Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

North Korean Logic Explained
Connections ^ | March 3, 2003 | Warren Pollock

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.


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: korea; nuclear; war
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-120 next last

1 posted on 03/04/2003 11:11:18 PM PST by wepollock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: wepollock
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.

Sure.

2 posted on 03/04/2003 11:17:58 PM PST by John H K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wepollock
Well this is a lose lose situation!
3 posted on 03/04/2003 11:17:58 PM PST by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wepollock
Well this is a lose lose situation!
4 posted on 03/04/2003 11:17:59 PM PST by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wepollock
Kim Jong Il is just a tinpot dictator. If North Korea wants to unite with South Korea, the first thing it must do is drop its totalitarian government which is the only thing that is keeping them from unifying as Germany did when East Germany wisely cashed in its chips.
5 posted on 03/04/2003 11:27:31 PM PST by Post Toasties
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Post Toasties
If North Korea does not follow this route, it show only how abysmally stupid and/or inhuman its leadership is.
6 posted on 03/04/2003 11:30:31 PM PST by Post Toasties
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Post Toasties
...shows only....
7 posted on 03/04/2003 11:32:14 PM PST by Post Toasties
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wepollock
A great fallacy in the reasoning of this article is that the much hated by North Koreans Kim Jong Il and his minions represent the beliefs and interests of North Koreans. I reject such an assumption out of hand.
8 posted on 03/04/2003 11:33:56 PM PST by Post Toasties
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wepollock
The simpler explanation is that Kim wants to be paid to sit down and shut up. He seems to be following that Western aphorism about squeaky wheels and grease.
9 posted on 03/04/2003 11:34:03 PM PST by Redcloak (All work and no FReep makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no FReep make s Jack a dul boy. Allwork an)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wepollock
This could be what they are thinking, but it is impossible to achieve. I believe that they want reunification above all else, but they would be stupid to think that it will be on their terms, or that the communist party or The Great Leader are going to have any role in a reunited country that has any ability to democratically choose it's own leaders.

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.

10 posted on 03/04/2003 11:34:18 PM PST by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Post Toasties
This analysis illustrates the dictum that the simplest explanation is best. To believe this analysis is to accord to North Korea a subtlety to their diplomacy that thay have never shown in the past.

North Korea is rattling its sabre to to try get Western aid just like they did under President Clinton. It is as simple as that.
11 posted on 03/04/2003 11:38:00 PM PST by ggekko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wepollock
Interesting notion. It has a few serious quirks in it, but the basic problem is this: your "primary source" you "reached into" has led you to believe what the North Korean government wants you to believe is their point of view. He used your vanity to make a fool of you. He did not tell you what they really think or what they really intend.

Like Tommy Friedman with the "Saudi Peace Plan," you got patted on the head and snookered.
12 posted on 03/04/2003 11:44:08 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wepollock; AmericanInTokyo; maui_hawaii
Re #1

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.

13 posted on 03/04/2003 11:45:57 PM PST by TigerLikesRooster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head; AmericanInTokyo
FYI........Stay Safe !
14 posted on 03/04/2003 11:53:54 PM PST by Squantos (Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wepollock
This analysis may be correct but it is trivial.

What it says, in essense, is tht North Korea wants to win, and they define winning as reuniting with South Korea on their terms.

It may be true that that is what the DPRK wants, but it is not among the range of available choices. They are not children, wishing for the moon. They need to go back to the Sojubang and have another think on this.

This is equally true if North Korea thinks that they can drive events in this direction by threat of war. If they become frustrated enough with their singular lack of success in this endeavor and decide that actual war is preferable to futile threats, it will be North Korea that is brought to ruin. After all, they are esentially ruined now. Their electrical grid has collapsed, their manufacturing sector is eseentially non-esistent, agriculture is in a ruinous state, medical care is a joke, education is in shambles, and only the military remains standing for now.

They will not succeed in bringing war to North America.

That is also a pipedream.
15 posted on 03/04/2003 11:59:39 PM PST by John Valentine (Writing from downtown Seoul, keeping an eye on the hills to the north.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wepollock
I think this is exceedingly perceptive.

It fits what I know of the Koreans.
16 posted on 03/05/2003 12:03:45 AM PST by Quix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Post Toasties
Pride and a lot of craziness, evil etc. prevent that.

Interesting double-binds abound.
17 posted on 03/05/2003 12:07:56 AM PST by Quix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Post Toasties
Yes, Kim Jong Il is a tin pot dictator.
But one that rules by consent of the military.

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.

18 posted on 03/05/2003 12:17:53 AM PST by Drammach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak
He seems to be following that Western aphorism about squeaky wheels and grease.

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.

19 posted on 03/05/2003 12:22:37 AM PST by Defiant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster
Your posts always exhibit great insight.
20 posted on 03/05/2003 12:26:04 AM PST by Defiant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-120 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson