Why China won't be more proactive in punishing North Korea

China has entered into a devils bargain with North Korea. Whenever you hear about the Chinese government doing this or that, I want you to think of one word: "Stability." The Chinese are obsessed with stability because they need continuous economic growth to have any chance at surviving their demographic transition to an elderly population. For this reason, China always takes the most cautious approach when it comes to anything. If the party thought they could transition to democracy tomorrow without destabilizing the country, they would do it. But they believe (probably correctly, at least for the next decade or so) a significant state hand in guiding business and politics is the only way to ensure that their economy is able to provide for their population.

So when it comes to North Korea, they prop up the regime not out of some brotherly support or commitment, but because a failed state bordering them is unacceptable. And a failed state is exactly what North Korea would be without Chinese aid. They look down on Kim Jong-il and his cronies, his state is a constant reminder of the failures of Maoist agricultural policies, something the Chinese themselves moved past decades ago. When the most recent nuke test was conducted, every market in the region save Japan took a hit. China wants that cash money, and the only reason that they tolerate Kim's shenanigans cutting into their bottom line, is because cutting him off would hurt them even more.

Now if China does have influence on North Korean behavior, we can pressure China into calming Kim's ass down or quietly getting rid of him altogether by convincing the world that only China can change North Korea's behavior (true, barring a VERY unlikely US military intervention) therefore China is responsible for North Korea, and must act to prevent instability in the region. Essentially, every time North Korea does something, start blaming China for not actively working to stop them. Kind of like how people blame the US every time Israel does something they don't like.

But I fear that especially now with a leadership transition taking place even China has far less influence in the region than they let on. The real reason for all the sabre rattling, is quite simply to help strengthen the leadership during the succession. Kim Jong-il now has a visible droop (see picture above) on his left side from the stroke. They're afraid that they might appear weak to the outside world, and more importantly, to their domestic audience. And in the middle of a transition to Kim Jong-un, this cannot stand.

China realizes that an open and reunified Korean peninsula is in everyone's interests. After all, who wants a potential nuclear conflict next door to them? But they don't really know how to make that happen, and neither do we. It will happen the day that the US and China finally come to the realization that only by working together can they accomplish all the things they want to in the coming century.

North Korea and the Bifurcated Force . . .

I spend most of my time talking about the Stability and Support side of my "divided force" structure. But the Katana side is important too. In addition to nuclear weapons that maintain the status quo of the international system, a dedicated strike force is needed to take down bad actors at what Kenneth Waltz calls the nation-state level of analysis.

The initial invasion force in Iraq which destroyed the military capability of Iraq under Saddam Hussein consisted of the following main combat elements:



I MEF:

• 1st Marine Division (3 Heavy Brigades)
  
• 1st UK Division (1 Commando, 1 Air Assault, 1 Armoured Brigade)
  

V Corps:

• 3rd Infantry Division (3 Heavy Brigades)
  
• 101st Airborne Division (3 Air Assault Brigades)
• 2nd Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division
  

Other:

• Various Special Operations Task Forces
• 173rd Airborne Brigade

Note that all of these forces consist of either Heavy or Airborne/Air Assault BCTs in modern parlance, such is the composition of the Katana force. All told there are 7 Heavy Brigades and 6 Airborne/Commando/Air Assault Brigades. This force was sufficient for the initial invasion and the complete destruction of Iraqi military capability. They were utterly inappropriate and insufficient for the following stability and support operations.

North Korea is the largest, most dangerous, and most likely target for military invasion in the world today. While the posession of nuclear weapons makes such an act very risky, the low number of weapons combined with their inability to be mounted on ballistic missiles at this time presents a narrow window in which regime change might occur. Additionally, at 1.2 million, the military force is approximately 3.2X what the regime of Saddam Hussein was able to field at the time. Improvements in support and logisitcs would allow us to get away with a force 3x the size used in Iraq. So based solely on the invasion force needed to take down the Hussein-era military, I project that you would need somewhere in the neighborhood of 21 Heavy Brigades and 18 Forced Entry Capable Brigades would be required.

• The US Army has 19 Heavy Brigade Combat Teams and 10 Forced Entry Capable Brigades.
• The British could offer, at a stretch, 2 more of each.
  
• And with the Marine RCTs able to switch between Forced Entry or Heavy roles depending on equipment provided, we would reach the requisite number.
  
• And thats before you even begin to count South Korea's 20 Division Force (more equivalent to large Heavy BCTs).

So it could be done. I'm not advocating it, and the casualties amongst all forces and civilian populations would be worse than we can imagine. Additionally, it would require us to completely abandon all other global commitments. And we can expect to spend at least a decade trying to integrate a devestated penninsula back into the global community without upsetting the delicate balance of power in East Asia.

There is another card on the table, however, and that is China. If North Korean behavior grows threatening enough to affect that hyper-capitalist power's bottom line, even they will want to see them go. And they certainly DO have the manpower. Their force probably would only be able to play a minimal role in an invasion, but in the stability and support operations afterwards, China and South Korea would have the presence and the legitimacy to make a stable penninsula happen. The US would still be left with the difficult task of playing referee and getting China to accept a reunified Korea. But in this age of globalization, the prospect of a Korea that can be friendly to both China and the US isn't hard to imagine.

Additionally, this would essentially be the last major regime change the US could forseeably undertake. With the important possible exception of Myanmar, another place where cooperation with China would be key. Those two scenarios are perhaps the only currently forseeable times where the US will ever again be engaged in ground-based maneuver warfare. Maintaining a regime change force after those operations would be important both as a deterrent against rogue regimes and a hedge against any unforseen state-on-state conflict, but the force could be much smaller, enabling us to focus additional resources on "preventive medicine" in the form of soft power and the usage of the Wakizashi.