Robert Jervis, a professor of international politics at Columbia University, says the US shouldn’t assume that it can “prevail” by using military force against North Korea in either a limited or all-out war scenario.
“The fact that the US has much greater military and economic capability than North Korea does not mean that it can prevail,” Jervis wrote in a special report posted on 38 North on Wednesday.
He warned in his assessment for the specialist website on North Korean affairs that “it may be wrong” to simply attribute the failure of efforts so far to halt Pyongyang’s nuclear program to a lack of American willingness to get tougher with the regime.
“We also have to consider the willingness of North Korea to pay a price and run risks in order to maintain its nuclear program, which it probably sees as critical both to the survival of the Kim Dynasty as well as the state,” Jervis noted.
Jervis also says the use of “limited” force, as in the case of a “bloody nose attack” currently being promoted by US hawks and full-scale war would produce “multiple uncertainties.”
“Unless force is aimed at totally disarming North Korea or overthrowing its regime, its initially limited application would be an instrument of pressure and bargaining,” Jervis said. “It would be designed to strengthen our hand and weaken North Korea’s. Although presumably, it would destroy some of the North’s military capabilities, it is coercion and bargaining because the US would be trying to influence Pyongyang’s decision on how to respond.”
But Jervis cautioned that “the war must be kept limited if the American victory is to be worth the gamble. The enemy gets more than a vote; he gets to decide.” He goes on say that gradual escalation after an initial use of limited military force would be a complicated equation.
Short of a quick knock-out blow — which seems unlikely — Washington faces the tricky task of cowing North Korea after a limited strike by threatening to do more, Jervis says.
“The US could try to reach this goal by threatening Pyongyang with a massive response if it does use force,” Jervis said. “But unless the North decides to capitulate, it could feel itself in a “use it or lose it” situation and believe that, unlike the Soviet Union, it would rather go down fighting. It could also calculate that at least some military response is needed to provide bargaining leverage.”
All this means the US has a very tough nut to crack in using force against Pyongyang. “Although unlimited wars are dreadful in their destructiveness, limited wars call for even more care in their conduct and planning,” Jervis concluded in his report. “Winston Churchill did not hesitate to use force when he concluded that this was necessary, but he understood that armed conflict, even with adversaries who have fewer material resources, requires extraordinary preparation and understanding.”
I can never remember the US preparing for a new war when they did not proclaim that it would be a quick and easy victory. A walk over. A slam dunk. A few weeks a couple of months at most.
I am 77 years old and not once were those predictions proven right. I do believe that the US will continue down this losers path until it suffers a catastrophic defeat and then it will not be a super power any more.
China
Thomas what your saying is right. Politically motivated and politically run..Generals couldn’t fight to win shoot when shot at mentality. The press informed of most moves. Under A Trump encounter he had said I will order general’s to win and leave it up to them. Big difference in strategy
Nestor Bacal .We are now talking "Nuclear WAR"no winner everybody is the "LOSER"Somebody want to Try such weapon like the Atomic Bomb used in Hurosima,Nagasaki ,Japan .
Prez. Trump said, "If I need be, I will declare war and I will leave it to my Generals’…., simply said.
…, General Douglas McArthur, said & proposed to bomb the shit out of Korea
north of the Yalu River bordering China,
The US has fantastic military hardware, and there are few countries that can match them in conventional warfare. Fact. However, as can be seen in every conflict where an insurgency situation has developed, the US Military is completely out of its depth. These turn into stalemate wars of attrition where the us army and navy personnel (marines) do most of the dying. The US does not have the know how or resolve to properly execute COIN operations. Furthermore, the left leaning liberal media will blow every incident of collatoral damage and blue on blue engagements out of proportion which will effect public support and demoralise the troops.