War Is Not An Option For Korea
By Christine Ahn, www.fpif.org
April 18th, 2017
Attacking North Korea now would undermine the very reason U.S. troops have
been stationed on the peninsula for seven decades: to protect the South
Korean people.
"Let me be very clear: The policy of strategic patience has ended," U.S.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told reporters at a news conference in
Seoul, South Korea. "All options are on the table," Tillerson continued,
including "an appropriate response" to any North Korean threat.
The United States and North Korea are like two "accelerating trains coming
toward each other," Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi warned last week. North
Korea test-fired four ballistic missiles off the coast of Japan as thousands
of South Korean, Japanese, and U.S. troops, backed by warships and
warplanes, are currently engaging in massive military exercises, including
the deployment of the Navy SEALS that killed Osama Bin Laden.
With no communication other than military posturing, Pyongyang is left to
interpret Washington's maneuvers as preparation for a pre-emptive strike.
Given the political vacuum in South Korea following President Park
Geun-hye's impeachment, all tracks are heading towards one destination: war.
At a Council of Foreign Relations discussion on March 13, Mary Beth Long, a
former assistant secretary of defense, advocated for "aggressive movement"
given the failure of the Obama administration's strategic patience, which
depended heavily on sanctions to further isolate and foment the collapse of
the Kim Jong Un regime.
Yet as hawks call upon President Trump to deal with North Korea's nuclear
and missile programs through the use of force, they're undermining the very
reason the U.S. military has allegedly been stationed on the Korean
peninsula for seven decades: to protect the South Korean people.
Although the fantasy of surgical strikes to topple brutal dictators has long
intoxicated American military officials, they've been restrained by the
sobering reality of such reckless action. In the 1990s, when President Bill
Clinton considered a first strike on North Korea's Yongbyon nuclear reactor,
the Pentagon concluded that even limited action would claim a million lives
in the first 24 hours - and this was well before Pyongyang possessed nuclear
weapons.
President Obama, too, considered surgical strikes targeting Kim Jong Un and
weapons sites. But as David Sanger reported in The New York Times, obtaining
such timely intelligence was nearly impossible and "the risks of missing
were tremendous, including renewed war on the Korean peninsula." Any
military action by Washington will undoubtedly trigger a counter-reaction
from Pyongyang that could instantly kill a third of the South Korean
population.
"North Korea will surely conduct a nuclear attack against South Korea and
the U.S. by using all of its various methods of attack such as long-range
artillery," said Suh Choo-suk, a Senior Research Fellow at the Korea
Institute for Defense Analyses at a symposium in Tokyo earlier this month.
"There is no South Korean leader who thinks the first strike by the U.S. is
okay."
Yet with the political vacuum in South Korea following Park Geun-hye's
impeachment, the South Korean foreign minister Yun Byung-se appears to be
following Washington's hardline stance that "military deterrence would be
one of the pillars."
It may be the Park administration's last-ditch effort to foment regime
collapse before a more progressive administration reverses its hardline
policy. The leading candidate to replace Park, Moon Jae-in, is poised to win
the May 9 snap elections, barring any surprises. He has promised to visit
Pyongyang before Washington, re-open the Kaesong Joint Industrial complex
that Park closed last year, and re-consider the installation of THAAD, the
U.S. missile defense system Washington deployed ahead of schedule before a
progressive administration takes over the Blue House in Seoul. The
deployment of THAAD has angered China, which views it as a U.S. surveillance
tool, and has dealt a blow to South Korea's economy by boycotting many goods
and services.
Perhaps that's why the Trump administration is considering military action
now. With a liberal pro-engagement president in South Korea, Washington will
have to change its tune from beating the drums for war. Moon isn't a novice
either; he was chief of staff to Roh Moo-hyun, the last liberal South Korean
president, who called for continuing the sunshine policy towards North Korea
and renegotiating wartime operational control away from Washington into
Seoul's hands.
If the Trump administration is indeed planning a military first strike, it
must consider the 28,500 U.S. soldiers and their families stationed in South
Korea, not to mention the tens of thousands more in Okinawa and Guam, which
are within striking distance of North Korean missiles. It will be their
blood on his hands.
The feasibility of such pre-emptive strikes hinges, of course, on the
accuracy of U.S. intelligence, which the global intelligence firm Stratfor
believes is at best questionable. "Though the United States can be
reasonably certain of its ability to destroy the nuclear infrastructure in a
single strike, it would require an extremely accurate intelligence picture -
far beyond what is likely - for Washington to be reasonably certain of
having hit and destroyed all available weapons and delivery vehicles."
The prospect of war on the Korean peninsula is simply inconceivable.
My father's entire family in Chuncheon, two hours northeast of Seoul, would
be among the millions of Korean civilians instantly killed, not to mention
all the innocent lives that would be killed in the crossfire. As U.S.
intelligence estimates, a seemingly surgical military action could devolve
into a regional war that could well draw in Japan, China, and Russia.
When considering the massive destruction of a U.S. military action, it's
clear to the sane and sober that military intervention is not an option. In
this perilous hour, diplomacy and engagement should be the only
consideration on the table.
Last week, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi made a proposal: "As a first
step, North Korea should suspend nuclear activity, and the U.S. and South
Korea should also suspend large-scale military drills." Calling on both
sides to de-escalate and return to talks, Yi proposed a dual track of
denuclearization and establishing a peace mechanism to resolve concerns of
all parties.
Trump, who fashions himself a shrewd businessman, should know a good deal
when he sees one - and take it.
