French spy agency tries to pull 'classified' Wikipedia entry, only draws more attention to it

Another lesson for life in the global information environment.

V/R
Dave

French spy agency tries to pull 'classified' Wikipedia entry, only draws more attention to it

Summary: In another example of the Streisand Effect, Wikipedia France's most popular article is an entry about a French military installation — the same entry the country's spy agencies allegedly tried to force a Wikipedia editor into deleting under the guise of it being 'classified' material.

http://www.zdnet.com/french-spy-agency-tries-to-pull-classified-wikipedia-entry-only-draws-more-attention-to-it-7000013631/

By Zack Whittaker for Between the Lines | April 7, 2013 -- 01:55 GMT (18:55 PDT)

What do a French military installation and Barbara Streisand have in common?

Typically, censorship has two outcomes: Either it works, or it fails. In many cases, it fails, as the French government found out today.

Wikimedia France said in a press release on Saturday morning that France's domestic intelligence agency, the Direction Centrale du Renseignement Intérieur (DCRI), contacted in early March its parent organization, the Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia.

Read this

Big Oil's Wikipedia cleanup: A brand management experiment out of control

• Read more

The DCRI claimed an article on Wikipedia France was in breach of the country's laws by disclosing "classified military information," and should be pulled from the site.

The Wikipedia entry pertained to a French military compound, the "Radio station military Pierre-sur-High," around 70 miles west of Lyon. The installation is thought to act as part of France's nuclear deterrent and detection capabilities.

The San Francisco, California-headquartered Wikimedia Foundation refused the request by the DCRI on the grounds that it did not provide enough information to prove that the entry contained classified information — likely because it would confirm what the DCRI still believes to be information that should not be in the public light.

In the press release, Wikimedia Foundation said it "has often collaborated with public authorities to follow legal decisions," as it has many offices in various countries and therefore abides by local laws — as any company must.

Though the not-for-profit organization cited that it receives "hundreds of requests every year asking for the deletion of articles," this was not one of them, the statement said.

"Without further information, we could not understand why the DCRI believes information in the article is classified," said Wikimedia Foundation legal counsel Michelle Paulson in a discussion thread on the site.

Instead, the DCRI threw its weight behind bullying a Wikipedia editor based in the country to delete the page under the threat of prosecution, with consequences not limited to massive fines and a lengthy prison sentence.

"Bullying and coercive methods"

Not content with the Wikimedia Foundation's refusal to delete the article, the DCRI "summoned" a Paris, France-based Wikipedia editor to its offices on Thursday.

According to the press release: "This volunteer had no link with that article, having never edited it and not even knowing of its existence before entering the DCRI offices. He was chosen and summoned because he was easily identifiable, given his regular promotional actions of Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects in France."

Once hauled in to the spy agency's office, despite his explanation to the French spies that "this is not how Wikipedia works," he was forced to remove the entry using his access to the site's administrator tools that allow such an action.

After his release, he explained to other editors that the entry, according to the DCRI, violated Article 413-11 of the French Criminal Code, which details compromising the secrecy of national defense infrastructure.

(Continued at the link below)

http://www.zdnet.com/french-spy-agency-tries-to-pull-classified-wikipedia-entry-only-draws-more-attention-to-it-7000013631/

U.S. reducing rhetoric that feeds North Korean belligerence

The Kim Family Regime is executing a plan. Our rhetoric does not feed their belligerence.  They are not going to "back down" because we tone down our rhetoric. That said, we do not need to say a lot and we do not need to get into a war of words.  But we have to demonstrate sustained strength and resolve.  As long as the Alliance remains strong then the north will be deterred from an attack (a large scale military attack but not a provocation - if they are planning a provocation they are going to execute one).  The real danger is when the north perceives a gap or weakness, particularly in the Alliance.  But the bottom line is that we are not provoking the north with our words and our actions, but our sustained actions will have an effect on the regime's decision making over time when they learn that we will not back down as we have so many times in the last 60 years.  It is counterintuitive to most but the only chance we have of breaking the cycle of provocations is to not give in.  We can  (and should and I expect we will) try diplomacy again in the future but our future diplomatic actions will be enhanced and be more effective if they rest on a foundation of strength and resolve with the military instrument of power.  We have to remain consistent and cannot appear to blink.  Again future diplomacy will be better if we remain strong now.

V/R

Dave

U.S. reducing rhetoric that feeds North Korean belligerence

By Barbara Starr and Tom Cohen, CNN

updated 10:37 AM EDT, Fri April 5, 2013

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/04/politics/koreas-u-s-/index.html?iref=allsearch

U.S. ready to calm North Korea tensions

Washington (CNN) -- Recent announcements of American military deployments in response to belligerent statements by North Korea may have contributed to escalating tensions between the two countries, Pentagon officials told CNN on Thursday in explaining an effort to reduce U.S. rhetoric about the reclusive state.

"We accused the North Koreans of amping things up, now we are worried we did the same thing," one Defense Department official said.

They spoke on the same day a U.S. official first told CNN that communications intercepts indicated North Korea may be planning to launch a mobile ballistic missile in the coming days or weeks.

Classified images and communications intercepts show that North Korea has moved up to two mobile missiles, launchers and fuel tanks to its East coast, another American official with knowledge of the matter told CNN.

South Korean Defense Minister Kim Kwan-jin told a parliamentary committee in Seoul that the activity signaled an imminent test firing or military drill, according to the semi-official South Korean news agency Yonhap.

Amid Pyongyang bluster, missile launch feared

One U.S. official said it is believed any launch this time would be a test.

The activity is consistent with a Musudan missile, theofficial said.

The Musudan is based on a Soviet-era system and has a 2,500-mile (4,000-kilometer) range that can threaten South Korea, Japan and Southeast Asia, but not U.S. forces based on Guam.

As a vital ally to South Korea since the Korean war in the 1950s, the United States has pledged military backing to Seoul in the event of an attack by North Korea.

In addition, North Korea has been developing nuclear weapons technology, raising concerns of rapid proliferation in the region and even a possible nuclear strike by Pyongyang.

The fraught situation on the Korean Peninsula stems from the North's latest long-range rocket launch in December and underground nuclear test in February.

In response, the United States helped bring tougher U.N. sanctions on North Korea and took part in joint military exercises with South Korea, prompting Kim Jong Un's government to ratchet up its threats in recent weeks.

That caused the United States to display its military strength in the annual drills taking place now, flying B-2 stealth bombers capable of carrying conventional or nuclear weapons, as well as Cold War-era B-52s and F-22 Raptor stealth fighters over South Korea.

North Korea: Our global fear and fascination

On Thursday, a North Korean army official warned that "the moment of explosion is approaching fast."

(Continued at the link below)

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/04/politics/koreas-u-s-/index.html?iref=allsearch

Fidel Castro urges North Korea to avoid nuclear warfare

I never thought I would be saying that I agree with Fidel Castro.

“If war breaks out there, the people on both sides of the [Korean] peninsula will be terribly slaughtered, without any benefit for either of them,” Castro wrote in the Cuban Communist Party newspaper Granma. 

Furthermore, “it would not be just to forget that such a war would affect, in a special way, more than 70% of the world's population," he said.

Fidel Castro urges North Korea to avoid nuclear warfare

http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-fidel-castro-north-korea-nuclear-war-20130405,0,2215182.story

By Emily Alpert

April 5, 2013, 12:54 p.m.

Former Cuban President Fidel Castro urged North Korea to steer clear of atomic warfare, saying Koreans faced “one of the most grave risks of nuclear war” since the Cuban missile crisis half a century ago.

North Korea has stepped up its belligerent talk, recently declaring it had entered a state of war with South Korea and threatening a nuclear attack on the United States. Analysts say North Korea is not yet capable of carrying out such a strike, but the escalating threats have grabbed global attention

.

Castro said he delivered his message as a friend, recalling “the honor of knowing” former North Korean leader Kim Il Sung, “a historic, strikingly valiant and revolutionary figure” and the late grandfather of current leader Kim Jong Un.

The impassioned message is the first Castro has written in Cuban state media since June 2012, according to the Associated Press.

“If war breaks out there, the people on both sides of the [Korean] peninsula will be terribly slaughtered, without any benefit for either of them,” Castro wrote in the Cuban Communist Party newspaper Granma.

(Continued at the link below)

http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-fidel-castro-north-korea-nuclear-war-20130405,0,2215182.story

Former top U.S. official: China getting fed up with North Korea (And the Asian Pivot)

Excerpt:

"It's very clear [to China]: If this is a buffer state, what is it good for?" he said.

Sounds like an adaptation of an old song: " north Korea.  What is it good for? Absolutely nothing. Say it again…."

But here is an interesting tidbit.  I guess we do have to go back to the Asia Pivot:

"I actually think the better terminology is ‘rebalance,'" Campbell said. "And of course, initially the response was very clear from the NSS [National Security Staff in the White House] that really the term that is appropriate is ‘rebalance,' so those of us who use ‘pivot' were sent to reeducation camps and works in the fields." 

But White House aides' effort to erase the use of the word "pivot" was ultimately thwarted by their own boss -- Obama. 

"The irony of this, after all of this reeducation, it turns out: Who is the person who actually likes the term and the concept of the pivot?" Campbell said. "The president of the United States."

And I guess the Administration does have some things in common with north Korea. You can get sent to the gulag for re-education but then once rehabilitated you can come back to work.

V/R

Dave

Former top U.S. official: China getting fed up with North Korea

Posted By Josh Rogin  Friday, April 5, 2013 - 1:00 PM   Share

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/04/05/former_top_us_official_china_getting_fed_up_with_north_korea

The Chinese government has changed its approach to North Korea and taken a tougher line out of frustration with Pyongyang, according to Kurt Campbell, the State Department's top Asia official until last month.

"The most important new ingredient [in the North Korea crisis] has been a recognition in China that their previous approach to North Korea is not bearing fruit. That they are going to have to be much clearer and much more direct with Pyongyang that what Pyongyang is doing is undermining Chinese security," Campbell told an audience at the Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies Thursday.

"There is a subtle shift in Chinese foreign policy. You've seen it at the U.N., you've seen it in our private conversations ... I don't think that subtle shift can be lost on Pyongyang," he said. "It's not in their strategic interest to alienate every country that surrounds them. I think they have succeeded in undermining their trust and confidence in Beijing."

In the latest apparent sign of Chinese discontent, Beijing recently rejected a North Korean request to send a diplomat envoy to Pyongyang, a South Korean newspaper reported Thursday.

China has long considered North Korea a useful check against a united, pro-American Korean Peninsula. But Chinese frustration with Beijing could eventually lead to a more dramatic shift in Chinese foreign policy that would change the state of play in Northeast Asia, according to Campbell.

"It's very clear [to China]: If this is a buffer state, what is it good for?" he said.

The White House has promoted a careful dual message throughout this crisis: The United States takes North Korean provocations seriously but doesn't see North Korea's actual military moves as significant.

"They're doing that in a way so that we don't have a set of circumstances where things escalate beyond a point where it can be effectively managed," Campbell explained.

Meanwhile, there are feelers out that might pave the way for a conversation with North Korea that might provide a way out of the crisis.

(Continued at the link below)

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/04/05/former_top_us_official_china_getting_fed_up_with_north_korea

The Realist Prism: North Korea Gambles on Strategic Assumptions

Summary:

Assumption One: Blackmail diplomacy works (has been a fact for 60 years)

Assumption Two: The US too economically weak to fight a war (a much flawed assumption)

Assumption Three: China will do what is necessary to prevent ROK and US forces on the Amnok River (better known by its Chinese name the Yalu)  (I think this is a false assumption as well though I do think that China does want to prevent a war if it can – I just do not think it can stop one if the Kim Family Regime is perceived to be threatened and it determines that execution of its campaign plan is the only feasible course of action to try to ensure regime survival).

He left out the most important assumption for the regime:  Possession of nuclear weapons will deter a pre-emptive strike by the US and provides freedom of action for the north.

I think the conditions in the region have changed and the north's assumptions may all be false (number two certainly is).  First, unlike the past 60 years, the ROK military will respond decisively at the time and place of the next kinetic provocation.  It will be unlike anything that the north has seen from the ROK.  Second, the US is not going to give into blackmail diplomacy.  Third, the Chinese and the Soviets may be much more accepting of ROK/US deterrent actions in the Korean Theater than in the past because in reality all five countries in the region have the same number one interest: prevent war.  

Lastly, barring miscalculation by Kim Jong-un, the regime will not deliberately attack the ROK/US Alliance as long as it demonstrates strength, resolve and readiness.  The good thing is that if this assumption fails, the ROK/US Alliance will have a strong, resolved, and ready force to execute the war plan and bring an end to the north Korean Peoples Army and give the political leadership the chance to shape the future of a unified Korean Peninsula.

The Realist Prism: North Korea Gambles on Strategic Assumptions

By Nikolas Gvosdev, on 05 Apr 2013, Column

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/12848/the-realist-prism-north-korea-gambles-on-strategic-assumptions?utm_source=Media+Roundup&utm_campaign=96789c1d80-MR_040513&utm_medium=email

Experts are debating what precisely are the motives behind North Korea's recent spike in belligerent rhetoric and posturing, with answers ranging from the opinion that "war talk" is an attempt by the North’s young leader, Kim Jong Un, to solidify his hold on power to the worry that the regime is losing its grip on reality. What is more certain, however, is the set of assumptions guiding Pyongyang's strategic calculus. Whether the North Korean leadership’s assessments are accurate or not -- and what steps the other powers in the region take to correct them -- may help determine how this crisis will end.

While North Korea initially enjoyed a period of economic growth and development after hostilities with the South ended in 1953, it has been left far behind in the explosion of prosperity that has defined Northeast Asia over the past two decades. Ironically, this liability, in the eyes of the leadership, has been turned into a strategic asset: North Korea has nothing to lose by acting as a regional spoiler. Pyongyang's first assessment is that the larger neighborhood prefers that there be no disruption to the flow of commerce -- and this is a club that can be wielded not only against South Korea and Japan but against China and Russia as well. A North Korea that plunges the region into war would release flows of refugees crossing into China and Russia for sanctuary; it would jeopardize China's own economy, starting with the massive disruptions that any conflict would create; it would imperil Russian President Vladimir Putin's announced plans for a new "eastern vector" for the Russian economy, including the development of new pipelines and energy assets in the Far East. The DPRK's assessment is that it has consistently been cheaper for the surrounding countries to pay Pyongyang off -- and to restrain the United States from trying to take action -- than to risk the damage that a more sustained military conflict would bring.
 
The second assessment, reflected in some of the recent North Korean propaganda videos showing a United States struggling with an economic crisis, is that Washington has neither the stomach nor the funds to sustain a prolonged campaign against the North. Under this scenario, Pyongyang can deliver threats and raise America's blood pressure without risking any real backlash -- perhaps even creating conditions for a new round of negotiations and concessions.

This, of course, is where the regime is taking a major risk. There is a very real movement of American military personnel and equipment into the region to prepare to cope with any exigency. North Korea's assessment of the U.S. willingness to fight eerily resembles that of the Japanese militarists prior to Dec. 7, 1941, who argued that America had no backbone to prevent Japan from exercising hegemony over the Western Pacific.

But this taps into the third assessment. As much as Pyongyang may annoy its big brother in Beijing, China will, if push comes to shove, do almost anything to prevent what the end result of any new Korean War would bring: the prospect of a unified Korea allied with the U.S. and with American forces, in theory, stationed a stone's throw across the Yalu River. (Russia, in the process of accelerating the development of its Far East and revitalizing its own Pacific Fleet at Vladivostok, would also not be happy to have American forces that much closer to its borders.) On a separate note, China has much to be irritated with in the DPRK’s recent provocations. Two months ago, the "pivot to Asia" seemed to be dying on the vine as Washington’s attention refocused on the Middle East. Now, North Korea's threats have produced a new urgency in repositioning U.S. military assets into the Asia-Pacific theater. Kim’s posturing has called into question a key part of China's -- and Russia's -- strategy, which has been based on the conclusion that the United States would be unable to extricate itself from the Middle East for the foreseeable future.

(Continued at the link below)

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/12848/the-realist-prism-north-korea-gambles-on-strategic-assumptions

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

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/4/us-would-seek-regime-change-north-korea-if-attack-/?page=all#pagebreak

By Rowan Scarborough

-

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.

SEE RELATED: Diplomacy downplay: Obama administration minimizes latest North Korean nuke threat

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.

SEE RELATED: North Korea preparing missile launch on its east coast

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)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/4/us-would-seek-regime-change-north-korea-if-attack-/?page=all#pagebreak

UPDATED: Kim Jong-un: Can US trust North Korea leader to act rationally?

(Note:  I have added some additional information below to illustrate the nature of the Kim family Regime)

It is interesting to read all this speculation about infighting and whether Kim Jong-un is in control or not and relationships among the regime, military and the party.  It really is simple as a Korea hand very succinctly put it to me just last evening:

The Kim Family Regime controls all things, and they use the institutions of the military and the party to do it - with the security services monitoring everybody.

But we should really understand is that the Kim Family Regime is composed of military and party leadership.  We should not think of them as separate entities.  The regime controls the military, party, and security services because their leadership is part of the core elements of the Kim Family Regime and everyone "gets ahead"  (or survives) by demonstrating personal loyalty to Kim Jong-un.

V/R
Dave

UPDATE:

Here is a tutorial using recent photos of the regime from another Korea Hand to illustrate that the military and the party are an integral part of the regime.  This is why all the talk of the military being at odds with Kim Jong-un or Kim Jong-un having to prove himself to the military does not really wash with how the Kim Family Regime operates.  You cannot separate the party, military and government from the regime.

The people in this picture are the party central committee (CC).  This is their 31 March plenary session.  These people are the enablers of the regime...people hired to carry out what the top leadership want.  Their number varies with attrition and new appointments, but is about 140, plus about 120 candidate members.  They receive enormous privileges for being supporters of the regime as CC members.  The bennies, the bennies, the bennies.

These are the people who are the leaders -- the politburo and leaders of the party sitting in front of the CC members.  There are no secrets here.  Anybody can see this.  The politburo is a mixture of party, military and government.  Notice there are 3 military to the right and one at the podium, who is probably Choi Yong-hae, Director of the General Political Bureau, political watchdogs of the military.  He is party guy, not a military guy, though he wears a military uniform.   The empty seat for the military officer at the podium is located to the right with the other military officers. They are there for a reason -- there is military influence and participation in decision-making.  The front row of four next to the podium left to right are Kim Ki-nam, Party Secretary for propaganda; KJU's aunt, Kim Kyong-hui, Director of the KWP Organization and Guidance Department that has absolute control of the personal lives of everybody in the room; Choe Yong-nim, Cabinet Premier; and Kim Yong-nam, Chairman of the Supreme People's Assembly Presidium. Directly behind Kim Yong-nam is Pak Do-chun, Party head of the nuclear and missile programs and the one responsible to coordinate funding, political reliability and security...not engineering.  They have plenty of scientists for that and the military gives them the specifications of how capabilities work into the military arsenal.  Party guys do not do that because they are party guys...the ones that make things happen. To Pak's right appears to be Yang Hyong-sop, vice to Kim Yong-nam and married to a cousin of Kim Il-sung. The man sitting in the back row next to the two military officers to the far right is Choe Tae Bok, Chairman of the Supreme People's Assembly.  The man in front of him is Chang Song-taek, KJU's uncle by marriage and husband of Kim Kyong-hui, KJU aunt as mentioned.  Chang is the string puller.  The general next to him is MinisterPeople's Armed Forces (Minister of Defense) GEN Kim Kyok-sik. Not sure about the guy behind Kim Ki-nam or the guy to the far right in the picture. 

All of these people should be the targets of our priority strategic PSYOP .

V/R
Dave

Kim Jong-un: Can US trust North Korea leader to act rationally?

Kim Jong-un isn't the first North Korean leader to use threats for political gain. But the West doesn't really know what of make of him because of his youth and the uncertainty that shrouds the country.

http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/USA/Military/2013/0403/Kim-Jong-un-Can-US-trust-North-Korea-leader-to-act-rationally

By Anna Mulrine, Staff writer / April 3, 2013 at 2:16 pm EDT

Washington

North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un’s saber-rattling rhetoric and threats to restart his nuclear program could be a rational move to garner more in the way of concessions in the world community and much-needed political street-credentials among the populace and troops he commands.

But just how confident can Pentagon officials be about whether Mr. Kim is a rational actor?

Could he, in fact, be young, reckless, without great political savvy and in grave danger of making a move that could set off a chain of events – including an inadvertent war – with dire consequences?

“We’ve seen some historical trajectory here on where North Korea occasionally will go to try to get the attention of the United States, to try to maneuver us into some position favorably to them, whether it’s more assistance or bilateral engagement,” Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said during a press conference last week. 

“But the fact is that this is the wrong way to go. The action that he’s taken and the actions they’ve taken and the words he’s used, it is not going to project a more responsible, accountable relationship.”

That seems evident. But how clear is it that Kim knows what he’s doing, anyway? And is he, in fact, the one in charge? Or could he be vying for power with, say, North Korean military leaders? 

Want your top political issues explained? Get customized DC Decoder updates.

On this question, Mr. Hagel appeared, publicly at least, to have little interest in a North Korean version of Kremlinology. “Well, he’s the leader,” he said. “I mean, he’s the leader of North Korea.” 

Defense analysts say that there are indeed some hints that Kim may be losing his hold on the military.

There have been defections of small units of North Korean soldiers to China – soldiers who were subsequently turned around and sent back to North Korea, says retired Brig. Gen. Russell Howard, former commander of the 1st Special Forces Group, which has an Asia Focus.

This may seem like a positive development, but it is a problem because it means that Kim may feel the need to reassert his control over the military, by beating the war drum and trying to get his troops to rally around it. The more he needs their support, the harder he might beat the drum.

The rehabilitation of Kim Young-choi, who was responsible for sinking the South Korean Navy ship Cheonan in 2010, which killed 46 seamen, is another clue, says General Howard, who is now the director of the Terrorism, Research, and Education Program at the Monterey Institute of International Studies.

It could signal that Kim Jong-un is taking a harder military line, since Kim Young-choi is also believed to have coordinated cyberattacks on South Korean firms, as well as an assassination attempt on a high-ranking North Korean defector. 

“It seems that a more aggressive clique now has influence over Kim,” Howard says.

Indeed, plenty of questions remains about just what Kim’s relationship is to the military, says Victor Cha, director of Asian Studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies inWashington.

(Continued at the link below)

http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/USA/Military/2013/0403/Kim-Jong-un-Can-US-trust-North-Korea-leader-to-act-rationally