North Korea’s iron-fisted dictator, Kim Jong il, was recently hospitalized with a stroke. The news of his illness led to widespread speculation about who his successor would be, and what impact Kim’s death would have on North Korea’s agreement to begin dismantling its nuclear weapons program.

Most commentators seem to think that Kim’s demise would bring an era of peace to the Korean peninsula, and by extension all of Asia. Once the old-line commie is gone, so the thinking seems to be, the North Koreans will be much more amenable to reason. They’ll trade their nukes for rice and a chance to join the world community.

Ain’t gonna happen folks.

I have a reputation for being a politically incorrect maverick – they don’t call me “Rogue Warrior” for nothing – but any student of history, ancient or recent, will agree with what I’m saying if they take the time to look at the facts. Greed always overcomes need. While the North Korean people may need peace and help from the world community, greed and power lust among Kim Jong il’s possible successors will win the day.

Kim Jong il succeeded his father, and it’s generally believed that he will choose one of his sons to succeed him. He may already have; we simply don’t know. But Kim Jong il’s bloodlines are, to put it delicately, irregular – besides his natural and acknowledged children, he is said to have several illegitimate and adopted offspring, any one of whom could emerge as a potential successor following his death.

No matter who Kim Jong il chooses or who decides he wants in on the action, the North Korean army will not trust them. The most likely scenario, therefore, is that the military will take over, possibly in some sort of coalition with one of Kim’s sons. At that point, it would not be surprising if another challenge develops within the lower ranks, especially if another of Kim’s offspring is able to position himself as a viable challenger to the hierarchy’s chosen candidate.

North Korea is arguably the most secret and closed society on earth. We don’t know a lot about them; they don’t know a lot about us. I’ve spent the last two years working on a book that takes place largely in North Korea, doing my own personal research, reading everything I could get my hands on about the place, buttonholing people “in the know.” Even after all that work, much of  Choson-minjujuui-inmin-konghwaguk – the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea – remains a mystery to me. The main thing I know is that I will never know everything I want to know about them.

But I do know this: There is no one in the wings with the leadership skills that are required to lead a impoverished nation. None of Kim’s children, or military leaders for that matter, have experience nor international exposure to gain support or approval. Nor does anyone individual have the commanding stature inside of North Korea that Kim’s father, Kim il Sung, had – a necessary ingredient for mobilizing the people against famine.

A military regime would most likely revert to a "Fortress North Korea" mentality. That could be an extreme problem for us, since they would be reverting to the only thing they know: war and aggression, both internationally and internally. North Korea would become a worse police state than it is today, and would be even more disruptive on the world stage.

Would such a government disarm?

More likely, they would see South Korea as a potential breadbasket – or rice bowl – and hope that their possession of nuclear weapons, along with other distractions around the globe, will keep us from launching a retaliatory raid before it’s too late. A quick strike by North Korea over the border could push far enough into the south to panic the population and force a fait accompli on the world. It’s not far-fetched; it nearly happened in the Korean War.

On the other hand, if South Korea stopped the attack before the North penetrated too far into its territory – likely, though not a given – their army would then go deep into North Korea to sever the command and control networks, and assure that they would never be attacked again. Where would they stop? Probably at the Chinese border.

One way or another, it would be a blood bath on both sides, a conventional war comparable, at least on the tactical level, to World War II. In Darfur, 400,000 people are estimated to have died from the war and starvation. A Korean war would produce at least ten times that number of casualties – and maybe even a hundred times. The social responsibility would be on a level the world is not prepared for.

What can we do now, aside from getting Kim Jong il the best medical care possible?

We certainly do not have a military option. The only action we can afford to take today would be strategic strikes – missiles and bombs, no boots on the ground. That would entail a lot of collateral damage that politically we can't afford and don't want to deal with at this time, especially during a time of transition from one president to another.

Our options are not good ones. We must continue to engage the North Koreans, working with South Korea, Japan, and China. We can and should do things that we should have been doing years ago – namely, building up our HUMANINT (human intelligence – spies) network, increasing our conventional capabilities and manpower in Asia. We can tighten our monitoring of North Korea to prevent it from reaching out to terrorists and rogue nations – little “r,” please – and trading nuclear no-how for money and food.

These are interesting times all over the world, but especially in Asia. We tend to pay a lot of attention to the Middle East and its problems; while that is often justified, we can’t afford to lose sight of what’s going on in the rest of the world. Nor can we afford to be blindly optimistic about the future.

- Richard Marcinko & Jim DeFelice

October 2008