When Hillary Clinton laid out her plans for dealing with North Korea, she responded with one concept: “strategic patience”. Time, she felt, was on her side. A spokesman for the Korean President was quoted by the NYT as saying:
“The key word” during the South Korean leaders’ meetings with Mrs. Clinton was her strategy of “strategic patience,” said Lee Dong-kwan, President Lee’s spokesman.
“Another way to put it is that time is on our side,” the spokesman said after the president’s meeting with Mrs. Clinton. “We shouldn’t go for an impromptu response to each development but take a longer-term perceptive in shaping the situation around the Korean Peninsula.”
Advertisement
Glenn Kessler at the Washington Post, in a somewhat more skeptical article, noted that evidence this approach was working seemed far from evident.
Now that patience is going to be tested.
Since President Obama took office, North Korea has launched missiles, conducted a second nuclear test, seized a pair of U.S. journalists and sunk a South Korean warship, killing 46 sailors. This week, after South Korea halted aid and trade to Pyongyang, the North said it would sever relations with its neighbor. It also warned of more provocative actions if Seoul pushes ahead with plans to seek a U.N. Security Council resolution imposing additional sanctions.
Ironically the concept of “strategic patience” was invoked by strategists who wished “stay the course” in Iraq. Anthony Cordesman, in his 2007 critique of that policy said, “There is no point in pursuing failed strategies or failed policies. Iraq is a gamble, and one where even the best-managed future US policies may still fail.” In the summer of 2007 “strategic patience” was bad. Is it good this time? The only justification for those who saw the wisdom of persisting in Iraq is that the enemy was eventually defeated and a relatively friendly state was established in place of a hostile one. The same cannot yet be said of North Korea.
So why was strategic patience bad in Iraq but a good thing in North Korea. More generally when is ‘strategic patience’ a worthwhile approach? The obvious answer is when it works or looks likely to work. Genuine strategic patience pays off at some point. A dry hole stays dry forever. The difference between the two is that only one provides a return on investment. The other is mere obstinacy. Telling them apart is a matter of judgment. Napoleon counseled, “never reinforce failure”. Napoleon was constantly probing for enemy weakness at various points, but gave himself a time limit to see whether it was worthwhile or not. He was constantly judging. Patience was never a virtue in itself. A move had to show potential or he would abandon it. Unlike Hillary he was not certain that time was always on his side. “You can ask me for anything you like, except time”, he said. Time was neither enemy nor friend. It worked for both sides.
But Napoleon had set himself a simpler task than Hillary. He merely wished to win over an enemy. Hillary may want to shape geopolitics. It is possible that ‘victory’ and ‘defeat’ are too simplistic to describe her universe. Her goal is to change the course of history. She said, “we shouldn’t go for an impromptu response to each development but take a longer-term perceptive in shaping the situation around the Korean Peninsula.” This complicates strategy because it forces one to sit as it were on both sides of the DMZ at once. Things have to be arranged so that one social order should seamlessly changes into another without ever passing through a period of complete chaos. Nothing like the disorder that followed the fall of Saddam should ever be endured again. That means the bricks have to be rearranged ever so slowly, ever so carefully. Thus the only thing worse than having Kim Jong Il in Pyongyang is to not have him in Pyongyang; conflicts which end without anyone on the other side are considered problematic. Diplomats talk. And if everyone on the other side is defeated, then who is there left to talk to?
But Hillary will always have at least one party to talk to whatever happens to Kim Jong Il: China. Behind Pyongyang is Beijing. Both in 1950 and 2010, China pulled North Korea’s strings. It provided and provides Pyongyang with Great Power protection. It uses Pyongyang to advance its agenda against Japan and South Korea. Hillary’s confident declaration that North Korea is a problem which will solve itself no longer looks so certain when one looks slightly beyond the Korean peninsula. In that context it is not terribly clear Hillary is right when she declares “that time is on our side”. Once the problem is defined in terms of America’s relationship with China then the timescales become comparable to those of Cold War with the Soviet Union. Suppose it is Beijing that is displaying strategic patience and not Hillary? Beijing is not likely to gloat publicly. After all Napoleon also counseled, “never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”
The really dangerous thing about words is their ability to dress up folly in the language of wisdom. When we know the difference the result is humor. Who has not, as a student, ever referred to his dinner as a spiced rissole of choice beef served between a freshly baked bread, delicately seasoned with sauce mayonnaise and toma-toh relish? It made eating a slider taste better. But when we don’t know the difference it’s a shot in the dark and you better know when you’ve missed. The Washington Post story contains this skeptical note:
embedded by Embedded VideoStill, L. Gordon Flake, a Korea expert who is executive director of the Mansfield Foundation in Washington, said the administration and the current South Korean government “have displayed remarkable adherence to their core principles in dealing with North Korea. There is a consistency you have not seen before.”
But “looking forward, I’m a bit concerned,” he said. “It leads down a road where the diplomatic options are increasingly constrained. Strategic patience is a solid policy, but what if North Korea is not patient?”
YouTube Direkt
Is she winning or losing? Is it a pimp taking money from a taxi dancer or is it the Danse apache?
Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5
“Strategic patience”. Isn’t that French for do nothing and hope it goes away? It sure has worked with Cuba…..NOT.
In a way it makes sense. If you have a European economy, why not an European foreign policy?
At least we don’t have to worry about this administration screwing the pooch. They haven’t yet reached that level of competence.
If there are two world leaders that were meant for each other it is LLMD and Little Kim.
1. Rosinante;
I’m with you on that, it sounds like a complicated way of saying “sitting on our hands”. If the Norks were a normal, functioning nation then tightened sanctions might make a difference (of course, if they WERE a normal nation we wouldn’t be having this discussion). As it is they will little notice the actions taken (well, at least Kim won’t, pity the poor commoners).
While thinking about sanctions it struck me as odd that we exercise collective punishment against an entire nation, sanctions that leave Kim fat and sassy and his citizens looking like concetration camp victims, but we are horrified at the idea of putting a bullet through his head?
Perhaps our leaders are afraid that somebody would shoot back.
Perhaps our leaders are sissies.
The situation is akin to dealing with a scorpion in a bottle.
Options are:
1. Stick your hand into the bottle.
2. Put a cork in the bottle.
The Olympian disdain for mere mortals that people like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton cannot help expressing resembles that of the decadent Imperial Envoy in Issac Asimov’s Foundation series who who waved off the pretensions of breakaway satraps. It is far worse than that of Neville Chamberlain who was famous for,
Under the current Democrats our passivity has extended to the Mexicans, whose inside the aristocracy President gets to comment on our domestic laws and the employment of our National Guard while we ignore organized armed forces in his country operating alongside, or even crossing over, our own border. Given that how can anyone expect us to be seriously concerned about a conflict in Korea?
“Things have to be arranged so that one social order should seamlessly changes into another without ever passing through a period of complete chaos. Nothing like the disorder that followed the fall of Saddam should ever be endured again. That means the bricks have to be rearranged ever so slowly, ever so carefully.”
In other words, a quasi-static process (in which equilibrium is maintained throughout) rather than an abrupt, messy phase change. It’s funny how the folks that rammed ObamaCare (or can I still call it that?) down our throats in such a hurried, pell-mell fashion can turn so suddenly on a dime and emphasize excruciating patience. The ‘War on Poverty’ and other failed social programs we’re to wait on forever for results, but if, for example, something like Iraq isn’t rolled up neatly by 2004, it’s an ill-advised fiasco, quagmire, etc.
During the Clinton administration I came up with a companion concept to pair with “Occam’s Razor” which I called “Hokum’s Lather.” Hokum’s Lather is where the media spin of the Democrats gets picked up by their media allies and whipped into a conceptual foam that is spread over the entire mess. Sometimes it is pure politics, and the admonition to “not believe your own press releases” might be sufficient.
Other times the lather originates from “Gnostic Governance.” This comes from the belief of those in charge that they have access to a form of “secret knowledge” unavailable to the unsophisticated. So rather than explain what they are actually about (and answering the challenges to their arguments) they use deception and rhetorical tricks to push their positions forward. The problem here is that “the lather” becomes an important part of “the program.” Foam production becomes a major industry demanding protection.
“When Hillary Clinton laid out her…” For God’s sake man! Don’t start out a paragraph like that!
Anyway, “strategic patience” sounds a lot like “courageous restraint”, which sounds a lot like “none of the above” to me.
That tune is no more harmonious in the dark, talnik.
It is difficult to say how much of the US patience should be credited to strategic thinking and how much to sheer reluctance to make a decision that could have negative domestic political consequences.
One thing is clear – there ain’t no “shaping” going on here except that being done by the ChiComs and the NORKS. Whether intentional and part of the grand strategy of Strategic Patience or not, the serpent kingdoms around the globe regard Obama as a nitwit and a wimp. Baby Assad openly expresses contempt for the Nobel thief with his announcement in an Italian interview that the “new” regional powers in the ME will be calling all the shots from now on. After Obama’s humiliating Cairo speech and very public rejection of Israel how could they think otherwise?
Our best hope is that there will be enough Good Men around at the end of this Age of Idiocy to pick up the pieces and reconstruct a civilization based on JudeoChristian values.
When North Korea does anything like the torpedoing of a ship it does it with China’s agreement. China is the one country that can easily control N. Korea. North Korea’s lack of cooperation with nukes, the torpedoing of the ship and any other point of disagreement with South Korea is supported by China. I think that North Korea is China’s stalking horse and a possible indication that China may soon have an ” incident ” with Taiwan. If nothing else this latest is one more step in a long process of testing the West.
Brett: LOL, and here I was believing Ben Franklin’s “All cats are grey in the dark”.
Hillary’s smart enough to know that “strategic patience” is a rotting eulogism. The US is overextended and can’t afford to do anything but kick the can down the road.
I would have several North Korean ships sink at their piers or moorings in North Korea and elsewhere and no one claim credit.
This is really an easy game to play. It was played by the same two countries (maybe more) in the ‘Sixties.
What we are really embarking on is however something different. Do nothing? Play the patsy? No, it is a “strategy” developed by the Emperor with No Clothes.
Why do our earlier victories against the Nork mafia not provide a precedent? A few years back the US Department of the Treasury managed to freeze Kim’s accounts in Macau. Reports indicate that Kim, despite a tantrum, was forced to the negotiating table. We might have done better with our quid pro quo than see an aging and decrepit reactor finally dismantled, but at least we got something out of the deal.
Put geopolitics aside for a moment and examine the problem from the perspective of law enforcement. Yes, law enforcement. The Nork mafia earns its money from all sorts of illegal activities: smuggling, narcotics, gun running, contraband tobacco, and the like. The illicit cash is then spent on luxuries (Kim’s personal vices are well known and numerous) for the ruling elite. Cutting off the supply of ill gotten cash seems to be the only thing that draws a response.
I’m not suggesting that diplomatic and military initiatives don’t have a place in our strategy. I am merely questioning why we’re not using the tactics that have worked in the past. If North Korea is run by a mafia, then we should treat it as such. Hitting their sources of revenue should bring them to the table. Let’s see how patient Kim can be when we put a crimp in his personal lifestyle.
There is only one way that Time can be on Mrs. Rodham-Clinton’s side. She is drawing a distinction between herself (with her petty little political ambitions) and the US (the equivalent of the North Korean peasantry off whom Kim feeds).
She personally may have time on her side. If she can do nothing, avoid a blow up, leave the sinking Obama administration, transfer into campaign mode, and then run as the woman who brought Peace in Our Times, the Democrat nomination for Big Cahuna is hers. Which is all she wants.
But time most definitely is not on the side of the USA. Regulatory policies which have destroyed industry, leaving the US with high unemployment and a crippling balance of payments deficit. Out of control government spending, which is creating a National Debt that can never be repaid. Teachers unions and left-wing professors who are creating an uneducated generation of Americans. Cancelled high tech projects, from the F-22 to the space program. Time is not the US side.
But as Lil’ Kim shows, the state of the nation matters not to the comfortable lifestyle of the ruling clique — which is where Ms. Hillary knows she belongs. All this is so obvious to the Chinese, who are playing Mrs. Rodham-Clinton and her glorious boss like fiddles.
Strategic patience may just be another word for passive disengagement. Whatever the case, our engagement with North Korea has been disastrous from the beginning. Like so many things these days, any real engagement with NorK brings the specter of having war with China. If we could have said so boldly under Bush, you are either for the terrorists or you are against them, then it is our reluctance to “engage” China in any meaningful way that this the persistent problem. As far as states are concerned, North Korea would have been a smoldering hole some time ago if it were not for China. We have to start looking down the back side of the puppet in this case and see the arm that animates him.
GONE are the days when US can and will come down hard on both sides to tell them to behave themselves.
We are likely never see those days, ever.
Very nice, wretchard, only about six levels deeper than anything we see going on in State.
“Strategic patience” sounds to me like it was translated from the Chinese in the first place, and who knows that it isn’t both true and false, good and bad from our perspective. Certainly it is better than ill-considered, panicked moves. OTOH maybe it really is China using the Norks as a catspaw.
I really don’t see Hillary as bringing beans to the position she now holds, that she would take advice from the Chinese seems to be utterly believable. And hey, even their self-serving advice, might be better than she would come up with on her own. OTOH there is the one story about Bubba that ever put him in a positive light for me, that some Nork ambassador once told him to his face that they might nuke something, including the US, and Bubba responded that if they did that, it would be a hundred years before anybody would be able to figure out where North Korea once was. You know that old poster, two vultures, one says to the other, “patience my ass, I’m going to kill something.” It’s the American way.
ps – in that story, the Norks took the message to heart, they then shut up and went away, at least for the moment.
Why is anyone here surprised by this? Did any of you expect that this Administration do anything but mouth empty words? We have a Clueless Wonder in the White House and a Gutless one in the State Department. Hopefully the South Korean see the “bus” coming for them and step out of the way. Going to be a long, long summer. The time when wars get started. I for one have a very bad feeling this in not going to end well.
The only way that the Administration could say “time is on our side” with any certainty would be that they have found out that Kim has some sort of terminal disease. The crazy little runt is clearly not healthy, but that is more of a result of age and bad habits.
Failing that they have to know that the Chinese will keep Kim on just enough economic life-support that he can continue to cause trouble.
reports are four Sango class subs left NorK harbors.
crew 19
commando’s 6
torpedo’s, mines on four quiet diesel electric boats.
ten RoK and US ships on site with ASW gear.
I have a bad feeling about this.
“Strategic Patience” is the new way of saying “Peace in our Time” I think. There is no reason whatsoever to think that time is on the side of the USA. North Korea may not be able to feed herself, but as long as China gives her aid and she can blackmail other countries into giving her food, fuel and other items,she has no need to. As long as Kim keeps his army and secret police well fed, he can stay in power indefinitely.
Hillary’s real message is to tell the South Koreans to do nothing, to not respond to the sinking of their ship because the US under Obama will not or cannot back up her treaty committments. The message is not said but is loud and clear for all that: “The USA as of now will not honor her treaty committments to defend an ally that has been attacked. The USA is now a worthless ally and a harmless enemy.” No country will fail to realize this.
And you can be sure this sends a clear signal to Iran, Venezuala, Syria, Libya and al-qaida: The USA is weak and decadent, do as you will. A policy of appeasement may get Obama through the 2012 election, which is probably all he cares about right now, but it will get a lot of Americans killed. Of course, if Whiskey is right about Ogama he will not care.
If the key to North Korea is China, then perhaps it is time to make China realize that nuclear proliferation does not always work in their favor. We should arrange the lease of some nuclear weapons and delivery systems to Taiwan.
I am reminded of a cartoon where two dogs were inside a car in the driver’s seat. The dialogue between them went something like this:
Sparky: At last! We control the car. We can go wherever we want to go!
Spot: Yeah–if our idiot master can drive this thing we can too. It must be easy.
Sparky: Yeah–it must be. —but how do you start this thing?
Spot: I don’t know…have you tried biting the steering wheel?
Obama, Ms. Hillary, and the rest of the bumbling idiots in the current administration seem to be in a similar situation. Almost any euphemism they use to describe any aspect of foreign policy can really be translated as “we haven’t a god damn clue as to what to do.” The sad thing is that they, like the dogs, are probably incapable and/or disinclined to learn that which needs to be known in order to competently deal with foreign policy.
Ah yes, when you need to disarm a time bomb, either do nothing or start lecturing the bomb. You can think of it as patient constructive engagement or “stupidity” if you want to cut down to the core without regard for the feelings and self esteem of the people who are entrusted with disarming it.
–Somewhere in Kenya and Arkansas villages are missing their idiots
Dirc has the right idea. Georgia could have used some nukes as well. The Russians sure aren’t helping us prevent Iran from getting the bomb so we need to create something to trade for their assistance. Either the Russians and Chinese help make sure no one else joins the nuclear club or we make sure countries on our side get armed as well. The only alternative is to stand by and watch our enemies arm themselves.
The Chinese and Russians would squeal… then they would bargain. Both are reactions much to be desired.
BTW, the absolute last thing one would do is give up a missile defense system in Eastern Europe in return for nothing. That gave the game away before it began and you can bet the governments of all of our enemies and allies alike understood what it said about the idiot we have as our leader.
#24. dirc
I think its time to stop living in the past. Nuclear proliferation is happening and the genie cannot be enticed back into the bottle. We need to accept this. As it is, we effectively do nothing except mouth hollow threats and platitudes when enemy states develop nuclear capabilities, but perversely we are prepared to punish our cultural allies when they attempt to do the same. I will not bother to find links for it but it does appear that the Obama administration would like for Israel to give up its atomic arsenal while at the same time they are effectively doing nothing to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Its hypocrisy and stupidity to the thirty-second power.
I think, at the least, we should encourage and give any needed technical assistance to Japan and Taiwan so that they could build nuclear arsenals. And perhaps, to certain countries in eastern europe as well. As long as everybody gets to have nukes I would like to make sure that all our friends have them as well. Let the Russians and Chinese sweat. The sword they have unleashed upon the world cuts both ways.
I hope that the various enemies of the U.S. keep in mind that our federal and state leaders change every 4 years or so. On one hand, that makes us weak–witness the lack of staying power re Iraq. On the other hand, that makes us strong–no nation should ever think that Americans can be permanently intimidated.
As a non-military person, I can think of quite a few ways to harass our enemies. Therefore, I’m confident that people with military knowledge know thousands of ways to bring various enemies to their knees.
Wishful thinking? I don’t think so. I just want to warn our enemies not to underestimate Americans. Hillary, Obama, and their ilk are not people who actually know how to do things. There are millions of Americans who do know how to do things.
Obambus’ speech this morning, press conference, is an incredible exercise in trying to have things both ways, grabbing credit for good stuff and pointing fingers about bad stuff. Unbelievable. Should be taught in schools for the next hundred years, as a bad example.
How long has N. Korea been “collapsing?” I’d love to believe that time is on “our” side, but too many supposedly failed nations seem to operate from a comatose state nonetheless. Zimbabwe, anyone?
I think maybe one worrying scenario I haven’t seen discussed is the following, maybe farfetched.
Say NK is China’s asset. Makes sense since Stalin/Mao sent Kim Il Sung against SK in the first place, and the settlement established a buffer between unfortunately imperialist running dog SK/USA and the young Chinese Communist state. NK’s only real purpose is to prevent subversion of Communism flooding from SK to China, and to give China a running start in any shooting war launched by land from Japan/USA via SK. So we get the world’s most concentration camp-like of the Communist states.
So fastforward 50 years after the dismantling of the Warsaw Pact & etc. to the present provocation. Obviously NK/China knew the NK origin of the torpedo would be discovered. It also presents too much of a problem for SK/USA for that usual NK/Chinese diplomatic alchemy to work where they do something absurdly provocative and yet we end up paying them for it.
A nuke program sitting in a country unused can possibly be rationalized as a non-threat – but 46 dead and a broken corvette cannot be.
So the first question is Why would NK break its own diplomatic strategy?
Thinking of China as the real author, I think the real concern is that someone has decided that NK is a strategic asset that can now be liquidated – launched against the Imperialists. If NK goes out in a blaze of glory – or even just a fizzle – the end result is the same: SK and NK have to be merged, or rather the ruins of NK have to be integrated into some New Korea.
Imagine how incredibly costly and distracting that will be. Imagine how many opportunities for China to extort Japan and USA and SK, on the basis of their humanitarian commitments & etc., to enter into agreements which basically entangle them even further. What if it allows China to raise the Taiwan question again in a way advantageous to them.
But also: what if NK war will not be so lopsided as believed, what if it causes the commitment of substantial US and SK forces and results in the razing of Seoul – remember that no one of the North Korean leadership is going to be around to be tried, killed either by USA or Chinese or allowed into China for hiding, so they can do it with impunity and deniability. What if the liquidation/launching of NK is a prelude to a more general war by other forces into Central Asia and Eastern Europe?
Consider also the origins of the recent attempted coup d’etat in Thailand. I presume everyone’s aware that ultimately this was a Shanghai Cooperation Organization operation. As is this crap in NK.
I’m not sure why everybody thinks China has the DPRK on a leash. China has no more control over Lil’ Kim then Obama has over Arizona. People think it was China that saved the Norks in the 50′s. It wasn’t. Truman saved the Norks. China lost about 1 million soldiers stopping the US and pushing them back to the 38th parallel. The US Army was in the process of pushing them back to the Yalu when Truman made them stop.China isn’t going to intervene again. If China lost a millions soldiers today, the regime there would fall. Their casualities would be that high this go around because the USA doesn’t wage war on the privates, they go after the Generals and send the Privates back home. WITH THEIR WEAPONS. China is a police state. The Chi-coms running the place are not going to risk losing control for some nutter who will be dead in afew years anyway.
The Chi-coms want a buffer state because while on paper China is a wealthy nation, that hasn’t trickled down to the peasants yet. IIRC, their per capita is still in the bottom 10. So they last thing they want is a prosperous, western style (democratic) state next door that will give their peasants ideas.
Where Foggy Bottom is fooling them selves is expecting everyone else to ignore the problem because they are. No matter how far they stick their head in the sand, it won’t go away. So we are stuck with hoping whatever contingency plans in place will work when the fecal matter hits the rotay air impeller.
Or maybe she was really saying; “You’ll hold on until the adults are back in charge at the White House and we get a POTUS with a full sack (Go SARA GO!)
Hillary Dillary dock
The time ran up the clock
She waited in line
Said all will be fine
My patience is a rock
The Chinese sit and wait
They know there’s an end date
Impatience grows
That’s how it goes
And time is getting late
When time runs down the clock
There comes a fearful shock
No longer fun
She’ll cut and run
Hillary Dillary dock
Excerpt from Wretchard’s post, quoting Secretary of State Clinton : “She said, “we shouldn’t go for an impromptu response to each development but take a longer-term perceptive[my italics] in shaping the situation around the Korean Peninsula.” Could the intended word have been “perspective?”
By following Wretchard’s link, I find that this is correctly quoted from the New York Times article reporting on Clinton’s “support” of South Korean President Lee Myung-bak in his patient response to North Korea’s recent act of war.
At first one is tempted to lament the uselessness of even the most advanced spell checkers, which normally allow without embarrassment words which are correctly spelled but which are conspicuously wrong.
“Patience” is what she’s calling it.
But it has that same soiled diaper aroma that no amount of air freshener was able to remove from the President’s Brave and Bold handling of the teenaged Somali Pirates holding hostage a U.S. merchant sea captain. Let’s recall that he hid under his desk for the duration, emerging ONLY AFTER the U.S. Navy Seals managed a solution that probably circumvented his orders to refrain from any use of force.
My sense is that President Lee Myung-bak may be acting under constraints imposed by Clinton and her boss.
They are less than schoolyard bullies, who have no fear about beating up little kids too small to offer any resistance, but piss their pants when confronted by an equal, especially one with fists clenched and ready for battle.
It really is a shame to see a once-brilliant nation governed by idiots, petty thieves, perverts, and traitors.
How long was Iraq collapsing, or Afghanistan?
Or Greece?
Do states actually “collapse”? What’s a good example?
@ 3 Michael Sheehan
“The situation is akin to dealing with a scorpion in a bottle.
Options are:
1. Stick your hand into the bottle.
2. Put a cork in the bottle.”
There is a third option: Pour water into bottle, floating scorpion out. Then kill it.
(Or, if you’re Bear Grylls, you cut off the stinger and you eat the little insect for dinner.)
I don’t think South Korea has any acceptable options concerning North Korea.
Here are the options as I see them:
1) Do nothing and hope North Korea goes away or stops behaving badly (like that’s really going to happen).
2) Go to war against North Korea, achieve a decisive victory with minimal casualties and then become custodian over 23.8 million brainwashed malnourished zombies living in a resource depleted wasteland.
3) Go to war against North Korea, fend off suicidal human wave assaults from hundreds of thousands of brainwashed malnourished zombie soldiers, probably have Seoul nuked and/or razed to ground, endure thousands of South Korean casualties and then after a long fought victory become custodian over less than 23.8 million brainwashed malnourished zombies living in a resource depleted wasteland.
It seems to me that option 1) is the least terrible.
One might ask: What’s China’s angle in this situation?
Currently the zombies living in North Korea are between two borders. The border between North and South Korea is the most heavily fortified border on Earth, with razor wire, mine fields and defended by South Korean soldiers. The border between North Korea and China is just an ordinary fence and not really defended.
If you’re a brainwashed malnourished zombie which way are your going to run?
The Chinese obviously know the answer to that question and are doing what they can to make sure the zombies stay in North Korea.
“Strategic Patience” or the modern day version of “Peace in Our Time”
Peggy Noonan once said of a hypothetical John Kerry Administration: “He would surround himself with very bright people and they would study every problem very carefully. And then they would do nothing, because they would conclude that what needs to be done is what the Republicans would do and they couldn’t possibly do that.”
“Strategic Patience” means kicking the can down the road until a Reagan or Bush comes along from the other party and fixes the problem. Then you snipe at him and make sure he does not fix the whole world lest you be left with nothing to do. And when he does not fix it all you complain bitterly about how now you will have to clean up the mess.
“Yes doctor, the patient’s cancer is gone, his heart valve is fixed, he can walk for the first time in 20 years, but he still can’t play the violin. Never mind that he never could before; it’s still your fault.”
Ironically we need “Strategic Patience” in Afghanistan where we should not go rushing into to try to convert a remote and worthless area into the People’s Republic of Massachusetts. I was pleased to see Ralph Peters finally back off from his usual “Boots on the ground are the answer to everything” and admit that maybe airpower can handle the problem or at least to the extent it needs to be handled.
Eggplant #38:
4) Drop an asteroid on North Korea and make it look like a big accident. By the way, this will also fix Global Warming assuming it even exists.
Eggplant – another option would be to defenestrate the Il regime and to install a transitional “one-nation” administration that essentially passes out food and keeps the lights on while maintaining the border. SK could then turn NorK into a mercantilist state that makes goods at costs less than China until their debt is resolved and their economy is built up to near parity with SK. Then, when those preconditions are met, reunification could be made in earnest. Oh wait, China wouldn’t want the competition.
She must have learned this “strategic patience” stuff dealing with Willie’s peccadilloes.
But seriously wretchard, you give at once give Hillie too much credit and too little.
The only agenda here is to undermine American power by proving her to be a weak, unpredictable, cowardly and inept ally. It has nothing to do with “shaping the situation around the Korean Peninsula” as a goal in and of itself and next to nothing to do with a legitimate policy concerning “security” either regionally or internationally. If anything, she and the viper pit she slithers out of would like to see the N. Koreans win. At best they would be indifferent to results in the ground so far as they do no damage to their project.
That being said, her prattle sounds all to much like that of the 1960′s draft dodger stting it out witha student deferment or the “student activist” occupying a university library. “just wait it out. It will turn our way”.
Time is on her side? Strategic? Perhaps, but just which side is that and whose strategy? Certainly not ours.
#40 RWE
There are so many options these days. One might be, and one that someone in the future probably will see, is to develop a nasty plague. Then develop a vaccine against it, and then require the populace to accept the vaccinations while telling them it is to inoculate them against say, the new strain of swine flu. Then let it loose. Watch the people in the “enemy” countries die in droves.
In these days and times there are so many options for mass murder.
“strategic patience” for this team is waiting to vote “present”.
Patience is just another word for “surrender.” Democrats do not want and cannot in fact defend America’s interests. They don’t like America. They certainly do not love it. Why would they then want to defend an interest in Korea?
Consider who Democrats are, who supported Hillary, and Obama. Elite SWPL folks who hate and loathe ordinary White people (class warfare within White ethnicity) as “White Trash” which one can see on any late night talk show, and also hate the traditions, values, and so on of the ordinary White people. This is why they are post-American. They have more in common with a Beijing Red Prince than Joe Bob Sixpack in Ohio. See: Thomas Friedman, who wishes for dicatorship, or Woody Allen.
The problem is that the tremendous amount of wealth, often inherited, and the lack of challenge from new entrants into the elites, have given these elites enormous power since 1945. Unlike previous eras when elites were turned over.
In addition, you get the electoral coalition of Black Nationalists, La Raza, and of course White Women, in terms of electoral/governance spoils and spending and hiring (Affirmative Action). Black Nationalists like Wright (“God Damn Amerikka! KKK of A!”) and La Raza of course loathe America, but it has been surprisingly easy to make most Middle and Upper Class younger White women into post-Americans. Likely because of their class-based loathing for Joe Bob Sixpack and his values.
No one engages in class based bashing more than White Women of a younger age. When the “personal is political” in the hope of constructing an ideal society where every guy is a hunky, post-American big shot or … gay. Joe Bob Sixpack simply overwhelmed by numbers, shut up as “racist” or what have you.
If you look at who expresses, naturally and reflexively, without thinking, in an instinctual revelation of ideals and attitudes, deep-seated patriotism, it is a subset of Young White Men (who volunteer for the military), older White men, to a lesser extent older White women, and that is it. That’s all. About roughly 40% of the population at best. The others all indicate reflexively, their own internal attitudes about America. Refusing to stay at attention for the national anthem by Black professional athletes, gifted beyond measure with wealth, fame and adulation by America, followed by cussing and praise for Obama and their statement that they are Black, they don’t like the Anthem. With no criticism from other Black professional athletes. Same for Hispanic Baseball players, who identify with home nations and ethnicity not America, constantly. Or younger White women who drink of PC well and deeply.
A country gets the foreign policy, nearly all the time, that its population WANTS. About 60% of the US population want the US humiliated and defeated because they are not in fact, American. They are Post-American. “Citizens of the World.” That is why Hillary’s actions make perfect sense.
If Obama wanted to send a message, he could. By banning more Chinese imports, say of selected auto parts, as “unsafe.” And threaten more action in coming days. China MUST keep the factories humming to avoid social unrest and potential revolution. Europe can’t buy any more stuff. The Third World can’t either, and have hefty barriers in Brazil and India where the economies have yet to crash. Zimbabwe is not likely to import a few billion dollars worth of Chinese toys.
He won’t do this. Because the 60% of Post-Americans don’t want it. As much as the Tea Parties love America, most Americans don’t. Have you seen young White women volunteer for the military? Under even Obama? Do they wave the flag? Do they ever in fact express love for America? Do Black or Hispanic Americans do this either in any significant numbers? Nope. Do elites do this? Has Hollywood made a movie since 1950 praising American troops, the military, and the Flag? Hardly. Has the ACLU refused to help identify CIA agents to Al Qaeda? In fact they did the opposite.
Yes of course Hillary merely looks busy. Do you honestly think more than 40% of Americans care about America, or its interests?
Obama has paid no price for inaction in Korea. Nothing. That ought to tell you something.
#45. whiskey
“Patience is just another word for “surrender.”
You are Absolutely Correct.
Annoy Mouse @ 41 said:
“another option would be to defenestrate the Il regime and to install a transitional “one-nation” administration that essentially passes out food and keeps the lights on while maintaining the border.”
A variation on this is South Korea and China could agree to wind up North Korea in a variation of what Hitler and Stalin did with Poland just prior to WW-II, i.e. China agrees to an orderly shutdown of the current regime in North Korea followed by South Korea and China managing North Korea’s contained zombie horde through some sort of two-powers authority. Possibly the United Nations could be called in to provide a fig leaf. This sort of arrangement would protect China’s and South Korea’s economies from the zombie horde while removing the danger presented by the psychopaths who currently run North Korea.
Yes of course Hillary merely looks busy. Do you honestly think more than 40% of Americans care about America, or its interests? Obama has paid no price for inaction in Korea. Nothing. That ought to tell you something.
What is different this time is that the design margins have eroded completely and consequences will be felt. Whether through losses to employment, job security, pensions, Medicare or through security threats or in economic losses due to instability abroad, they will be felt. They are already being reflected in the President’s falling popularity and in political losses. However seemingly unassailable the PC tower may seem what matters is the trend. There’s a video somewhere of a professor in Arizona excoriating the state’s new immigration and nearly being booed offstage. What’s amazing is the surprise on the faces onstage. They didn’t expect the crescendo of boos. The ground is shifting under their feet. And they didn’t know it. That is the truly scary thing. The question is: will it shift fast enough?
In Britain the ruling class saved itself and preserved itself for a long time by incrementally yielding to discontent. It neutered the monarchy, but kept it, etc. It rode the bucking bronco of history but kept its seat by making real changes and concessions.
The interesting question is whether the PC universe can pull off the same trick by cleaning up its act. So far it has proved incapable of evolving. Double-down is followed by double-down. This obsession with high-sounding idiocy shows that they just don’t get it. The question is whether they ever will.
This attachment to fantasy plus the speed at which change is coming suggests — to me at least — that the current gatekeepers will still be surprised when everything comes apart. In the memorable phrase of Brecht “And even in Atlantis of the legend, the night the seas rushed in, the drowning men still bellowed for their slaves.” But the sea still rushed in.
Don’t count on the PC universe being there — at least in its current form — in five year’s time. It’s probably a bad move for a new graduate to set career sights on being a correspondent for ABC News or an ace reporter for the NYT. Nor is entirely clear that investment banking or a career at a Washington think tank is a prime career choice. Nor can one say, as generations said, that I’ll go into the UAW the way dad and grandpa did. Even folks who set their sites on safe government employment are finding it’s not so safe. Illinois can’t meet its pensions. California is bankrupt. The PC universe has run out of savings and is finding that fantasy doesn’t pay the bills. The bad news of course, is that in the process, everyone runs out of design margin.
And that’s why the Korean outcome will matter. Because everyone is in the same boat. Because if the President and Hillary crash the ship of state against the shoals the leak wets everyone. Consider that if Hillary gets it right — actually, physically and practically right — then all will be well with her. Even her critics will concede she succeeded if success is forthcoming. But if she gets it wrong and the thing blows up in her face, then not all the clever phrases or adoring articles sourced to the press will save her political hide.
Maybe the current elite won’t be able to adapt in the manner of the British establishment. If so, the change may be far more abrupt, which won’t be pleasant for anybody, not even those who disagree with the elites. The people who won’t get their pensions, or see them cut, or get them late won’t be asked whether they are Republican, Democrat or Libertarian. Where it will matter is how each responds to the development. The past is over. All that remains is how to respond to the future.
So the best thing is to get people to pay attention so that they think for themselves and make reasoned and sober decisions if rough times come.
The irony is that every first world nation is insolvent. Even more weird is that those same nations don’t know it.
The people almost see it, the ‘leaders’ are blind. I fear that the tea party realists are too late, outnumbered. The elites are revolting; they are also in free fall off the same cliff.
mongoose @ 42: She must have learned this “strategic patience” stuff dealing with Willie’s peccadilloes.
Righto, endless patience with the perpetrator, vicious blackmail for the perpetratees.
HRC has her 3AM call…
She hit the snooze button.
ROK, and the world generally, is not important enough to disturb the Emperor’s DOMESTIC agenda.
——-
It should be apparent that ANY major disturbance in Nork food distribution will cause mega-deaths for the starving caste.
Nork is so lean that front line ‘image’ troops don’t fill out their uniforms!
Pre-natal nutrition is so constrained that IQs must be affected.
State driven paranoia must have enduring impact.
Re-introduction of the Nork population to the planet Earth will be as traumatic as alien abduction.
The fantastic size of SOF within the Nork military scheme tells me that this is Kim’s version of the ‘Elite Republican Guards.’ In which case the rest of his formations are depleted of talent.
Tank warfare takes a lot of oil. Hence, Kim is in a tight box. Without ADVANCE Chinese logistical support he has an army that can’t drive — and an air force that can’t fly.
Realistically Kim’s out of gas.
—–
ROK is going to get out of her own box by going atomic. She needs to have MAD capability vs Kim & Co.
Should ROK ever move north it will be by amphibious flanking maneuvers. Nork can’t counter-shift with her one-plan static army.
PGM mean that Nork rail links to China are toast.
Nork naval inferiority means that she’ll be quarantined at sea, too.
Nork subs are nuisances, unless they’re laying atomics. The need to breathe makes them one-shot assets.
The constant comment, here and elsewhere, that ROK should retaliate against Nork subs may have led Kim to hide them in Russian waters.
—
There will be no gambit against Taiwan in the direct military sense. She operates as a perfect cover for PLAN expansion into a blue water navy able to assault the distant rivals: Japan and America.
If China plays it will be for all the marbles. Right now the correlation of forces makes her a builder and a plotter — not a fighter.
Great analyses above. But I think what Bonzo and others are missing is that when you say “the people [almost] see it,” it’s really only a relatively small subset–say, 20 to 25%. The rest haven’t a clue.
As an unfortunate result, the Dems and their MSM allies will blame everything on the Republicans–Boosh in particular–and most of the public will believe it. So the net result will be: no damage to Dems/socialists/”progressives”.
As always.
Peter (#9): “Obama … the Nobel thief”
I hate to deprive you of a good epithet, and even more to defend Obama, but given past history, surely the true thief is the Norwegian Nobel Committee.
right (#17): “GONE are the days when US can and will come down hard on both sides to tell them to behave themselves.”
I take it this is a general comment, and not you implying that the US should come down hard on South Korea or other American allies.
wretchard (#48): “So the best thing is to get people to pay attention so that they think for themselves and make reasoned and sober decisions if rough times come.”
Ever the unwarranted optimist, eh?
Blert @ 51, wow, that analysis has the whiff of inside knowledge and life experience to it. And common sense. Here we are getting all twisted up about armored thrust by Norks when, as you say, they can’t even fill their uniforms let alone the tanks on their tanks. I don’t mean to belittle the danger, e.g. the shelling of Seoul or lobbing of nukes by Nodong etc. But their spear, while sharp, is brittle and the arm holding it is emaciated.
Wretchard @ 48, yes, the design margin is all used up. I think the biggest design margin in social systems is not a particular or specific feature, it is the cytoplasm in which the system is embedded, i.e. public trust. A/k/a confidence. If a leader has the confidence of the people, she can do anything. If she doesn’t, she can’t do jack. Another kind of design margin is CASH, i.e. financial credit, which of course is just another kind of credibility. In our monetary system, cash is a claim on future production that arises from savings/surplus out of past production. But with the government printing money at a mind-boggling pace, it is eating into that kind of social credibility, just as Obama’s endlessly-broken promises and self-unveilings are eating into his credibility as a leader. Result, as we can see, is erosion of design margins of all kinds.
Obvious, really. Sorry to belabor the point but our host inspires me, as he does others. Let’s hope we wake up to a world where the Norks have sobered up just a bit.
dirc (#24), I don’t think Taiwan needs the US to provide it with nuclear weapons; at most it would want a go-ahead.
Which brings me back to a question I once raised here: Just what are the Chinese thinking? They obviously would rather not play second fiddle to the US, and thus adopt a grand strategy aimed at diminishing US power and influence. However, a most plausible endpoint for current developments is massive re-armament (including nuclear) by all (Japan, Taiwan, South Korea). How can this possibly be better for China? (No one gets to reign in hell.)
Here’s an hypothesis (which I don’t necessarily believe) to get the ball rolling: this would not be better for China, but such an environment of increased international danger would help the current Chinese regime stay in power.
Bob @ 55: “such an environment of increased international danger would help the current Chinese regime stay in power.”
That is certainly a plausible argument. But maybe that is not how the Chinese leadership sees it. Hillary may foolishly claim that Time is on Her Side. I wonder how the more realistic leaders of the Chinese regime see things?
If the Chinese regime also thinks that Time is on Its Side, then this whole little tempest over North Korea will probably blow away till the next time.
But what if the Chinese regime thinks that Time is Not on Its Side? They face all kinds of developing problems. Their surplus millions of fighting-age males, for one. A huge pile of functionally-worthless US Treasury bonds for another. The need to find something to keep their factories running once the West chokes on its own financial mismanagement. The clear lack of sufficient resources in the world to give every Chinese the standard to living to which they now aspire. And a history of civil war.
Then the Chinese leaders can also see that the US will likely never be worse led than it is right now — with only 5 months left till elections which might change everything. And the Chinese can see that Europe can safely be ignored, or left to the Russians in a grand strategic bargain.
If the Chinese leaders think that their window of opportunity is rapidly closing, who knows what they might do. Maybe even sink a South Korean warship with a North Korean torpedo to set the ball rolling?
“So why was strategic patience bad in Iraq but a good thing in North Korea.”
Patience in Iraq meant continuing with a course of action despite its difficulty. Hillary’s patience means continuing to find reasons to avoid taking action, despite evidence that only resolute action can prevent disaster.
With our current leaders it’s always about trying to achieve multiple incompatible goals while getting someone else to pick up the tab. This strategy works with a subset of American voters. Against China and other serious competitors it leaves the USA looking like the guy who exits the poker game wearing a barrel.
Kinuachdrach (#56):
Very quick response:
To clarify, I’m not referring to Chinese actions in this immediate case, but to what seems to be their pattern of behavior for at least a decade.
You raise an interesting proposal regarding the Chinese regime thinking that time is not on their (China’s?) side. My estimate was that China should prefer at least another decade or two before embarking on hostilities, hot or cold. This estimate is based on the time needed to grow its economic and military abilities.
Possibilities:
1. China’s capabilities are more advanced than generally thought.
2. The Chinese regime believes that it cannot afford to wait, the the current situation (trajectory) is unsustainable for China (or the regime), and that its relative position will never be better. Is that likely?
3. The Chinese regime believes that it can continue slowly raising the heat on the frog for another decade or two without any adequate response (including re-arming) from the US and its allies. Is that a reasonable belief? And what would the Chinese end-game be?
58: Bob
How about:
4) The Chinese have a much longer view of the world than we do, and realize that time is really on their side (whether it truly is or not is another question). All they need to do is wait and then pounce on the opportunity when it comes.
That may ultimately be a false hope, depending on what happens within their own country, but it’s plausible as this whole thing unfolds. I’m sure the leaders of China didn’t get where they are by being naive dreamers (that only happens in the US and Europe), and I’m sure they’re very aware of Obamas manifest weaknesses.
Hillary didn’t get her position because of any foreign policy skill or expertise, so we can’t expect that she’ll show much.
I’ve seen all sorts of descriptions of O, as a left wing dictator, manchurian candidate, etc. I think that gives him too much credit. His actions have shown him to be, in my opinion, nothing more than a “poseur”. An empty suit who loves the trappings of power, but has no interest in doing the work required to do the job. That’s hardly an original evaluation, but I think it’s the most likely explanation for his incredible lameness.
There’s a reason most Presidents age dramatically during their term of office – it’s the toughest job in the world. I’d hate to be the one having to deal with all of these problems, and it’s obvious that Obama feels the same way. The big difference is that he ran for the job, without having the slightest clue of how to do it, or any real inclination to try. As long as he’s giving speeches to adoring crowds he’s fine. That’s the fun part, the reason he ran in the first place. Yeah, and he gets to ride on the big airplane, everyone calls him sir, people have to pay attention to what he has to say, and pretend that there’s anything of significance there when he says it. The band plays Hail to the Chief when he shows up. What’s not to like?
Dealing with oil spills or Norks is just too icky for him – he didn’t get elected just so he’d have to deal with all of these troublesome issues. We’ve all run into many people like this in our lives, and unfortunately one of them is now the President.
My hope is that we can somehow get through the next two years without a major International incident, because it sends chills down my spine to think of the US confronting a major issue with serious implications while this manchild is President. I hope the Norks are just rattling their swords, which they do from time to time, and then settle back in, but a lot of that has to do with the situation in NK, and if they’re desperate enough they may let loose. I guess Obama has instilled hope in me, just not the kind I’d like to have.
Heaven help SK, probably Japan, and the entire NE Asian region, if this happens. We can just guess at the consequences, but can be assured that they will be between bad and disasterous, and the US will be shown to be a leaderless paper tiger. The only thing scarier than that is the prospect of Obama actually trying to lead us while we’re confronting a bad actor. scares the you know what out of me.
The entire world is going to have to adjust to a new order, one in which we are one of many powers, not the preeminent one who can enforce some type of order in the world. Even if we boot O in 2012, the new President, whatever their skill, will have to deal with the world while having a very diminished status.
I’ve said it before, but the die is cast, and our presence on the world stage will continue to shrink, even after O leaves office. Japan, Taiwan, etc. better start thinking of contingency plans, because they’re going to need them. Kinda hard to plan, I admit, because so much of the world is in flux nowadays. Who knows what China will look like in 10 years, for instance? But I think it’s a safe bet that our influence will wane, if for no other reason than the lack of resources to keep up the fight.
We’ll be busy trying to pay our bills, and there won’t be much left to project power. Nations that have depended on a US backstop had better start facing reality. In the long run I think even some of our potential adversaries will regret this once it comes to pass. Stability is a very rare and fragile thing, and loss of it can lead to a lot of unforeseen consequences. we’re getting ready to see what that’s all about.
@27
Its hypocrisy and stupidity to the thirty-second power.
Or, it’s intentional. In which case, it’s well along and “strategic patience” is a weapon wielded against US.
dtmack (#59):
My problem with that option is that they seem (to me) to be pressing too hard, and thus inviting a counter-productive backlash. (Not that I have an answer.)