Jeremi Suri, NY Times; Bomb North Korea before it’s too late
That’s the title of a New York Times op/ed piece today, in which Jeremi Suri, University of Texas history professor, advocates for attacking North Korea;
President Obama should state clearly and forthrightly that this is an act of self-defense in response to explicit threats from North Korea and clear evidence of a prepared weapon. He should give the leaders of South Korea, Japan, China and Taiwan advance notice before acting. And he should explain that this is a limited defensive strike on a military target — an operation that poses no threat to civilians — and that America does not intend to bring about regime change. The purpose is to neutralize a clear and present danger. That is all.
Yeah, it sounds like a hippie/peacenik version of the Bush Doctrine, you know that doctrine that was trashed repeatedly though the Iraq War days by hippies and peaceniks. Personally, I have no problem with pre-emptive war with a country that is a threat to the United States and our citizens, but North Korea is no such threat. They’ve gotten very good at saber-rattling in service to begging for hand-outs from the US, especially during Democrat Administrations.
If anyone needs a cruise missile up their tailpipe, it’s Iran and plenty of evidence exists that would justify that. But I don’t see the New York Times or Professor Suri advocating for that particular course of action. I would guess because that war wouldn’t be so easy to predict the eventual outcome, while one with North Korea would be relatively easy to predict – after some public outrage from ND;tBF, he’s acquiesce to some free fuel oil and bags of money, all personally delivered by Jimmy Carter, Dennis Rodman, or Jesse Jackson, Sr.
It’s blather like this that only reinforces me belief that the situation with North Korea is just media-driven over blown blather to distract us from what is going on in Congress. There’s nothing the media would like more than to set up Obama as a real war time President, since he’s confounded their attempts to portray him as such in the war against terror.
But, an well-timed, well-coordinated attack on Iran would actually prevent a rogue from joining the nuclear club. Iran is sponsoring and supporting terrorism worldwide as well as actively fighting against American troops and is a destabilizing influence in the Middle East where an actual attack would provide long term results, so which makes more sense – North Korea or Iran – as a target?
Category: Media, North Korea
Bombing the Norks would have the added benefit of sending a message to Iran, but there is no way the president would do it. Way too aggressive for him.
Yeah, Dave, if Iran didn’t get “a message” from Iraq, they won’t get one from bombing North Korea.
I love it. The NYT publishing an op-ed that justifies preventive war in support of US national interests. That one could have been written by the late Gen. Curtis LeMay.
Well, it could have been written by LeMay if its underlying premise (“. . . . America does not intend to bring about a regime change. The purpose is to neutralize a clear and present danger. That is all.”) wasn’t stupid as hell. A sociopathic, rogue regime with WMD will remain a clear and present danger so long as it remains in power. You eliminate the danger by forcing the regime to change – either directly by military action, or indirectly by proving to them their actions are stupid and will not work. You don’t eliminate the danger by taking out a single military target to “send a message”.
The op-ed also casts doubts on Suri’s ability as a historian and scholar. Essentially, Suri’s thesis is that we should use military force – specifically, destroying a North Korean missile before launch by unilateral US military action – to “send a message to North Korea’s leadership”. LBJ tried repeatedly to use military actions to “send messages” to the North Vietnamese leadership from 1965-1968. Suri apparently doesn’t know or has forgotten how that turned out. In contrast, LeMay knew that using military operations to “send messages” was a bad idea, too. So I kinda doubt he’d have endorsed that thesis.
And, finally: if LeMay had written any such op-ed I’m reasonably sure it would contain some saltier language, too. (smile)
There are 24 million starving North Koreans and you want to drop a nuke on them?
I think a massive air drop of food with “Gift of USA” cards would do a whole lot more good.
Bombing the Nork’s military out of existance without is not a significant problem for the US, in fact, that’s probably the easiest part.
An entire nation of people, many of them starving and/or imprisoned, raised on delusional propoganda and deification of their ruler for fifty years is the part neither China or the US want to deal with. Do the Chinese or South Koreans have resources to feed millions of refugees? Can they absorb human waves of starving prisoners sent to the borders at gunpoint by the tens of thousands? Who will manage the eventual Nuremburg-style trial of the Nork leaders to end the Kim cult of personality once and for all, and would the Chinese even allow that to occur?
The US will have to drive this effort financially and militarily, even if it is done through the South Koreans. It will take years, resolve and much wealth, all things neither the administration nor the American public probably want to dedicate when so much isn’t stable here. All the while, millions continue to starve for another decade in North Korea thanks to their dear leaders.
#4 As thick as their indoctrination is? I’d rather convince a Berserklely student to vote Bush again than try to convince a Nork subject that we’re trying to help. At least I could punch the Berkley student when I got tired of it.
Dead Man: I’m guessing you’re correct. The North Korean government would probably spread the word that the rice was “contaminated with a bio-agent” and “quarantine” (e.g., eliminate) anyone who ate any of it. They’d then confiscate it for “safekeeping”, repackage it, keep a portion for leadership and the military – then distribute the rest to their people while extolling the “glorious success of North Korean juche in the face of Imperialist opposition”.
Well, it was just an idea, because I watched the Berlin airlift films on Sunday nights with Walter Cronkite (and YOU guys obviously didn’t 😛 ).
But since the bulk of US aid goes into the Kim family’s stomachs and producing 35,000++ statues and pieces of wall art of the to-date dead Kims (Grandpa and Daddy Fatty) instead of feeding the starving 24 millions, I doubt that any seized stuff would ever actually make it to the starving 24 millions unless it was something made to look like tree bark, because they’re used to eating that.
No, Ex-PH2, I didn’t watch Cronkite’s newscasts about the Berlin Airlift. I just had a dad who received the Medal for Humane Action for being a part of it.
But I also know what kind of games the Soviets played with wheat we sent them as humanitarian aid at times, too. There was a reason they wouldn’t let us distribute it directly: they didn’t want their people to know where it was coming from.
Here is Jeremi’s bio. It makes about much sense as he does:
http://jeremisuri.net/biography
Just another loser, in my mind, who has no real world experience beyond the classroom.
Hondo, if you think the people of East Berlin didn’t know where that stuff was coming from, you’re mistaken. 300,000 East Berliners protested in 1948 to keep the supplies coming. They knew where the stuff came from. They could see the planes making the airdops for themselves.
Why do you think they left East Berlin in droves, right up until Krushchev told Ulbricht to shut off the brain drain by putting up the barbed wire and concrete block wall, and blocking off aparment windows and doors that faced into West Berlin?
Since I was not born when the airlift began, and we did not have a TV until 1958, I didn’t get to see any of this in person. It was on Sunday nights on Cronkite’s history program, along with a lot of other history like the war in the Pacific and the Korean War.
Ex-PH2: I believe the protests you’re talking about were in West Berlin – specifically, in the US and British sectors. The first occurred near the beginning of the Berlin Airlift, on 19 July 1948.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/43775156
The much larger 9 September 1948 Berlin protest you seem to reference was similarly in the British sector
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Blockade
In any case, the East Berliners certainly knew where the aid to West Berlin was coming from. Berlin wasn’t physically divided at the time; that came later. Word still spread freely across the “line” between Allied and Soviet occupation zones, even if people were having increasing difficulty doing so.
Above, I was referring to the games played by Soviet authorities during the few times the US sold or provided the Soviet Union food and/or other assistance (e.g., grain sales to preclude mass starvation when Soviet harvests were failures due to collectivization). On those occasions, the Soviets wouldn’t let the US distribute the goods. Rather, Soviet authorities took them, then ensured the true origin was screened as best they could. Even then I’m guessing word got around, though.
The North Korean state has far more effective control of its population than the USSR ever did. IMO they could probably pull it off even if the USSR couldn’t.
Anything’s possible. Norkland has an extremely effective mind control mechanism – electricity. It is completely unreliable. Norks have 2 TV sets – one for Norkland’s propaganda machine and the other, which is linked to the South, for outside real-world information. The “Earth at Night” satellite images show that the only part of the Korean peninsula which is dark is North Korea. Even the Chinese border area is lit up at night.
The guy is from tu. ‘Nuff said.
“And he should explain that this is a limited defensive strike on a military target…”
Sounds positively Clintonian. Such tactics worked so well in the past. What’s that definition of insanity, again?
During WW2, Soviet authorities claimed that equipment and freight stenciled “U.S.A.” were Soviet produced for export to the USA.
I suggest those interested in getting a clear take on Suri read the story about what he was up to at the University of Wisconsin before he went to UT-Austin.
http://allenruff.blogspot.com/2011/11/long-war-at-home-case-of-grand-strategy.html
Calvin, that article was obviously written with a political axe to grind. And you want to talk about illogical, studying the military and Grand Strategy automatically means you are seeking to “militarize” higher education? Perhaps one of the things wrong with this country, and a reason why we often find ourselves in messes like Iraq, is because we don’t study the military enough, or build enough links between the military, politicians and civil society. Since the end of the draft during Vietnam we have divorced the military from society as much as possible, perhaps seeking a reconciliation would help us from throwing troops indiscriminately around the world. Don’t believe everything you read on the internet…..