George w. casey jr. - Federation of American Scientists

y Robert J. Leach
In the U.S., intelligence analysis enables policy
makers to make informed decisions that reverberate
globally. This article explores two major challenges
facing analysts over the next twelve months that
will influence U.S. policy for many years to come.
The first challenge is the question of what North
Korea will do given its self-declared nuclear capability.
The second question revolves around Iran’s
nuclear capability.
North Korea has declared its nuclear capability.
The intentions of the declaration remain a mystery to
most analysts and government organizations alike.
North Korea, arguably the most reclusive nation in
the world, remains in the headlines of news organizations
around the world. Even China, its greatest
ally, seems to be at a loss on the recent escalation
of nuclear rhetoric displayed by North Korea.
Historically, when North Korea behaved in a manner
unbecoming of a nation, they sought concessions.
Policy makers previously rewarded deliberate
and hostile North Korean behaviors with energy and
other nation stabilizers (i.e., food supplies and commerce.)
Perhaps the concessionary negotiations of
the previous policies with North Korea allowed it to
formulate a standard behavior in order to achieve a
desired result.
It is possible that the U.S. currently faces nuclear
rhetoric, testing, and possible proliferation by North
Korea as a direct result of a standard practice of
quid pro quo. Analysts focused on current behaviors
must look at previous activities and rewards to understand
possible goals of the current escalation of
hostilities on the Korean Peninsula. In 2002, North
Korea faced severe energy and food shortages. It responded
to the labeling as a member of the “Axis of
Evil” by President Bush with predictable hostility. 1
The expected reaction, based upon previous acts of
aggression, led North Korea to admit: “to U.S. officials
that it was pursuing a highly enriched uranium
program in violation of several international
agreements, including the 1994 Agreed Framework
signed with the Clinton administration.” 2 Through
the Six-Party Talks, which involve the U.S., North
Korea, South Korea, Japan, China, and Russia,
North Korea agreed to disband its nuclear pursuits
in exchange for energy resources and also received
further commitments from South Korea for foodstuffs
and cooperation with building the “Kaesong
Industrial Complex just north of the demilitarized
zone.” 3
The South Korean equation limits military action
against North Korea by the U.S. Any U.S. military
response would likely cause North Korea to unleash
a wave of military counter-responses, which
would cripple South Korea. Protection of South
Korean and Japanese economies is vital in any response
by the U.S. or any U.S. ally. North Korea
understands the vital role played by the economies
of South Korea and Japan in measured responses
by the U.S. and its allies. Based on decades of titfor-tat
exchanges of rhetoric and sanctions, North
Korea plays a chess game one move ahead of U.S.
policy. The North Korean advantage stems partly
from regime and policy changes on the part of the
U.S. However, the isolated nature of North Korea
plays an additional role in staying one step ahead of
American predictive analysis of reactions by party
leaders in Pyongyang.
Kim Jong-Il’s recent health concerns brings into
question who has really been in charge of North
62 Military Intelligence