Crosshairs- Military Matters in Review

 A colleague told me this week, “If we know where North Korea’s missiles are, we have a right to take them out.” He makes a good point. President Bush established a preemption policy immediately after Nov. 11, 2001: The United States reserves the right to attack terrorists wherever they are, and if a country harboring terrorists doesn’t -- or can’t -- do something about them, America will. Thus came Afghanistan, and Iraq. But now comes North Korea playing an on-again, off-again nuclear shell game of terrorism.

 Within the last weeks, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has detonated a nuclear device. It’s launched a string of missiles. It’s moved at least three medium-range missiles on its east coast. And it has transported an intercontinental missile -- probably a Taepodong-2 -- to the new Dongchang-ni launch site in the northwest. A Taepodong-2 can hit Alaska.  

North Korea has threatened to scrap the 1953 armistice agreement that stopped the Korean War. The government is conducting amphibious assault exercises along its western shore. It has warned South Korea of war if the South Koreans board one if its vessels to search for missiles or nuclear materials that might be headed for other rogue nations or transnational groups like al Qaeda. 

 Under the Bush doctrine, this makes North Korea a prime target for a preemptive strike. As my friend asked, “While we’re at it, why don’t we take out the Taepodong-2, and maybe scratch some of the short-range missiles?” We can’t, because North Korea is playing a killer game of chess, and has maneuvered us into a checkmate. Here are three reasons why:

1.  The Taepodong-2’s launch pad is about 35 miles from the Chinese border. U.S. air strikes or missile attacks could get dicey if they got close to China. Of course, such incidentals haven’t bothered Israel when it felt its existence threatened. But our existence isn’t threatened. My colleague asked, “Are we sure?”
2.  North Korea has already warned that it is ready for war -- and it’s never renounced its intention to reunify the peninsula on its terms. Its army has thousands of artillery pieces targeted at South Korea’s capital city of Seoul, which is only 30 miles from the DMZ. On June 6, retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Michael W. Wooley told some 200 members of the Military Officers Association of America that a North Korean attack across the DMZ would be a “bloodbath.” So do we destroy a Taepodong-2 in trade for 12 million innocent people? But my colleague asked, “Will it be any different if they decide to attack some other day?”
3. U.S. Army Chief of Staff General George Casey says the United States can fight an old-fashioned war against North Korea if necessary. But our force concentration in Iraq and Afghanistan, might make it difficult to back up the 28,500 U.S. troops in South Korea any quicker than when we sent American soldiers to aid the Republic of Korea’s army after the North Koreans invaded in 1950. Except for today’s U.S. air posture, this looks like deja vu.

 So if we won’t destroy the North Korean missile, what can we do about this urgent emergency? For the preemption stalemate, we’ll probably just rely on yet more sanctions and hope the UN will publish yet another resolution -- number 2000 or 3000, or whatever number happens to come next.

 If the North Koreans should fire toward Alaska, however, their missile would likely meet an American missile bent on its destruction. Fort Greely, Alaska, maintains one of two ground-based missile defense units on the U.S. West Coast. (The other is at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif.) The unit at Fort Greely, equipped with 16 interceptor systems, already has the experience because it intercepted a mock enemy missile last December. After visiting a silo at Fort Greely this month, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that, should there be a launch “from a rogue state such as North Korea,” he had confidence that the United States could deal with it. He added that he has inserted almost $1 billion in the 2010 budget to develop ground-based interceptors.

 But it seems that Secretary Gates is playing his own chess game. His Defense Department budget froze ground-based interceptors at Fort Greely and Vandenberg at 30, down from a planned 44. This worries missile defense advocates. For example, Riki Ellison, who heads the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, said, "There was a determination six months ago that the total number needed to protect the United States homeland from a simultaneous attack from North Korea and Iran was 44 missiles." He added that he didn’t see the threat being reduced.

 It’s one thing to have America’s preemption policy neutralized. It would be something else to have our missile-defense program neutralized.

 This column may be forwarded or republished on your website with attribution to Crosshairs - Military Matters in Review by Fred Edwards. Visit http://www.milmat.net for more Crosshairs.