Why Is Kim Jong Un Our Problem

By Pat Buchanan

USA WAR Heavy Tank Sunset
Why Is Kim Jong Un Our Problem
Pat Buchanan
Patrick J .Buchanan

USA –  -(Ammoland.com)- “If China is not going to solve North Korea, we will.”

So President Donald Trump warns, amid reports North Korea, in its zeal to build an intercontinental ballistic missile to hit our West Coast, may test another atom bomb.

China shares a border with North Korea. We do not.

Why then is this our problem to “solve“? And why is North Korea building a rocket that can cross the Pacific and strike Seattle or Los Angeles?

Is Kim Jong Un mad?

No. He is targeting us because we have 28,500 troops on his border. If U.S. air, naval, missile and ground forces were not in and around Korea, and if we were not treaty-bound to fight alongside South Korea, there would be no reason for Kim to build rockets to threaten a distant superpower that could reduce his hermit kingdom to ashes.

While immensely beneficial to Seoul, is this U.S. guarantee to fight Korean War II, 64 years after the first [war] wise? Russia, China and Japan retain the freedom to decide whether and how to react, should war break out. Why do we not?

Would it not be better for us if we, too, retained full freedom of action to decide how to respond, should the North attack?

During the August 2008 war between Russia and Georgia, despite John McCain's channeling Patrick Henry — “We are all Georgians now!” — George W. Bush decided to take a pass on war. When a mob in Kiev overthrew the pro-Russian government, Vladimir Putin secured his Sebastopol naval base by annexing Crimea.

Had Georgia and Ukraine been in NATO, we would have been, in both cases, eyeball to eyeball with a nuclear-armed Russia.

Which brings us to the point:

The United States is in rising danger of being dragged into wars in half a dozen places, because we have committed ourselves to fight for scores of nations with little or no link to vital U.S. interests.

While our first president said in his Farewell Address that we might “trust to temporary alliances” in extraordinary emergencies, he added, “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.”

uncle sam gets tough
We should be dissolving all treaty commitments that require us to go to war as soon as the shooting starts.

Alliances, Washington believed, were transmission belts of war. Yet no nation in history has handed out so many war guarantees to so many “allies” on so many continents, as has the United States.

To honor commitments to the Baltic States, we have moved U.S. troops to the Russian border. To prevent China from annexing disputed rocks and reefs in the South and East China Seas, our Navy is prepared to go to war — to back the territorial claims of Tokyo and Manila.

Yet, our richest allies all spend less on defense than we, and all run trade surpluses at America's expense.

Consider Germany. Last year, Berlin ran a $270 billion trade surplus and spent 1.2 percent of GDP on defense. The United States ran a $700 billion merchandise trade deficit and spent 3.6 percent of GDP on defense.

Angela Merkel puts Germany first. Let the Americans finance our defense, face down the Russians, and fight faraway wars, she is saying; Germany will capture the world's markets, and America's as well.

Japan and South Korea are of like mind. Neither spends nearly as much of GDP on defense as the USA. Yet, we defend both, and both run endless trade surpluses at our expense.

President Trump may hector and threaten our allies that we will not forever put up with this. But we will, because America's elites live for the great game of global empire.

What would a true “America First” foreign policy look like?

It would restore to the United States the freedom it enjoyed for the 150 years before NATO, to decide when, where and whether we go to war. U.S. allies would be put on notice that, while we are not walking away from the world, we are dissolving all treaty commitments that require us to go to war as soon as the shooting starts.

This would concentrate the minds of our allies wonderfully. We could cease badgering them about paying more for their defense. They could decide for themselves — and live with their decisions.

In the Carter era, we dissolved our defense pact with Taiwan. Taiwan has survived and done wonderfully well. If Germany, Japan and South Korea are no longer assured we will go to war on their behalf, all three would take a long hard look at their defenses. The result would likely be a strengthening of those defenses.

But if we do not begin to rescind these war guarantees we have handed out since the 1940s, the odds are high that one of them will one day drag us into a great war, after which, if we survive, all these alliances will be dissolved in disillusionment.

What John Foster Dulles called for, over half a century ago, an “agonizing reappraisal” of America's alliances, is long, long overdue.


Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.

  • 20 thoughts on “Why Is Kim Jong Un Our Problem

    1. @Pat, Truman and Stalin were not the only ones involved. All the allied countries had a say in cleaning up the Axis mess. Not evil, just unemotional politics.

      1. Bill,
        Just unemotional politics?? Tell that to the 10’s of millions of innocent people who ended up as Soviet slaves some of which still suffer needlessly in North Korea. At the end of WWII the Soviets weren’t strong enough either economically or militarily to be demanding anything of anyone. I still would love to know WHY we felt the need to turn half the world over to the Communists.

    2. N. Korea IS our problem. Mainly because WE are responsible for it’s existence. How? At the end of WWII after we defeated and kicked Japan out of Korea, President Truman cut an evil deal with Joseph Stalin to divide the world. This deal gave the Soviet Union eastern Europe and on the Korean peninsula, everything north of the 38th parallel. The Soviets then installed the first Kim. Had Truman not been so quick to capitulate to Soviet demands there would be no N. Korea today.. So, it IS our problem.

    3. Buchanan spews a load of total asinine idiocy and moronic stupidity.
      When the NK attacked the South many years ago it was doe to nothing more than Communist greed.
      We are technically STILL at war with the NK, the “TRUCE” (Note: NOT A PEACE TREATY) was for only 10 (TEN) years and expired in 1964. YOU DO NOT leave a friend exposed to a thief, thug, slug and maniac no matter how fat a pig he looks like.
      US ARMY, 1966-1969
      Korea, 1967 -1968

    4. Ironic that the fat little commie TOAD wants to hit the commie modeled state of Kalifornia in the U.S. The liberal loving, Dem packed, anti gun, pro commie morons out there will have their welcome signs out for the nuke carrying rockets. Bye Hollywood !

      1. @Rock, If I were Pres, and the fat little commie TOAD nuked San Francisco, the port of L.A., and Long Beach, I would not go to war over it. San Diego, I’d have to think about. If Iran nuked N.Y., Boston, Philadelphia, and (or) Maryland,I would not go to war over it. Falls Church, I’d have to think about

        1. @Wild Bill : Yes sir, was thinking along those lines you expressed it more succinctly. (Blessing in disguise) Hate to wish ill on anyone. However incase of gangrene amputation becomes necessary .

    5. North Korea has a population of about 25,000,000 and a gross domestic product equivalent to about 25 billion dollars. (Though, given the state of NK, this last number is fuzzy.)

      South Korea’s population is over twice as large – around 51,000,000 – and their gross domestic product is in the neighborhood of 1.4 trillion, over 50 times the size of the NK economy.

      WHY does such a relative population and economic giant need protection from their small and backward nutty neighbor, unless they’re simply freeloading off Uncle Sam?

      1. Hank, ones first evaluation of the “policy” and subsequent conclusion would be just that, a “free loading” country of little significance just talking advantage of the generosity of the mighty USA. Probably not as “simple” as a “first look” would seem. May I suggest that it’s another example of the “globalization”, by the elitist, to “spread the wealth”, usually our wealth as we plunge deeper in debt, in their efforts to accommodate a world order agenda. How could any compassionate country not do everything to “protect” the lesser advantaged populations, has always been their argument. Like You, I ain’t buying what their selling anymore. And I hope the President doesn’t either!

      2. @Hank, ROK has little armor. NK has lots of Russian tanks (but not first line tanks, currently). S. Korea needs us for our armor in case of another invasion by the NKs. We need the ROK army for its infantry (and other combined arms) as a stop against China. That way, a lot of American kids don’t have to be in our military (currently).
        The Chinese are planning an expansion in the South China Sea. If that comes to war, we will need the Tiwanese, the Japanese, and the S Koreans. The Chinese will surely send the N Koreans south to drag us into a land war and to keep us thin. Otherwise it will be all Navy and Air where the Chinese have a slight disadvantage.

        1. @Wild Bill, In just a few word, you gave an excellent description of the problem, along with an excellent description of the entire picture. No targets or tactics given away.

        2. WildBill, WHY doesn’t ROK have the armor that NK has? They have an economy over 50 times bigger than NK, so they can afford it. They have over twice the population of NK (and healthier at that) so they could man those tanks. They CHOOSE not to. Why? Uncle Sugar.

          It’s the same thing with NATO. Out of – what, 28? – member states, 23 are not spending what NATO states are supposed to spend on defense; that’s 2% of gross domestic product. US, Britain, Estonia, Poland, and Greece are pulling their military weight in this regard. The others – including cash-rich Germany – are not.

          This has to change.

          1. Hank, Armor is expensive. The communists give it to NK for free. The ROK can not keep up with that. Really good Armor is really expensive to design and manufacture and it is even more expensive to buy the best from the British, Germans, and America. ROKs economy really can not support Naval ships, fighter planes, and first line armor.
            I understand that Germany is spending so much on bringing in culture changing Moslems, that they just can not find the cash to pull their NATO weight.

    6. Again , a conservative voice of rational reasoning , and Pat Buchanan has ,in my opinion ,always been a leader in thought and suggestions, has intelligently made recommendations to “strengthen” the United States with ,as eluded to, long over due policy revisions. President Trump has expressed, perhaps not as diplomatically, similar “adjustments” in America’s foreign policy in his effort to honor the pledge and promise made to the electorate to “make America great again”. The dissolution of all of this country’s, so called, “alliances” with members of organizations that may or may not have America’s best interest in mind would be a prudent action in that difficult endeavor.

    7. @Pete, Don’t be fooled by the NK propaganda. NK was a client state of China in 1951, and still is. Everything that NK does it does at the direction of China.

    8. The Person writing this needs to go into the Army and serve a tour of Service in Korea! He also should read a Little History! Both of these would Help Him Get His HEAD OUT OF HIS ASS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    9. I have trouble deciding whether NK is building missiles and nuclear weapons because the US has troops on its borders or we have troops on its borders because it’s building missiles and nuclear weapons to hit us. We did not start the Korean War and have taken no action suggestive of starting another one. Like most dictators, Kim is using foreign threats to justify his continued control of his country. It is also undeniable that our “allies” don’t do enough for themselves when it comes to defense.

    Leave a Comment 20 Comments