The Sunshine Policy is comparable to Brandt's Ostpolitik. South Korean sovereignty is not at stake. South Koreans are decidedly against incorporation with the North under KWP rule. In the remote case that Seoul chooses this course, the United States can easily and quickly encourage nationalist/anti-communist hardliners to seize power. Certainly, the South Koreans are on average less concerned with Northern aggression than either the Americans or Japanese. In speaking candidly with various young South Koreans of my acquaintance, the rationale is that they are no longer fazed by the North.

All Koreans share a strong sense of nationality and are vehemently opposed to foreign interference. Though the South is wary of the United States, the North is equally wary of China. Both share historical prejudices against the Japanese, given the severity of their occupation and continuing hatred of Koreans.

Pyongyang is unconcerned with isolation. Its military is intended purely for defense and for causing civilian casualties, mainly in Seoul. Its economy is supported by China, who fears the consequences of the KWP's collapse (note that Seoul shares this fear equally), and serves only to maintain the military and the socio-economic status quo. The optimal outcome is that the KWP is ousted as its Marxist-Leninist predecessors in 1989-1993. Unfortunately, this seems as possible in 2009 as the retreat of the Iron Curtain in 1988, in fact even less so.

Beijing and Moscow are as opposed to a nuclear North Korea as a nuclear Iran. However, their territories are in much closer proximity to each than the continental United States is, and therefore they are much more cautious. It is incredulous to believe that they believe that the KWP or the Mullahs are "clients" or "satellites".

International relations have become much more complicated since the era of "gunboat diplomacy". Neither Al-Qaddafi nor Castro were removed from power despite American attempts to do so. Toppling the Ba'athists and the Taliban has proven costly and prolonged. Containment and supporting internal forces of opposition has proven far more successful in changing threatening regimes.

There is a great deal lost in translation here. My primary point was that the Bush cabinet was unable to truly confront Pyongyang due to the costs of a military solution and the complex web of national interests through which regime change or forcible de-nuclearization could never thread. Iran poses a similar albeit much lesser problem. Where the Bush presidency could confront, it did, namely with regard to Afghanistan and Iraq. The political capital it used up domestically and internationally (especially among its nominal allies) during operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom was immense, and blocked hard actions against Iran and North Korea. The Bush presidency lacked the intelligence to pick its battles.

My secondary point was that the West faces conventional, unconventional (i.e. WMD) and asymmetrical military threats. While most Westerners are almost as opposed to tackling the former two as they were pre-1939, they are also averse to the latter. Military superiority cannot be affirmed without being frequently tested. The French learned this the hard way in 1940. Western electorates have lost touch with the military and with self-defense or the necessity for either. No wonder the collective Islamic consciousness, which emphasizes armed aggression is alien and unfathomable to them.

The "too many chefs" idiom referred to diplomatic factors; the "attrition" comment to the cost of asymmetrical war. The "more than just Westerners" comment pertained of course to the BRIC states, in particular China and Russia. Both are involved in the Iranian and North Korean crises. The interdependence of global economic and political interests mean that American foreign policy must be more intelligent; moreover, Washington can no longer afford to put moral issues ahead of realpolitik. This approach was only possible with skirmishes e.g. Kosova, and resulted in adverse political consequences. A powerful economic base is essential to political and military power. Russia during the 1990s was a textbook example of a military superpower (i.e. in terms of nuclear warheads) that was incapable of leveraging its power internationally, expanding its economy or even countering insurgency in Chechnia.

Americans will need more than mere belief to effect real change in their declining position.

@ pale rider

While I agree with the first half of your comments, perhaps you are being too pessimistic about the South Korean public?  It is true that they did 'flirt' with a naive pacifist "sunshine policy" over the past decade or so, but they also seem to have recently reversed course and elected a more realistic and conservative president.  The former president and architect of the sunshine policy has commited suicide only days ago.  

One of the biggest problems regarding the North Korean issue is the policies the South Koreans adopted toward the Communist North. Technically, the two states are still at war. North Korea has not ceased to depict its Southern neighbor as an evil Capitalist entity that will eventually surrender to the North and be incorporated in a Unified but Communist state of Korea. The South Koreans have bought into the anti-Japanese and anti-American rhetoric by the North Koreans, and now their goal is a unified Korea because they argue that North and South Koreans are one and the same people. Thus came about the Sunshine Policy which sought closer relations with the North with the goal of unifying Korea. THe younger generation of South Koreans, who never directly faced Communist or Japanese aggression, love to partake in demonstrations against the United States and Japan but don't see how North Korea's real intention is a Korea under one Communist banner. The ROK needs to realize that the DPRK was and is to remain a nation hostile to Capitalism and hostile to democracy, hence it is South Korea's enemy, regardless of the fact that they're also ethnically Korean. The ROK, Japan and US need to immediately halt ANY kind of talks, cooperation, economic aid or joint projects with North Korea, for as long as NK continues to preach hatred and spew violent rhetoric, refuses to fully recognize South Korean sovereignty, and pursues atomic weapons which are sold to international terrorists and other rogue nations, and will destabilize the entire region. We must bring North Korea to collapse by refusing to cooperate with them and by isolating them - not until they cry for help, but until their state implodes. Aid does not go to the poor North Korean civilians anyway, because of North Korea's "Military First" ideology. Should the North Koreans attack the South or Japan as a reaction against their isolation, we should bomb Kim Jong-Il's palace resorts and threaten to destroy every part of Pyongyang, the heart of the North Korean state. As for China, let's cut the crap and treat them for what they are: Communists! They must be demanded to recognize South Korea's sovereignty and condemn any violation of Southern sovereignty by North Korea, or face total isolation, suspension of trade and diplomatic relations by the international community. No more vain talks and carrots. Time for a big Anti-Communist stick; we must win this war! That's how I see it.

2) -- Naturally, the kapitein was not that stupid to claim that the Bush Administration was responsible for the N-Korean crisis, but nevertheless he did feel the need to obfuscate matters by parroting the silly mantra of "favoring confrontation over negotiation" in the context of the Korean problem, when the ACTUAL record showed exactly the opposite, i.e. endless and fruitless negotiation rather than confrontation.  My point is that the kapitein shows himself to be the prisoner of pre-conceived notions and of anti-Bush prejudice which cannot possibly promote understanding of complex problems. 

-- Indeed, my first paragraph did contain rhetorical questions, the purpose of which was precisely to expose the "strawmen" that were contained in the kapitein's commentary.  The solution is simple: no silly gratuitous strawmen from the Kapitein, no need for correction with rhetorical questions and other examples!

3) Let's analyse the convoluted 'reasoning' employed by the kapitein under point 3.

-- First, he states the obvious, i.e. that "international relations involve more than just Westerners".   Indeed they do, and nobody claimed otherwise.  Talking about (implied) 'strawmen'....

-- Then, he states the opposite of what he manifestly wants to say.  He wants to say that "Western electorates have no stomach etc...." (here he confuses the contemporary German electorate with 'Western electorates', but that's not so important), and perhaps he is right on that.  But, logically that should be prefaced with "EVEN if the outside world DID pose a...threat, western electorates etc...".  However, for the limited purpose of his intended argument, he makes the opposite - and rather leftist/absurd - assumption of the outside world posing NO threat.  

-- In a way, under point 3 the kapitein seems to have reversed himself.  After first having claimed that the problem with international relations was "too many chefs", he now seems to agree with me that there is a problem with "western electorates".  His expression "no stomach for the attrition of counter-insurgency" means pretty much the same as my complaint about " too many hiding from unpleasant reality by engaging in wishful thinking".

I must cling to the hope that Frau Merkel has advisors of a different calibre, both in terms of logic and of moral sensibility.  

George, excellent and well-written observations, as always. I also noted the issue of Medvedev and Soviet history. Quite frankly, I'm tired of Russia's attitude. Russia claims the West has a Cold War attitude, it decries Western 'interference' and insists on its sovereignty and the former Eastern Bloc being within its 'zone of influence'. From what I've read, the Soviet Union made the same claim back in the days. I fail to see why we should accept this claim. The Ukraine, Georgia and other former Soviet states are sovereign nations who have a right to self-determination just as much as Russia has. However, Russia apparently believes her right to sovereignty includes dictating her neighbor's politics. I must say I'm also rather amused by the Russian attitude sometimes. They will get angry when Russia gets accused of Soviet brutality, claiming that Russia is not responsible for it. But when you criticize the Red Army and Stalin, they are equally offended! So now, rather than repenting of their Soviet sins and admitting that the Red Army was as much an invading force as the Nazi military, they will point the finger at a few Eastern European patriots who sided with the German military to keep the Soviet Union (none other than Russia) out of their territory. Does that mean these people were all out Nazis? Absolutely not, but Soviet Communism was simply the biggest of evils from their point of view, which is entirely understandable considering the history of that part of Europe. I wished Patton had convinced the elite to fight Stalin's troops instead of letting Soviet butchers judge Nazi butchers during the Nuremberg trials. Russia could learn a few lessons from Germany with regard to civility. She lacks the maturity to admit her faults and prefers to always blame others instead. We need to stand firm against Russia's madness and insist on ALL former Soviet states' right to sovereignty and self-determination, including with regard to possible NATO membership.

RE:

2. As stated in my comment, I plainly stated that the Bush administration was not responsible for the North Korean crisis, whatever its other foreign policy or military mistakes. In any event, the costs of operations in North Korea with the goal of obliterating its WMD capabilities and decapitating its leadership would be far too costly, and "shock and awe" tactics would be useless here. Your first paragraphs are unnecessary: at best you are preaching to the converted; at worst, you are knocking down strawmen. If state behavior was the key factor in the War on Terror or against the "Axis of Evil", North Korea would not have been secondary to Iraq.

3. International relations involve more than just Westerners. Even if the outside world posed no conventional or unconventional military threat, Western electorates lost their stomach for the attrition of counter-insurgency decades ago.

The Kapitein continues to turn the world upside down, or to confuse causes with effects.  On top of that, he does not address the specific issues raised by Mr Handlery. 

2) -- Whether the military-industrial complex "benefits" from conflict is the wrong question.  The right question is to look at the causes of the "conflict", and to make appropriate judgments.  Is the Kapitein equally going to ban social security because the 'welfare industry' benefits in some sense from social INsecurity and poverty?   Is he going to banish industry and commerce because in some sense they 'benefit' from the existence of human wants and economic scarcity?   

-- Parroting the mantra of "the Bush Cabinet favored confrontation over negotiation", iN THE CONTEXT of North Korea,  is a sign of immaturity and foolish prejudice.  The historical record is quite the opposite, i.e. a series of fruitless negotiations, broken promises, threats, blackmail, futile bribes, and North Korean provocations.  Could it be that this ludicrous mantra has something to do with the fact that Germany was not a member of the endless and fruitless 6-party talks in Beijing?  Could it be that the recent suicide of the previous South Korean president - an Asian practitioner of suicidal naive-left contemporary German-style 'pacifism' - still can not help opening some eyes?

-- The main relevant issue concerning N-Korea is not the relative strength of its military, but rather its demonstrated behavior, especially w.r.t. proliferation to rogue regimes and nonstate actors as well as economic blackmail of the South.  

3) NO, international relations do not suffer from "too many chefs".   They suffer from head-in-the-sand attitudes on the part of too many naive Westerners or, if you will, the tendency of too many to hide from unpleasant reality by engaging in wishful thinking.   

RE:

2. There is no question that the "military-industrial complex" is a major beneficiary of conflict and tension. Nor that the US ABM system only exacerbates military competition with China and reawakens the old arms race with the Soviet Union, whose torch is carried by Russia. While the Bush cabinet favored confrontation over negotiation, it cannot be accused of conspiracy to fuel the North Korean crisis. Even if North Korea was unable to deploy a nuclear or radiological device against an American/Coalition/NATO force, its conventional forces and defenses are formidable albeit dated.

3. International relations suffer from the same disorders that afflict any group of individuals or groups. Too many chefs spoil the broth.

As my alter ego never ceases to remind me, beware the malevolent medusas of modernity. For to be sure, like the terrorist, they all dwelleth not in caves.

PS It was my pleasure.

@ PatriotUSA

Notice how kappert insults YOU with YOUR words, then goes on to tell you that SHE believes "words chosen identify the character". Just how self-loathing is that may one ask? The problem is clearly genetic or hormonal, either way, and for the sake of your own sanity, just let it go. 

So Kappert:

I would like to suggest that YOU take in hese poor, misunderstood, Gitmo slime balls into your country, home and neighborhood? I found the article quite easy to read and understand which much more than I can say about your comments. BY the way, these terrorists and scum of humanity are treated better than most prisoners around the globe. Not the way I would treat them, that I can assure you. Waterboarding?? O my heavens, now that is such extreme torture! But that is a different subject. I think Atlanticist911 sums it up best about you:

No. As ususal it brings us back to you and the rest of the self-loathing, unpatriotic Caucasian' aliens like you. I assume you ARE 'Caucasian'

Indeed!

KO: It's neither, but rather more wishful (thinking and wilful) speculation.

KO: Don't you believe it. Kappert takes full advantage of everything a relatively free society (and everyone who helps maintain that relatively free society) has to offer her, while giving absolutely nothing in return. Don't take my word for it, just keep probing her with sensible questions, you'll soon figure all this out for yourself.  Good luck, 'cause you're sure as hell going to need it. Been there, done that and got the t-shirt...

PS Don't mention the war. I mentioned it once and thought I'd got away with it, but suddenly, out of the blue, a certain Editrix came to kappert's defence and as they say the rest is her-story.

Kappert: "The USA should invite them on a civil tribunal, as any human being, caucasian or not".

I thought you didn't believe the term "caucasian" applied to (white) human beings in general. Please, do try to maintain some element of consistency here.

I can see why "kappert-baiting" could be a problem for a BNP supporter, especially now that we have all but established that the much baited  kappert is both European and white.

I'll take that as a "Ja".

Kappert, are you white?

No, as usual, it brings us back to YOU, and the rest of the self-loathing, unpatriotic 'Caucasian' aliens like you. I assume you ARE 'Caucasian'.

And, as usual, you are not.

KO: NOW perhaps you better understand what I meant when I referred to the relative mindset of a Gurkha and a Caucasian Kappert.

Kappert really must learn to understand the difference between knowledge and wisdom. Let me see if I can put this in terms that even she can understand.

knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad.

;-))

And you, kappert, are easy to read, and have proven yourself to be, over a long period of time, an alien piece of **** in every sense of the word, "alien". How DARE you criticise someone you KNOW is unlikely to 'fight back'? The true mark of a coward.

The article is difficult to read and an alien peace of (want-to-be) journalism.