Is President Trump purposely trying to pick a fight with North Korea?

One of the most vexing questions in foreign policy circles is what precisely is the president doing with regard to North Korea. His secretary of State and other Cabinet officials have consistently talked about wanting to use all diplomatic means possible to resolve the issues plaguing the region, but the president repeatedly undercuts these efforts on Twitter and elsewhere in public with his own bellicose rhetoric.

Military experts are unanimous in their assessments that a military first strike against North Korea will not eliminate the threat and likely lead to the destruction of Seoul, South Korea—a city of 10 million people, including almost 40,000 American troops with their families. For some time, I have wondered if Mr. Trump wants to pick a fight. The other night, he tweeted: “I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!”  This tweet reinforced my worst fear: The President of the United States wants to provoke North Korea to strike first.

{mosads}Before the latest provocative tweet, the president had stated Kim Jong Un “won’t be around much longer,” “[t]hey only understand one thing,” and while undermining his secretary of State: “Save your energy Rex, we’ll do what has to be done!” North Korea has thus far responded with similarly irrational and bellicose comments, including that they believe the president’s tweets to be a “declaration of war.” 

Add to this provocative back-and-forth the fact that North Korean experts agree that Kim Jong Un is unstable and the regime’s primary concern is its own survival. So what happens if one of the president’s statements finally convinces Kim that the United States is about to attack and destroy his regime? He may likely decide he needs to strike first to demonstrate his capabilities, hoping for minimal regime survival—and that the United States will not have the fortitude to actually use nuclear weapons.

Why would a United States President want North Korea to act first? Because Mr. Trump could blame the destruction of Seoul and death of thousands of American soldiers and innocent lives on North Korea, while simultaneously attempting to eliminate the threat with the promised total and complete destruction of North Korea. Arguably, world leaders would have a difficult time directly criticizing the United States for responding to a North Korean first strike—regardless of our president’s taunting remarks and threats.

If there is one consistent trait in President Trump’s leadership style, it is his tendency to blame others for anything that goes wrong. Last year, he actually said “I’m not going to blame myself” when discussing the GOP’s legislative failures to repeal the Affordable Care Act.  Is it difficult to imagine that if North Korea launches a missile in reaction to one of his infamous tweets, the president would feign shock that they read his words as a serious threat? He would more likely instead proceed to justify any action he directed the military to take as a response to an attack. Perhaps least surprisingly, one can imagine Mr. Trump then taking credit for eliminating the danger North Korea once and for all—something no previous president was able to do.

In the unsophisticated way the president views foreign affairs, this may seem like a brilliant strategy to end the intractable North Korean problem. Unfortunately, this “strategy” requires the destruction of—in a best case scenario—at least one ally’s capital, resulting in the death of tens of thousands of innocent civilians and American troops. It is reckless to an unthinkable degree, and there is almost nothing that can be done to prevent it, save for making sure President Trump knows he will be blamed if this occurs. 

People of good conscience must stand up and call out the president’s strategy whether or not he is pursuing it intentionally or understands the consequences.  We must forcefully and clearly make him understand by telling the president: “If you cause our enemy to attack us or our allies with your careless tweets, we will hold you accountable for the deaths you could have prevented.”  To sit back and silently shake our heads at each ridiculous tweet (or worse, pretend the words of the president of the United States don’t matter simply because we don’t like them) only empowers this reckless man to bring our country and world to the most dangerous geo-political confrontation since the Cuban Missile Crisis. It also leaves the decision to start a nuclear war in the hands of Kim Jung Un—the one person on earth who may be more reckless than Mr. Trump.

Gil Cabrera is an attorney in San Diego and the former Chairman of the City of San Diego’s Ethics Commission.  He is a Political Partner of Truman National Security Project. Views expressed are his own.