112724261865497586

I’ve long held the view that regime change is the only way to solve our various problems with the North Korean regime, but it seems to me that the best criticisms of such calls aren’t really about how we can justify it, but about how we can execute it, much less without starting Korean War II. For many advocates of further diplomacy, rewarding bad behavior, tolerating unchecked proliferation, and outright appeasement, it suffices to ask, “How?” and then watch the proponent hem, haw, or pray for a coup or Chinese intervention that may never come.

I don’t think Robbins is calling for an Iraq-style invasion–something that the U.S. public and military aren’t ready for, and which I firmly believe would carry an unacceptable risk of disaster–but on the other hand, I don’t know what Robbins is thinking, either. That may be because proposing a new idea comes with a rhetorical cost that’s seldom applied to proposing more of the same old thing we’ve been doing so unsuccessfully–the requirement to explain the potential difficulties in the recommended course, and to balance the costs, benefits, and risks of each proposed course.

Update: The original title was “James Robbins Calls for Regime Change at National Review!” which made me think of David Corn coming at William F. Buckley, Jr. with a letter opener and a group of Liberian palace guards. So I changed it.

Update 2: James Robbins responds to the snarky, ankle-nipping blogger:

Josh, my purpose was the discuss the futility of the agreement, not to elaborate
a comprehensive solution to the North Korea issue, so you’ll have to cut me some
slack. I only had 1,000 words, and in opinion pieces you really have to focus. I
can address the mechanics of regime change some other time, and probably will.

True enough. Some of us can yammer all week with nary an editor in sight. You can read some of James’s other NRO pieces here.