- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 34,165
- Reaction score
- 64,626
- Points
- 148
At the moment, there is a PLAN to maximize leverage with China. There hasn't been action on that plan to this point.
Wow...again, it's like we're watching two completely different sets of events.
First, we know that Trump met with XI. We don't know exactly what was discussed, but almost immediately afterwards, China took a much more public, harder line against NK. So to say there "hasn't been action on that plan" seems to speculate in the exact opposite direction of what the evidence suggests. And a lot of folks would consider at least part of the reasoning behind the cruise missile strike to be a demonstration of our position on WMD's.
Additionally, we've sent more ships there, and the Veep is clearly making noises about us getting more aggressive. Public statements like that alone put pressure on the Chinese because they worry it might trigger a shooting war.
Trump's commentary on the subject has been far less encouraging:
Here is a quote of his on Twitter: “If China decides to help, that would be great. If not, we will solve the problem without them!”
Normally, Trump's tweets are not helpful. But that one? How is sending a message to the Chinese that we will act if they don't not encouraging/helpful? The Chinese do not want a war on the Korean peninsula. And if they believe that a failure to act on their part might result in one getting triggered, that's the exact kind of pressure we should be applying.
His flip flop on China as a currency manipulator.
I thought you said he hadn't done anything regarding leverage with China?
seemingly shifting toward the threat of using the military, contrary to your article above:
“North Korea would do well not to test his resolve -- or the strength of the armed forces of the United States in this region.”
and
"All options are on the table to achieve the objectives and ensure the stability of the people of this country."
But that's precisely the point! Tat's exactly why this seems unusually well thought out. We are sending them a single, consistent message across a wide-variety of topics --"either you do something to solve this problem, or we are, and you're not going to like it when we do." Basically, broad pressure on China, using every bit of political/military/economic leverage we have, to convince them it is in their own interests to solve Kim.
I don't see how any of that suggests the lack of a coordinated internal strategy.