I knew I had used the phrase "let it be" in re North Korea before. Below is what I wrote 4 1/2 years ago on March 15, 2013 at 11:15 pm.
United States Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced today that the U.S. would begin a $1 billion missile defense program aimed at thwarting the threatened nuclear strike by the DPRK. This represents a reversal by the Obama administration on two levels. First, that they now see a clear and present danger in the North's threats. This reversal is reasoned. It is based on the North's cancellation of the armistice agreement with South Korea and the hot line to the South and, of course, on the qualitative change in the North's threats against the U.S. Second, that the Obama administration has opted for a defensive response, and with a system that has not successfully intercepted a missile in tests since 2008. The president had previously told Chinese Premier Hu Jintao that if the North developed nuclear missiles capable of striking the United States he would take them out. Hu did not quite believe his ears and asked through a translator for clarification. The president obliged. This change too is reasoned, poorly. No American administration has ever liked the concept of preemptive strikes. Against the unanimous opinion of his Joint Chiefs of Staff President Kennedy balked during the Cuban Missile Crisis based on a private note slipped him during an ExComm meeting by his brother: "Now I know how Tojo felt." President Obama believes he faces a similar dilemma on preemption. And a similar dilemma on the threat of a wider nuclear conflagration, for China will likely join the DPRK in war with the U.S.
The president's reasoning is wrong and his response is wrong. North Korea must be destroyed.
The president should not use the War Powers Act to strike the DPRK, that tool is the most pernicious undermining of the Constitution in the history of the republic. He should do what the Constitution calls for, go to Congress for a formal declaration of war. If China enters the war against America then the president may make the decision to attack the PRC under the emergency circumstances contemplated by the War Powers Act. Secretary Hagel's announcement today demonstrates that no such exigency exists with regard to the DPRK.
Why should Obama not do what Kennedy did?
Because the DPRK has stated directly and unambiguously its intent to strike the U.S. with nuclear weapons, which it in fact possesses; via ballistic missiles, which it possesses with short-range capability, which it is developing with long-range capability. Thus, an American strike against the DPRK would be responsive not preemptive, especially after a congressional declaration of war. Neither the Soviets nor the Cubans made the direct threat in the October Crisis that the DPRK has.
Because there were no Cuban missiles then, only Soviet missiles. The DPRK is morally and in reality more decoupled from the PRC than Cuba was from the Soviet Union. The threat, to the extent there was a threat from the Soviet missiles in Cuba, was from the Soviet Union. The DPRK has developed its nuclear missile capability on its own. These are North Korean missiles, not Chinese missiles. The threat is from the North, the war should be with the North. So too war with China is morally decoupled from war with North Korea; that is, it will be the PRC's decision to let it be or not.
If full-scale nuclear war came between the U.S. and China, China would be obliterated and a billion Chinese would die along with many millions of Americans.
Does America have the will to war? I believe the American people have the will for war with the DPRK but Secretary Hagel's announcement today is clear that the Obama administration does not. Do Americans have the will for war with China? Absolutely not. Neither the Obama administration nor the American people have the will for nuclear war with China. I believe we must get that will, for North Korea must be destroyed.
United States Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced today that the U.S. would begin a $1 billion missile defense program aimed at thwarting the threatened nuclear strike by the DPRK. This represents a reversal by the Obama administration on two levels. First, that they now see a clear and present danger in the North's threats. This reversal is reasoned. It is based on the North's cancellation of the armistice agreement with South Korea and the hot line to the South and, of course, on the qualitative change in the North's threats against the U.S. Second, that the Obama administration has opted for a defensive response, and with a system that has not successfully intercepted a missile in tests since 2008. The president had previously told Chinese Premier Hu Jintao that if the North developed nuclear missiles capable of striking the United States he would take them out. Hu did not quite believe his ears and asked through a translator for clarification. The president obliged. This change too is reasoned, poorly. No American administration has ever liked the concept of preemptive strikes. Against the unanimous opinion of his Joint Chiefs of Staff President Kennedy balked during the Cuban Missile Crisis based on a private note slipped him during an ExComm meeting by his brother: "Now I know how Tojo felt." President Obama believes he faces a similar dilemma on preemption. And a similar dilemma on the threat of a wider nuclear conflagration, for China will likely join the DPRK in war with the U.S.
The president's reasoning is wrong and his response is wrong. North Korea must be destroyed.
The president should not use the War Powers Act to strike the DPRK, that tool is the most pernicious undermining of the Constitution in the history of the republic. He should do what the Constitution calls for, go to Congress for a formal declaration of war. If China enters the war against America then the president may make the decision to attack the PRC under the emergency circumstances contemplated by the War Powers Act. Secretary Hagel's announcement today demonstrates that no such exigency exists with regard to the DPRK.
Why should Obama not do what Kennedy did?
Because the DPRK has stated directly and unambiguously its intent to strike the U.S. with nuclear weapons, which it in fact possesses; via ballistic missiles, which it possesses with short-range capability, which it is developing with long-range capability. Thus, an American strike against the DPRK would be responsive not preemptive, especially after a congressional declaration of war. Neither the Soviets nor the Cubans made the direct threat in the October Crisis that the DPRK has.
Because there were no Cuban missiles then, only Soviet missiles. The DPRK is morally and in reality more decoupled from the PRC than Cuba was from the Soviet Union. The threat, to the extent there was a threat from the Soviet missiles in Cuba, was from the Soviet Union. The DPRK has developed its nuclear missile capability on its own. These are North Korean missiles, not Chinese missiles. The threat is from the North, the war should be with the North. So too war with China is morally decoupled from war with North Korea; that is, it will be the PRC's decision to let it be or not.
If full-scale nuclear war came between the U.S. and China, China would be obliterated and a billion Chinese would die along with many millions of Americans.
Does America have the will to war? I believe the American people have the will for war with the DPRK but Secretary Hagel's announcement today is clear that the Obama administration does not. Do Americans have the will for war with China? Absolutely not. Neither the Obama administration nor the American people have the will for nuclear war with China. I believe we must get that will, for North Korea must be destroyed.
