North Korea has been chirping a lot lately and none of it has made this blog because it’s “chirping”.  The official policy of the DPRK is that they will only feel safe when the US withdraws all its forces from Asia and eliminates ALL of its nuclear weapons that can reach North Korea. Chairman Kim said a year ago that North Korea supports denuclearization in the context of world-wide elimination of nuclear weapons. The North Korean idea of denuclearization of the Peninsula is a regional subset of Kim’s global messianic mission. 
On a tactical level, this commentary makes clear that when Chairman Kim offered to dismantle the Yongbyon nuclear reactor in return for corresponding US action, Kim was referring to the destruction of some US nuclear facility. It is not a serious basis for any kind of exchange, and the North Korean leaders know it. The conclusion is inescapable that they deliberately published a position that they knew the US would reject so that they can end the talks and blame the US for their failure.
The Soviets and the Chinese have been fond of using the same tactic over the years when they wanted to terminate negotiations without incurring blame.
Some opine that Chairman Kim’s bonhomie has been a tactical ruse. It is another facet of the plan to induce South Korea to let down its guard and the US to reduce its commitment to the defense of “the Korean Peninsula.” However, the US need not have the fleet poised on the North Korean doorstep. “Rods from God” can rip down from orbit and remove the little tin pot dictatorship. Nuclear weapons aren’t the only option. As the US Space Force develops and grows, an expanded number of options that don’t violate any treaty in place will become more clear.
Back to the Norks. A range of hypotheses suggest themselves. One is that the Central Committee gave Kim’s outreach and détente policy a year in which to show substantial results. This commentary would then signal the end of the détente policy towards the US. If this is accurate, Kim’s New Year’s address in 10 days should make that clear.
Ending Foreign Adventures
Afghans and others are likely to perceive that the announced draw-down of US forces there in Syria indicate that President Trump has lost confidence in the senior personnel who have managed the Syrian enterprise since 2011 and the Afghan enterprise for the past 17 years.
Those of you who have read this blog will understand that as a former participant in small wars, my particular opinion is that US policy of remaining at war for interminable periods constitutes “a racket” as General Smedley Darlington Butler put it so many years ago.

Smedley Darlington Butler was a United States Marine Corps major general, the highest rank authorized at that time, and at the time of his death the most decorated Marine in U.S. history.

President Bush authorized the CIA and US Special Operations Forces to engage the Afghan military post 9/11/01, largely because we had to attack somebody and because attacking Saudi Arabia, a US ally, wasn’t in the cards. I have no problem with the actions of CIA and SOF because they were effective. When “Big Army” moved in to take their place, it became a trillion dollar money pit. Blood and treasure flowed freely. What seventeen years of war do for America? What did it do for Afghanistan?
In December 1979, Soviet 40th Army moved south from Turkmenistan under a thick cloud cover that defeated satellite surveillance. Within two weeks, the Soviets deployed 100,000 soldiers, 1,800 tanks and 2,000 armored fighting vehicles to Afghanistan. 
We stayed twice as long as the Soviets, and it can be argued that we accomplished less. If true, why should we remain? I believe that President Trump asks these same questions and that his instincts are correct despite the crooning of his detractors.


  1. The GOP and General Mattis, too, disappoint me with their lack of support for the President's decision.
    With the dems, there is no surprise.

    We wait on the Norks to show their next move, I guess.
    Thank you, LL.

    This ryan person is getting annoying. Not about to click on their link.

  2. The NORKs…..Being good commies subscribe to the communist default position on negotiating. "What's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable". And if it was aa Demonrat instead of Trump pulling us out of the sandbox the vocal left and their media whores accomplices woul be crowing about how great a thing it was. The standard doctrine now is Trump can do nothing right.

  3. When your whole career and identity is in the military/industrial, someone denting your rice bowl is to be resisted. The Deep State and MIC are kin. They find common goals with the Globalists. Little wonder President Trump is facing such fierce resistance. I admire the man's courage to engage in this fight.

  4. The newly minted Space Force will be signed into law after the first of the year. General Mattis didn't approve of that move. It's not just Syria.

    I realize that it creates bureaucratic duplication and may deny the USAF some of the resources that it now has, but it WILL put more emphasis on Space as a battlefield, and it's headed there whether or not we're in the game.

    Barack didn't put much emphasis on space, except to try and make Muslims feel good about themselves. Time to fix all that with increased emphasis.

  5. No! Don't click on spam. I deleted the link.

    The dems are very unreliable. They used to love Russia when it was the USSR, now they hate it. They used to be anti-war, now they want foreign deployments that last decades.

  6. President Trump is a scrapper. The Deep State/MIC is the same thing, and what's a trillion or two here or there to them. It's almost a rounding error.

  7. Speaking of General Butler, I am currently reading The Plot to Seize the White House.
    I also see similarities with the current plot to take the White House.

  8. There was a time in my life when I drank all of the Kool Aid. That ended and I became more critical in my thinking. I'm patriotic but not stupid.

  9. I used this elsewhere, but what the heck….

    I find tables and charts to be helpful when comparing and contrasting things. If a chart isn't really practical, then a structured list can be useful. So here's a little list of infectious organisms that cause their host to do things clearly NOT in the host's interest. One of these four entries may be fictional. Or not. You decide.

    Infectious Organism: Ophiocordyceps unilateralis (fungus)
    Host Organism: Camponotus leonardi (ant)
    Host-Injurious Behavior: Fungal infection causes an ant to leave its nest and usual foraging trails; ant then climbs a plant to a specific height, clamps its jaws on a leaf in a literal death grip and dies. Fungus grows within dead ant, eventually causing ant's head to explode, releasing new fungal spores.

    Infectious Organism: Myrmeconema neotropicum (nematode worm)
    Host Organism: Cephalotes atratus (ant, black)
    Host-Injurious Behavior: Infected ants turn red in their abdominal segment (looking like a red berry) and tend to walk slowly with the abdomens up in the air. This makes the ant look like a red berry. Birds eat the berry-ants, furthering the nematode parasite's lifecycle.

    Infectious Organism: Toxoplasma gondii (single-celled organism)
    Host Organism: Rattus sp.
    Host-Injurious Behavior: The infected rat loses its fear of cats, becomes sexually attracted to odor of cat urine, actively seeking out cats. Cat captures rat, eats its brain, completing T. gondii lifecycle.

    Infectious Organism: Neocons
    Host Organism: The United States
    Host-Injurious Behavior: The infected nation gets itself into unnecessary wars that do not serve the national interest; tends to invade arid or otherwise desert-like shitholes where American lives and treasure are wasted.

Comments are closed.