Where I Stand — Mike O’Callaghan: Trouble from the North

Tuesday, Jan. 7, 2003 | 9:06 a.m.

WHERE IS OUR LATEST CONFRONTATION with North Korea going to take us and the rest of the world? I don't pretend to have the answer and it's possible our president and his advisers don't have an answer.

Although White House rhetoric has simmered down a bit in recent weeks, there is little doubt that President George W. Bush despises North Korea's leader Kim Jong Il. The recent bold defiance of Kim's removal of all outside control of his nuclear weapons program certainly hasn't made him more dear to our president.

Author Bob Woodward, in his recently published book "Bush At War," recorded Bush's gut reaction to Kim. Woodward wrote:

"The president sat forward in his chair. I thought he might jump up he became so emotional as he spoke about the North Korean leader.

" 'I loathe Kim Jong Il!' Bush shouted, waving his finger in the air. 'I've got a visceral reaction to this guy, because he is starving his people. And I have seen intelligence of these prison camps -- they're huge -- that he uses to break up families, and to torture people. I am appalled at the ...'

"I asked if he had seen the overhead satellite photography of the prison camps provided by the U.S. intelligence agencies?

" 'Yes, it appalls me.' He wondered how the civilized world could stand by and coddle the North Korean president as he starves his people. 'It is visceral. Maybe it's my religion, maybe it's my -- but I feel passionate about this.' He said he also realized that the North Koreans had massive military might poised to overrun the U.S. ally South Korea."

Most Americans find it easy to understand the feelings of their president. Time and again Kim and his late father, Kim Il-sung, have stuck their fingers in the eyes of America and world leaders. In addition to defying nuclear restrictions, North Korea continues to supply modern weapons of war to any nation willing to pay. The latest shipment of battlefield-range missiles to Yemen reminds us of past violations. Remember it was in 1992 that a North Korean ship loaded with Scud-C missiles evaded our Navy to make a delivery to Iran.

We know that North Korea has been a renegade nation for more than 50 years and appears to have no intention of changing. That lesson was learned in 1950 when it invaded South Korea.

So what's the solution? Some Americans are getting tired of South Koreans demonstrating for North Korea and against the 37,000 American troops in their country. One military veteran simply believes we should bring our troops home and let the Koreans solve their own problems. Another told me we should bomb their nuclear plant out of existence as the Israelis did to the plant in Iraq. Both of these are gut reactions, but in the long run many not be practical in today's world of modern weaponry.

Our president is the person who must make the final decision on how this problem will be handled. He must, by now, realize that Kim has been in his cage too long and will not react as would a person with good mental health. Any leader willing to let his people, other than the military, starve is capable of incinerating Seoul and several other South Korean cities. Taking out his missiles hidden in the rugged mountains before they can be fired southward is an impossible task. If Kim pulls the trigger, it will be too late for the South Korean anti-American demonstrators to even say "oops."

Our country and the world face a very complex situation in North Korea. Can we afford to let it ferment for more months and years? Is it too late to stop the tough talk and use diplomatic language? What role is China willing to play in this confrontation? Is China using North Korea as a cat's paw when planning to invade Taiwan? Can we get Russia to use its influence on North Korea? These are all relevant questions that can only be answered by people with several sources of military and economic intelligence. Nevertheless, what is now happening affects all of us and we had better hope the tactics used by the White House are effective.