I can give you one very good reason there are no US troops advancing on Pyongyang, and it has nothing to do with Iraq, yellowcake, or Kim's poofed out hair.

 

THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

 

The Chinese tend to get a little upset when American troops close up to the Yalu River.  And unlike the North Koreans, Chinese missiles and nukes work perfectly well and can hit American targets. 

 

I don't like the situation either, but the PRC is the 800-pound gorilla in this.  Without them, I think Kim would've been gone a long time ago.  The upside to this is that China isn't real happy with Kim Poofyhair right now, so they may solve the problem for us.  Sooner or later, sanity will come to Beijing and make them realize that a nuclear-armed nutcase on their border is not a good thing, no matter how much of a distraction he provides to the US and Japan.

 

 
 

EU warriors:  Where are most of them situated today?  What percentage currently stationed inside EU borders as compared with those outside the borders of EU nations?  Please provide a ratio for benchmark.

v^2

Sentinel,

For sure; China.  That's the #1 concern here. And the #2, #3 and #4 - in fact I posted about that just yesterday: www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/74-721.aspx

That being said, however, you'd have to smoke some *very* good stuff to argue that the Iraqi quagmire is not affecting our ability to credibly threaten (partially militarily - primarily politicaly and diplomaticaly) North Korea.  Same with Iran, for that matter.  To put it simply, our ability to go to the Security Council, cry 'wolf!' over WMD, and pressure other nations to pass resolutions is at best highly compromised.  We've seen that over Iran and we're about to see that again over North Korea.

Which is most unfortunate; unlike Iraq (a militarily crippled, WMD-less, economically sanctioned local dictatorship that was of no threat to us or it's inmediate neighbours), North Korea actually is unpredictable and dangerous.  Extremely dangerous, in fact - to it's neighbours and to us (they have yet to develop a weapons system that they have not offered for sale to the highest bidder).

Aside from our distraction in Iraq, there was (and maybe still is...) the possibility of a radical raproachment with China, on the same scale as the diplomatic breakthroughs under Nixon - after all, China is much more directly threatened by NK that we are, China is a capitalist state, our trade relationship with them is booming, their track record in handling Hong Kong is remarcably good, they have as much to fear from rouge dictatorships with WMD as we do, and a stable and prosperous NK is as much in China's interest as it is in ours.

Not only that - unlike Iraq, peace, then order, then prosperity in NK is eminently achievable without 100's of thousands of US troops hanging around for years.

I'm an optimist, so I tend to think that this may yet be achievable - but let's not kid ourselves, this Administrations hare-brained adventure in Iraq, their dogmatism and their patent incapacity to formulate a foreign policy that would actually serve America's interests and security does not bid well for it...

Heart,

eu4ea

North Korea may look at Iraq from all sorts of angles, maybe they feel we are overstretched or maybe they feel threatened by our agressive posture there.  So, yes, in a way Iraq affects current events in Korea.  That doesn't make their perceptions reality.

 

Now as to it affecting our diplomacy or military options.  It does, but its not exactly a direct cause and effect like you seem to suggest.

 

The North Korean nuclear program is probably around 40 years old. (pre Iraq, pre G.W.B., pre Axis of Evil)

 

We have faced the same problem in the early 90's with a military that was somewhat larger and free of major actions. 

However, we are faced with the same problems we have been faced with for the last 60 years when dealing with North Korea.  China (as has been mentioned) and our South Korean ALLIES have their capital of 10 million and the industrial heart of their nation within artillery range of the DMZ.  Any direct military action puts the lives of tens of thousands of South Korean civillians at risk.  Its a risk that has, so far, far outweighed any advantage of using military force to resolve problems with North Korea.   If the entire army was tied down in the middle (which it isn't) our military options would be no more credible than if the entire army was stationed in South Korea. 

 

Politically, Iraq has very little to do with North Korea. North Korea has prided itself for decades on the level of its isolation.  The only nations that could potentially truly affect them are China and South Korea.  It appears, that the Chinese influence isn't as great as we thought.  If the Chinese couldn't talk them out of this course of action, I fail to see what the US could have done short of throwing them vast sums of money and resources as a bribe and there being no gurantee they would live up to any agreement struck with the US.  The North Koreans have spent the last 60 years painting the United States as its mortal enemy, I seriously doubt we can be affective in being the primary negotiater for anything with them.

 

People keep saying that a stable North Korea with an improved finicial status if best for everyone and I agree.  However, the question is does anyone that matters agree?  China, perhaps being the second most important player hasn't exactly been pushing reform on North Korea and now its influence on North Korea is in doubt.  Kim, certainly does not want any sort of reform. 

 

What we are left with is an extremely dangerous state (North Korea) that is economically and socially isolated from the world.  I honestly don't think we can tighten those screws much more.  There is no viable military solution short of North Korea doing something like attacking the South, Japan, or the US.  There is very little significant economic or political pressure thats left.  

 

In my opinion, containment is our only realistic option at this point (and I'm not a fan of containment). 

Joe,

I actually think this is a place where (unlike pre-war Iraq) the status quo is not acceptable to us and we should activelly try to change it.

The best, indeed the only, way to achieve that is acting in concert with China - a diplomatic breaktrough of that scale is possibly unachieveable under the pall of the Iraq, and certainly unachievable by the current administration but it's not ultimatelly out of the question. We have a *tremendous* amount of common interests with China, in NK and elsewhere and indeed have achieved a similar scale breakthrough with them before.

As to how to implement the end of the Kim regime, a simple economic blockade combined with a state of high military and humanitarian readiness on both sides of the border would do nicely.  No ships in, no ships out, nothing across the Chinese border and nothing across the DMZ.  NK would colapse inside of 3 months - and if they take 6, better yet - . 

There would almost certainly be last-gasp confrontations which could get nasty (specially re: artillery/mlrs strikes on SK, possibly also Scuds fired at other Asian nations like Iraq fired on Israel in '91), but this is by no means unmanageable.

Heart,

eu4ea

While I think its a good thought, I just don't see it as a likely scenrio.  China is playing their own game and I don't think helping the US to bring Kim's regime to an end is in the cards.  Maybe they don't have the clout we credit them with, maybe they see some greater advantage to the current situation, maybe they find the possible alternatives distastefull.  I don't know. 

Flash back to 1993-1996ish.  We were pretty much in the same situation we are now.  We had an administration that was, lets say for the sake of argument, more open to diplomacy and had a better relationship to China.  China wasn't really helping us in that situation either. 

 

I'm pretty sure your suggested scenrio would not work either.  A complete blockade would be (1) in the international law (which a lot of people point to these days) an act of war.  (2) It would have huge humanitarian impact on an allready suffering  North Korean populace.  I sincerly doubt South Korea would go along with this.  They have relatives in the North and they are looking for a slow, peacefull re-unification.  Not a quick and dirty collapse that could lead to war.  Without South Korean support this plan fails. (3) We have to weigh the military risks, the last dying gasps of North Korea could result in hundreds of thousands of civillian casualities if they choose to employ chemical and biological weapons along with convential ones.  Never mind whether they could put together a few nukes in a deliverable package.

 

 

For sure; China.  That's the #1 concern here. And the #2, #3 and #4 - in fact I posted about that just yesterday: www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/74-721.aspx

That being said, however, you'd have to smoke some *very* good stuff to argue that the Iraqi quagmire is not affecting our ability to credibly threaten (partially militarily - primarily politicaly and diplomaticaly) North Korea.  Same with Iran, for that matter.  To put it simply, our ability to go to the Security Council, cry 'wolf!' over WMD, and pressure other nations to pass resolutions is at best highly compromised.  We've seen that over Iran and we're about to see that again over North Korea.

Which is most unfortunate; unlike Iraq (a militarily crippled, WMD-less, economically sanctioned local dictatorship that was of no threat to us or it's inmediate neighbours), North Korea actually is unpredictable and dangerous.  Extremely dangerous, in fact - to it's neighbours and to us (they have yet to develop a weapons system that they have not offered for sale to the highest bidder).

Aside from our distraction in Iraq, there was (and maybe still is...) the possibility of a radical raproachment with China, on the same scale as the diplomatic breakthroughs under Nixon - after all, China is much more directly threatened by NK that we are, China is a capitalist state, our trade relationship with them is booming, their track record in handling Hong Kong is remarcably good, they have as much to fear from rouge dictatorships with WMD as we do, and a stable and prosperous NK is as much in China's interest as it is in ours.

Not only that - unlike Iraq, peace, then order, then prosperity in NK is eminently achievable without 100's of thousands of US troops hanging around for years.

 

 

It's so hypocritical that I'm guessing it's humor. Recap: We can't can't cry wolf at the UN like we did 17 times with Iraq...What a big help that would be. Iraq was WMD-less and no threat to it's neighbors...thank goodness we had them so well-contained economically then, huh? Anyhoo,tell that to Iraq's neighbors..oh wait, ya can't, they're dead...victims of WMD's. Finally, economic sanctions are the fast-track to prosperity for a particularly unpredictable and dangerous country. At first I didn't get it, I started to get mad..I'm with ya! Good one!

Pretty please. I need some reasurance here...

Maybe something about how having 140,000 troops tied up fighting an arab civil war really and truly does nothing to hamper our ability to realistically threaten these guys.

Perhaps a reflection about how dictators *across the world!* are all now quaking in their boots after seeing how easy it was for us to do saddam in and how much we love having 140,000 troops tied up for at least 5-6 years. Maybe more, if we're lucky.

It's so hypocritical that I'm guessing it's humor. Recap: We can't can't cry wolf at the UN like we did 17 times with Iraq...What a big help that would be. Iraq was WMD-less and no threat to it's neighbors...thank goodness we had them so well-contained economically then, huh? Anyhoo,tell that to Iraq's neighbors..oh wait, ya can't, they're dead...victims of WMD's. Finally, economic sanctions are the fast-track to prosperity for a particularly unpredictable and dangerous country. At first I didn't get it, I started to get mad..I'm with ya! Good one!

 

Please explain this assertation other a "I don't like Bush" gripe.   Explain how having more ground forces available right now makes any difference at all?  Do you honestly beleive South Korea would allow us to build up forces in South Korea to threaten North Korea with?    I'd also dispute that China isn't the same China from 10 years ago.  Where do see any significant changes in their policies from that time period?   For being a net liability they have kept it going for the last 60 years.  

 

Sanctions are one thing an actual naval blockade is effectively a declaration of war.  Sanctions and blockade are not synonyms.  The UN is not about about to support a real blockade.

Your rant about Iraq, is seriously taking this away from being a reasonable discussion.  If you are so concerned that troop levels in Iraq are relevant to North Korea, explain it.  US ground fources are not a viable solution to this problem and therefore have very little do with the situation.

 

  

 

 

I don't see Iraq as any distractor to our military capabilities against N. Korea, should war become necessary.  As pointed out by J6P, it's not like you'll be redeploying those forces to S. Korea anytime soon.  Meanwhile our naval and U.S.A.F. posture in northeast Asia remains solid.  

 

That said, I can't imagine that more forces in the region would change our operational options.  They are limited by REGIONAL political considerations that have no evident linkage to Iraq whatsoever.  Iran certainly, within the context of the emerging NPT fissures.  However that, too, is a GLOBAL issue with nothing to do about Iraq, Nigerian yellowcake, stainless-steel cylinders, Spetznatz guarded trucks passing through the night into Syria, etc...