Posted on 03/04/2003 11:11:18 PM PST by wepollock
Background;
My approach was to independently form a theory from a North Korean perspective and then to compare it to a North Korean source.
The person I was able to dialog with is based in Japan and I have no doubt that the North Korean government has positioned him there. I reached into a primary source, where few would venture, or be able to find access.
Be forewarned, the few people that have previewed this article have had a “that is absolutely outrageous reaction to it.”
On Jan 24, 2003 I had the same type of reaction when I stated that Turkey would "blindside a stunned American foreign policy," that "support for the US would be limited" and "that any accommodation to US policy would be made at a large price."
This does not mean that I am correct or incorrect in this current forecast. With certainty however the majority perception represents the true long shot. (Its like buying stock a the absolute high of a market, when everybody buys into the same wrong idea)
I believe it provides a solution that has not been explored by US policy. It also outlines a high level of risk not present in our thinking. North Korean thinking is not present in our view of the world or the problem/issue
Analysis
Warren Pollock pollock.warren@verizon.net North Korean Logic Explained March 3, 2003
A logical and definite strategic motivation can be attributed to current North Korean behavior. The logic and policy that the United States has been applying works along a different set of assumptions. To the US this difference represents the largest risk factor.
In reporting this to you, I reconciled my analysis against the North Korean perspective in correspondence with an North Korean expert, who informally represents the interests of that misunderstood government. He stated that I, (You) “Definitely have a correct understanding of the issue, where most Westerners fail.” I hereby present this understanding to you, for your consideration.
The North Korean decision tree has only two choice paths. Of the two parties, only the United States has any kind of flexibility in choosing the outcome by electing to follow one of these two possible paths:
The US may chose the path of total war and lose everything. Or The US may allow Korea to unify on its own volition and to its own terms and take credit for it in the process. (with Kim Jong Il as a key player)
To North Korea these choices have absolute logic in presentation, construct, and application. The North Korean's will not allow The United States to drive the issue on its own decision tree.
The stated goal of North Korea is to unify the peninsula in a way as to assure national dignity and heritage of a single historic nation free from foreign influence and occupation. Calls to this same goal are present in the protests of South Korea as well. Both parties see the United States military presence as a blocking force to unification between a common Korean people who are members of the same family.
The North Koreans have super-militarized themselves with the intent of applying so much pressure to the Untied States that it will either attack or move away from the peninsula. They know that such a high level of militarism has economic consequences but in the context of five thousand years of history, rife with long periods of foreign occupation, this type of hardship holds no relevance.
Ideally, they would like to see the United States leave the peninsula in a manner that will allow it to save face thus affording it the opportunity of becoming fast friends with the North Korean people. It wants the US to take the credit for the unification and its role as a peacemaker.
The Korean policy does not look to the issue from the US perspective, it does not account for political practicalities, other issues such as Iraq, public opinion, or the larger world stage. The logic has roots in Korean culture in dealing with a stronger occupying party, it does not need to fit the constructs of western thought.
US involvement in Iraq just represents an additional opportunity for North Korea to drive the US to one of two choices. The choices for the US are total war and ruin, or unification between a single Korea on its terms and timetable, with the US keeping its perceived status as a superpower and peacemaker.
If the US chooses the path of war North Korean attacks will be on the US coastal cities using its merchant fleet as its delivery mechanism. Japan, which is viewed as a historic threat, would be the secondary target using missiles.
The North Korean timetable also has limits and expiration dates, which are triggers for war. Korea views Japan as a historic threat. If the Japan or US begins to fortify the region with armaments then that would trigger North Korean preemption.
Increased North Korean pressure may have unpredictable results in a US policy response. Based on its recent history with September 11th, mounting international political isolation, lack of cultural understanding, and the actual threat level the US may inadvertently choose a path of action that North Korea will interpret as total war.
Sure.
It may have been possible to do this back in the 70s or even the 80s (maybe) but that time has passed. The result will be no different than what happened with Germany. The South Koreans will pay for it, with mucho denero tossed in by Japan and the U.S. China will jeer from the sidelines and try to undermine _any_ process - just like the Democrats in congress.
Every negotiation starts off with the phrase "Ton kajiko issumnika?" (Do you have any money?) The real question is "How much will it take to buy off The Great Leader?"
All that said, the North Korean leadership is delusional and therefore dangerous.
Just my opinion.
N. Korean regime always shut off all options to her adversaries except two exreme choices, a total war or a full accomodation. N. Korean regime has always been a one-trick pony. They did it for 40 years since 60's. Even in this late stage, N. Korean regime still intends to come out on top eventually, unifying two Koreas on their terms. At least that is the game plan they stick to.
These days, the only upside is that the N. Korean system is breaking down from the bottom. Cracking are emgerging in their armor. The regime may buckle and break up, while still furiously charging forward and thinkng that it is a single step away from the total victory. In some sense, the regime is the eternal optimist. N. Korea shows how dangerous the mindless optimism can be. It will kill you eventually.
The best way to defeat N. Korea is to keep one's cool at all times and not overreact. If we respond to N. Korean regime in a cool but determined and deliberate manner, without giving in to unilateral accomodation, it may not even come to a shooting war.
If Kim fails to follow policy and stalinist ideology, he will be ousted.
Chances are, one of his sons would be installed as new leader, but it will be the one that is most compliant.
I have heard that in Japan the saying is "the nail that sticks up gets hammered down." I like that lesson better for North Korea.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.