Let's iterate at the beginning of this essay that I don't want its headline to be true, I pray to God that it won't happen, and hopefully it's just the kind of diplorrhea that makes you grind your teeth but doesn't ultimately go anywhere. That has been the status quo with the Norks going back a quarter-century to Bill Clinton's dealings with Kim's father. It's why I see no point in even considering yet another round of the same fruitless negotiations in which Pyongyang makes promises about their nukes they never keep and we lavish them with aid that keeps them and their nuclear program going a while longer. We know why they wanted nukes - to avert "regime change" - and that's a goal they'll never, indeed cannot afford, to relinquish, especially now that they have them. Just as we know why they keep playing this flirting game - to exploit the insatiably naive hopes of one White House after another that one more round of talks will produce the "breakthrough" that will get someone <*ahem*> into Nobel Peace Prize consideration in order to shake us down yet again before the next double-cross gins up the next round of overt hostility and posturing. As the old saying goes, "This is where I came in," and I'm not at all interested in another rerun.
But to read newly confirmed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's overly effusive words about Dear Leader, one gets the impression that there's more motivating them than just going through the "diplomacy for diplomacy's sake" motions:
The United States aspires to have North Korea as a "close partner" and not an enemy, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Friday, noting that the U.S. has often in history become good friends with former adversaries.
Pompeo said he had told North Korean leader Kim Jong Un of that hope during his brief visit to Pyongyang earlier this week, during which he finalized details of the upcoming June 12th summit between Kim and President Donald Trump and secured the release of three Americans imprisoned in the country.
He said his talks with Kim on Wednesday had been "warm," ''constructive," and "good" and that he made clear that if North Korea gets rid of its nuclear weapons in a permanent and verifiable way, the U.S. is willing to help the impoverished nation boost its economy and living stands to levels like those in prosperous South Korea.
First of all, why on Earth would we want an unrepentant communist despotism that rattles its nuclear sabers at the slightest opportunity and whose word can be trusted as far as Kim Jong-Un could be German suplexed as our "close partner"? That is scarcely less than an insane thing to say. It's ludicrous. It's nonsensical. It sounds like the kind of thing that....Barack Obama and his Ameriphobic/Islamophilic minions used to and still do to this day say about Iran's mullahs. "Partners for peace," "Sure we can trust them," "If we don't make this 'deal', the only alternative is war," etc. It's the kind of myopic lunacy that arises when one wants a piece of paper to wave around so badly, too badly, that common sense and actual national interests get tossed aside, sacrificed, in pursuit of the tantalizing photo op (and Nobel). The inevitable result is a really, really bad "deal" that weakens our strategic position and strengthens our foe. Didn't we just belatedly back out of a "deal" like that?
Second, yes, the U.S. has often in history become good friends with former adversaries. But only after we changed those former adversaries' regimes - hence the "former" - and we were only able to do that after we crushed those former regimes in war. We fought and defeated the Nazis in Germany, the militarists in Japan, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and only then were we able to rehabilitate those countries - nation-build, in essence - into "good friends" and close, prosperous allies (Iraq being a quasi exception because the Obama Regime essentially surrendered it to the Iranians). If at those respective times any White House had tried to seriously suggest that the U.S. aspired to have Adolph Hitler and/or Hideki Tojo or Saddam Hussein as "close partners," the public would have thought they had a collective screw loose. Yet that is precisely what Donald Trump's top diplomat said vis-a-vie Kim.
The reason why North Korea is an "impoverished nation" is because it is run by a communist fiefdom. The only way to "boost its economy and living standards to levels like those in prosperous South Korea" is by overthrowing and destroying that communist fiefdom and reunifying the Korean Peninsula under South Korea's rule, just as East Germany was only delivered from the same fate by the fall of the Iron Curtain and West Germany absorbing it. Now if that is the Trump Regime's true, ultimate objective, then I wholeheartedly support it, even as I would question whether we were willing to do what it would take to bring it about. But Kim knows this as well, and that is precisely why he has been hell-bent on obtaining a nuclear arsenal, and why he will never voluntarily give it up. I'd love to believe that the Trump Regime understands that as well. But Pompeo's words don't indicate that.
He did mention that there would need to be "complete" and "verifiable" denuclearization that would remove North Korea as a strategic threat, and that a massive inspection and monitoring regime would be required to ensure the North's compliance. But seeing as how that would amount to accepting the end of his regime, it ought to be obvious that Kim's acquiescence to any of this is inconceivable. And when he refuses those demands, how will the Trump Regime react? Will they uphold national strategic interests and our allies and walk away from the table or will they keep making concessions in the vain pursuit of a piece of paper, a signing photo op, and a(nother) unearned Nobel Peace Prize for another narcissistic White House occupant, producing another disastrous "deal"?
I want to believe the former. I really, really do. But as with so many other instances regarding the 45th president, I'm reaching the point of only believing it when I actually see it.