North Korea, Good cop, bad cop. Former special US envoy to North Korea Charles Jack Pritchard in the WP, "No, Don't Blow it Up."

More response to the Perry/Carter oped from Chris Nelson's Thursday night report:

Since Secretary Perry had, until now, been the favored candidate of Korea policy critics to be a Special Envoy in any future direct negotiations, the Op Ed in the Washington Post, co-authored (and, most likely, drafted by) Clinton DOD non-proliferation official Ashton Carter, sparked a vigorous, still-continuing e-mail “conversation” among Korea policy elites.

Because of Perry’s reputation, many Loyal Readers felt compelled to argue that however irresponsible his logic, the fact that it was Perry advocating a risky act of war “definitely has gotten the attention of both Beijing and Pyongyang”. Some even conjectured that surely there was method in the madness, and that Perry might even have secretly orchestrated this with Sec. State Condi Rice. [...]

Experts who have followed Perry and Carter more closely said that in fact, today’s recommendation is not as unexpected as it might seem, since Carter had advocated direct military action back during the 1993-94 crisis which led to the Agreed Framework, and Perry has frequently advocated military measures as non-proliferation solutions.

But frankly, most respondents were contemptuous of what they saw as a misguided, perhaps cynical attempt by Perry and Carter to “audition” for the next Administration, and to “prove that Democrats are just as tough on defense as Republicans.”

A more benign interpretation of this, from a former diplomat: “I presume that another motive is political/psychological, to grab the attention of the North Koreans, Chinese and others by making plain that there is broad bi-partisan concern in the US regarding NK intentions and capabilities, and that the Administration would have the support of respected Democrats if it judged that the US national interest was best served by a preemptive strike.”

We note the very harsh judgments against Perry/Carter because they were nearly universal, precisely because the internal logic of their piece is so incredibly flawed. Obviously, no one disputes their concerns..that’s why this “crisis” exists. [...]

But Perry/Carter flat out predict that an act of war by the US in this situation would produce no serious N. Korean retaliation...something most of our respondents severely dispute. So their discussion of a war “lasting several weeks” on the Peninsula struck respondents as irresponsibly contradictory...”either N. Korea is deterrable, or it isn’t. They can’t have it both ways, to support their argument.”

One arms control expert goes to far as to warn, “my bet is, the N. Koreans would respond to an attack on Musudan-ri [the missile site] by launching Nodong MRBM’s at US targets in Japan, and possibly Japanese cities as well. Would Carter and Perry advocate that we absorb this retaliation, or should we try to pre-empt that, too? At this point, their scenario threatens to spin out of control.” [...]

That comment explains what we have noted in many previous Reports...the underlying Chinese reason for displeasure with Kim Jong-il. ...

Posted by Laura at June 23, 2006 12:05 AM