Running Local

This Train of Thought Makes All Stops

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

A Light Fickers

Posted by Bob Kohm on September 20, 2013

This has been a week of hopeful words from unexpected sources, words that give succor to the soul but arouse unease in the intellect.

From Pope Francis I we hear words of hope, words that say that the Church has buried itself for far too long in doctrinal small sightedness which has made cynical the flock. A religion founded on the principles so well expounded in the tale of the Samaritan– tolerance for difference, kindness in the face of prejudice, the universality of the human condition and the amelioration of its woes– has submerged itself in fights over the denial of earthly rights and heavenly rewards to people over matters pertaining to their love and its physical expressions. From John Boehner we hear rumblings that the nihilistic campaign being waged by the Tea Party isn’t what is right for America, that being elected to govern does not equate with mothballing the government. From as unlikely a source as the President of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, we hear words of conciliation and mutual respect in a call to welcome Iran back into the community of nations as a full fledged partner, and end to, as he refers to it, an age of blood feuds.

Three disparate sources, one overarching theme– reconciliation. It is impossible for people of hope not to be at least momentarily inspired by words such as these coming in a time as divisive as the one we now populate. Our minds, those cynicized organs so conditioned by the events of the past quarter century to ignore hope in favor of a darker coalescence of possibilities, for a moment lighten as we glimpse that flickering ember and wonder if it can be kindled into a generator not necessarily of heat but still of  tactile reality. The possibility can’t be denied, if even out of sheer desire for it to be real.

The reasons to think it is not real are, sadly, easy to enumerate. Francis is at the helm of a vast doctrinal bureaucracy heavily invested in the teachings of the previous Pontiff, Benedict, whose march to undo the moderatel influence on the Church of John Paul II and John XXIII became the hallmark of his pontificate.

Like the legendary grey men of the permanent British Civil Service, those doctrinally orthodox Cardinals, Bishops and functionaries understand that they will outlast the temporary leadership of their nominative leader; Benedict’s labors to restock the Curia and its various functional apparatuses with younger men are rewarded in that way. They know that they must publicly toe the line drawn by their Pope, but will they rush to enact his decrees or let them linger under study, under “timely” implementations and half hearted directives to the pastoral network, playing the waiting game in hopes of a new, older direction from the next Pope?

Francis and “His” Curia

I discussed yesterday with an old friend, a man of faith, character and intellect, whether the Pope’s words were actually aimed at the doctrinal staff or rather lower, at the grassroots network of parish priests and the faithful. Upon reflection I believe my friend to be correct, that Francis is trying to do an end run around his governing structure and enact change from the bottom by seeing his message preached from the myriad pulpits, thus forcing the Bishops into acceptance and then the structure all the way back to those supposedly closest to the Pope’s direct control in Rome. It strikes me as a desperate play by Francis, although not a hopeless one– my main hope in it is that he acknowledges that the system is broken and that he cannot fix the damage by decree, but must invest his power in the organizationally powerless and ask them, through faith and numbers, to right what is wrong with the Church.

Mr. Boehner faces a problem similar in theme if different in mechanics. Boehner finds himself the nominal leader of a Republican caucus not only badly divided but acting in a manner that is nearly unprecedented in the leadership structure history of his party, While the Democrats have always been a somewhat fractious coalition, earlier of Northern liberals and Dixiecrat conservatives and later of Blue Dogs, liberals, moderates, fiscal conservative/social liberals and various and sundry other ideologues practicing vaious and sundry different ideologies, the GOP has been a much more rigid, lockstep caucus. In the years since the Eisenhower Administration, with the slight aberration of the Gingrich speakership, the GOP in Congress has existed under the tight control of their Speakers and Minority Leaders with strong and able whipping by the lower leadership. It has reliably supported their core themes (at least in the way they’ve been somewhat misleadingly packaged)– lower taxes, smaller government, fiscal responsibility measures, the curtailment of the social safety net, opposition to abortion and the extension of civil rights, sometimes with the abetment of the fractious Democrats and sometimes without. The “Hastert Rule”, which stated that no bill be brought to the floor unless it met with the approval of the majority of the Caucus, seemed absolute.

The brashness of that lockstep record emboldened the Boehner/Cantor leadership to overplay their hand at the close of the first decade of the new century, legitimizing and deploying the proverbial war elephant of the Tea Party Republicans as a force they hubristically thought they could control and whose dynamism they never fully understood. War elephants, as I’ve written in the past, are funny things from a historic perspective– massive, intimidating juggernauts that can scare the enemy off of the battlefield, yes, but more often than not they proved to be unreliable forces of nature as apt to trample their own lines into dust as they were to scatter an opposing army. The elephantine presence of the Tea Party electees of 2010 has done precisely that to Mr. Boehner and Mr. Cantor’s leadership in the House and to a slightly lesser extent Mr. McConnell’s leadership in the Senate.

That leads us to the horns of Mr. Boehner’s dilemma this week– a caucus so out of control as to be characterized by its own members as being on a legislative kamikaze mission to hole the hull of our government. Mr Boehner has made a very poor secret of his attempts to rein in the caucus and to get them to focus on governance rather than on the destruction of the same– his sometimes tiresomely bellicose verbiage has moderated to calls for governmental foresight and moderation. Even speaking as someone who shares very little governing philosophy with Mr. Boehner, I respect his desire for moderation and sanity displayed this past week despite the typhoon of immoderation his previous actions have unleashed. I hope that he can somehow restore the genie to the bottle by force of will and backroom deals among the more pragmatic members of his party, but that hope is again, as is the case with Pope Francis’ hope, limited by the empirical evidence before us to the contrary. It is hard to undo a system that is behaving in a manner so optimally that it has subsumed the governors placed to control it.

Last is the letter delivered to the American people and to the world by newly elected Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. In a world set reeling by actions coming from the Middle East since the mid 1960s, what words could be more welcome than those calling for a legitimate peace from one of the nations that have so greatly fostered that reeling instability? Rather than suing for peace, President Rouhani asks for something even more intellectually appealing– and end to the “zero sum game” of lingering Cold War thinking, a new compact founded on a return to (or perhaps, truthfully, a novel) respect for the needs of other nations in the pursuit of the “win-win” scenarios that we all know are possible if the principals would moderate their definition of “wins” away from the absolutism of Berlin or the deck of the USS Missouri. An eminently rational appeal from a nation reputed in the West to be the home of irrationality, a land who sacrificed its children in the 1980s as human minesweepers and who has suckled nascent terrorist movements until they were ready to leave the house and wreak havoc internationally has a seductiveness of the mind almost too tantalizing to ignore.

Is this a deliverable promise–  or even premise– from an Iranian President, however? Is it a simple ruse to take advantage of American war weariness to further complicate our effort to deny Iran nuclear weaponry? Is it a truthful statement of Rouhani’s personal desires but ultimately a meaningless gesture as it is the Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, in whom all power is really vested by his control of the theocratic infrastructure, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and, especially, the nuclear apparatus?

In Rouhani, again we see the problem of a putative ruler who may have no control over his supposed domain– a rump ruler, a ruler in name only. In the cases of Boehner and Francis I, the issue is those whom they supposedly represent and speak for; in the case of Iran, it is those whom exist on a plane above the public face of the ruler. Same problem, different ladders. Can the conciliatory words of Rouhani, even if they are delivered with sincerity in the man’s heart (an open question), really amount to anything when Khameini’s IRGC and its al-Quds terrorist network are openly waging war in Syria in support of the Assad regime? Is it possible that, like Francis, Rouhani is trying to inspire the Iranian people to see a better path and institute change from below, perchance by a reinstitution of the Green Revolution that we saw in 2009-2010, a revolution that the US didn’t materially support despite our clear interest in doing so? Could Rouhani be seeking US support for its resurgence? A possibility.

We live in a world where institutions are breaking down and a trend towards anarchy is emerging, a problem illustrated, I believe, by this week’s hopeful words. The superficially unifying theme behind them is reconciliation, yes, but perhaps another darker unification emerges upon consideration of them as an interlocked whole rather than as discrete conversations– the recognition by our leaders that their leadership is in jeopardy and with it so too are our societal institutions. Are the leaders calling on the led to, in effect, dispose of the middlemen– the power of the institutions that have gone rogue, the power of the Curia and its apparatus, the Tea Party, the Iranian Supreme Leadership– in an effort to save not only themselves but their societies as they are currently defined? If so, what are the ramifications of these grasps at newly ethereal power?

I’m tempted to see these as the penultimate gestures from leadership– a rational, constructive and coalition based approach to restoration of the societal norms we’ve become accustomed to over the past centuries. Should they fail, the tumult of the ultimate gestures to retain power– gestures we’ve seen throughout history’s darkest times– seem to be likely as the leaders of our institutions all retain executive powers that they will surely try to use to maintain their power.

Are our societies so flawed that we should allow them to go through a period of painful redefinition at the hands of middle men, or should we hope for an enlightened leadership emerging from those who were perhaps responsible for those middle men attaining so much power in the first place? We’ve seen “middle men” take power so many times in so many nations in the personage of the ambitious Colonels, but this is a different scenario; this time it’s not a jumped up military officer looking to take power but maintain the institution, it’s a fundamental dismantling of the institution by the “Colonels” that is sought, perhaps not unlike the tumult of the move from Feudalism to Limited Constitutional Monarchy or Imperialism to Mercantile Democracy.

The world contemplates change subconsciously this week in the guise of hopeful words that hide situations redolent of the loss of faith. A flickering light burns, but whether or not to nourish the ember to fire– and what we feed that fire with– is becoming the central question of our time.


Posted in American Politics, Christianity, CongressCritters, Cultural Phenomena, Economy, Foreign Affairs, History, Iran, Middle East, Religion, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

A Franciscan Legacy?

Posted by Bob Kohm on March 14, 2013

In the seemingly endless list of Catholic saints and holy people, there is one who has always stood out to me– St. Francis of Assisi, friend of animals, lover of nature, a wealthy man who gave it all up to live a simple life of poverty and service. He irked the Vatican by rejecting the wealth and worldly power of that day’s Church while he aspired and prayed for the ability to spread the peace that is embodied in God and the life of Jesus. Francis railed against the mystification of our personal relationships with God and wanted the people to know God in their own languages rather than in the closed world of the Latin liturgy, an idea that took nearly seven hundred years to come to fruition. He was, to my jaded and strayed Catholic eyes, one of the very few heroes of the Church that got it. St. Francis was a guy who lived a Christ-like life for the simple fact that he saw in simplicity and service the embodiment of Christ’s message and rejected the complexity and wealth that his message had been twisted to justify by the Church and its clergy.

Today the Church met its new leader, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Pope Francis, the first Pontiff to take the name. Over the years I’ve grown skeptical about

Trying on some mighty fancy duds for a disciple of St. Francis...

Trying on some mighty fancy duds for a disciple of St. Francis…

the Church as I’ve applied the lessons of Jesus taught to me as a boy– love, acceptance, peace, respect– and seen the Church and the other Christian sects abandon them in favor of bigotry and stodgy dogmatism. The fact that finally a man has come along bold enough to take the name of Francis and wear it into the very palaces and gilded halls that represent everything that Francis rejected– well, I’m just not sure how to process that. Hypocrisy? Reform? Megalomania? Courage?

I can see a case for any of those attributes and a heck of a lot of others. Bergoglio is a member of the Society of Jesus, an order that delights in intellect and notoriously doesn’t give much thought or regard to what the rest of the Church thinks. He’s the first of his order to be elected Pope as the Jesuits in general eschew the high offices of the Church and the Church in turn had been delighted to keep an order that it never seems quite able to trust away from the keys to the Popemobile. Why now, when the Church is in the throes of so many problems and scandals, would the de facto ban on Jesuits be lifted by the Curia?

Seemingly a man of firsts, Francis is also our first Latin American Pope. Famously hailing from Argentina albeit by way of an Italian heritage, Francis is seen as a change agent by the simple virtue of not being European. I question whether or not this is simple a case of geographic diversity (in the words of my friend Brian Fleischer) or if it is something greater; is geography destiny or meaningless happenstance in this instance? Does he represent substantive change or has the Curia simply added another of its standard issue?

The writings and public statements of the former Bergoglio don’t give me much cause for hope. His reputation is that of strict conservatism in terms of the social issues that dog today’s Church; he is fervently anti-gay, has spoken out against the expanded role of women in the Church and opposes the lifting of celibacy as a requirement of the priesthood. The unorthodoxy of the Jesuits seems lost on him; he was an early and vocal opponent of liberation theology and as the Jesuit Provincial of Argentina was known as a “man who never smiled”. It is said that he alienated many of his fellow SJs by allegedly collaborating with the military junta during the Dirty War, a claim he denies and which I don’t see sufficient evidence to believe or disbelieve at this point. What I do believe is that a man who can state that allowing loving gay parents to adopt and provide a home to orphans is “a form of discrimination against the child” is a man who has been blinded by his dogma.

His record and people’s opinions of him lead to contradictions. The “man who never smiled” is also known as a warm and humorous man. He supposedly sided with an authoritarian regime that robbed Argentina and its people blind but he is revered as a fervent defender of the poor; from what I have read he most assuredly seems to deserve that reverence. He had a palace and chauffeured limousine in Buenos Aires at his disposal by virtue of being the Archbishop, yet he lived in a small apartment, cooked his own meals and used public transportation– unquestionably displaying Franciscan values. He has managed to ascend to the heights of power in Rome while being renowned for being a guy who stayed at home in Buenos Aires, focusing on his pastoral duties and keeping Argentina’s parishes running, its priests ministering to the people.

It is that last idea, that somehow he has become the chosen of the Curia despite his lack of Roman bona fides at a time when there appear to be deep divisions in the body borne of very secular issues– banking, money laundering and plays for power– that worries me. According to some of my readings today, Francis is not known as a guy to rock the boat in the organizations he’s a part of; match that with the allegations that he might have been too accommodating to the brutal Argentine regime during the Dirty War, his advanced age (76) and that his Papacy will therefore be relatively short and I have to wonder if the Curia didn’t select a man they thought they could control or simply ignore. That’s a tricky calculus, creating a man of power and then thinking that he can be broken to the will of his electors. As Pontiff he would seemingly be a man beyond control, although that appearance has in the past been false. Whether Francis has the strength to effectively defy the Curia may actually be the central question of this Papacy.

All Papacies start with more questions than answers, but I think that the Papacy of Francis is uncommon  in the sheer volume and import of the questions presented at the beginning of this road. The Church itself seems primed for change out of necessity. Is Francis doctrinally suited to changing it? Does he even want to? Is he strong enough to effect any change at all, or can he be controlled by the Curia? Is he a cold technocrat or a warm man of the people? Is he a true disciple of Francis of Assisi? Can he maintain that amidst the silks, gold and artworks of the Vatican?

The empirical evidence– the writings and statements Francis– say that he will be another Pope in the Benedict mode, a stodgy conservative who will continue to press for the doctrinal purity of the religion despite the will of the Catholic people for a more relatable and modern faith. On paper he’s a Pope who represents the false diversity of geography, an orthodox prelate who is simply interested in maintaining the status quo.

There’s something there, though; something that as I think more about who he is makes me wonder if the paper Pope might be something more. The man chose to become the first Pope to ever take the name Francis and he has lived a life that at least in some ways echoes that of Francis. There’s cause for hope there; no, not hope that he’ll end the official bigotry against gays, not too much hope that he’ll reverse the Church’s teachings on contraception that have killed so many in Africa. There is hope, though, that he might be the Pope who starts the ball rolling towards “reform” no longer being something that the Vatican is terrified of.  I wonder if he doesn’t represent the tentative progressivism of the early 1960s in America, a time in which desegregation was germinating as policy even as those who backed it still wouldn’t want to sell their home to “those” people.

Does this Francis echo the Prayer of St. Francis as a channel of peace borne of justice and growth? Is he merely a channel of peace in the style of simply getting along with power? Worse, will he be a cause of strife as the Church continues its rudderless flight into scandal and contradiction? I wish I knew; heck, I wish I knew whether to even hope for something good or to accept that we’re going to have more of the same.

Clarity has never been a tangible benefit of Christianity.

Posted in Christianity, Human Rights, Religion, Social Justice, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Armistice Abrogated and Nuclear Sabers Rattled, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Dennis Rodman

Posted by Bob Kohm on March 9, 2013

I’ve been asked some questions this week about North Korea’s (DPRK) diplomatic and propaganda moves, so I thought I’d resort to the dread long form response rather than trying to cram it into Facebook posts. RunningLocal, time to dust you off.

As background, Dennis Rodman’s visit to the Hermit Kingdom wasn’t really the most significant happening in North Korea over the past ten days despite what Wolf Blitzer and crew might be saying. Earlier this week, North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong Un, started to release a series of highly provocative statements both from his mouth and the mouths of credible proxies in anticipation of and in response to new UN sanctions targeted directly at the leadership class of the DPRK and their ability to maintain their lifestyle and move money around. The sanctions, backed by the DPRK’s sometimes sponsors in Moscow and most importantly Beijing, have to worry Kim beyond his personal comfort; should his top Generals and diplomats feel discomfited for too long without any hope of a restoration of their lifestyle there becomes very little reason for Kim to remain in power– or alive. The rewards of normalization of relations with the Chinese, Russians and Americans would be extraordinarily high for members of a junta who made it happen, a possibility that has never been far from the minds of any of the three members of the Kim ruling dynasty.

Kim Jong-un with his Generals

Kim Jong-un with his Generals

The sanctions have prompted three major avenues of response from the Kim regime. The first and most significant for long term stability on the Korean Peninsula is the renunciation of the 1953 Armistice that suspended the Korean War of 1950-3. My wording here is very deliberate as the Korean War never ended from a diplomatic perspective and indeed is still an active war to this day. No treaty was ever signed; the armistice that was enacted simply indicated that open hostilities were to be suspended. It is under that security regime that the DMZ was established with Panmujom as a communication point between the UN forces, South Korea and North Korea, that US forces acting under the blanket of UN resolutions have provided security in Korea, etc.

With the DPRK now declaring the armistice dead, we have at least rhetorically returned to a state of active and open hostilities between the DPRK and the United Nations and lines of communication between the two belligerents have  been “officially” terminated. The implications for this are largely political– I doubt that even the most hawkish Generals in the ROK military think that the North is going to launch an armored attack across the DMZ (and if they were I suspect that they’d secretly welcome it to an extent). The real implication is that the new sanctions regime has made Kim feel insecure to the extent that he has gone beyond the typical DPRK “We’ll turn the puppet government capital Seoul into a sea of fire and send the Yankee pirates to their watery doom” propaganda and actually made a move that will be very hard to walk back internationally. This is highly atypical for the Kim regime, which in the 60 years since the armistice was signed been masters of provocations and actions that have gone right up to the line (USNS Pueblo, sinking the Cheonan, decades of DMZ pot shots, commando infiltrations, etc) but have always been able to be walked back under the cover of the armistice that the South and the UN wanted to see stay intact.

In that loss of the armistice is the major problem for stability in Northeast Asia and which leads to the second major avenue; there is nothing to indicate that the Kim regime is going to stop those sorts of military provocations, just as there is no indication that the Kim regime understands that by killing the armistice there is now no cover for them in doing so. In fact, there is now every reason to believe that the abandonment of the armistice will directly lead to Kim staging provocations; this week he visited Mudo Island and reviewed its artillery positions, artillery positions which were involved in the infamous 2010 bombardment of Yeonpyong Island. It has also been reported that the DPRK’s navy has sent a large portion of its collection of diesel electric subs out to sea, potentially an indication that Kim will attempt another Cheonan-type incident, in which one of his submarines torpedoed the ROKS Cheonan March of 2010 with the loss of the ship and 46 of her crew.

This is what makes the DPRK regime dangerous– it lacks a fundamental understanding of international affairs and, with the advent of the Kim Jong-un leadership, a new failure to understand where the lines of aggression lie. The events of 2010– the Cheonan and Yeonpyong incidents– were uncharacteristically dangerous moves, which now seem to have been the beginning of Kim Jong-un’s primacy in DPRK affairs. In 2010, Kim Jong-un’s father, Kim Jong-il, was in failing health and was desperately trying to ensure the succession of his third son, Jong-un, to the supreme leadership. As the military is the ultimate arbiter of who holds power in the North, Kim Jong-il had placed control of the military more and more into his son’s hands, ultimately allowing Jong-un to stage the attacks that bookended the year. The ROK, acting under the armistice and the partial security it provided, was slow to react to the Cheonan sinking and the Yeonpyong artillery strikes and its reactions when they did come amounted largely to hot air; the ROK fired some artillery shells from Yeonpyong into the sea despite threats of general war from the DPRK which amounted to a tense night and little else. This lesson was not lost of Kim Jong-un; he had staged the two boldest DPRK operations since the seizure of the USNS Pueblo and was answered only with threats, bluster and American naval deployments that were ultimately there only to respond to further DPRK provocations, not to teach a lesson over the ones carried out. We took an uninformed and sheltered potential leader and informed him that he could push the envelope further than his father did; we now face the twisted but logical result of that lesson in a Kim Jong-un who has made his habit of staging provocations infinitely more dangerous by removing the major factor that allowed him to get away with them. Just last week the ROK government announced that attacks against ROK positions would be responded to with attacks against the DPRK’s leadership. After the embarrassments of 2010 and now with the abandonment of the armisitice, one wonders if Kim Jong-un has any realization that those are not likely empty threats and that Seoul will respond to a serious provocation not with shells aimed at Yellow Sea fish but with smart bombs aimed at command and control bunkers in Pyongyang. The Korean Peninsula is primed for a monumental mistake that could exceed the blowback of Saddam Hussein’s misread of the international situation in 1990 which led to the 21 year arc of war in Iraq, if not in length then in intensity. The escalation ladder is indeed frightening, with provocations as simple as rifle fire across the former DMZ having the potential to result in conflicts involving superpowers, missiles, WMDs and mass civilian casualties.

That escalation ladder brings to play the third avenue of this affair, Kim’s nuclear saber rattling. Earlier this week Kim and his generals made pronouncements that the United States was “lighting the fuse of a nuclear war”, with threats ranging from nuking Washington to nuking Seoul and various other scenarios ranging from the grossly unlikely to the impossible. As background on the potential DPRK nuclear threat, remember that they have attempted three alleged nuclear tests. The first, in 2006, may not have been a nuclear test at all but rather the detonation of a monumental stack of conventional explosives dolled up to look like a nuclear test; apparently the seismic signature from the blast was somewhat odd in comparison to other nuclear tests. The second test was a fizzle, in which the conventional explosives that initiate the atomic blast went off but the chain reaction failed to run away; the third, carried out this year, achieved an atomic blast although it too may have been incomplete as it was smaller than expected or announced. We are thus left to conclude that while the North may have the ability to detonate an atomic bomb (rather than “nuclear”, the difference being the “atomic” fission bombs which hit Japan in 1945 and the “nuclear” fission-fusion-fission hydrogen bombs of subsequent years) under meticulous test conditions and with months of preparation, they almost certainly do not possess the technology to miniaturize a bomb to act as a missile warhead, nor do they have the ability to launch an ICBM that could hit the United States. Those threats are moot. The DPRK might be able to make a bomb small enough and reliable enough to be delivered by aircraft, but again that threat is largely blunted by the fact that the North would have to get one of its ill maintained aircraft piloted by a poorly trained airman past ROK fighters and SAMs and American fighters and SAMs to strike at Seoul. It’s not impossible, but it’s highly unlikely tactically and also politically, as destroying Seoul would negate the value of the supposed “reunification” the North desires. Nuclear threats from the North, therefore, are currently negligible.

Nuclear weapons, however, are not the biggest threat the North possesses. Seoul, by happenstance of perverse geography, lies within range of the artillery & rocket positions maintained by the People’s Liberation Army just north of the former DMZ. These positions, which could literally reduce sections of Seoul to rubble in a day, consist of devilishly hard to destroy emplacements called HARTs (for Hardened ARTillery), literally tunnels cut into mountains with guns placed on train tracks that can be run out, fire, then be run back in behind huge blast doors and thousands of tons of granite before firing again. They are extremely hard to demolish from the air even with precision weaponry, thus posing an existential threat to the economic, cultural, and population heart of the South. Their employment would likely be the trigger to a hasty, limited invasion of the North by the ROK & US 2nd Infantry to silence them as it is unlikely that they could be taken out sufficiently quickly by any other means.


A North Korean Rodong missile on its Transporter/Erector/Launcher.

An additional threat that would lead to rapid and devastating escalation would be the employment by the DPRK of its extensive stockpile of chemical or biological weapons, especially should they be targeted on US forces along the former DMZ, in Japan or Guam. The DPRK’s stockpile of ballistic missiles have the demonstrated ability to reach targets in Japan and Guam and their chemical/biological weapons can be mated to them as warheads. The stated policy of the United States, as set by President George Bush in 1991 and never publicly repudiated, is to answer any attack using WMDs against US forces or US territories “in kind” with American WMDs. Therein lies the problem, as the United States, under both internal policy and treaty obligations, possesses no chemical or biological weaponry, leaving only the deadliest leg of the WMD tripod, nuclear weapons, as our “in kind” response. Should the absolute nightmare scenario happen– a large ballistic missile strike against US positions in Japan delivering WMD payloads and resulting in large numbers of Japanese civilian casualties– ever come to pass, the United States would be under possibly unbearable pressure to respond with nuclear weapons against North Korea. Aside from the moral quandry of whether President Obama would order the incineration of Pyongyang, a city brimming with people literally enslaved by the Kim regime, in response, other problems arise with the use of US nuclear weapons against the DPRK. First, any use of US nuclear weapons would doom Seoul to destruction from the aforementioned artillery barrage. Second, the lack of targets in the DPRK is a huge problem. The most rational target for a US nuclear response would be the DPRK’s nuclear research and production center at Yongbyong, north of Pyongyang. The problem with that target is that it is buried under a mountain; to strike it and be assured of destruction, the US would have to use ground penetrating nuclear weapons, one of the dirtiest targeting strategies from a fallout perspective. We would use a series of large nuclear weapons (550kt range) in hardened penetrator cases to literally blast a path into the mountain for a coup de grace nuke to destroy the facility, blasting into the air literally a mountain of highly irradiated materials before we even added the stockpiled nuclear contents of Yongbyong to the plume. Depending on the vagaries of the wind, that fallout plume would not only destroy life in its North Korean footprint but could reach South Korea, China, the Russian naval & population center at Vladivostok, any part of Japan, and the Philippines in potentially lethal amounts. Unacceptable radiation amounts (think Chernobyl’s impact of Finland, etc) could reach as far as Hawaii and Alaska given the “right” conditions. Other targets– Wonsan, the North’s major port, for instance– would leave the Pyongyang moral dilemma of killing hundreds of thousands of civilians to destroy a strategic target, something that for those of us were children of the Cold War seemed at one time to be “acceptable outcomes” but which now, thank god, seems appalling to consider.

In the end, the tea leaves tell both a murky and frightening story. While I don’t foresee general war on the Korean Penninsula due largely to the North’s inability to project armored power even 40 miles south of the former DMZ without massive mechanical breakdowns and destruction from US & ROK air and land forces, I do see a North Korean regime operating on something other than a reality based perspective and with the capacity to stumble into scenarios with grave global consequences. I am particularly disturbed by the huge amount of internally directed propaganda being put out by the Kim regime, readying its people for war in a way not seen since 1950. I believe that there is a very high probability of major North Korean aggressive actions anytime from now through the next six months, with the higher probability being action in the immediate two weeks. I believe that Kim may be irrational enough to believe that he can directly attack US forces, and I have no doubt that he believes he can attack ROK targets with the prospect of only limited and ineffectual retaliation by the Seoul government– a belief that I view to be similarly deluded. I similarly believe that China views these outcomes as disastrous given their fervent desire to see the United States slacken its military commitments to the Pacific Rim and thus facilitate their ambitions to seize the Spratlys, Paracells, and other island groups in the area that they are currently locked in semi-military disputes over with japan, the Philippines, Viet Nam and others. A Chinese backed coup terminating the Kim Dynasty is a foreseeable and very possible outcome, again coming sooner rather than later; Kim Jong-un should understand this given China’s backing of the sanctions resolutions in the UNSC this week. While that should give him pause, it may also drive him to act more quickly and more severely.

In any circumstance, it is inevitable that the United States military forces are on a heightened state of readiness and alert along the entire Pacific Arc. There is little doubt that an modified-Ohio SSGN is on station near the Peninsula, that the 2nd Infantry along the former DMZ is being readied for both offensive and offensive action, that the USAF’s strategic assets are again briefing for B-1 & B-2 missions against Pyongyang and other targets in the North and that the Marine preposition ships are being readied to deploy from Guam to mate up with USMC personnel flown into Korea. There is also little doubt that US Navy anti-ballistic missile ships are being reinforced in waters between Korea & Japan to shoot down missile strikes and that we will shortly hear of an additional Carrier Strike Group heading towards the Western Pacific. With the Chinese Navy staging unrelated provocations throughout the South China Sea, with Japan on edge as a result of those Chinese moves and the threats from North Korea and the Russians just being their lovely, unpredictable Russian selves out of Vladivostok, any increase in tensions and deployments holds organic dangers wholly separated from Pyongyang’s manipulations.

Spring 2013 is destined to be an interesting time.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

And So It Begins

Posted by Bob Kohm on December 19, 2010

Hold tight– several Korean sources and even CNN (hey, welcome to the party, American MSM!) are now reporting that residents of Yeonpyeong and several nearby islands have been ordered to take shelter immediately, signalling that firing will begin within the hour. Initial reports say that during a pre-exercise drill by the RoK forces a North Korean battery opened up and fired 30 rounds of artillery into the waters near Yeonpyeong.

As I said on Facebook the other day… if you pray for peace, now would be an outstanding time to do so.

Posted in China, Foreign Affairs, Korea, Nuclear Weapons, Uncategorized, Warfare | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

North Korean Deploys Additional Firepower to Disputed Zone

Posted by Bob Kohm on December 19, 2010

Chosun Ilbo is reporting tonight that the North Koreans have moved 240mm and 120mm Multiple Launch Rocket units to the West Coast just north of Yeonpyeong Island, have opened the camouflaged doors of several coastal artillery HARTs and have moved up SAMs and MiG-23 interceptors to forward bases in addition to moving Silkworm anti-ship missiles to firing positions on the coast.+

The possible good news is that these moves, which the North knows are visible to satellite reconnaissance, are all directed towards Yeonpyeong Island and not Seoul or other RoK targets. This may signal that the North is planning to limit its retaliatory action to destroying Yeonpyeong. That may seem an odd signal– hey, we’re going to blow the shit out of a hunk of your territory but only that one piece– but it may well be intended to forestall a more intense escalation ladder. Whether or not that will matter to the RoK is an open question tonight.

The same outlet is now reporting that the South Koreans have deployed six US made M270 MLRS units to Yeonpyeong along with another battery of K-9 howitzers to return fire if it comes. The M270 is the MLRS that you may be familiar with from the Gulf War– the tracjed vehicle with the boxy launcher on back that swivels. I’m trying to find out if we’ve sold the South any of the more advanced guided rockets, if they have the sub-munition variants (think “cluster bombs”) or if they have the single HE warhead unguided rockets.

UPDATE: The South does indeed possess ATACAMS guided missiles for the M270s with a range of over 100 miles and a variety of warheads.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

The Spy Who Sagged Me

Posted by Bob Kohm on July 7, 2009

Just in case you think we Americans are the only ones who get themselves tangled in meaningless scandals and news stories that bear no resemblance to news, the Brits have really gotten themselves twisted over a pair of saggy Speedos.

It seems that the head of MI6, Sir John Sawers (that’s “M” to you, Bond fans…) wears Speedos while, like oh so many Euros, he clearly shouldn’t. The issue has slouched into the public consciousness by means of Facebook; it seems that Sir John’s wife has breached his, uhm, operational security by publishing a photo of her hubby in his full glory on her Facebook page, which was promptly found by everyone from the Murdoch papers to the BBC to… and here’s the earth shattering problem… the TERRORISTS!!!

It seems that some in the UK are quite concerned that the nefarious folks who wish to see the sun set ont he British Empire now have some advantage over Her Majesty’s stalwart spymaster because they’ve seen him hanging gut over his Speedos. The tight shot (…oh, how lamentably tight…), as you can see, shows Sir John, some sand, some rocks, and a few other people’s (better defined) legs. Apparently, according to The Mail, this blows Sir John’s cover… or at least exposes his need for a cover-up.

Of course, Sir John was publicly announced as the head of MI6, his home address is well known, and while most would’ve presumed he wore full swim trunks I’m not sure that his penchant for Speedos portends the official translation of “God Save the Queen” to Arabic.

Rule, Brittania.

Posted in Cultural Phenomena, Intelligence (and lack thereof), Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Quote of the Day, February 12 2009

Posted by Bob Kohm on February 12, 2009

“Sorry you couldn’t be with us tonight”– David Letterman to Joaquin Phoenix at the conclusion of the most brutal interview in Late Night history.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

An Overlooked Great Cuisine

Posted by Bob Kohm on February 10, 2009

When we as Americans think of the world’s great national cuisines we are automatically drawn to the “classics”– French and Italian, with a  broader second tier that might include Japanese, New American, Spanish, Chinese, German and Indian. All have their culinary wonders, to be sure, but we tend to fall back on them to the exclusion of some of the world’s other great cuisines, rooted in antiquity but advanced by modern technique.

One of my favorite overlooked cuisines in Lebanese. A subtle blend of Middle Eastern flavors meshed with Mediterranean and North African influence, Lebanese mirrors and places its own mark on foods both east and west, appropriate for the food of the residents of ancient Phoenicia.  A trading people who at the very least roamed the Med and the West Coast of Africa and who may have even made it to the East Coast of North America and around the Horn of Africa to East Asia, the Phoenicians introduced the Hellenic and Roman worlds to spices and foodstuffs from around the ancient world.

Reminiscent of its Phoenician roots, modern Lebanese cuisine takes from cultures all around the Mediterranean rim and adds in flavors and spices from the deserts to the east. Like most of the Med cuisines, they look heavily to the sea and make extensive use anchovy, sardines, octopus and squid.  The warm flavors of lemon, garlic and olive and the coolness of mint are hallmarks of the dishes.

Like truly great Italian cooking, it does not rely on the intricate techniques of haute French or the precision of New Spanish; instead Lebanese food is all about the interplay of fragrant spice and fresh ingredients, cooked in the peasant methods of stewing or grilling and eaten with usually with pita. While not showing the sophisticaton of technique that produces layers of flavor in French cooking, Lebanese cuisine presents flavors every bit as intricate achieved through imaginative combinations of ingredients.

Lebanon follows the pattern of many warmer Mediterranean cuisines by offering a vast array of small plates, called mezze. Analogous to Spanish tapas, a group would generally order two or three hot or cold mezze per person, usually including a hommus or a tabouleh salad as one, and maybe an order of kebobs for the table.

Amongst the homey mezze you’d see on any Lebanese menu are the above mentioned hommus and tabouleh, of course, as well as the salad fattouch (chopped tomatoes, onion, cucumber, radish, pepper, parsley & mint with olive oil and lemon juice), soujok (beef & lamb sausage, mildly spicy), and shawarma, either beef or chicken marinated in lemon, garlic and aromatic spices and then roaster or grilled. Falafel (chickpea fritters) and fried kibbe (beef or chicken dumplings) are omnipresent; if you want to try something more adventurous, go with the kibbe nayeh, which is a Lebanese version of steak tartare– raw ground beef mixed with burghul (bulgar) wheat, mint and onion. I know– sounds awful to the American palate, but trust me, it’s incredible once you get past your aversion to eating raw meat.

I’m proud to be friends with Rabih abi-Ahd, who owns one of the finest Lebanese restaurants in America– Me Jana, in Arlington, VA. We dined at Me Jana again on Saturday with friends, and I couldn’t recommend it more if you live in DC or travel here for business or sightseeing. Rabih’s place serves the kind of ethnic cuisine that foodies go searching for and most often find in a no-ambiance Mom’n’Pop joint that has incredible food and formica tables; luckily Me Jana tampers with that mold by serving the same incredibly good food in a pleasantly sophisticated dining room that works for a dinner with clients or a nice date night but that isn’t a stranger to big groups ordering tons of mezze and drinking too many Lebanese beers. If you come, go for the sea scallops in saffron lemon yogurt. Just trust me.

If you don’t live in DC, find a Lebanese restaurant in your city and give it a go, especially if you’ve never tried the cuisine before. Before long you’ll be addicted to zataar and sumac, craving good hommus rather than the stuff fromt he fridge section in your supermarket and you’ll be thinking kafta rather than hamburger next time you pick up a package of ground meat. It’s that good.

Posted in Cooking, Restaurants, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Today’s Quote

Posted by Bob Kohm on February 9, 2009

“I sometimes wonder if the manufacturers of foolproof items keep a fool or two on their payroll to test things.”
—Alan Coren

Talk about a jobs program. Someone call Harry Reid and get this added to the stim package immediately.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

So, Any Other Giant Fans Nervous?

Posted by Bob Kohm on January 11, 2009

Carolina should have rolled over Arizona last night. The Titans should have handled offensively anemic Baltimore, Joe Flaccid be damned. The Giants should pound Philadelphia.


Everything on paper says that this is the Giants’ game. Our offense is better as is our defense. David Akers, putting together a Hall of Fame career for the Eagles, is absolutely horrible at Giants Stadium– his FG% is actually below 50% at the Meadowlands, and it gets even more nightmarish with distance– he only hits about 33% from 35 yards and beyond in Jersey. Whether it’s the swirling winds or the pressure of playing up the Turnpike in a rivalry game, Akers has some kind of a performance block at the Stadium.

The gameday forecast calls for 15 mph winds in East Rutherford which means a virtual tornado within the confines of the Stadium. Akers should be screwed.

So why am I having nightmares about Akers lining up for a 47 yard FG with one second left on the clock and the Giants ahead by two?

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

%d bloggers like this: