offer a non-agression pact. Then there is the implicit threat of military attack. Even if the US is unlikely take such a step there is no way the North Koreans can be 100% sure. These aren’t the best cards,it’s true, but it’s a lot better than nothing.

“We’re out X million dollars, and we’re back to square one, only now they want more money.”
Except that square 1 isn’t such a bad deal if the alternative was North Korean going nuclear in 1994 and having dozens of bombs by now.

"The fact that such a voiding may legally be “automatic” is irrelevant in the real world. Very little of the current Iraq debate has centered on the technicalities of what constitutes “material breach.” "
The clear difference is that this is a bilateral treaty between two countries and not a UNSC resolution which can only be enforced by the UNSC. So the diplomacy would be different.

“Worst case scenario, he gets pissed and shoots one of us out of spite; which would have happened if we charged him anyway.”
No the worst-case scenario is that North Korea has 50 bombs in five years and sits pretty selling them to terrorists and rogue regimes. The North Korean situation is the biggest security threat to the US so doing nothing is simply not an option.

43

I’ll retract my “do nothing” as hyperbole. But I still think that responding each and every time NK makes a threat simply increases the chance that they will keep making threats. I’m not saying cut off all money; as I said, a million here and there, with the realization that 90% of what you give will go to the military whether we like it or not. I tend to doubt that they really want “economic aid;” they want cash, not help in setting up a market economy or anything like that.

And I still think that a non-aggression pact is essentially tying our own hands; but I agree that

I just don’t see how we prevent that. As I said, a de facto blockade would maybe work, if China helps, but only if.

I think we’re both getting at the same main point: a sort of honorable appeasement. I just think that one of our big concessions should be agreeing to talks in the first place, and we should not be seen to be giving in to threats. Hence slow, slow, slow.

44

“I just think that one of our big concessions should be agreeing to talks in the first place, and we should not be seen to be giving in to threats. Hence slow, slow, slow.”
I don’t think that talking is “giving in” and the idea that not talking is a valid bargaining chip overstates the strength of the US position. I do agree that any further offers of aid should be conditional on better verification. Above all going “slow” is not an option either since North Korea is capable of cranking out the bombs in a matter of months.

45

I don’t think anyone – even the North Koreans – would view the removal of US troops as an action in response to North Korea’s now-daily threats to nuke LA. It is pretty clear that any troop movement – sponsored originally only by Rummy’s typical off-the-cuff remarks – would be a US rebuke to the Roh administration’s anti-American campaign. (And in this case, Rummy’s ill-considered statements seemed to work to get South Korea to realize that it needs the US too much to casually disdain the protection it gets for free.)

46

By the way, can anyone explain to me why the US is wrong for acting “unilaterally” in Iraq but also wrong for calling on the UN/the regional community to respond to North Korea?

47

“I don’t think anyone – even the North Koreans – would view the removal of US troops as an action in response to North Korea’s now-daily threats to nuke LA. It is pretty clear that any troop movement – sponsored originally only by Rummy’s typical off-the-cuff remarks – would be a US rebuke to the Roh administration’s anti-American campaign”
Actually your interpretation would be just as good from the North Korean pov. It would mean that they have divided South Korea and the US a major strategic victory for them. And I wouldn’t exaggerate North Korean ability to correctly interpret US political motives. It’s not as if there are many North Koreans with a sophisticated understanding of US government.