The North Korean Peninsula Is Achieving its Goals through Underhanded Means? China Must Take Precautions Against the Americans’ Unreliability!
Published in Sohu
(China) on 22 April 2017
by Xu Yu (link to original)
Recently, the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier’s strike team only pretended to visit the North Korean Peninsula, which has led to a buzz of public opinion, while the peninsula’s gunfire has gradually proceeded. However, it is worth noting that, on April 21, foreign media stated, “The Chinese military, especially its air force, is now in a state of HIGH ALERT.” That evening, the Ministry of Defense responded that this was a “continuation of the Chinese military’s normal strategy and drills on the border between China and North Korea.” It is clear that China realized a long time ago that the situation on the peninsula was far from simple and would not end that easily. George Lopez, former member of the United Nations’ panel of experts advising on North Korean sanctions, and emeritus professor at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame in the U.S., additionally believes that Trump is perhaps trying to create some kind of “strategic confusion,” and worries that “the Trump team is underestimating the possibility of a misunderstanding leading to unexpected military confrontation.”*
First, there’s the old saying that “soldiers walk a road of trickery.” The military is a perfect example. When they say they are going to attack, they don’t necessarily attack, and, when they say they’re not going to attack, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they won’t. When the United States launched 59 cruise missiles to bomb Syria and used the ‘Mother of All Bombs” in Afghanistan, no prior notification was given. Domestic experts on military affairs also think it is very unusual that signs of North Korea’s sixth nuclear test are very obvious, but the Trump government is unperturbed. It is very possible that this is all an underhanded scheme of the American military to achieve its objective. Military experts stress that: one, Trump has emphasized all along that, unlike Obama, he would announce several months in advance if he were planning a military strike; two, Trump has said he would dispatch an extremely strong invincible naval force to the North Korean Peninsula; and, three, Trump has previously censured Kim Jong-un as “making a big mistake.”
It is obvious that Trump is the kind of person who seeks revenge if someone so much as looks at him the wrong way, and someone who must act once he has said he would do something —behavioral characteristics that cannot but make others take precautions. As this author has underscored in previous essays, while total war with the peninsula is not going to happen, a situation like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not impossible. The United States needs exactly this kind of tense situation. All along, the U.S. has continued intervening in the peninsula’s affairs, and the presence of a tense situation is the only way it can continue to do so. Thus, we do not necessarily have to depend on the aircraft carrier’s strike team to stir up a tense situation on the peninsula. The news states that 60 percent of U.S. naval strength is already present in the Asia-Pacific region and that the Navy is now advancing toward deployment 3.0 with great strides.** The Navy has moved more advanced equipment to the area, especially new advanced air force equipment having to do with space and the internet. Thus, in the context of negotiations regarding the direction of the situation with the peninsula and relaxed vigilance, perhaps Americans will launch a surprise attack. We have no choice but to take precautions.
Secondly, it is very possible that Americans will use the peninsula as a testing ground for a new combat theory. These past few years, innovation in American combat theory has entered an era of rapid development. From AirSea Battle, the Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the Global Commons, and multi-domain operations, to the Distributed Lethality concept of new American naval combat strategy, there are updates every two to three years. Furthermore, the U.S. Army is currently preparing to build and vigorously promote a “third contra-war.”****
Just as this author has pointed out in previous articles, the era of “command of the sea 3.0 “has already begun.***** Strike teams of aircraft carriers have already been pushed out of their former position at the core of “command of the sea,” while the above combat strategies are becoming the core combat ideology of “command of the sea 3.0.” This was evident when the American military used 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles to bomb a Syrian airport, while the Russian military’s S-400 air defense weapon was almost a joke. Upon careful review, it is not difficult to realize that what the Americans did was very likely a “Distributed Lethality” method of the swarming model of battle. Attentive people will perhaps notice that these past few years, the American military has been continually improving its armaments, including cruise missiles and long-range anti-ship cruise missiles, raising the base level of harm of a potential attack. Except that the American military hasn’t told you that they are creating a “disruptive” model of “command of the sea.” They also haven’t told you that many secrets that cannot be told to others are behind each launched missile. Thus, maybe the American military will use the peninsula as an experiment; it depends on their goal in carrying out that experiment.
Third, the United States cannot give up on its basic efforts to disrupt the North Korean regime. A fight with the peninsula is really a fight over the geographic region, a fight over the scope of influence; a North Korean regime that continually maintains antagonistic relations with the United States is definitely not an option Americans want. It is worth noting that the possibility of a military disturbance is extremely low; the two huge nations of Russia and China would not respond to such a “reckless action” by Americans. Thus, peaceful evolution is perhaps Americans’ best option concerning North Korea.****** During the Iraq War, many Iraqi military and political leaders received letters containing threats and enticements from Americans. So, it could be said that the reason that Saddam Hussein failed so quickly and that his resistance effort was so weak had nothing to do with this theory.
However, the emphasis of North Korea’s regime is on military administration, while, domestically, it is down and out with poverty. Who would dare guarantee that every government official is earnestly invested? Additionally, one important phenomenon is that for some North Korean government leaders and foreign affairs personnel, the crisis of defection is a possibility as soon as they step outside their country. For instance, former envoy to the North Korean Embassy in England, Thae Yong-ho, is one such example; in the end, he defected from North Korea and was protected. There are many other instances of this kind of phenomenon. Thus, the U.S. desire to achieve its goal of contact with North Korea through the pressure of trade limitations cannot but make people wonder about how many levels of true intentions lie behind that desire. The additional methods it will use to put pressure on North Korea in order to achieve its goal also cannot help but put people on guard.
The situation on the peninsula is not as simple as it was before. This century is currently undergoing a key period of deep restructuring; additionally, it is a post-truth era. In the information era, all kinds of thoughts are thrown together, conspiracy after conspiracy, all of them blind to what is true and what is false. But one thing is certain: only by maintaining a full alert, maintaining enough combat power, maintaining enough caution, maintaining enough deep and insightful vision, and maintaining enough strategic strength can we make or break the current ideal of upholding the peninsula’s policy of no war and no chaos.*********
Notice: We realize that many media outlets have not yet received the right to reprint essays from Level 1 Military Intelligence. In order to respect original work, if you reprint this article, please reference its original source. If you would like the ID to share it on Wechat, please contact the administrator. We appreciate your cooperation!
Disclaimer: This article was written on Sohu’s public forum. Other than articles on Sohu’s official account, all articles on this site reflect only the views of the author, not the views of Sohu.
*Editor’s note: The original quotation, accurately translated, could not be verified.
**Editor’s note: The phrase “deployment 3.0” does not appear to be a reference to any specific program, but may be a figure of speech used by the author to suggest a third deployment in the region.
***Translator’s note: The first two polices on this list are actually the same — the second is a re-naming of the first policy that was passed in 2015. It is unclear whether the sentence reflects a misunderstanding on the author’s part.
****Translator's note: This term seems from context to mean a third American-induced conflict intended to defeat Communist governments throughout the world — the first two being the Vietnam War and the Nicaraguan War. The Americans were secretly supporting right-wing fighters known as Contras in the Nicaraguan War.
*****Editor’s note: Command of the sea may be a reference to a situation in which a naval force has command of the sea when it is so strong that its rivals cannot attack it directly.
******Translator's note: Peaceful evolution is a strategic theory of soft power dominance wherein Americans try to defeat socialism through the spread of Western ideas, lifestyles, etc.
*********Translator's note: This phrase refers to an informal policy for North Korean-China relations of “no war, no chaos, no nuclear weaponry.”
**********Editor’s note: This article was originally published on Sohu, a public form which is not yet a recognized publication under Watching America criteria.
First, there’s the old saying that “soldiers walk a road of trickery.” The military is a perfect example. When they say they are going to attack, they don’t necessarily attack, and, when they say they’re not going to attack, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they won’t. When the United States launched 59 cruise missiles to bomb Syria and used the ‘Mother of All Bombs” in Afghanistan, no prior notification was given. Domestic experts on military affairs also think it is very unusual that signs of North Korea’s sixth nuclear test are very obvious, but the Trump government is unperturbed. It is very possible that this is all an underhanded scheme of the American military to achieve its objective. Military experts stress that: one, Trump has emphasized all along that, unlike Obama, he would announce several months in advance if he were planning a military strike; two, Trump has said he would dispatch an extremely strong invincible naval force to the North Korean Peninsula; and, three, Trump has previously censured Kim Jong-un as “making a big mistake.”
It is obvious that Trump is the kind of person who seeks revenge if someone so much as looks at him the wrong way, and someone who must act once he has said he would do something —behavioral characteristics that cannot but make others take precautions. As this author has underscored in previous essays, while total war with the peninsula is not going to happen, a situation like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not impossible. The United States needs exactly this kind of tense situation. All along, the U.S. has continued intervening in the peninsula’s affairs, and the presence of a tense situation is the only way it can continue to do so. Thus, we do not necessarily have to depend on the aircraft carrier’s strike team to stir up a tense situation on the peninsula. The news states that 60 percent of U.S. naval strength is already present in the Asia-Pacific region and that the Navy is now advancing toward deployment 3.0 with great strides.** The Navy has moved more advanced equipment to the area, especially new advanced air force equipment having to do with space and the internet. Thus, in the context of negotiations regarding the direction of the situation with the peninsula and relaxed vigilance, perhaps Americans will launch a surprise attack. We have no choice but to take precautions.
Secondly, it is very possible that Americans will use the peninsula as a testing ground for a new combat theory. These past few years, innovation in American combat theory has entered an era of rapid development. From AirSea Battle, the Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the Global Commons, and multi-domain operations, to the Distributed Lethality concept of new American naval combat strategy, there are updates every two to three years. Furthermore, the U.S. Army is currently preparing to build and vigorously promote a “third contra-war.”****
Just as this author has pointed out in previous articles, the era of “command of the sea 3.0 “has already begun.***** Strike teams of aircraft carriers have already been pushed out of their former position at the core of “command of the sea,” while the above combat strategies are becoming the core combat ideology of “command of the sea 3.0.” This was evident when the American military used 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles to bomb a Syrian airport, while the Russian military’s S-400 air defense weapon was almost a joke. Upon careful review, it is not difficult to realize that what the Americans did was very likely a “Distributed Lethality” method of the swarming model of battle. Attentive people will perhaps notice that these past few years, the American military has been continually improving its armaments, including cruise missiles and long-range anti-ship cruise missiles, raising the base level of harm of a potential attack. Except that the American military hasn’t told you that they are creating a “disruptive” model of “command of the sea.” They also haven’t told you that many secrets that cannot be told to others are behind each launched missile. Thus, maybe the American military will use the peninsula as an experiment; it depends on their goal in carrying out that experiment.
Third, the United States cannot give up on its basic efforts to disrupt the North Korean regime. A fight with the peninsula is really a fight over the geographic region, a fight over the scope of influence; a North Korean regime that continually maintains antagonistic relations with the United States is definitely not an option Americans want. It is worth noting that the possibility of a military disturbance is extremely low; the two huge nations of Russia and China would not respond to such a “reckless action” by Americans. Thus, peaceful evolution is perhaps Americans’ best option concerning North Korea.****** During the Iraq War, many Iraqi military and political leaders received letters containing threats and enticements from Americans. So, it could be said that the reason that Saddam Hussein failed so quickly and that his resistance effort was so weak had nothing to do with this theory.
However, the emphasis of North Korea’s regime is on military administration, while, domestically, it is down and out with poverty. Who would dare guarantee that every government official is earnestly invested? Additionally, one important phenomenon is that for some North Korean government leaders and foreign affairs personnel, the crisis of defection is a possibility as soon as they step outside their country. For instance, former envoy to the North Korean Embassy in England, Thae Yong-ho, is one such example; in the end, he defected from North Korea and was protected. There are many other instances of this kind of phenomenon. Thus, the U.S. desire to achieve its goal of contact with North Korea through the pressure of trade limitations cannot but make people wonder about how many levels of true intentions lie behind that desire. The additional methods it will use to put pressure on North Korea in order to achieve its goal also cannot help but put people on guard.
The situation on the peninsula is not as simple as it was before. This century is currently undergoing a key period of deep restructuring; additionally, it is a post-truth era. In the information era, all kinds of thoughts are thrown together, conspiracy after conspiracy, all of them blind to what is true and what is false. But one thing is certain: only by maintaining a full alert, maintaining enough combat power, maintaining enough caution, maintaining enough deep and insightful vision, and maintaining enough strategic strength can we make or break the current ideal of upholding the peninsula’s policy of no war and no chaos.*********
Notice: We realize that many media outlets have not yet received the right to reprint essays from Level 1 Military Intelligence. In order to respect original work, if you reprint this article, please reference its original source. If you would like the ID to share it on Wechat, please contact the administrator. We appreciate your cooperation!
Disclaimer: This article was written on Sohu’s public forum. Other than articles on Sohu’s official account, all articles on this site reflect only the views of the author, not the views of Sohu.
*Editor’s note: The original quotation, accurately translated, could not be verified.
**Editor’s note: The phrase “deployment 3.0” does not appear to be a reference to any specific program, but may be a figure of speech used by the author to suggest a third deployment in the region.
***Translator’s note: The first two polices on this list are actually the same — the second is a re-naming of the first policy that was passed in 2015. It is unclear whether the sentence reflects a misunderstanding on the author’s part.
****Translator's note: This term seems from context to mean a third American-induced conflict intended to defeat Communist governments throughout the world — the first two being the Vietnam War and the Nicaraguan War. The Americans were secretly supporting right-wing fighters known as Contras in the Nicaraguan War.
*****Editor’s note: Command of the sea may be a reference to a situation in which a naval force has command of the sea when it is so strong that its rivals cannot attack it directly.
******Translator's note: Peaceful evolution is a strategic theory of soft power dominance wherein Americans try to defeat socialism through the spread of Western ideas, lifestyles, etc.
*********Translator's note: This phrase refers to an informal policy for North Korean-China relations of “no war, no chaos, no nuclear weaponry.”
**********Editor’s note: This article was originally published on Sohu, a public form which is not yet a recognized publication under Watching America criteria.