There’s a lot of Trump news this week, but I wanted to return to the subject of Korea since that has such enormous potential for disastrous loss of life. The North test launched four ballistic missiles, setting off a firestorm of media coverage and a torrent of speculation from military and diplomatic spokespeople. As usual, most of it misses the mark by a mile. The New York Times articles on the developing crisis mention only in passing the massive join military exercises currently underway by the U.S. and South Korea. One wonders how many rounds, missiles, etc., are typically expended in such exercises.
UPI reports that there will actually be two joint exercises underway over the coming weeks; one a ground, air, and naval exercise that will include landings (i.e. mock invasions of the north). The other is more a command exercise involving the new THAAD anti-missile system the U.S. is installing in South Korea. So think about this – a practically constant stream of large scale drills, and now a missile battery that threatens to negate what Pyongyang likely thinks of as its nuclear deterrent. Got that? Now combine that with something utterly unknown to Americans – the kind of paranoia that stems from having been invaded and bombed out of existence six decades ago. That may have something to do with these missile launches.
How will the Trump administration react to these tests? It’s hard to say, but if I were to guess I would suggest that their reaction might be similar to the tack taken by the last GOP administration. Dubya (Bush 43) put North Korea on the “Axis of Evil” short list for invasion, perhaps just to make Reverend Moon happy, but I’m not certain of that. That in and of itself might have been the best argument for developing a deterrent. Combined with other factors relating to our long history with Pyongyang, it’s a compelling case. I don’t condone their nuclear weapon design and production programs, but it’s not hard to work out why they might want such weapons. Deterrence, and a prompt to get the United States to a negotiating table. They don’t want six party talks, or three party talks … they want one on one with America, because we are their principal adversary.
This standoff should have ended decades ago. The fact that it’s happening while Trump is president is testament to that very painful truth.
luv u,
jp
Lest you think I’m unfairly blaming Bush II, just consider – most Supreme Court vacancies occur according to plan. To the greatest extent possible, a justice now plans his/her (usually his) exit based on the likelihood that his/her successor will be appointed by a president who shares the Justice’s general political orientation. (Hence Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s reported election night 2000 angst over the apparent election of Al Gore.) That pattern was disrupted in 2005, when illness compelled Chief Justice William Rehnquist to step down. Had Bush not been re-elected the year before, John Kerry would have nominated Rehnquist’s replacement and the political balance of the court would very likely have shifted to the center-left for perhaps the next generation. Instead, thanks to Dubya, we have Citizen’s United, McCutcheon v FEC, and now Hobby Lobby, Harris v Quinn, and McCullen.