« Global Crisis Watch | Main | Welcome to Jack Kelly Readers »
October 9, 2006
"Collapse Brinkmanship"
In 2004, an article appeared in the Korea Times, quoting National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley. Hadley stated that the US policy toward North Korea is one of "regime transformation."
In an apparent policy turnaround, the United States will seek transformation of the North Korean regime without attempting to change or overthrow it, a top U.S. security policymaker said Tuesday.If regime transformation is the policy of the US government, it seems a strategy of "collapse brinksmanship" is the method being employed to reach it.``If the U.S. policy is put into words, it would be `regime transformation,’’’ National Security Advisor-designate Stephen Hadley was quoted as telling South Korean parliamentary delegates visiting the U.S.
Hadley also reiterated the U.S. is firmly committed to the six-party talks aimed at resolving the nuclear standoff and has no intention of attacking North Korea, according to the lawmakers.
Rep. Park Jin, a key member of the delegation, said Hadley’s statement can be understood as a U.S. policy that would induce North Korea toward transformation through gradual economic reform without trying to collapse the current regime.
In Cold War nuclear strategy, brinkmanship was first defined by John Foster Dulles as "the ability to get to the verge without getting into the war." Wikpedia notes, "Brinkmanship is ostensibly the escalation of threats to achieve one's aims. Eventually, the threats involved might become so huge as to be unmanageable at which point both sides are likely to back down. This was the case during the Cold War, as the escalation of threats of nuclear war is mutually suicidal."
But the brinksmanship being practiced now by the US is one of collapse, not nuclear attack. The US is attempting to create conditions whereby it becomes more and more likely that North Korea will collapse. The intended audiences for this interplay are China and South Korea, who have the most to fear of a North Korean collapse. Also, whereas in nuclear brinkmanship, as Wikipedia notes, both sides usually back down to avoid suicide, the US will not suffer suicide if North Korea collapses. Sure, it might be ugly, but the US has the least to lose from such an event.
In short, the US strategy is meant to show South Korea and China just how dangerous North Korea is, to get them all to on the same page, so that the North can then be induced to negotiate away its nuclear capability. Then, as Hadley detailed, the regime can be transformed, via "gradual economic reform."
It's a bold strategy, and it might not work. But the alternatives are equally hairy. Live with a nuclear North? Begin a military confrontation? Or other combinations of either of these? None are very palatable. Collapse brinkmanship may well be the least of many evils.
Posted by Chester at October 9, 2006 10:51 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theadventuresofchester.com/MT/mt-tb.cgi/953
Comments
It needs to be accomplished before all of the other chickens come home to roost. e.g. Russia in Lebanon, Iran, Darfur, Venezuela, and the Democratic congress.
Posted by: Mike H. at October 10, 2006 12:59 AM
Chester,
My friend told me I should kill two birds with one stone today and along with getting my oil changed, run across the street and buy some hardware.
Speaking of this, I could go to your house and kill the "real bird" with one stone, now couldn't I?
Off topic alert...
Did anyone catch just how inappropriate what I said is? Well, I sincerely apologize, Chester. I didn't mean it at all. Please allow me a moment to explain.
You won't believe this, but...
Here’s some more recent Democrat hate and unhingedness for you — from ‘04 “Presidential” candidate John Kerry.
JOHN KERRY JOKINGLY THREATENS TO KILL GEORGE W. BUSH?
Wild Bill has the details (originally from Bill Maher’s show). 1:06 into the video, in response to a Maher statement about “killing two birds with one stone” that had nothing to do with President Bush, John Kerry says:
“I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone.”
What the heck is that?
I think it’s worth a standalone post and a f’n apology. I apologize for my French. I’m Canadian.
Back on topic...
Do you think the calm and reasonable former Democratic Party nominee was the best man for the job of handling North Korea?
Posted by: Christoph at October 10, 2006 5:44 PM
While listening to Charles Krauthammer on Fox News last night he put forth the idea that the United States could and should blockade the North Koreans or as President Kennedy called it, quarantine. The quarantine would check all shipping going and coming from Nork ports for weapons or counterfeit US dollars. However, by international law this is an act of war. But in the game of brinksmanship it might be a good alternative. The US would not be the first one to fire the first shot. We could stop these ships on the high seas well away from the normal patrolling range of the NK navy. The next step would be for the Norks to do something about it. Then their options would be limited to all out war, putting up with the humiliation, or some other tit for tat. The end result for us would be putting a lid on the export of these items.
There is at a minimum of one problem with this tactic and that is if they try to fly something out will we shoot down the plane when it is full of say 100 North Korean kids along with a nuke on its way to western Pakistan.
It is like herding cats. Sometime it’s just easier to kill all the cats.
Wild Bill
Posted by: Wild Bill at October 11, 2006 12:52 AM
Just who in North Korea did the US government think was going to help effect a change. When Kim1 died the elete let Kim2 take over. If ever there was a time for change it was then.
Posted by: davod at October 11, 2006 9:44 AM