Opinion: Are we headed toward a new Korean war?


If there was a message in North Korea’s launch of a new missile capable of reaching anywhere in the United States, it was that America’s strategy toward that country is failing — and that war may be looming.

The American public is far too complacent about the possibility of a war with North Korea, one that could be incomparably bloodier than any U.S. war in my lifetime. One assessment suggests that 1 million people could die on the first day.

“If we have to go to war to stop this, we will,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told CNN after the latest missile test. “We’re headed toward a war if things don’t change.”

President Donald Trump himself has said he stands ready to “totally destroy” North Korea. His national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, says Trump “is willing to do anything necessary” to prevent North Korea from threatening the U.S. with nuclear weapons — which is precisely what Kim Jong Un did.

One lesson from history: When a president and his advisers say they’re considering a war, take them seriously.

The international security experts I’ve consulted offer estimates of the risk of war from 15 percent to more than 50 percent. That should be staggering.

Trump said Wednesday that new sanctions were in the works and that “the situation will be handled.” But he has already been quite effective in increasing the economic pressure on North Korea, and it’s difficult to see how a 10th round of sanctions — after nine rounds so far since 2006 — will make a huge difference.

The problem is twofold. First, the U.S. goal for North Korea — complete denuclearization — is implausible. Second, our strategy of economic sanctions is ineffective against an isolated regime that earlier accepted the death by famine of perhaps 10 percent of its population.

In short, we have a failed strategy to achieve a hopeless goal.

This problem is not Trump’s fault, and he’s right that previous administrations (back to the first President George Bush’s in the late 1980s) have mostly kicked the can down the road. He’s also right that we’re running out of road, now that North Korea has shown the ability to send a missile some 8,000 miles, putting all of the U.S. within its theoretical range.

It’s important to stop North Korea from the final testing needed to be confident of its ability to strike the U.S.

Some analysts believe in retrospect that it would have made sense for the U.S. to have attacked North Korea’s nuclear sites just as it was beginning its program, in the late 1980s. But even then, North Korea had the capacity to rain chemical and biological weapons on Seoul.

In 1969, President Richard Nixon was tempted to strike at North Korea after it shot down an American spy plane, killing all 31 people aboard. Aides warned that any military strike could escalate into all-out war, and eventually Nixon backed down.

In Washington, there’s sometimes a delusion that a war would be over in a day after the first barrage of American missiles. Remember that tiny Serbia withstood more than two months of NATO bombing in 1999 before agreeing to withdraw from Kosovo; North Korea is incomparably more prepared for enduring and waging war.

The last, best hope for the Korean Peninsula is some kind of negotiated deal in which Kim freezes his nuclear programs. North Korea just may be hinting in its latest statements that it is open to negotiations.

So let’s try talking, rather than risk the first exchange of nuclear weapons in the history of our planet.

Writes for The New York Times.



Reader Comments ...


Next Up in Opinion

Opinion: ‘Little Pink House’ speaks truth to power

Coming soon to a cinema near you — you can make this happen; read on — is a bite-your-nails true-story thriller featuring heroes, villains and a history-making struggle over … the Constitution’s Takings Clause. Next Feb. 24, “Little Pink House” will win the Oscar for best picture if Hollywood’s political preening...
Opinion: What happened in Starbucks isn’t really about Starbucks

I don’t drink coffee, so I can’t boycott Starbucks. But I wouldn’t if I could. Yes, I understand — and share — the national anger over viral video of last week’s arrest of two African-American men at one of the company’s Philadelphia stores. The men, who have yet to be identified, were reportedly doing nothing...
Opinion: Trump’s Syria strike was meant to project strength

WASHINGTON — In 2013, after Syrian dictator Bashar Assad crossed President Obama’s red line and used chemical weapons on innocent civilians, a U.S. official told the Los Angeles Times that Obama’s retaliatory strike would likely be “just muscular enough not to get mocked” but not so devastating that it would elicit a response...
Opinion: Our gold-leaf presidency

Let’s talk for a minute about Mar-a-Lago. Donald Trump was there this week, hosting a get-together with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan. Important stuff to be discussed — North Korea, trade. The two men held a brief press conference on Tuesday, at which the president revealed: “Many of the world’s great leaders request to...
Opinion: Trump — prisoner of the War Party?

“Ten days ago, President Trump was saying ‘the United States should withdraw from Syria.’ We convinced him it was necessary to stay.” Thus boasted French President Emmanuel Macron Saturday, adding, “We convinced him it was necessary to stay for the long term.” Is the U.S. indeed in the Syrian civil war “for...
More Stories