Of course it slowed their growth, the hell?
When's anyone said that it hasn't?
You questioned how strategic patience set them back. I just told you how.
My point was, strategic patience was the right move to start with, we absolutely should have gone that way rather than escalating at first.
Escalating at first? What do you mean?
It seems that you agree.. based on above.. that strategic patience works. You're saying that it worked, but that now we need to act, right? Sure... that's a part of the paradigm of strategic patience. Bide your time, find your moment, and then move. That's always been the plan. Squeeze them until they are backed into a corner, and then approach them and offer a helping hand out.
Thing is, the production continued all the same. Got serious under Clinton, came to a head under Bush, they stalled a while, before getting serious on it again into the later Obama years.
Slowed progress, sure, but progress all the same. Surely you'd agree there's a certain point-of-no-return with that though, where patience is no longer acceptable. North Korea can't be allowed to have a functional, test-proven ICBM and nukes miniaturized enough to fit on a warhead, that's pretty basic stuff.
That doesn't mean you start a war and forcibly take them out, no. But you can't really continue business-as-usual either, they'll cross the line of acceptable capability before long.
Well.. you're trying to have the argument both ways here. On the one hand, you want to criticize strategic patience for not working; on the other, you want to say that it obviously slowed his progress and did work. Is there a point of no return? ... I suppose.... but what exactly are you saying by that? That we no longer rely on deterrence and send in Seal Team 6 after a certain threshold? That's extremely risky, especially given that MAD has worked for 80 years and there's no reason to believe it wouldn't work now. We should continue to put international pressure on Kim... not taunt him into thinking we'll first strike. That diminishes are credibility abroad because 1) it's most likely a lie and 2) it goes against our principles and 3) it would cede the higher ground to Kim.
So no... we shouldn't abandon strategic patience and move away from our Deterrence model because Kim is getting further along. First strike shouldn't be in our playbook, ever. We rely on MAD. If you bomb one of our allies with a nuclear weapon, we will obliterate you. We need to maintain the credibility of that threat, and blustering that we'll bomb you to hell if you don't meet with us, doesn't do that. Again, you want to have it both ways... "oh hey hey, that doesn't mean attack them, but you have to do something besides sanction them and wait!" Those are the two choices though... strategic patience or strategic attack. It's cute that you want to criticize without offering an alternative, but that's obviously not how our foreign policy works. It's easy to criticize.
Who asserted anything close to that, though? Wasn't me. All I was saying was that a policy of strategic patience is great, when they're too early in the process to be an active nuclear threat if things go sideways. There's a use-by date on that though - they're not there yet with combining the nukes and the missiles (intercontinental-level), but both sides of this agree they're right on the threshold. That's something nobody is okay with allowing to happen, so a change in tack might just be prudent.
You insinuated that President Trump was primarily the reason when you said that 6 months ago, they were further along than ever. To you, he was going along like a steam train until Trump turned it around. I'm saying no... this meeting is dependent on all the work that W. and Obama did. This meeting is an example of how strategic patience can come to fruition. Again, you're trying to have it both ways. "I'm not saying that Trump is the sole cause, I'm just saying he came along and everything changed." No it didn't.
And again, what change of tack are you suggesting? A first strike? Cause that'd be the wrong way to go. International pressure, economic sanctions, diplomatic reach-outs... that's what works, and that's what we should continue to do. Especially because Kim doesn't appear to be on the precipice of anything. Again, he doesn't have a reliable targeting system, and we have a strong deterrent effect in the region. No, I don't want to just blow that to hell because he's getting closer. Diplomacy is the way out of this; not destroying and nation building.
And of course Trump's blusterous BS isn't the only factor here. But, as you're well aware, I didn't say anything of the sort. Only that people like Kim don't respond well to the usual channels, and dealing with a d*ckish wannabe-hardman just might pay off here. Might not too, but things have been looking up so far from where they were this time last year, or the year before, or the year before.
It's something. You can give the guy that.
I'm not going to give him credit for blustering about a meeting. I'll give him credit if we have verifiable denuclearization... but as far as I can tell, Trump hasn't done anything yet. Arguing that Kim is changing tack because Trump hurt his feels feels is doubtful in my book. Again, I think it's much more about all the diplomatic pressure that we've put on Kim up to this point... not Trump. You say, "It's a start" referring to the progress that Trump has made. No... it's not a start. The start happened long before Trump. You really don't like being held accountable for your words I guess. You say one thing... and once you get called on it.. then, "no, no , no, clearly I didn't mean that!" Well, use your language a little more wisely then, because it sure seems like you're giving credit of Kim's reversal to Trump's rhetoric.
Not really. Sanctions generally-speaking are, as in making a statement and creating an inconvenient situation for them. Things have been going a little further than that lately though, with pressuring China in a big way. Suffocating NK to an extent they really have no choice but to come & talk is clearly a more aggressive stance by us - still through diplomatic means, but it's a different level of heat on them than Bush or Obama were enacting.
Oh, so sanctions and lobbying China was strategic patience under Obama, but now that it's Trump... you wouldn't consider it that way now, huh? Strategic patience is built on the idea that we alienate them, we weaken them economically, and we apply diplomatic pressure. It's a soft power strategy, which is still what we're practicing now. It's cute that you'd like to define it differently now that your boy is in office. Obama pushed for harder sanctions and to put pressure on China as well. Now that that strategy is baring fruit, you want to say... "oh no, no, no, this isn't just being patient anymore. Now we're doing something." Yeah... we're doing the same thing we've done for decades, but escalating it in terms of degree. That's a good thing.. but it's still reliant on soft power, which was the W. doctrine, the Obama doctrine, and now the Trump doctrine..... I guess? It's hard to tell if Trump has a doctrine besides improvising.
And again, it may not work out, obviously nobody can know one way or th other. But they're sitting down with us, and that's new & positive. Is my point, and sole point.
If that's your sole point, then I agree with it. But it isn't your sole point. Other points: strategic patience hasn't worked, it's now time to abandon strategic patience, and that Trump's rhetoric is partly to credit for it. Be proud of your own positions.. don't pretend they don't exist while you try to have it both ways.
Which hasn't been said. What's been said is that further closing the vice on Kim economically, combined with providing him with two options here - one of them very bad for everyone - has likely been a major factor in him putting his tail between his legs as opposed to his demeanor a year ago. Combined factors.
Okay, so now we're getting somewhere. This is a new argument: the threat is the reason that it's working huh? Well, I disagree with that.. I think the threat is toothless, but it does hurt our credibility with our allies. It's not without cost. Bare in mind that Trump hasn't really threatened anything specific... only that we'll release the fury of God on them. You really think that Kim buys that? That if he doesn't talk to Moon, the US will first strike nuke him? I doubt it. It's much more likely that his people are hungry, his test sites have been damaged (thanks to strategic patience), and his biggest partner is pressuring him. Do you realize what would happen to us if we first striked North Korea? Holy hell would unleashed on us. Kim knows this.
As I mentioned before, it's likely that Kim sees Trump as an easy target; a way to get sanctions taken off without verification. But should we give Trump credit for being a bafoon that our enemies can play? I don't think so.
If a few crude rhetorical flourishes come from Trump along with all that, fine, whatever. It's unfortunate, but so long as the rest of the stuff is in motion it doesn't mean much.
I agree. Without strategic patience, his rhetorical flourishes don't mean much at all. You could make a compelling argument that they're trivial regardless. That's my point.
A possibility, of course. I'd seriously question whether he feels guys like Pompeo & Mattis are "easy marks", though. Kim's not insane - he knows the guy at the top is a blowhard, but plenty of the people around him at the military level are the real deal. He's not going to be able to wiggle out of the sanctions this time without giving some of the nuke program up in a concrete verifiable manner.
He doesn't know that. Trump has said that his opinion is the only one that matters, and Kim is requesting a direct meeting with the President for that reason. What Mattis thinks is irrelevant if he can fool the man child into shaking hands. That's all he needs. Then, he can say the US is a bad partner when we come back and we realize, "oh no, we just gave away the farm, because we didn't rely on our army of diplomats.. just a crazy old man!" This is Kim's best chance to get what he wants. He couldn't have done that under W. or Obama, because he would have been dealing with an army of bureaucrats... not necessarily so under Trump.
So, yeah, again - if it pans out, Trump's *****ey bluster will be a footnote in the history books, nobody's going to care. If it doesn't pan out, then fine, but we're no worse off than we were before he came into office. Same deal, maniacal rhetoric from North Korea on the verge of combining a missile and a nuke. Same status quo as in 2015-2016.
We absolutely are worse off. There are consequences to your word not being reliable. This kind of rhetoric is against the spirit of multiple international agreements, and the UN. It also implies that our principles are flexible and if you scratch the president's back, he'll scratch yours. That's a terrible precedent that does long term damage to our public image.
Even if this is a success, strategic patience should be credited and not twitter bullying.. come on.
Taking the new tack they're taking has garnered results in the early stages. Who knows where it goes from here, but what we do know is that if we'd kept going as we were they'd have a legit nuke-capable ICBM in a year. So, we might a well try something.
This is an example of how you're trying to have it both ways. Here, your crediting the success on Trump's new tack... and this whole post.. you've been saying, "I never said that it was Trump alone." Okay, well you seem to be confused then. We don't know that at all. As far as we know, this was bound to happen as the international pressure and sanctions continued to sink their teeth in. And the something new that you're suggesting is idle threats? Pardon me, but I don't think that's a viable strategy at all. I don't think we can credit the meeting because of it. And worse, if we do credit that kind of bullish language.. then naturally, we'd move to start using it more, which could have an absolutely devastating effect. Soft power has gotten us to this point; not bluster and not threats. We shouldn't ignore decades of history and assume that a dozen twitter rants had any effect at all.
