Category: Uncategorized

PDATE: Blackfive has more on the new Army motto and highly approves of it.  Plus the Army’s new recruiting video is posted there as well, which IMHO is very well done.  Go check it out.Goodbye “Army of One”, hello “Army Strong”.

The US Army has finally replaced the “Army of One” slogan which no one liked with a new “Army Strong” motto:

 Soldiers’ minds, hearts, characters and sense of purpose must all be strong, Secretary of the Army Francis J. Harvey said Monday at the Association of the U.S. Army annual meeting as a video of Soldiers training and fighting played in the background.

“Soldiers must be strong for themselves,” the secretary said. “There is only one place to find this strength. You are Army strong.”

The new advertising campaign slogan will replace “the Army of One” Nov. 11. The “Army Strong” campaign is part of the secretary’s efforts to sustain the all-volunteer force against tough competition form the other services and colleges.

I have to say I like “Army Strong” much better than the “Army of One” slogan because the Army is really the ultimate testament to team work which the “Army of One” slogan did not appeal to.  With “Army Strong” it appears the Army is trying to appeal to patriotism and the challenge of joining an Army at war.   New recruits today are joining the Army knowing full well that they are going to war.  It is good to see that the Army is recognizing this fact and adjusting recruiting towards the importance of service to the nation by being part of an Army at war.

Well it looks like Kadena Airbase will be getting their PATRIOT missile batteries in place soon:

Okinawa police early Wednesday peacefully removed some 80 protesters from their encampment in front of the gate to Tengan Pier, allowing the transfer of Patriot missiles to Kadena Air Base.

The break-up of the camp, established Sunday night to protest delivery of Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missile interceptors to a new U.S. Army site on Kadena Air Base, took about five minutes, a police spokesman said. Police at the site Wednesday outnumbered protesters by more than 2 to 1.

“Upon the request of U.S. military, Okinawa prefectural police sent special riot police to Tengan Pier to remove the protesters from the exit,” a police spokesman told Stars and Stripes. There were no reports of injuries.

A line of riot police stood shoulder-to-shoulder in front of the gate while others herded the protesters to a narrow sidewalk, where they stood shouting anti-war slogans as the cargo ship unloaded 10 shipping containers. Trucks hauling the containers left the port about 9:30 a.m. without further incident.

Charles Krauthammer has a pretty good article in the Washington Post.  I find myself agreeing with a lot of what he has to say:

Everyone has tried to figure out how to disarm North Korea. It will not happen. Kim Jong Il is not going to give up his nukes. The only way to disarm the regime is to destroy it. China could do that with sanctions but will not. The United States could do that with a second Korean War but will not either.

So we are back to deterrence. Hence the familiar echoes of the Cuban missile crisis with North Korea’s rude entry into the nuclear club this week. The United States had to immediately put down markers for deterrence. President Bush put down two.

Detterence as Krauthammer notes President Bush is already put in place by reaffirming the US nuclear umbrella over South Korea and Japan.  So what does Krauthammer reccomend to deter North Korean proliferation to terrorist groups?:

A good first draft, but it could use some Kennedyesque clarity. The phrase “fully accountable” does not exactly instill fear, as it has been used promiscuously by several administrations in warnings to both terrorists and rogue states — after which we did absolutely nothing. A better formulation would be the following:

Given the fact that there is no other nuclear power so recklessly in violation of its nuclear obligations, it shall be the policy of this nation to regard any detonation of a nuclear explosive on the United States or its allies as an attack by North Korea on the United States requiring a full retaliatory response upon North Korea.

This is how you keep Kim Jong Il from proliferating. Make him understand that his survival would be hostage to the actions of whatever terrorist group he sold his weapons to. Any terrorist detonation would be assumed to have his address on it. The United States would then return postage. Automaticity of this kind concentrates the mind.

However, Krauthammer notes one problem with this policy:

This policy has a hitch, however. It works only in a world where there is but a single rogue nuclear state. Once that club expands to two, the policy evaporates, because a nuclear terror attack would no longer have a single automatic return address.

Which is another reason why keeping Iran from going nuclear is so important. With North Korea there is no going back. But Iran is not there yet. One rogue country is tolerable because it can be held accountable. Two rogue countries guarantees undeterrable and therefore inevitable nuclear terrorism.

I disagree with this part of Krauthammer’s article because I think even if Iran does go nuclear you can still hold both countries accountable by making it very clear that any nuclear attack by terrorists on US soil will mean both Iran and North Korea will instantly be turned into glowing parking lots regardless of which country is responsible for it.   This policy of dual deterence may actually have the effect of Iran making sure themselves that no terrorist groups are trying to purchase nuclear material from North Korea in order to not be attacked themselves by the United States.

If a nuclear terrorist attack occurs in the United States with hundreds of thousands of casualties, no matter what the UN, France, China, Russia, Amnesty International, or anyone else says there is going to be massive nuclear retaliation from the US because much like after 9-11, no one in the US besides a peacenik like Dennis Kucinich, would try and stop the massive retaliation from taking place against these rogue regimes.

I have to give big props to Krauthammer though for writing a good article that does not descend into the recent Washington blame game cycle of the blame Bush/blame Clinton garbage because none of it is helpful and doesn’t do anything to solve the North Korean issue.  Krauthammer also provides solid policy advice instead of falling back on the well used cliches of “we need to work with allies in the region^TM” garbage that many pundits and politicians keep repeating as if that isn’t already going on.  You have to look really long and hard in the media today to find solid journalism anymore and Krauthammer is one of the few.

The odds of seeing the GI Korea Blog, Iraq Edition one day has gotten more likelier:

For planning purposes, the Army is gearing up to keep current troop levels in Iraq for another four years, a new indication that conditions there are too unstable to foresee an end to the war.

Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, cautioned against reading too much into the planning, which is done far in advance to prepare the right mix of combat units for expected deployments. He noted that it is easier to scale back later if conditions allow, than to ramp up if they don’t.

“This is not a prediction that things are going poorly or better,” Schoomaker told reporters. “It’s just that I have to have enough ammo in the magazine that I can continue to shoot as long as they want us to shoot.”

I did it once, and I’ll do it again if I have to.

With all the blame Bush, blame Clinton going at least I hope we can agree that it is good that at least this guy isn’t running things:

There is no precedent for permitting a mentally ill state to possess nuclear weapons. It would be incredibly irresponsible — even suicidal — to let this happen.

Therefore, war: A surprise attacks aimed at swiftly destroying the enemy using all necessary means available to the U.S. military. Though it may seem extreme, the use of sudden, devastating force may be the only way to resolve this problem. Kim and his cohorts are not likely to go quietly into the night. Retirement and exile are out of the question; rather than submit to strangulation by sanctions and blockades, the regime will likely attack South Korea, where thousands of U.S. troops are stationed, and fire missiles at Japan. Even if North Korea is not presently capable of putting a nuclear warhead on a missile, it can strike out with chemical and possibly also biological weapons; and analysts generally agree that the casualties of a new Korean conflict would surpass the numbers of dead and injured in the Korean War.

Preemptive war — crushing the enemy before it can attack South Korea and Japan – better be on the U.S.’s menu of options. Staying the course definitely won’t work here.

Why does the Washington Post Blog publish crap like this?

Speaking of crap Shelton at the Marmot’s Hole found even stinkier crap than this, in the Boston Globe.  Is the American media so uninformed about Korean affairs that garbage journalism like this continues to slip through?

At least Robert found the sage of all things Korean Dr. Lankov’s piece in the Wall Street Journal.  How come it seems like for every good piece of journalism on the North Korean issue their is at least two articles from idiots which continue to distort the issue?

Senator John McCain recently came out and criticized former President Clinton’s failed 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea for leading to the current nuclear crisis. In fairness to Clinton I do believe diplomacy should be tried before starting a war and he tried diplomacy and failed due to the untrustworthiness of the North Koreans who went ahead and continued a covert nuclear program while simultaneously moving even more troops and equipment to the DMZ between North and South Korea. Clinton tried diplomacy which I think no one should fault him for and it didn’t work. The Democrats accused McCain of playing politics, but what do the Democrats do in response? Continue playing politics themselves of course; with former Clinton Secretary of Defense William Perry writing this blame Bush editorial in the Washington Post:

North Korea’s declared nuclear bomb test program will increase the incentives for other nations to go nuclear, will endanger security in the region and could ultimately result in nuclear terrorism. While this test is the culmination of North Korea’s long-held aspiration to become a nuclear power, it also demonstrates the total failure of the Bush administration’s policy toward that country. For almost six years this policy has been a strange combination of harsh rhetoric and inaction. President Bush, early in his first term, dubbed North Korea a member of the “axis of evil” and made disparaging remarks about Kim Jong Il.

Continue reading “Playing Politics Over the NK Crisis “

I wonder if Perry prefers that Bush call Kim Jong-il the “Dear Leader” instead of the tyrant that he is?

Some of you may remember that Perry also wrote an editorial before the July NK missile tests in the Washington Post advocating a bombing campaign against the NK Taepodong missile before it could be tested. Perry like many former Clintonites are trying to rewrite history. Their policies were a failure then and their advice is a failure now.

Just think about if the US followed Perry’s advice before July’s missile test. A bombing campaign against NK would validate the very reason Kim Jong-il proclaims for needing both a ICBM and nuclear programs; to protect the country from US aggression not to mention possibly causing a second Korean War which the US would have clearly been the aggressor. Additionally the US would have never gathered the valuable intelligence of the failed test. The US didn’t totally know the NK ICBM capabilities, now the US does. It is the same thing with the nuclear test. The US now knows that the NK nuclear program is not as advanced as the North Koreans would want you to believe. Plus the NK actions have driven a wedge between China and North Korea which a bombing campaign would have never done. If anything it would bring the two allies closer together against US aggression. Now this is not the case after the nuclear test because China is actually seriously considering backing a UN resolution that would allow a US naval blockade of North Korea. Do you think a bombing campaign would have brought this close cooperation with China about?

So what does Perry advocate in the wake of the nuclear test, when his bombing campaign policy would have been an obvious failure? Well I really don’t know because the article is all blame Bush with no policy alternatives. Maybe he learned from his last article that blaming Bush is safer politics than actually providing alternative policy ideas.

HT: Marmot

Who can name specifically what this place is called?

I can’t say I agree with this letter to the Korea Times, but it did give me a good chuckle because yes, things would be so much easier if Kim Jong-il would just hurry up and nuke somebody:

  I am a citizen of the United States. It is my understanding that the North Korean president has made a threat against my country in that North Korea would launch (if capable) a nuclear-tipped missile toward the United States if we do not do what they want.

As a citizen of the United States I would welcome such action from North Korea. Simply stop talking and do it. It would make things so much easier for us since nobody in the world (aside from possibly Iran) would argue about our right to return fire upon North Korea.

There would be no need for a ground assault that can require so much military manpower and expense but rather a nuclear attack by North Korea upon the United States would allow us to respond in kind with nuclear weapons.

It is sad that North Korea would be so incapable with their limited nuclear weapons program to respond to our thousands of nuclear weapons that would could fire from our soil without having to dispatch a single aircraft or human military person.

This is the difference between how we could deal with North Korea as opposed to how we are dealing with Iraq and possibly Iran at this time.

By North Korea opening the nuclear door it would save us from having to dispatch troops from the middle east _ we could just simply respond with a much stronger nuclear response.

Please tell Kim Jong-il to stop talking and just do it so we can send a message to the world that we are NEVER going to be intimidated by this type of threat but we will ALWAYS be able to give a response thousands of times greater than any attack like this upon us.

We simply need an excuse to attack North Korea. Tell the North Korean president to stop tap dancing around like a little girl with a big mouth and be a man and … just do it. And, then find a comfortable place to tuck his head between his legs and kiss his ass goodbye.

Sincerely,

David Lee

HT: Jodi

What do you do during times of a nuclear crisis, kick out the missiles that would intercept any incoming nukes:

North Korean nuclear threat or not, anti-base activists camped out at the gate to Tengan Pier vowed Tuesday to remain until a ship leaves without unloading Patriot missiles for a new U.S. Army battery on Kadena Air Base.

Monday’s announcement by North Korea that it successfully conducted a small-scale nuclear test has given the protesters more verbal ammo to oppose the U.S. military presence on Okinawa and the deployment of the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missile interceptors on U.S. and Japan Self-Defense Force bases.

Protesters took up their positions Sunday, and U.S. Army officials were to meet Tuesday evening with Okinawa prefectural police officials to request their removal from the gate.

You have got to love the protesters logic though for kicking out the PATRIOTs:

“I respond by saying that peace will come only to places where there are no military bases.”

If that’s your definition of peace then you will be waiting a very long time to realize it.

It really was only a matter of time before Jimmy Carter surfaced again due to the latest North Korean crisis.  Carter has surfaced this time in a New York Times editorial which like other editorials from those involved in the failed 1994 Agreed Framework blames Bush for everything going on with North Korea:

Responding to an invitation from President Kim Il-sung of North Korea, and with the approval of President Bill Clinton, I went to Pyongyang and negotiated an agreement under which North Korea would cease its nuclear program at Yongbyon and permit inspectors from the atomic agency to return to the site to assure that the spent fuel was not reprocessed. It was also agreed that direct talks would be held between the two Koreas.

The spent fuel (estimated to be adequate for a half-dozen bombs) continued to be monitored, and extensive bilateral discussions were held. The United States assured the North Koreans that there would be no military threat to them, that it would supply fuel oil to replace the lost nuclear power and that it would help build two modern atomic power plants, with their fuel rods and operation to be monitored by international inspectors. The summit talks resulted in South Korean President Kim Dae-jung earning the 2000 Nobel Peace Prize for his successful efforts to ease tensions on the peninsula.

First of all in June 1994 Carter wrote a letter to Clinton that he was going to Pyongyang with or without Clinton’s approval.  On the advice of Al Gore, Clinton approved the visit if Carter would agree that he was only going as a private citizen and not a US Ambassador.  When Carter visited Pyongyang and cut the deal with then North Korean dictator Kim Il-sung the father of the current leader Kim Jong-il, he informed his contact in the White House of the deal and then proceeded to give a CNN interview announcing the deal.

His White House contact walked into a on going policy meeting with President Clinton and his top advisors to inform Clinton of Carter’s call.  Clinton was about to give a go ahead on a military force build up in Korea along with increased sanctions that would ultimately lead to possibly a naval blockade if North Korea did not give up their nuclear program.  Does this all sound familiar?  It should because it is 1994 all over again today, we just need Carter to go to Pyongyang, and hopefully this time he will stay there.

Carter’s announcement was a bombshell to the White House because somebody acting as a private citizen had taken control of US foreign policy and the White House appeared to be by standers.  People in the meeting actually called Carter’s actions of cutting a deal without White House approval as “near traitorous” and Clinton actually put out an order for people in the meeting to not engage in Carter bashing to media despite their private feelings.

Clinton’s instincts initially was that the North Koreans could not be trusted and only understood force to get them to quit their nuclear program, however Carter’s actions made it politically impossible for him to take action against North Korea when Carter publicly announced on CNN that he had prevented war by cutting a deal with Kim Il-sung.  Attacking a country after publicly announcing that you cut a deal with them never goes over to well internationally or domestically for that matter and Clinton knew it and he was forced to deal.

Additionally the deal was cut with Kim Il-sung who Clinton and even I believe may have been acting in good faith at the time when he agreed to end his nuclear program and allow in IAEA inspectors if the US gave him aid and built two light water reactors.  Kim Il-sung I think was beloved by his people enough that he would have been able to survive any reforms that would have opened up the country.  Thus he saw this deal as opportunity to feed his people and provide them energy, which in turn allowed North Korea to then focus their limited resources on rebuilding a post-Soviet Union economy.

However, Kim Il-sung died a month later after striking the deal with Carter.  Was this just coincidence or did Kim Jong-il have something to do with it?  I for one wouldn’t be surprised if Kim Jong-il and others in the military who wanted the nuclear bomb and resisted opening the country did away with Kim Il-sung and installed Kim Jong-il because he promised to implement the Songun (military first) policy which would ensure the elite status of the North Korean military within North Korean society.

Something else I found disingenuous about Carter’s article was his claim that his 1994 deal led to the 2000 inter-Korean Summit between then South Korean President Kim Dae-jung and Kim Jong-il.  Carter made no mention of the fact that the summit only happened, not because of Carter’s 1994 deal, but because of the $156 million dollar bribe that Kim Dae-jung authorized Hyundai to give to Kim Jong-il in order for the North Koreans to agree to host the summit.

The dishonesty only continues in Carter’s editorial:

But beginning in 2002, the United States branded North Korea as part of an axis of evil, threatened military action, ended the shipments of fuel oil and the construction of nuclear power plants and refused to consider further bilateral talks. In their discussions with me at this time, North Korean spokesmen seemed convinced that the American positions posed a serious danger to their country and to its political regime.

Carter makes no mention of the fact that North Korea cheated on the 1994 Agreed Framework deal and continued a covert nuclear program, which the Bush Administration called them on and to everyones surprise, the North Koreans even admitted to.

The dishonesty in this article only gets worse:

Six-nation talks finally concluded in an agreement last September that called for North Korea to abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and for the United States and North Korea to respect each other’s sovereignty, exist peacefully together and take steps to normalize relations. Each side subsequently claimed that the other had violated the agreement. The United States imposed severe financial sanctions and Pyongyang adopted the deeply troubling nuclear option.

Carter leaves out some more critical information by forgetting to mention that the financial sanctions had nothing to do with the six party talks.  The financial sanctions were due to North Korea’s counterfeiting and money laundering of US currency.  Ever wonder why the US$20 dollar bill keeps changing?  It because of North Korean counterfeiting which Carter makes no mention of.

So what does Carter suggest to end the current stand off?  Well implementing pretty much the 1994 Agreed Framework again:

The other option is to make an effort to put into effect the September denuclearization agreement, which the North Koreans still maintain is feasible. The simple framework for a step-by-step agreement exists, with the United States giving a firm and direct statement of no hostile intent, and moving toward normal relations if North Korea forgoes any further nuclear weapons program and remains at peace with its neighbors. Each element would have to be confirmed by mutual actions combined with unimpeded international inspections.

You have to give Carter credit for one thing, he is persistent in wanting to implement failed policies.

As you can see there were various factors that led to the failed 1994 Agreed Framework.  Was it Clinton’s fault?  Even though the policy failed I don’t see it as being Clinton’s fault because due to the circumstances he had no choice but to cut the deal.  This issue has taken on it’s current political context solely because of next months elections.  None of this rhetoric is helpful in actually resolving the crisis but since when have politicians cared more about solving issues over protecting their own political power?

So what do I think it going to happen?  Kim Jong-il counted on sanctions before he decided to test his nuke and knew that the international community would condemn him including China and South Korea.  Even though he would be condemned for the test, Kim Jong-il gambled that China and South Korea would still protect him from sanctions that would lead to the end of his regime like a naval blockade.  I would love to see a naval blockade because I doubt the North Korean regime would last a year if a naval blockade is implemented.  However, all signs are that the South Koreans and Chinese will not support a blockade and I find it unlikely the US would implement a blockade without a UN Security Council Resolution.

So what does this mean?  Well it means that North Korea will get hit by increased sanctions, but China will keep the oil flowing and the South Koreans will keep the food and fertilizer coming in because neither country wants to deal with a collapse North Korea.  China doesn’t want a possible war or a humanitarian crisis to threaten their hosting of the 2008 Olympics and the South Koreans do not want to pay both the financial and social costs that reunifying with North Korea would cost plus the possibility of war would devestate the peninsula.   Plus the North Koreans will be allowed to keep bringing in hard currency through their weapons sales, counterfeiting, and other illicit activities without a naval blockade, which means that the Kim Jong-il regime will survive with more time to develop and perfect their nuclear weapons, while our political leaders aided by the irresponsible US media continue to play politics and blame each other for the crisis, which is just what Kim Jong-il counted on.

Note some great reading on the 1994 Agreed Framework can be read in Don Oberdorfer’s book, The Two Koreas.