Friday, April 5, 2013

U.S. would seek regime change in North Korea if attack occurs


It would be nice if someone would explain the plans.  I would describe things this way.  If north Korea attacks, the military forces of the ROK/US Combined Forces Command will defend the Republic of Korea in accordance with the established war plan and this defense will conclude with the complete destruction of the north Korean military capability.  What comes after the destruction of the north Korean Peoples Army will be decided by the political leadership. There is no comparison to Iraq in 2003.  This is not about regime change.  The fact is if north Korea attacks the South the result will be the complete destruction of the north Korean Peoples Army to include the capture, render safe, or destruction of the north's entire nuclear capability. But we should keep in mind that the current Joint Vision from June 2009 describes the strategic end state for the Peninsula as unification.  We need to cease talking about regime change and correctly describe the future as Korean Unification.  Again there is no comparison to Iraq in 2003.  If the war plan is executed it will be because the north has chosen to attack the South and that decision will result in the destruction of the north Korean military.
V/R
Dave


U.S. would seek regime change in North Korea if attack occurs

-
The Washington Times
Thursday, April 4, 2013
The U.S. would oust the communist regime in North Korea if it uses its nuclear weapons or launches an all-out invasion on South Korea and the 28,500 American troops stationed there, national security sources say.

The Obama administration has not articulated such a far-reaching retaliation, even as North Korean leader Kim Jong-un threatens to attack both South Korea and the U.S. mainland.


But national security sources say it is a common assumption within the Pentagon and U.S. Pacific Command that a full-force attack by Pyongyang would put in place a contingency plan of massive retaliation against the North aimed at bringing down the Stalinist regime. President Obama would be faced with making the war decision.

“I have been told by a senior general that an attack by the North means regime change,” a senior congressional defense aide told The Washington Times. “I was told the same thing when I visited Pacific Command,” which is based in Hawaii.

The South Korean government would not allow the U.S. to launch a pre-emptive regime change of the North, as the George W. Bush administration executed in Iraq in 2003.
However, an all-out war by the North would change the reasoning.

The Bush administration was more open about its retaliation plans. Then-Vice President Dick Cheney said an invasion of the South or the use of nuclear weapons would mean the end of the Kim dynasty.
The Pentagon, with new strategic guidance from Mr. Obama in hand, has been updating its war plans for all regions, including the Korean Peninsula.


A source familiar with the thinking has told The Times that the plans include scenarios for the regime imploding on its own and an allied invasion in response to North Korea launching a war on the South.
The plan calls for the South Korean government and its armed forces to take the lead in post-war stability operations to transform the North and achieve unification of the Koreas.

As part of a show of force, the Pentagon dispatched B-2 stealth bombers from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri last week to take part in joint exercises with the South Koreans.

The B-2 is an overt offensive weapon, and its use in a war would be to hit targets held dear by the North, such as headquarters, presidential sites and nuclear facilities.
(Continued at the link below)


No comments:

Post a Comment

Thoughts on Strategy for the Korean Peninsula

My remarks last week at the Institute for Corean-American Studies (ICAS) conference on The Korean Peninsula Issues  and United States Natio...