North Korean Logic Explained

Connections ^ | March 3, 2003 | Warren Pollock

[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.

[expatpat]

The choices for the US are total war and ruin, or unification between a single Korea on its terms and timetable.....

Just as did Nazi Germany and Japan, and others since, your NK 'contact' is vastly underestimating the size, power, and strength of the US, due to NK's isolation from reality. No way can NK bring the US to ruin, the only country ruined would be Korea, N and S.

[wepollock]

Expat-pat, I think you hit on the paradox of cultural perception.

Kim sees himself as an equal to the US.

Technically with a bunch of nuclear bombs he might not be mistaken.

[sanchmo]

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.

Their actual goal is to (a) keep a tyrant's boot pressed firmly against the neck of his subjects and to (b) increase the number of necks available for stepping. Any talk of dignity and heritage are empty words meant to tickle the ears of the West's useful idiots.

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...
US involvement in Iraq just represents an additional opportunity for North Korea to drive the US to one of two choices.

This sounds true. It certainly looks like North Korea is making its choice - and is choosing poorly.

The choices for the US are total war and ruin, or unification between a single Korea on its terms and timetable...
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.

Total war would certainly mean ruin - but for NK, not for the US. The second the NK leadership decides they want to target the US directly they know their fate is sealed. I don't know hw much history North Koreans know, but the US has proven itself capable of total, devastating war in this part of the world already.

[AmericanInTokyo]

au contraire, wallows in his sense of inferiority towards all men and all things.....

[wepollock]

The total war issue depends on whom hits first and hardest.

Would a loss of a major city be acceptable for the US?

Would the North Korean's rather hit friends and family in South Korea or the people they are still at war with? (Armistice)

[AmericanInTokyo]

...while it is still dangerous and unpredictable at times, I believe it is on the Ceaucescu Fast Track by now.....

[wepollock]

"au contraire, wallows in his sense of inferiority towards all men and all things"

As victim perhaps, highly plausible. The personal and national victim of a history of foreign occupation and dominance. No wonder why a westerner got his ear lopped off when he had a car accident.

[wai-ming]

The US may chose the path of total war and lose everything.

Wrong.

North Korea could choose the path of total war and be wiped off the face of the earth.

[LibertarianInExile]

Bravo, and well said to you. I'm for WAR. Not for half-ass Truman-esque b.s., not for nationbuilding, not for liberating. I'm amazed at the Democrat harping about the costs of WAR. Can anyone imagine saying to Roosevelt, "Um, sir, we'd like to fund this Manhattan Project, too, but it's just too much money? Oh, and about that D-Day idea, well, you see, we need teachers, Mr. President! We can't AFFORD these costs--you'll have to scale your war back to the occasional skirmish."

[wepollock]

"North Korea could choose the path of total war and be wiped off the face of the earth."

It certainly could.

[wepollock]

Imagine the damage if the US backed down. Roosevelt nailed the costs of this kind of failure in the 1904 on his corollary to the Monroe doctrine.

[katana]

One major problem with the analysis is the presumption that an attack by North Korea on the United States and/or Japan would not result in their rather sudden incineration.

Also, reunification of the North and South will be a very lopsided union. The South is hugely more developed and has a military that is quantitatively smaller but qualitatively twenty to thirty years ahead.

On the other hand, if Kim Jong Il is as delusional as he seems, I suppose anything is possible.

[Mr. Mojo]

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.

In a war-time situation we'd blow any ships clean out of the water that were even remotely suspicious.

[wepollock]

The GAO (Government Accounting Office) thinks otherwise.

In terms of national security the GAO cites "systemic failure and resulting risk inherent through critical areas of government". Some excerpts from the Government Accounting Office - GAO pertaining to our security or lack thereof:

The Department of Energy - DOE must improve management of the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. Resolve problems in contract management that place DOE at high risk for fraud, waste, and abuse. The Department of Defense (DOD) - confronts pervasive and complex financial management problems that can seriously diminish the efficiency of the military services' support operations. Significant management problems continue to impact the economy, effectiveness, and efficiency of DOD's business processes. This places mission capability at risk by unnecessarily spending funds that could be directed to higher priorities such as modernization and readiness. Infrastructure costs continue to consume nearly 44 percent of its budget, detracting from DOD's ability to spend funds on more critical needs such as weapon system modernization and readiness. The Department of Agriculture poorly secures biological agents. It does not provide policies or procedures for agencies to follow to manage security at laboratories. The department lacks a consolidated database to identify the location and risk levels of the biological agents at laboratories; and some laboratories failed to follow requirements to maintain an inventory of their biological agents and other laboratories had inaccurate inventories. Also, many of the laboratories reviewed lacked alarm systems, security fences, and surveillance cameras. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) faces many challenges, including unfocused or ineffective efforts at combating benefit fraud, unauthorized employment, and alien smuggling. The, FAA's Air Traffic Control modernization efforts continue to be at high risk.

The list goes on and the tip of the iceberg can be seen in failing programs like the Osprey which continue to kill soldiers, or prohibitively costly programs such as the B1 which are partially decommissioned and the B2 bomber which delaminates. It has taken so long for our nation to position our military towards Iraq we need to consider the probability that we could not mobilize effectively shortly after 9-11 even though we held the strongest international political position at that time.

[Quix]

I'll send your query to my friend and see what he has to say.

My own sense would be that the cultural gestalt for 'US' AGAINST 'THEM' would be strong enough to be virtually irrational. It seems to be so with the Chinese. And the Koreans have been subjugated a long more and more brutally.

They are thankful for the standard of living.

But there seems to be a growing sense of the guest who came for dinner and never went home. It's not necessarily rational.

I suspect if there were an option to give sufficient of our nukes to the SKoreans, they'd be glad to have us gone almost in a flash.

Here's an interesting cryptic item from Snodgrass for whatever it's worth.

"I will be posting a prophetic update at the end of the week, dealing with the significance of 03/03/03, and what really happened behind the scenes when four North Korean MIG's intercepted a U.S. reconnaissance plane in the Sea of Japan on March 3, 2003. The world was closer to a third world-war on 03/03/03 than most realize."

By the way, don't hold your breath on his updating. He gets around to it when he gets around to it which tends to be considerably later than he aims to.

Anyway--I'm glad Yong Yi Cho's million person church is praying 24 hours a day regarding all this. I suspect war would have already broken out otherwise.

[wepollock]

"On the other hand, if Kim Jong Il is as delusional as he seems, I suppose anything is possible"

It is a matter of perspective. I characterize him as ruthlessly logical. The bases of his assumptions are not understood (or even correct by our standards). We are thinking that he is delusional, which might not be the case.

[Quix]

It depends on a lot of contingencies.

IF

We force Israel to go along with giving up the West Bank; continue to gleefully invest in infanticide for convenience; continue to pump porn at rapid rates to the rest of the world; continue to reward and glorify corruption and insanity a la Dillbo and Shrillary; continue to demonstrate rank immorality and arrogance etc. etc.

THEN God will likely pull back His massive protection.

THEN massive natural disasters will further weaken us.

AND THEN

North Korea, Russia, China, Mexico, Lybia, Cuba, Venezuela, ?France? ["some European country"] will nuke and invade us as so many have had dreams and visions of.

[Quix]

Certainly the delusions of the very ILL Jong are sobering and hazardous.

Also hazardous up aside him are our own understandable cautions in nuking anyone. I HOPE and pray we don't hesitate when we should not and cannot afford to.

But sometimes we can fail--perhaps terminally fail--to act quickly and decisively even when our survival depends on it.

[Quix]

The Pueblo incident is not a gleaming indication of our responsiveness.

[wepollock]

"I will be posting a prophetic update at the end of the week, dealing with the significance of 03/03/03, and what really happened behind the scenes when four North Korean MIG's intercepted a U.S. reconnaissance plane in the Sea of Japan on March 3, 2003. The world was closer to a third world-war on 03/03/03 than most realize."

--These issues are running like a train on a perfect schedule. (My guess is that the train will stop before NK can economically implode, which could take years)

--The WWIII perspective is exactly one of the NK strategies. Biden (who can be very hard to understand) talked about something called a "Hopis" choice. The Hopi indians had two choices bad and worse. That is the kind of scenario the NK's are looking to build.

--I see the reason for not talking to Korea, but as long as you are talking you might not solve the problem but you are not shooting at each other.

--Talking would most likely culminate in a "bad" choice not the "worst" choice

--As McCain indicated this is a CRISIS.