SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
South Korean protesters took part in an anti-Trump rally in front of the U.S. embassy on November 7, 2017 in Seoul, South Korea. Trump visited in South Korea for two days during his Asian tour. (Photo: Woohae Cho/Getty Images)
Pentagon Reportedly Not Giving Trump Military Options on North Korea
The White House is still weighing plans for "preemptive" attack on North despite warnings it would "trigger an all-out war"
Feb 02, 2018
The Pentagon is afraid to give President Donald Trump "too many" options for a preemptive military strike on North Korea because officials believe he might act on one of them.
"Given the staggering costs of a U.S.-led conflict on the Korean Peninsula...the Trump administration's use of preventive force would be a suicidal reaction to uncertainty."
--Mira Rapp-Hooper, Yale
That's according to an article published Friday by the New York Times, which quotes anonymous administration officials as saying the Pentagon "is worried that the White House is moving too hastily toward military action on the Korean Peninsula that could escalate catastrophically."
"Giving the president too many options, the officials said, could increase the odds that he will act," the Times reports.
The Pentagon--not exactly known for hesitating when it comes to drawing up plans for aggressive military action--denied that it has "slow-walked options" to Trump.
Reported tensions between the White House and the Pentagon went public earlier this week after it was revealed that Trump tabled the nomination of Victor Cha--who was chosen to be the U.S. ambassador to South Korea--because he privately disagreed with the president's aggressive posture toward North Korea.
Cha elaborated on his disagreements with Trump--who has threatened Pyongyang with "fire and fury"--in an op-ed for the Washington Post on Tuesday, arguing that "the answer is not, as some Trump administration officials have suggested, a preventive military strike" on North Korea.
According to the Times, White House officials--and in particular the National Security Council, led by Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster--are nonetheless still "considering the feasibility of a preventive strike that could include disabling a missile on the launchpad or destroying North Korea's entire nuclear infrastructure."
Echoing concerns expressed by Cha and other Korea experts, analysts have repeatedly warned that such a "targeted" attack, sometimes called a "bloody nose" strike, would "trigger an all-out war" on the Korean Peninsula.
"Given the staggering costs of a U.S.-led conflict on the Korean Peninsula...the Trump administration's use of preventive force would be a suicidal reaction to uncertainty," Mira Rapp-Hooper, senior fellow in the Paul Tsai China Center at Yale Law School, wrote for The Atlantic on Wednesday. "This would not be a case of choosing the least bad option...but of opting knowingly for cataclysm."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
The Pentagon is afraid to give President Donald Trump "too many" options for a preemptive military strike on North Korea because officials believe he might act on one of them.
"Given the staggering costs of a U.S.-led conflict on the Korean Peninsula...the Trump administration's use of preventive force would be a suicidal reaction to uncertainty."
--Mira Rapp-Hooper, Yale
That's according to an article published Friday by the New York Times, which quotes anonymous administration officials as saying the Pentagon "is worried that the White House is moving too hastily toward military action on the Korean Peninsula that could escalate catastrophically."
"Giving the president too many options, the officials said, could increase the odds that he will act," the Times reports.
The Pentagon--not exactly known for hesitating when it comes to drawing up plans for aggressive military action--denied that it has "slow-walked options" to Trump.
Reported tensions between the White House and the Pentagon went public earlier this week after it was revealed that Trump tabled the nomination of Victor Cha--who was chosen to be the U.S. ambassador to South Korea--because he privately disagreed with the president's aggressive posture toward North Korea.
Cha elaborated on his disagreements with Trump--who has threatened Pyongyang with "fire and fury"--in an op-ed for the Washington Post on Tuesday, arguing that "the answer is not, as some Trump administration officials have suggested, a preventive military strike" on North Korea.
According to the Times, White House officials--and in particular the National Security Council, led by Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster--are nonetheless still "considering the feasibility of a preventive strike that could include disabling a missile on the launchpad or destroying North Korea's entire nuclear infrastructure."
Echoing concerns expressed by Cha and other Korea experts, analysts have repeatedly warned that such a "targeted" attack, sometimes called a "bloody nose" strike, would "trigger an all-out war" on the Korean Peninsula.
"Given the staggering costs of a U.S.-led conflict on the Korean Peninsula...the Trump administration's use of preventive force would be a suicidal reaction to uncertainty," Mira Rapp-Hooper, senior fellow in the Paul Tsai China Center at Yale Law School, wrote for The Atlantic on Wednesday. "This would not be a case of choosing the least bad option...but of opting knowingly for cataclysm."
The Pentagon is afraid to give President Donald Trump "too many" options for a preemptive military strike on North Korea because officials believe he might act on one of them.
"Given the staggering costs of a U.S.-led conflict on the Korean Peninsula...the Trump administration's use of preventive force would be a suicidal reaction to uncertainty."
--Mira Rapp-Hooper, Yale
That's according to an article published Friday by the New York Times, which quotes anonymous administration officials as saying the Pentagon "is worried that the White House is moving too hastily toward military action on the Korean Peninsula that could escalate catastrophically."
"Giving the president too many options, the officials said, could increase the odds that he will act," the Times reports.
The Pentagon--not exactly known for hesitating when it comes to drawing up plans for aggressive military action--denied that it has "slow-walked options" to Trump.
Reported tensions between the White House and the Pentagon went public earlier this week after it was revealed that Trump tabled the nomination of Victor Cha--who was chosen to be the U.S. ambassador to South Korea--because he privately disagreed with the president's aggressive posture toward North Korea.
Cha elaborated on his disagreements with Trump--who has threatened Pyongyang with "fire and fury"--in an op-ed for the Washington Post on Tuesday, arguing that "the answer is not, as some Trump administration officials have suggested, a preventive military strike" on North Korea.
According to the Times, White House officials--and in particular the National Security Council, led by Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster--are nonetheless still "considering the feasibility of a preventive strike that could include disabling a missile on the launchpad or destroying North Korea's entire nuclear infrastructure."
Echoing concerns expressed by Cha and other Korea experts, analysts have repeatedly warned that such a "targeted" attack, sometimes called a "bloody nose" strike, would "trigger an all-out war" on the Korean Peninsula.
"Given the staggering costs of a U.S.-led conflict on the Korean Peninsula...the Trump administration's use of preventive force would be a suicidal reaction to uncertainty," Mira Rapp-Hooper, senior fellow in the Paul Tsai China Center at Yale Law School, wrote for The Atlantic on Wednesday. "This would not be a case of choosing the least bad option...but of opting knowingly for cataclysm."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.