The US Is Reportedly Preparing a Military Strike Against North Korea

[Baron Samedi]

According to the U.K.-based Telegraph, Donald Trump’s war of words with North Korean president Kim Jong-un has the potential to spiral into a confrontation. The U.S. is reportedly drawing up plans for a “bloody nose” military attack on North Korea.

According to the Telegraph, the aim of the strike would be to contain the North’s nuclear weapons. This is in light of the fact that the U.S. has had multiple opportunities to contain North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs diplomatically but has opted for hostile aggression, instead.

The Telegraph reports that the White House has “dramatically” stepped up its preparation for a military solution to the North Korean standoff, receiving inside information from three “well-placed sources” — two former U.S. officials and a third figure from within the Trump administration.

One of the options entails the U.S. destroying a launch site before North Korea can conduct another missile test. It would specifically target a stockpile of weapons.

“The Pentagon is trying to find options that would allow them to punch the North Koreans in the nose, get their attention and show that we’re serious,” a former U.S. security official briefed on policy told the Telegraph.

Not surprisingly, the Telegraph’s report said the Trump administration had Donald Trump’s Syria strike in April in mind as a blueprint for action against North Korea. In that context, the move would not be designed to contain or deter North Korea (such an April-inspired limited strike would achieve nothing) — it would most likely be aimed at America’s domestic population and the international community.

Whether the media will admit it or not, Trump’s Syria strike was a complete farce. According to the Russian Ministry of Defense, only 23 of the 59 missiles launched actually hit the Syrian airbase in what Russia dubbed an inefficient strike. In fact, barely a day later, the airbase was back in action, deploying warplanes to bomb rebel positions in the Homs countryside.

Further, the U.S. actually gave Russia, Syria’s staunchest backer, prior notice of the strike well before it was launched. Pentagon spokesman Captain Jeff Davis said in a statement that the so-called “deconfliction” channel set up by Russia and the U.S. in Syria was used to disclose the strike to the Russian side. It is inconceivable that Russia would not have passed this warning on to Syria considering Russian personnel are on the ground there.

All Trump’s April strike did was boost his ratings and improve his standing in the media for a tiny period of time, as well as boost stock in Raytheon, the manufacturer of the Tomahawk missiles used in the attack. The purpose of the strike could not have been to deter Syria from carrying out chemical weapons attacks considering Trump ordered it before he could have possibly received any credible intelligence linking the Syrian government to the infamous chemical attack at Khan Sheikhoun.

A strike against North Korea aimed at doing damage to the country’s military without prior warning will not be received well by a hostile country that has demonstrated it has U.S. personnel well within its strike range. As Jeffrey Lewis, the director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, wrote on Twitter, “Mobile missiles don’t need launch sites, Donald.” Putting this statement in context, Business Insider explained that North Korea has varied its launch sites, making it harder for the U.S. to track and intercept missiles.

Missing from any decent media coverage of this discussion is the little-known fact that in October of this year, it was reported that China was practicing bombing Guam, a U.S. territory. There is only one inference to be drawn from this conduct — China was sending a direct warning to the U.S. that its personnel will not be immune should a war emerge on the Korean peninsula.

No one is disputing that the U.S. could cause some serious damage to the infrastructure of North Korea, but as Business Insider eerily noted:

“The US knows what capabilities it has to counter North Korea, but not how North Korea would respond…The bloody-nose scenario comes down to a gamble on whether North Korea is ready to enter all-out war over a limited strike.” [emphasis added]

Rather than take the gamble, the U.S. could consider a more productive diplomatic option to dismantle North Korea’s nuclear program instead, one that would not result in a nuclear crisis.

http://theantimedia.org/us-military-strike-north-korea/

I don't even know where to begin....I realize that bombing and invading other countries is very popular in America and good for polls, but one of these days, we're going to take a big bite of a shit sandwich, and this looks like a really big, fat, juicy shit sandwich to me..

I really had hopes that Trump would be an anti-war president. I guess there is no such thing any more.

[patswin]

I tend to question everything and anything reported in the media these days.
But would once again note that "diplomacy" to contain those bastards hasn't worked for years and every promise NK made was broken. They played every administration for fools, they won, and here we are. Why would a diplomatic solution work now and how would it differ from past efforts?

[Baron Samedi]

Solution to what? North Korea has not attacked us.

Rattlesnakes aren't dangerous unless you phuk with them.

[patswin]

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi

Solution to what? North Korea has not attacked us.

Rattlesnakes aren't dangerous unless you phuk with them.

Would you prefer that they did attack? Are you aware of the threats they make? And please don't suggest that we brought it on. Their rhertoric and threats has been unceasing for years, it's just now that they have nukes it becomes a slightly greater concern.

Also, the Telegraph is hardly an reliable outlet.

[Baron Samedi]

Originally Posted by patswin

Would you prefer that they did attack? Are you aware of the threats they make? And please don't suggest that we brought it on. Their rhertoric and threats has been unceasing for years, it's just now that they have nukes it becomes a slightly greater concern.

Also, the Telegraph is hardly an reliable outlet.

They make threats, we make threats. That stuff is a lot different than attacking an asian nation, that is nuclear/EMP capable, and will possibly bring China and/or Russian into a conflict.

All we have to do is give South Korea nukes if they want them, and walk away. Let South Korea handle their own problems after 60 years.

Problem solved.

[benhamean]

Didn't we conclude that this was inevitable in another thread?

[AkPatsFan]

Good lord, stop with this nonsense, it's not happening Baron.

[O_P_T]

So let me get this straight.

Two carriers in the Arabian Sea/Persian Gulf, as part of a normal task group rotation was evidence for "War with Iran".

I mean you said that more than once.

Yet three carriers, as an obvious show of strength against NK in November, was no big whoop.



Now all of a sudden, we are going to war.

Why?

Because contingency plans are being developed.

Baron, this schtick is getting old.

You do realize the US has contingency plans for just about anything one could envision?

That's because one does not want to have to figure shit as they go along in a time of crisis.

It's better to have figured out shit ahead of time, and to have options for any possible scenario.

Should the US have war plans for NK?

Of course they should.

If the airborne fecal matter impinges the rotating airfoil, then the POTUS will ask the military what his/her options are and they better have an answer.

That answer will include risks/probabilites/outcomes so the POTUS can make an informed choice.

The fact that the military is developing or updating a plan says absolutely nothing about the probability that said plan will be implemented.

If nothing else, the recent ballistic missile test by the NK's would justify a reassessment of any and all plans. If the NK's could launch an ICBM against the CONUS, that would be a significant change in the dynamics of any previous war plans.

If we hadn't reviewed our war plans after that test, that would be a grievous error on our part.

[NSPatsFan]

I honestly think all this saber rattling is going no where, it's just for show on the part of the President.

And if I'm wrong we'll all be dead so it won't matter.

[Big/Sky/Fly]

The new boogeyman ala Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden...

He isn't a real threat.

It's just fear porn.

[Baron Samedi]

Originally Posted by O_P_T

So let me get this straight.

Two carriers in the Arabian Sea/Persian Gulf, as part of a normal task group rotation was evidence for "War with Iran".

I mean you said that more than once.

Yet three carriers, as an obvious show of strength against NK in November, was no big whoop.



Now all of a sudden, we are going to war.

Why?

Because contingency plans are being developed.

Baron, this schtick is getting old.

You do realize the US has contingency plans for just about anything one could envision?

That's because one does not want to have to figure shit as they go along in a time of crisis.

It's better to have figured out shit ahead of time, and to have options for any possible scenario.

Should the US have war plans for NK?

Of course they should.

If the airborne fecal matter impinges the rotating airfoil, then the POTUS will ask the military what his/her options are and they better have an answer.

That answer will include risks/probabilites/outcomes so the POTUS can make an informed choice.

The fact that the military is developing or updating a plan says absolutely nothing about the probability that said plan will be implemented.

If nothing else, the recent ballistic missile test by the NK's would justify a reassessment of any and all plans. If the NK's could launch an ICBM against the CONUS, that would be a significant change in the dynamics of any previous war plans.

If we hadn't reviewed our war plans after that test, that would be a grievous error on our part.

And you said we are not going to war in Syria, so we are each batting .500.

The war with Iran was short circuited by the rise of ISIS. We actually needed Iranian forces to help defeat them in Iraq.

But hey....I take solace in knowing that noone here thinks an attack on North Korea is a possibility. I think you are all wrong, but I hope you are right.

Any wagers on, say...whether there will be some military action on North Korea between now and this time next year? Because I think the odds are well over 50% that there will be.

[Baron Samedi]

I'm not always in agreement with FPM, but in this case, I give it a "HELL YES!!"

Trump Is Bluffing About Attacking North Korea in 2018
But that still might get us all killed.

I don’t know if Donald Trump is going to be making any New Year’s resolutions for 2018, but here’s a thought: How about not threatening to start a nuclear war with North Korea?HELL YES!

This past year, after all, is ending with a flurry of war talk. On Dec. 20, the Daily Telegraph published an article quoting a current and two former U.S. officials claiming that the Trump administration was considering a military strike on North Korea. Now, the Telegraph is not, as Jim Hacker would tell you, the most reliable British tabloid. But two days later, Olivier Knox of Yahoo News published a strangely similar story with slightly different sourcing — two current and one former official. In both cases, a former official used the same description to describe a strike similar to the cruise missile attack on Syria — giving Pyongyang a “bloody nose.”

By all accounts, Trump officials are saying the same thing in private. A number of former officials in the Barack Obama administration have all suggested that, yes, there is a serious war party advocating a limited military strike. Colin Kahl noted that the private remarks of Trump officials are similar to the public ones:

While some Trump advisers (e.g., Mattis & Tillerson—see https://t.co/A0QPVbg36A) have attempted to be more measured, others on Team Trump have bent over backwards in public and private to convey the willingness, and even the likelihood, of Trump initiating military action. 9/

— Colin Kahl (@ColinKahl) December 21, 2017

Jon Wolfsthal agreed, and when asked his basis for saying such a thing, he pointed to private conversations:

direct conversations with people in the Administration and in the military

— Jon B. Wolfsthal (@JBWolfsthal) December 14, 2017

There’s no reason to think that Kahl and Wolfsthal are making this up. It seems likely that Trump officials are, in fact, talking about a military strike in which the United States would target a symbolic location in North Korea to retaliate for a missile test, much as the administration targeted an airfield in Syria following a chemical weapons use.

Still, I think the Trumpkins are bluffing. They are, to borrow a Soviet phrase, just trying to “rattle the pots and pans,” hoping to frighten North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and China’s Xi Jinping. Of course, they may still get us all killed.

Nobody around Trump — not John Kelly, not H.R. McMaster, nobody — has the slightest idea how to fix the problem of North Korea. But they do know what the boss likes to hear. And he doesn’t want to see them on Fox & Friends admitting that there isn’t anything to be done about North Korea. Steve Bannon already did that, telling the American Prospect, “There’s no military solution here. They got us.” Trump fired him shortly thereafter.

No matter how far North Korea’s nuclear and missile capabilities progress, my guess is that staffers like McMaster will never acknowledge the reality that North Korea is a nuclear power. After all, it is difficult to get a man to understand something, as Upton Sinclair noted, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

There is a second factor at play — the China fantasy. Team Trump probably thinks threatening war will motivate the Chinese to do … something. Trump isn’t the kind of guy who gives thoughtful answers to foreign-policy questions, but there is a single idée fixe to which he always returns on the subject of North Korea: that China could solve the North Korea problem if it warned to. To be fair, it isn’t just Trump who says this. The thought that China can solve the problem with North Korea is one of the more tiresome bits of Washington wisdom.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/12/28/...korea-in-2018/

[O_P_T]

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi

And you said we are not going to war in Syria, so we are each batting .500.

No, you claimed we were going to "depose" Assad, and last I checked, he's still in power.

So no your claim is not true.

Of course, you do love to move your goal posts, so I'm sure you think you were right.

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi

The war with Iran was short circuited by the rise of ISIS. We actually needed Iranian forces to help defeat them in Iraq.

In a word.

Bullshit.

Your first post was in 2011

ISIS didn't declare their existence until 2013.

Oh and last I checked, ISIS was defeated by the Kurds and the Iraqis, not the Iranians.

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi

But hey....I take solace in knowing that noone here thinks an attack on North Korea is a possibility. I think you are all wrong, but I hope you are right.

Any wagers on, say...whether there will be some military action on North Korea between now and this time next year? Because I think the odds are well over 50% that there will be.

Based on what? Revisions to contingency plans?

You claimed in 2011 "Since it is becoming more and more apparent that we are going to war with Iran" and that didn't happen.

Why should anyone think you're right this time?

[Baron Samedi]

Originally Posted by O_P_T

No, you claimed we were going to "depose" Assad, and last I checked, he's still in power.

So no your claim is not true.

"We lost the war, so therefore it never happened."

If you say so.

[Baron Samedi]

Originally Posted by O_P_T

Your first post was in 2011

ISIS didn't declare their existence until 2013.

Oh and last I checked, ISIS was defeated by the Kurds and the Iraqis, not the Iranians.

2 years in geopolitics is not a long time.

Also, if you think the Iranians didn't defeat ISIS in Iraq, you should probably do some more research. Iranian forces were fighting alongside Iraqi and US forces in Iraq. Iran was also backing the Kurds in Iraq.

It as Iran's Al Quds force, led by Commander Qassam Soleimani that stopped the ISIS advance into Iraq in the first place, and it as Iran's Al Quds force that did most of the fighting against ISIS in Iraq.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...raq-iran-syria

http://www.ibtimes.com/tikrit-isis-b...gainst-1834142

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...t-jihadis-iraq

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...s-nouri-maliki

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-fi...-consequences/

https://www.thenewamerican.com/world...g-isis-in-iraq

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irania...0%93present%29

...aaand just this past week..

After ISIS campaign, Iran-backed fighters in Iraq vow to drive out US troops

BAGHDAD – Now that they’ve helped vanquish the Islamic State from much of Iraq, a battle-hardened militia with close ties to Iran may be training its sights on the remaining U.S.-led coalition troops scattered across the country.

At least that’s the thinking among some in the ranks of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), a roughly 100,000-thousand-member force that has fought both with and against Americans in Iraq.

“America should only be here for embassy, any military presence and we will target them,” Saif Ali, a 37-year-old member of the PMF’s Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba paramilitary -- based in the southern Iraq governorate of Basra -- told Fox News. “I fought the Americans after 2003, and the British in southern Iraq, and I am happy about that. I don't hate the American people, only hate the U.S. military, and I have killed many of them.”

Ali is one of thousands of PMF members who also took advantage of Iran-supplied weapons and ammunition to take the lives of hundreds of U.S. troops during the insurgency that followed the invasion of Iraq.

Rayan al-Kildani, the 32-year-old leader of the PMF’s Babylon Brigades, an Iraqi Christian militia, noted that he, too, got his start fighting the Americans post-2003 -- allegedly after learning how to use weapons from action-oriented TV shows and movies. And although he has relatives in the U.S. and even visited a few years ago, he said that he threatened to attack U.S. intelligence personnel he encountered after the Mosul battle and ultimately wants to see American forces gone.

The PMF was created soon after the June 2014 ISIS invasion in response to a fatwa, an edict issued by an Islamic leader, from Shiite cleric Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Hosseini Sistani. He called on all able-bodied males to fight the brutal Sunni insurgency. The PMF was initially an unofficial umbrella organization comprising some 40 militia groups. But, given their strong fighting skills and popularity among locals for their prominent role in combating ISIS, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi folded them into the Baghdad government’s security forces in November 2016.

Today, most PMF fighters draw salaries from the Baghdad government. But Mohand al-Eqqaby, the PMF spokesman, said at least another 50,000 unpaid fighters are on the ground and -- for now at least -- have no intention of fighting U.S. troops.

But he still wants the Americans gone.

“Our stand is clear,” Eqqaby asserted. “America was not there at the beginning of this ISIS crisis when we needed them most. We are strong now, and as long as we are fighting, Iraq does not need Americans on our land.”

The PMF has also expanded its influence beyond the battlefield and into the political sphere ahead of Iraq’s parliamentary elections in May. Many militia leaders are expected to win crucial seats and challenge Abadi, who is considered a reliable U.S. partner bound to keeping Iranian influence at bay.

Anxieties are growing over the PMF’s increasing influence and the notion that many take their orders not from Iraq’s commander in chief, but rather from Iran’s leadership.

“Our goal is not to be employers of the Iraqi government, but to fight in Syria and al-Quds (Arabic for Jerusalem), and we will await orders from our religious men,” said Hashim al-Maihi, a 44-year-old former policeman who is now a leader in the "League of the Righteous People" battalion, referred to as Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq, in the PMF. He said that he does not draw a Baghdad salary, and that it was his duty to fight American occupation in Iraq and later ISIS.

“My rifle is standing up and I am ready to protect any city," he said. "In my house, I raise pigeons as a symbol of peace in Iraq, but my dream is not to see Americans in Iraq.”

The PMF’s objective to disperse its military across the Middle East --as scores have defied Baghdad’s orders and gone to fight for Iranian interests alongside Syria’s army and Lebanon’s Hezbollah --is troubling to some U.S. officials.

Last month, CIA chief Mike Pompeo revealed he had sent a letter to Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassam Soleimani, warning that forces under Iran’s tutelage may attack U.S. troops. Pompeo added that the U.S. would hold him and his country accountable for “any attacks on American interests.”

“Now that ISIS is not much of a threat, the PMF is likely to plan attacks against U.S. personnel in Iraq that would be carried out as soon as Tehran gives the orders,” surmised James Phillips, senior research fellow for Middle Eastern affairs at the Heritage Foundation. “This is a major concern, given that tensions between Iran and the U.S. are likely to grow in the future.”

But an American spokesperson for Operation Inherent Resolve -- this is the mission name given to the coalition tasked with defeating ISIS in Iraq and Syria -- told Fox News officials “do not anticipate a PMF aggression toward coalition troops.”

“There are certain factions within the PMF that may cause concern, but the PMF as a whole is not considered a threat to coalition forces,” the representative noted.

While concerns have been routinely raised that the PMF is able to access U.S. weapons issued to the Iraqi Army -- including several fighters who claimed to have “borrowed” Iraqi Federal Police uniforms to participate in battles that they were prohibited from joining -- American military leaders say they continue to work with the Iraq leadership to “maintain accountability of all equipment.”

And there are at least some PMF members who vow never to fight the Americans.

“On the contrary, I stand with them because at that time we were liberated and they removed the tyranny of Saddam Hussein’s regime,” said Abbas Naji, a 23-year-old member also of the PMF’s Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq. He left the Iraqi army to join the PMF after the ISIS onslaught in 2014 – he was disgusted that members of his army “ran away” and allowed ISIS in, and had become partially blind.

“I hope that Americans stay in Iraq and we can learn from them on how make sure Iraq moves forward to be a prosperous nation," he said. "I want us to join the developed countries.”

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/12...us-troops.html