A New American Grand Strategy

[Jack Hays]

Is a new grand strategy in order? If so, what should it look like? Here's one serious view.

A New American Grand Strategy
(The Hoover Institution) Gen. Jim Mattis lays out his proposal for a "New American Grand Strategy"

"The world is awash in change. The international order, so painstakingly put together by the greatest generation coming home from mankind’s bloodiest conflict, is under increasing stress. It was created with elements we take for granted: the United Nations, NATO, the Marshall Plan, Bretton Woods and more. The constructed order reflected the wisdom of those who recognized no nation lived as an island and we needed new ways to deal with challenges that for better or worse impacted all nations. Like it or not, today we are part of this larger world and must carry out our part. We cannot wait for problems to arrive here or it will be too late; rather we must remain strongly engaged in this complex world.

The international order built on the state system is not self-sustaining. It demands tending by an America that leads wisely, standing unapologetically for the freedoms each of us in this room have enjoyed. The hearing today addresses the need for America to adapt to changing circumstances, to come out now from its reactive crouch and to take a firm strategic stance in defense of our values.
While we recognize that we owe future generations the same freedoms we enjoy, the challenge lies in how to carry out our responsibility. We have lived too long now in a strategy-free mode.
To do so America needs a refreshed national strategy. The Congress can play a key role in crafting a coherent strategy with bipartisan support. Doing so requires us to look beyond events currently consuming the executive branch.
There is an urgent need to stop reacting to each immediate vexing issue in isolation. Such response often creates unanticipated second order effects and more problems for us. I suggest that the best way to cut to the essence of these issues and to help you in crafting America’s response to a rapidly changing security environment is to ask the right questions. . . ."

 

[Hamster Buddha]

Is a new grand strategy in order? If so, what should it look like? Here's one serious view.

A New American Grand Strategy
(The Hoover Institution) Gen. Jim Mattis lays out his proposal for a "New American Grand Strategy"

"The world is awash in change. The international order, so painstakingly put together by the greatest generation coming home from mankind’s bloodiest conflict, is under increasing stress. It was created with elements we take for granted: the United Nations, NATO, the Marshall Plan, Bretton Woods and more. The constructed order reflected the wisdom of those who recognized no nation lived as an island and we needed new ways to deal with challenges that for better or worse impacted all nations. Like it or not, today we are part of this larger world and must carry out our part. We cannot wait for problems to arrive here or it will be too late; rather we must remain strongly engaged in this complex world.

The international order built on the state system is not self-sustaining. It demands tending by an America that leads wisely, standing unapologetically for the freedoms each of us in this room have enjoyed. The hearing today addresses the need for America to adapt to changing circumstances, to come out now from its reactive crouch and to take a firm strategic stance in defense of our values.
While we recognize that we owe future generations the same freedoms we enjoy, the challenge lies in how to carry out our responsibility. We have lived too long now in a strategy-free mode.
To do so America needs a refreshed national strategy. The Congress can play a key role in crafting a coherent strategy with bipartisan support. Doing so requires us to look beyond events currently consuming the executive branch.
There is an urgent need to stop reacting to each immediate vexing issue in isolation. Such response often creates unanticipated second order effects and more problems for us. I suggest that the best way to cut to the essence of these issues and to help you in crafting America’s response to a rapidly changing security environment is to ask the right questions. . . ."

I actually disagree with this view because I think our biggest problem with our current... we'll call it a "kind of" strategy, is that we've been so unapologetic for defending freedom around the world. I mean, much of the chaos that has come from the Middle East today stems from the Arab Spring, which was at it's core a freedom movement. Many in the US were quick to embrace it, believing it would lead to a more secular and moderate Middle East that believed in equality and peace. Turns out, we removed (or try to remove as is the case today with Assad) and we end up putting the most dangerous of groups in charge of these countries. In fact, the only place that we could say benefited from the Arab Spring is Tunisia, but then, we also had very little to do with that change of power.

In truth, what we need to start doing is taking a more cold, and pragmatic look at the region. For the vast majority, the people in the region aren't anything like those oppressed individuals of Eastern Europe going against the yoke of Soviet tyranny. For the most part, these are uneducated individuals that are a hundred years behind the times in some cases, and are still deeply attached to their religious beliefs to the point that it dominates their lives. That wouldn't be a problem, were it not for the fact that they seemed to of yet taken care of a problem that the west dealt with 500 years ago, and that was ceasing all the religious blood-letting. And of course, they can't merely keep that mess in their own backyard, but seem hell bent on spreading it to our own backyards. To make matters worse, Western Europe as we know it is rapidly changing. The freedom loving and secular native population are getting older, due largely to the fact that their not having as many kids comparatively to the immigrants. Hell, Sweeden is now made up of 20% immigrants as a matter of fact, with many being refugees from the region. If the trends continue as they are, Islam could certainly become the dominant religious and political force in Europe within a couple of generations.

The question is, what do you do about it? Well as I said, we need to take a more pragmatic view of the ME and stop feeling the situation with our hearts. The cold truth of the matter is that we are better off with the likes of Saddam, Assad, and Qaddafi in charge. At least we can rely on them to keep the radicals in check when left to their own devices.

 

[Jack Hays]

I actually disagree with this view because I think our biggest problem with our current... we'll call it a "kind of" strategy, is that we've been so unapologetic for defending freedom around the world. I mean, much of the chaos that has come from the Middle East today stems from the Arab Spring, which was at it's core a freedom movement. Many in the US were quick to embrace it, believing it would lead to a more secular and moderate Middle East that believed in equality and peace. Turns out, we removed (or try to remove as is the case today with Assad) and we end up putting the most dangerous of groups in charge of these countries. In fact, the only place that we could say benefited from the Arab Spring is Tunisia, but then, we also had very little to do with that change of power.

In truth, what we need to start doing is taking a more cold, and pragmatic look at the region. For the vast majority, the people in the region aren't anything like those oppressed individuals of Eastern Europe going against the yoke of Soviet tyranny. For the most part, these are uneducated individuals that are a hundred years behind the times in some cases, and are still deeply attached to their religious beliefs to the point that it dominates their lives. That wouldn't be a problem, were it not for the fact that they seemed to of yet taken care of a problem that the west dealt with 500 years ago, and that was ceasing all the religious blood-letting. And of course, they can't merely keep that mess in their own backyard, but seem hell bent on spreading it to our own backyards. To make matters worse, Western Europe as we know it is rapidly changing. The freedom loving and secular native population are getting older, due largely to the fact that their not having as many kids comparatively to the immigrants. Hell, Sweeden is now made up of 20% immigrants as a matter of fact, with many being refugees from the region. If the trends continue as they are, Islam could certainly become the dominant religious and political force in Europe within a couple of generations.

The question is, what do you do about it? Well as I said, we need to take a more pragmatic view of the ME and stop feeling the situation with our hearts. The cold truth of the matter is that we are better off with the likes of Saddam, Assad, and Qaddafi in charge. At least we can rely on them to keep the radicals in check when left to their own devices.

I think General Mattis would agree with you.

"Strategy connects ends, ways and means. With less military available, we must reduce our appetite for using it. Absent growing our military, there must come a time when moral outrage, serious humanitarian plight, or lesser threats cannot be militarily addressed. Prioritization is needed if we are to remain capable of the most critical mission for which we have a military: to fight on short notice and defend the country. In this regard we must recognize we should not and need not carry this military burden solely on our own."

 

[Hamster Buddha]

I think General Mattis would agree with you.

"Strategy connects ends, ways and means. With less military available, we must reduce our appetite for using it. Absent growing our military, there must come a time when moral outrage, serious humanitarian plight, or lesser threats cannot be militarily addressed. Prioritization is needed if we are to remain capable of the most critical mission for which we have a military: to fight on short notice and defend the country. In this regard we must recognize we should not and need not carry this military burden solely on our own."

Wise Words.

In truth, there's something that any new strategy must include in it's calculations and that is the every inflating US Debt. There was a point in time that we could play the crusader role, bringing peace and freedom to all the good little girls and boys, but we've gone well past that. Besides, considering we spend more per year than the next ten or so countries combined, can anyone really arguing we're getting our money's worth at this point?

 

[cpwill]

I actually disagree with this view because I think our biggest problem with our current... we'll call it a "kind of" strategy, is that we've been so unapologetic for defending freedom around the world.

:flabbergasted: where in the friggin world do you find that the problem with this administration is that it is unapologetically a strong defender of freedom around the world?

I mean, much of the chaos that has come from the Middle East today stems from the Arab Spring,

Which we dicked up so badly that each side in Egypt became convinced we were working against them. And which we ignored when it came to Iran. And which we simply pretended wasn't happening when it came to Bahrain. And which we limp-wristedly, half-heartedly kinda-sorta-led-from-behind-but-only-as-long-as-it-was-you-know,-good-for-public-relations in Libya.

which was at it's core a freedom movement

In some places yes. In other places, no. For example, it was about freedom in Iran, where we ignored it. It was about rebellion in Libya, where we tried to play for a tie and instead lost, and it started off as rebellion in Syria, but quickly became about Jihad.

Many in the US were quick to embrace it, believing it would lead to a more secular and moderate Middle East that believed in equality and peace.

Yeah. Except for that nutter Glenn Beck, who was crazy, and who went so far as to suggest that we might end up dealing with a self-proclaimed caliphate in the next few years. What an idiot that guy was.

Turns out, we removed (or try to remove as is the case today with Assad) and we end up putting the most dangerous of groups in charge of these countries

When did we try to remove Assad? This seems like it should have been rather major news, and yet the best anyone has been able to identify, we provided some belated training to some FSA types well after the window for appropriate action had passed.

In truth, what we need to start doing is taking a more cold, and pragmatic look at the region. For the vast majority, the people in the region aren't anything like those oppressed individuals of Eastern Europe going against the yoke of Soviet tyranny. For the most part, these are uneducated individuals that are a hundred years behind the times in some cases, and are still deeply attached to their religious beliefs to the point that it dominates their lives. That wouldn't be a problem, were it not for the fact that they seemed to of yet taken care of a problem that the west dealt with 500 years ago, and that was ceasing all the religious blood-letting. And of course, they can't merely keep that mess in their own backyard, but seem hell bent on spreading it to our own backyards. To make matters worse, Western Europe as we know it is rapidly changing. The freedom loving and secular native population are getting older, due largely to the fact that their not having as many kids comparatively to the immigrants. Hell, Sweeden is now made up of 20% immigrants as a matter of fact, with many being refugees from the region. If the trends continue as they are, Islam could certainly become the dominant religious and political force in Europe within a couple of generations.

The question is, what do you do about it? Well as I said, we need to take a more pragmatic view of the ME and stop feeling the situation with our hearts. The cold truth of the matter is that we are better off with the likes of Saddam, Assad, and Qaddafi in charge. At least we can rely on them to keep the radicals in check when left to their own devices.

I'm fine with pragmatism. I just don't think we should call fairy-dust and short-term solutions "pragmatism".

Reading that should be required for everyone who thinks that abusive dictatorships = long term stability

 

[Jack Hays]

Wise Words.

In truth, there's something that any new strategy must include in it's calculations and that is the every inflating US Debt. There was a point in time that we could play the crusader role, bringing peace and freedom to all the good little girls and boys, but we've gone well past that. Besides, considering we spend more per year than the next ten or so countries combined, can anyone really arguing we're getting our money's worth at this point?

Defense spending calculations are deceptive. Our personnel are way more expensive than China's, for example.

 

[Hamster Buddha]

To be clear, I liked a lot of your post but that doesn't mean I agree with your conclusion. But first, allow me quick responses to yours:

:flabbergasted: where in the friggin world do you find that the problem with this administration is that it is unapologetically a strong defender of freedom around the world?

Which we dicked up so badly that each side in Egypt became convinced we were working against them. And which we ignored when it came to Iran. And which we simply pretended wasn't happening when it came to Bahrain. And which we limp-wristedly, half-heartedly kinda-sorta-led-from-behind-but-only-as-long-as-it-was-you-know,-good-for-public-relations in Libya.

I didn't mean to imply that Obama did a good job being the advocate for more freedom, merely pointing out the propensity for the US to side with those opposing these various dictatorships and/or Islamic Republics (that's what I'd call the Hamas Government and the brief Egyptian one). We called for the ouster of Mubarak (and I suspect got the Generals to help him out), Obama expressed his opposition to Iran's oppression of the protests, and we handed off Lybia to the UN to try and setup a government. Hell, the only half way success we have in the region is Iraq.... and that's just sad.

Yeah. Except for that nutter Glenn Beck, who was crazy, and who went so far as to suggest that we might end up dealing with a self-proclaimed caliphate in the next few years. What an idiot that guy was.

In truth, I liked your post because of this statement alone.

When did we try to remove Assad? This seems like it should have been rather major news, and yet the best anyone has been able to identify, we provided some belated training to some FSA types well after the window for appropriate action had passed.

You really trying to argue the fact that we are arming Rebels who opposed Assad as NOT trying to remove him?

I'm fine with pragmatism. I just don't think we should call fairy-dust and short-term solutions "pragmatism".

Reading that should be required for everyone who thinks that abusive dictatorships = long term stability

And now we come to the main course. I'm not really sure what article said, as it didn't have a summary or a synopsis, so I'm just going to assume it says "abusive dictatorships are bad and we shouldn't support them because people will rise up". If there was really some revelation in there, then feel free to put it here. But let me save you the time in doing so. You see, the flaw with your argument is actually pointed out by yourself:

In some places yes. In other places, no. For example, it was about freedom in Iran, where we ignored it. It was about rebellion in Libya, where we tried to play for a tie and instead lost, and it started off as rebellion in Syria, but quickly became about Jihad.

You're actually far more generous with your assessment with how post dictatorships have gone in the Middle East. Whether it's Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Palestine... look just about every country in the region had an uprising of oppressed individuals in one form or another. And many of them have now morphed into these radical Islamist camps. The ones that didn't well the Islamist just used the political process to assume power! The only country that was sort of working in the area after a dictator was removed was Iraq, and that was only after 2 trillion dollars spent and the loss of 4500 Americans. To try and replicate that on the level necessary to get similar results is beyond the US, or even NATO's capabilities at this time. But even assuming we did that, what's to stop all those countries from falling into the same corrupt and oppressive mess the Iraqi Government currently is?

Maybe somewhere down the line in fifty years we can revisit the idea of these abusive dictatorship, but for the time being, the only time these radicals have been in check, was when we weren't putting out calls for leaders to go.

 

[Hamster Buddha]

Defense spending calculations are deceptive. Our personnel are way more expensive than China's, for example.

And I get that, and it is true that the individual American combat soldier is more effective than their Chinese counterpart. But my point is that we're spending that level of money, and it doesn't seem like if a major geopolitical crisis was to develop (such as say North Korea invading South Korea) that we'd be in any position to respond in a rapid and effective manner. I feel like if we are going to spend THAT much total money on Defense, we should have a military that could do that. Am I wrong?

 

[Jack Hays]

And I get that, and it is true that the individual American combat soldier is more effective than their Chinese counterpart. But my point is that we're spending that level of money, and it doesn't seem like if a major geopolitical crisis was to develop (such as say North Korea invading South Korea) that we'd be in any position to respond in a rapid and effective manner. I feel like if we are going to spend THAT much total money on Defense, we should have a military that could do that. Am I wrong?

I think that we could respond quite effectively to a North Korean invasion of the South. In fact, I think that would be right in our wheel house.

 

[ttwtt78640]

With freedom (self rule?) comes the possibility of failure and a democratic form of government requires an educated/informed voting population. Attempts to remove dictators/kings creates an instant power vacuum that must be immediately filled; let the US start its grand strategy (foreign domination?) campaign by "fixing" Mexico before we try "fixing" one of the more challenging ME nations.

 

[cpwill]

To be clear, I liked a lot of your post but that doesn't mean I agree with your conclusion. But first, allow me quick responses to yours:

Hokedoke.

I didn't mean to imply that Obama did a good job being the advocate for more freedom, merely pointing out the propensity for the US to side with those opposing these various dictatorships and/or Islamic Republics (that's what I'd call the Hamas Government and the brief Egyptian one).

Yes. Uniquely the United States is founded on the proposition that all men are created equal and blessed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. On occasion, we even feel the need to mean it.

We called for the ouster of Mubarak

Huh? We followed events in Egypt. Mubarak was ahead of us, of all people. We managed to screw over every possible ally in that country that we had or could have had. We had all the political courage of someone endorsing Obama for president in December of 2008.

Obama expressed his opposition to Iran's oppression of the protests,

On the contrary, the protesters started chanting "Obama you are with us or you are with them" as they were being dragged by the basij into the black vans, and in response the Obama administration released a statement calling for restraint by all sides.

and we handed off Lybia to the UN to try and setup a government. Hell, the only half way success we have in the region is Iraq.... and that's just sad.

:shrug: I know when we finished the Surge out, Iraq was a stable, place with a pluralistic government. Then we decided to follow the same "hands-off" policy that you identified we tried in Libya. We chose..... poorly.....

You really trying to argue the fact that we are arming Rebels who opposed Assad as NOT trying to remove him?

Our programs to "aid" the rebels? Yeah. If we wanted to kill Assad, we could. This is like trying to destroy Burger King by ordering a frosty at Wendy's.

And now we come to the main course. I'm not really sure what article said, as it didn't have a summary or a synopsis, so I'm just going to assume it says "abusive dictatorships are bad and we shouldn't support them because people will rise up"

....sort of... it's pointing out that any system which artificially tamps down on volatility actually creates net increased volatility that releases explosively rather than bleeds off sustainably. It really is a fun piece, I think you might like it.

If there was really some revelation in there, then feel free to put it here. But let me save you the time in doing so. You see, the flaw with your argument is actually pointed out by yourself

If you think so, then you are confusing my intent.

You're actually far more generous with your assessment with how post dictatorships have gone in the Middle East. Whether it's Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Palestine... look just about every country in the region had an uprising of oppressed individuals in one form or another. And many of them have now morphed into these radical Islamist camps.

Well, of those nations, Egypt is a military authoritarian regime currently involved in hunting down Islamists, both of the MB and ISIL variety. Syria (the government) remains run by Assad while Syria (the territory) is in a civil war over the issue. Yemen isn't run by Islamists of either camps, but rather by Tribal militia's in the north who receive support from Iran, and (it seems) a mixture of local military leadership, maybe President Hadi, and tribal militia's in the south who receive support from Saudi Arabia. Iraq (the government) remains the only functioning Arab democracy in the middle east, despite massive assault from it's north. Iraq (the territory) is in the same boat as Syria, and the Palestinians were basically weaponized by the Arab regimes that you are claiming provide "stability" decades ago in order to ensure that they would always support groups like Hamas.

The only country that was sort of working in the area after a dictator was removed was Iraq,

And Tunisia, which has not only rejected the more Islamic-leading party, but also effectively hunted the Islamist groups within its' borders while holding free public elections.

Maybe somewhere down the line in fifty years we can revisit the idea of these abusive dictatorship, but for the time being, the only time these radicals have been in check, was when we weren't putting out calls for leaders to go.

If you want to keep the radicals a problem, keep the dictators in power. So long as radicalization and violence is the only means for political volatility to express itself, that is what you will continue to get.

 

[Jack Hays]

With freedom (self rule?) comes the possibility of failure and a democratic form of government requires an educated/informed voting population. Attempts to remove dictators/kings creates an instant power vacuum that must be immediately filled; let the US start its grand strategy (foreign domination?) campaign by "fixing" Mexico before we try "fixing" one of the more challenging ME nations.

I doubt General Mattis would advocate "fixing" any country.

 

[cpwill]

I think that we could respond quite effectively to a North Korean invasion of the South. In fact, I think that would be right in our wheel house.

Really? I spent three years of my life working those OPLANS, and I have to say, I think that would be a total F'ing goat rope. Defense Cuts have consequences.

 

[Hamster Buddha]

I think that we could respond quite effectively to a North Korean invasion of the South. In fact, I think that would be right in our wheel house.

But how long though would it be to respond though? I have no doubt that we would win a conflict with North Korea, and once the campaign begins we could make short work of them but how many lives would be lost in the process? 50,000? 100,000? 500,000? North Korea could kill a lot of South Koreans (and Americans) before the US has the forces in region to begin a proper air campaign and drive back the North Koreans.

Really? I spent three years of my life working those OPLANS, and I have to say, I think that would be a total F'ing goat rope. Defense Cuts have consequences.

Tell me something, how long would it take to organize an Air Campaign to start taking out not only NK C&C, but also start trying to wipe out the ten thousand artillery pieces raining death on Seoul?

 

[ttwtt78640]

I doubt General Mattis would advocate "fixing" any country.

Yet he claims that he can "fix" the entire ME (world?) by ridding it of violent Muslim terrorists?

 

[Jack Hays]

Really? I spent three years of my life working those OPLANS, and I have to say, I think that would be a total F'ing goat rope. Defense Cuts have consequences.

Difference of opinion. The North's principal card is that they hold Seoul hostage. They would play that immediately by invading. After that they are just a large target set. Moreover, depending on circumstances, we could very well use our entire inventory.

 

[cpwill]

Difference of opinion. The North's principal card is that they hold Seoul hostage. They would play that immediately by invading. After that they are just a large target set.

I don't think either team is invading through the worlds' largest minefield and artillery concentration. Far more likely is that the North invades the NW Islands and/or simply wrecks the city that effectively is most of South Korea before we can find all of the LRA ranging the GSMA. The North doesn't hold Seoul hostage through a threat of T-55's rolling through - they hold it hostage because they can smash it with arty faster than we can stop them.

Moreover, depending on circumstances, we could very well use our entire inventory.

our inventory of what? PGMs' headed to CENTCOM? Ships and air platforms that are ever-more-delayed in an ever-shrinking Navy and Air Force? Shrunken ground forces?

We officially chopped the number of major campaigns we could fight from two to one. That has consequences. I'm not saying we would lose (mostly South Korea would lose), I'm just saying the idea that we could easily handle it in our current position and structure is not something I find plausible.

 

[Jack Hays]

But how long though would it be to respond though? I have no doubt that we would win a conflict with North Korea, and once the campaign begins we could make short work of them but how many lives would be lost in the process? 50,000? 100,000? 500,000? North Korea could kill a lot of South Koreans (and Americans) before the US has the forces in region to begin a proper air campaign and drive back the North Koreans.



Tell me something, how long would it take to organize an Air Campaign to start taking out not only NK C&C, but also start trying to wipe out the ten thousand artillery pieces raining death on Seoul?

Seoul would be abandoned immediately and South Korean casualties would be enormous, but US and South Korean response would be quick. Naval assets would be in play, as would the entire US weapons inventory.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I think that we could respond quite effectively to a North Korean invasion of the South. In fact, I think that would be right in our wheel house.

Making war against a nation and its forces/infrastructure is an entirely different mission than acting as its surrogate police, security and/or national defense force. We spent 4 years in liberating/defeating multiple nations during WWII and have (so far) spent 14 years "fighting terror" in Afghanistan alone while facing an enemy that has no Air Force or Navy at all and a rag tag, at best, Army.

 

[Jack Hays]

I don't think either team is invading through the worlds' largest minefield and artillery concentration. Far more likely is that the North invades the NW Islands and/or simply wrecks the city that effectively is most of South Korea before we can find all of the LRA ranging the GSMA. The North doesn't hold Seoul hostage through a threat of T-55's rolling through - they hold it hostage because they can smash it with arty faster than we can stop them.



our inventory of what? PGMs' headed to CENTCOM? Ships and air platforms that are ever-more-delayed in an ever-shrinking Navy and Air Force? Shrunken ground forces?

We officially chopped the number of major campaigns we could fight from two to one. That has consequences. I'm not saying we would lose (mostly South Korea would lose), I'm just saying the idea that we could easily handle it in our current position and structure is not something I find plausible.

Seoul would not be defended, and I said the entire inventory.

 

[Jack Hays]

Making war against a nation and its forces/infrastructure is an entirely different mission than acting as its surrogate police, security and/or national defense force. We spent 4 years in liberating/defeating multiple nations during WWII and have (so far) spent 14 years "fighting terror" in Afghanistan alone while facing an enemy that has no Air Force or Navy at all and a rag tag, at best, Army.

In responding to an NK invasion of the South our choices would not be limited as they have been in those other conflicts.

 

[cpwill]

Yet he claims that he can "fix" the entire ME (world?) by ridding it of violent Muslim terrorists?

1. He is General James Mattis, and you will hold your tongue when you speak of him. If he wants to fix the middle east by killing every single Islamic terrorist in it, that's his prerogative.

2. That is all.

 

[ttwtt78640]

In responding to an NK invasion of the South our choices would not be limited as they have been in those other conflicts.

Who, exactly, is imposing those limits?

 

[Jack Hays]

Who, exactly, is imposing those limits?

We are.

 

[cpwill]

Seoul would not be defended, and I said the entire inventory.

:lol: surely you're not meaning to imply WMD employment against NKorea.