Category Archives: Foreign Policy

Another blog, Fortuna’s Corner, posted a Time article on North Korea’s escalation and what the underlying strategic aims might be.  The article titled, “Poker on the Korean Peninsula:  Why Kim Jong-Un Keeps Raising The Stakes”, (link here), contains some interesting insights into the North Korean strategic aims.  The article quotes a Kookmin University professor in Seoul, Andrei Lankov, described as a North Korea expert, who states that North Korea manufactures crises in hopes of winning pay-offs when they eventually agree to negotiate to resolve these crises.  Lankov offers the advice that we should pay no attention to these threats, which on its face sounds like exactly how to treat temper tantrums.  However, that response to some nutcase who possesses nuclear weapons seems like a dangerous gamble.

Here’s a Stratfor piece on the North Korean strategy from January, which I mentioned in a previous post.  George Friedman’s insights always deserve as second glance: “Ferocious, Weak and Crazy: The North Korean Strategy”

Here’s a Christian Science Monitor commentary from April 1, 2013, “Amid another North Korean storm, look who’s calm”, about how the people in South Korea have mostly gone on in a business as usual fashion, while many others around the world react in panic and with dire warnings, (here).

Just a few headlines to get some brain cells firing in our national security agencies…………hopefully.   Yesterday reports of chemical weapons being used in Syria hit the airwaves (here, here, here), so how will the US respond – or will we respond?  John Bolton appeared on Fox News this morning and he proposes a US effort to confiscate and remove chemical weapons’ stores from Syria, while simultaneously avoiding getting drawn into the civil war raging there or allowing these weapons to fall into the hands of radical rebel groups.  While this sounds like a prudent proposition, the logistics of carrying out this type of mission strike me as daunting, to say the least.  John Bolton, whom I admire greatly, frequently comes up with big-thinker type plans, that require broad stroke diplomatic efforts or complex, thinking outside the box action that seem unlikely to happen with our ditherer-in-chief.  The Bin Laden raid seems like the star in his crown of daring-do missions and even there reports indicate he procrastinated making that call too.  In Benghazi, well, he didn’t even bother to tune in the night of that raid, then tried to blame some lame video as the cause, deflecting attention from his administration’s complete abandonment of our ambassador under attack.  In typical Obama fashion, expect that “red line” to be merely a rhetorical device, not an actual point where action will back up the words.  It’s likely Mr. For It Before He Was Against It Kerry will pass this Syrian hot potato into the UN’s lap, where the world’s spuds can mash it about and proclaim – “We condemn this action in the strongest possible terms!” and do nothing, as usual.

North Korea rattles on with threats and overt hostilities, where South Korea raised the alarm that widespread cyber attacks that brought down three broadcast networks and some banks yesterday might be the work of North Korea (here).  The Sun, a British paper, posted a story that North Korea put a propaganda video online that shows the US Capitol being blown up by a missile strike and another one of the White House being targeted (here).  Last week, George Friedman, at Stratfor.com, wrote a piece, “Considering a Departure in North Korea’s Strategy”, where he explains their strategy as a combination of “ferocious, weak and crazy” that combined forms a coherent strategy for regime preservation, which he states is their primary strategic aim.  Friedman asserts that North Korea’s aggressive actions cause other nations to react with extreme caution.   In typical detailed Friedman style, he examines the possibility that North Korea might be moving away from it’s “careful manipulator” strategy to a “wild gambler” mode, which he doubts, but nevertheless assesses in detail (here).  The US in the meantime is conducting ramped up B-52 training exercises over South Korea to demonstrate American resolve to protect South Korea from North Korean aggression (here).

And today President Obama, in his signature “leading from behind” style, finally made it to Israel – only five years into his presidency…………  The New York Times describes the visit as “heavy on symbolism and short on any proposals to advance peace negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians” (here).  Just another day in the world of dwindling United States influence, where the President’s minions thought it was a good idea to send the President campaigning directly to the Israeli people rather than treating Netanyahu to the respectful treatment of a world leader.  Absent any real proposals or ideas, he’s in Israel merely as a symbolic gesture.

Wondering how we will weather these next four years adrift, abandoned and absolutely absent any hint of American leadership or resolve.  No life vest in sight from this vantage point and is there anyone left who will respond to dot, dot,dot, dash, dash, dash, dot, dot, dot?  Well, the geniuses in this White House would scratch their heads and ask, “dot, dash, huh, what’s that?”, so the short answer is –  probably not.  Anyway, they’re too busy figuring out how to use White House Tours and the annual White House Easter Egg Roll for sequestration propaganda purposes – no time left to ponder world problems.

My grown children often bring off-the-wall topics to my door as topics of conversation.   Yesterday, my youngest daughter called me from a Southwest state where she lives with her soldier husband.  She chattered on about how  to get rid of their Christmas tree, since their garbage service doesn’t pick up trees.  She mentioned something in their local paper about a project of feeding Christmas trees to elephants, which prompted my response, ” I don’t think there’re any elephants where you live, perhaps a long lost camel might still be roaming about, but I doubt it”  Before I had filled in only the briefest details of Jefferson Davis’  US Army Camel Corps (here), she interrupted with “it says the horses were afraid of the camels, and she added, “that elephant story is in Berlin (here).   Such is the nature of discussions in the internet age.  Later one of my sons brought up a continuing discussion we’ve had for a long while now and finally I think he sees my point of view.  When I first mentioned to him that if  it came to picking Vladimir Putin vs Barack Obama for a hypothetical geopolitical competition , I’d pick Putin in a heartbeat.  When this conversation began a year or so ago, my son would list off all the “evils” that are Putin, such as the alleged polonium poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko (here) and his KGB  past.  The following is my reasoning for picking Putin.

Often our policymakers and the media present foreign policy whereby it sounds like they are reading from the pages in a tabloid magazine , with all the details focusing  on gossipy details rather than on articulating some clear strategic interests.  I will never forget the highly sensationalized images of Saddam Hussein, that turned him into some larger-than-life nemesis rather than just an average tyrant with a military, whose ability was grossly exaggerated.   This same trend plays out often, where we seem to have no clue of who we’re dealing with.   Here are  some of the things I considered.  This all goes back to something I mentioned in a previous post that I think  knowing people always trumps knowing “about” people.  Years ago, I read a book that I had signed out from our local library that was Putin’s first lengthy interview with a western reporter.  His answers provided clues to how he thinks about being a leader of his country and what his hopes and aspirations are for Russia.  Luckily for us, most of the worlds leaders fall into the camp of rational actors.  I harbor doubts about say North Korea, but I thought Saddam was a rational actor, Qaddafi – rational actor, Ju Jintao – completely rational.  Now,  Hillary’s friend in Argentina, Christina Fernandez de Kirchner, makes me pause to wonder what the heck she’s thinking, but truthfully there are very few totally, what can only be called “batshit crazy” leaders.  But Putin is supremely rational and a geopolitical adversary worthy of respect.

Taking “a walk a mile in their shoes approach” puts us on firmer strategic ground than all this suspect psychobabble our assessments often contain. To understand Putin all it takes is to view Russia from where he stands.  George Friedman does this best (here).    While Putin’s actions do remain diametrically opposed to ours and most assuredly will produce future friction points, his actions make perfect strategic sense from the Russian viewpoint.  He aggressively has secured energy resources and engaged the US in nuclear arms wrangling where he certainly pushed and received the things that are advantageous to Russia.

Then we have Barack Obama where he refused to sign the Keystone Pipeline deal, he gave away too much in the nuclear arms dealing and he and Madame Secretary have made one after another terrible missteps, stabbing our allies in the back, while bowing and scraping to our adversaries.  He’s put us on the path to not only universal healthcare, but to being a universal third-rate bit player on the world stage.  If I were assessing how the strategic plane looks from others’ vantage points, I would wonder, “those stupid Americans, they don’t even have the national will to promote their own interests”.  And truly, any administration that utters a phrase like, “leading from behind” is worthy of only supreme contempt, in my opinion.

The ill-mannered TV reality urchin, Honey boo boo can keep Barack Obama, but as for me I’d pick Putin by a mile.