Gar Smith / Environmentalists Against War & Ryan Pickrell / The Daily Caller – 2017-04-10 02:00:30
Special to Environmentalists Against War
Washington Leaks “Decapitation” Option: “Kill Kim Jong-Un”
Gar Smith / Environmentalists Against War
(April 9, 2017) â€“ North Korea has good reason to feel paranoid.
While most of the US media has spent the past year obsessing over North Korea’s nuclear program and its missile launches, the global media has been reporting â€“ for years â€“ on Washington’s no-so-secret plans to “decapitate” the country by murdering Korean leader Kim Jong-Un.
In the wake of Donald Trump’s illegal, impetuous, and unsanctioned act of war in following a chemical weapons attack in Syria, the messaging from the corporate media is fanning the flames of more precipitous US military action overseas.
As NBC’s Hallie Jackson reported excitedly on April 6, 2017: “Tonight, is the ultimate test of a commander-in-chief: Whether to activate the military â€“ in this case, after a humanitarian crisis that has gripped the country with the world watching.”
NBC’s second-hand call-to-arms was based on several preconceptions that went unchallenged. Among these is the idea that the United States claims the exclusive right among all nations to act as judge and jury when dispensing bombs and cruise missiles in the name of “our vital national interests.”
Another preconception is that Bashar al-Assad has once again “gassed his own people.” But, as yet, there has been no independent investigation into who was responsible for the release of deadly chemicals that lead to the agonizing and gruesome deaths of at least 70 Syrian men and children in Idlib Province.
The White House and US mainstream media continue to echo the charge that President Barack Obama is somehow “responsible” for the death in the village of Khan Sheikhun because of his failure to attack Syria for using chemical weapons following a 2013 attack on the city of Ghouta. Obama continues to be faulted for failing to act after Assad “crossed a red line.”
At the same time, little attention paid to the fact that
(1) Assad acted on then-Secretary of State John Kerry’s offer to avoid a bloody war by surrendering his existing chemical weapons stockpiles and
(2) a UN investigation failed to find any firm evidence that Assad was responsible for the alleged use of sarin nerve gas.
Subsequent investigations by the UN and the Pentagon left open the possibililty that the deadly gas had been used by Assad’s rebel opponents who staged the attack in hopes of “framing” the regime.
Here are some relevant articles from the EAW Archives:
Trump Condemns Syria Chemical Attack
(April 6, 2017) — McCain blames Trump. The idea that a nerve gas like Sarin could spread after a weapons . . . filled with Sarin at Ghouta, Damascus, killing hundreds of people in August 2013.
2013 Story, “Assad Gassed HIs Own People,” Was Fake News
(April 6, 2017) – New York Times Retreats on 2013 Syria-Sarin Claims . . . 21, 2013 sarin gas attack outside Damascus. . . . also apparently involving sarin or a similar poison gas — claimed lives in an Al Qaeda-dominated area of northern Syria.
What the US Media Is Not Telling You about Chemical Warfare in Syria
(September 7, 2013) – The US was prepared to attack Syrian targets before UN inspectors could . . . President Barack Obama, April 29, 2013, responding to evidence that confirmed the use of sarin nerve gas and the chemical characteristics of the . . .
Rebels (Not Syria) Used Nerve Gas; Plotted to Arm Drones with Sarin
(May 31, 2013) — Turkish security forces found a 2kg cylinder with sarin gas after . . . The gas was allegedly going to be used to carry out an attack in the . . .
A Short History of Chemical Warfare
(September 7, 2013) — As of February 2013, Albania, India, Iraq, Libya, Russia, and the US still . . . The US, Israel and Sarin Nerve Gas . . . The following collection of underreported news stories concerning gas attacks in Syria were posted online . . .
Pentagon Documents Confirm Rebels Used Sarin Gas
(September 12, 2013) — US Can’t Prove Bashar Assad Approved Chemical Attacks in Syria: US intelligence has yet to uncover evidence that Syrian . . .. the nerve agent sarin in the March chemical weapons attack in Aleppo.
Rebels Behind Previous Syrian Chemical Weapons Attacks
(August 26, 2013) — President Barack Obama, April 29, 2013, responding to evidence that chemical weapons . . . Flashback: Syria Rebels Used Sarin Nerve Agent
Syria, Sarin, and Subterfuge: They Made It All Up
(December 8, 2013) — The suspicion that the sarin gas attack . . . supposedly documenting poison gas attacks by Syrian government forces.
Report: Syrian Soldiers Find Chemical Agents in Rebel Tunnels
(August 24, 2013) — Syrian state television reported troops found chemical . . . for the reported nerve gas attack that killed hundreds earlier this week. . . . It is alleged that hundreds have been killed by this latest ‘gas attack’ which is . . . ARE GASSING OUR CHILDREN”, but when you actually read the article . . .
UK Government Let British Company Export Nerve Gas Chemicals to Syria
(September 2, 2013) — The Government was accused of . . . capable of being used to make a nerve agent such as sarin a year ago. . . . of the attack in the Syrian capital which claimed more than 1,400 lives. . .
A “Wide Range of Options”: Nuclear Bombs, Assassination, and Covert Invasions
On April 7, 2917 NBC Nightly News reported that it had “learned exclusive details about the top secret, highly-controversial options that are being presented to the president for possible military action against North Korea.”
NBC featured an interview with Adm. James Stavridis (Ret.), Nightly News’ Chief International Security and Diplomacy Analyst. “It’s mandatory to present the widest possible array of options,” Stavridis stated, “That’s what enables presidents to make the right decisions: when they see all the all the options on the table in front of them.”
But the “wide array of options” appeared to be dangerously narrow. Instead of considering diplomatic options (which could involve accepting China’s “double-halt” proposal that the North halt its missile and nuclear tests in exchange for South Korea and the US ending its provocative military exercises), the only three options placed on the President’s table were:
Nuclear Weapons to South Korea
“Decapitation”: Target and Kill
Top Secret US Options for North Korea
Cynthia McFadden, NBC Senior Legal & Investigative Correspondent, laid out the three options. The first involved reversing a decades-old de-escalation treaty and shipping a new assortment of US nuclear weapons back to South Korea.
According to McFadden (working as some Washington insider’s media megaphone), the second option would be a “decapitation” strike designed to: “target and kill North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un and other senior leaders in charge of missiles and nuclear weapons.”
Stravridis, however, cautioned that “decapitation is always a tempting strategy when you’re faced with a highly unpredictable and highly dangerous leader.” (The words are freighted with a chilling irony given that this description of the Korean leader also fits the US leader, Donald Trump.) According to Stravridis, “The question is: what happens the day after you decapitate.”
The third option involves infiltrating South Korean troops and US Special Forces into the North to “take out key infrastructure” and possibly stage targeted attacks on political targets.
The first option violates numerous nuclear nonproliferation agreements. (Nonetheless, NBC conveniently informs us, there is growing support in the South for reinstalling atomic weapons aimed at the North Korean border.)
The second and third options involve infringements of sovereignty as well as gross violations of international law.
Over the past years, the world press has run numerous articles detailing Washington’s desire to attack North Korea and topple the regime, even it that involves a criminal “decapitation strike.”
Now that NBC has been given the go-ahead to “normalize” the political assassination of a foreign leader by broadcasting Kim Jong-Un’s murder as a reasonable “option,” the geopolitical stakes have grown even higher.
Sanctions have so far failed to alter Kim’s behavior. It is doubtful that overt US threats calling for his murder will do anything more than harden his determination to empower his military with “offsetting” weaponry that can “send a message” to Washington and to the tens of thousands of US soldiers surrounding his country to the south, in Japan and, on Guam and other Pentagon-colonized islands in the Pacific.
One option that we would be better advised to explore is the one that China has proposed: Washington should stop its massive (and massively costly) “invasion games” off North Korea’s border and shores; in exchange, Kim would agree to halt the testing of destabilizing nuclear weapons and missiles.
It seems a fair — and wise — solution. So far, Washington and South Korea have dismissed it as “a non-starter.”
SEAL Team 6 is helping plan a ‘decapitation’ attack against North Korea
(March 13, 2017) — A report from a South Korean publication claims that the United States Navy’s SEAL Team 6 is helping to plan a “decapitation attack” aimed at . . .
South Korea plans ‘decapitation unit’ to wipe out Kim Jong Un
The New York Post
(January 5, 2017) — South Korea is ramping up plans to create a “decapitation unit” whose chief mission is to paralyze North Korea by wiping out its top officials . . . an intercontinental ballistic missile that could potentially reach the United States.
South Korea has a military unit trained to ‘decapitate’ Kim Jong-un
(January 5, 2017) — South Korea says it has established a military unit to “decapitate” Kim Jong-un and . . . The special forces team, designed to paralyse North Korea’s wartime . . . Included in the South’s plans is a “Korea Massive Punishment and Retaliation” . . . The US has said it believes North Korea is pressing ahead with the . . .
The Foolishness of Strategic Decapitation in North Korea
(January 10, 2017) — Plans to ‘solve’ the Korea issue by taking out key leaders are tragically oversimplified. . . . The Debate. The Foolishness of Strategic Decapitation in North Korea. Image Credit: US Forces Korea/ MC1 Todd Macdonald . . .
South Korea has a plan to ‘decapitate’ Kim Jong Un
(September 14, 2016) — South Korea has a plan to ‘decapitate’ Kim Jong Un . . . If North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un orders a nuclear strike on . . . “We will develop asymmetric strategies that give us a comparative advantage over the North,” Cho said, . . .
South Korea’s plan to destroy Kim Jong Un with ‘decapitation unit’
The News (Australia)
(January 6, 2017) — SOUTH Korea is ramping up plans to create a “decapitation unit” whose chief mission is to paralyse North Korea by wiping out its top officials, . . . an intercontinental ballistic missile that could potentially reach the United States.
In drills, US, South Korea practice striking North’s nuclear plants
The Washington Post
(March 7, 2016) — North Korea threatens ‘military counteraction’ against US . . . facilities, as well as “decapitation” raids to take out North Korea’s leaders. . . . The joint forces will also run through their new “4D” operational plan, which details the . . .
How South Korea plans ‘decapitation’ strike against North’s leadership
(Aug 28, 2015) — South Korea plans ‘decapitation’ strike against North’s leadership if . . . that give us a comparative advantage over the North, like psychological . . .
North Korea Threatens To Strike US,
South Korean Troops ‘Without Warning’
Ryan Pickrell / The Daily Caller
(March 27, 2017) — Pyongyang is threatening preemptive strikes against US and South Korean troops in response to alleged decapitation drills targeting North Korean leadership.
US and South Korean strategic plans for a nuclear crisis on the Korean peninsula are said to include strikes on North Korean leadership, as well as the North’s weapons facilities and military command centers. The ongoing Foal Eagle drills reportedly involve joint exercises for such a situation.
South Korean media has reported that US and South Korean special forces are training for such a contingency. North Korea asserts that these troops were dispatched “at the direct instruction of the US president.”
“The [Korean People’s Army] will not remain a passive onlooker to hordes of robbers trying to hurt our people with daggers,” the state-run Korean Central News Agency wrote, citing the General Staff of the KPA. The North Korean military explained that the presence of spec ops units on the Korean peninsula justifies an attack.
“The KPA will deal deadly blows without prior warning any time as long as the operation means and troops of the US and South Korean puppet forces involved in the ‘special operation’ and ‘preemptive attack’ targeting the [Democratic Republic of Korea] remain deployed in and around South Korea,” the North Korean military warned.
“Once the enemy launches the said ‘operation and strike,’ they will bring about a historic event in which the US imperialists will face a miserable doom and the South Korean puppet forces a final ruin,” the report added.
The Foal Eagle drills typically provoke an aggressive response from North Korea, but Pyongyang has been particularly hostile since Secretary of State Rex Tillerson suggested that military action is an option for dealing with North Korea. The North believes the new administration, which has yet to formulate a North Korea policy, has taken a hard-line stance against it.
It is unclear whether US and South Korean troops have conducted exercises aimed at eliminating North Korean leadership, but allied troops practiced raiding a mock North Korean chemical weapons facility last week.
Since the start of the joint drills on the peninsula, North Korea has fired off multiple ballistic missiles in drills rehearsing strikes on American and South Korean troops and strategic assets.
The US has deployed significant military assets, including supersonic bombers, multi-role stealth fighters, nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers, and elite combat troops to the peninsula for the drills.
Posted in accordance with Title 17, Section 107, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes.