McMaster: U.S. Preparing For "Preventive War" With North Korea

The United States is preparing for all options to counter the growing threat from North Korea, including launching a “preventive war,” national security adviser H.R. McMaster said in an interview that aired Saturday on MSNBC. The comments come after North Korea carried out two tests of intercontinental ballistic missiles in the past month and after the president said he has been clear he will not tolerate North Korea"s threats to attack the U.S. with nuclear weapons.

The key excerpts (full transcript):

H.H.: Let me switch if I can to North Korea, which is really pressing. And– and remind our audience, at the Aspen Institute ten days ago, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Joe Dunford, said, “There’s always a military– option. It would be horrific.” Lindsey Graham on Today Show earlier this week said– “We need to destroy the regime and their deterrent.” Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said on Tuesday, I believe, to North Korea, “You are leaving us no choice but to protect ourselves.” And then the Chairman of the Chief of Staff of the Army said, “Just because every choice is a bad choice doesn’t mean you don’t have to choose.” Are we looking at a preemptive strike? Are you trying to prepare us, you being collectively, the administration and people like Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton for a first strike North Korea?

H.R.M. Well, we really, what you’re asking is– is are we preparing plans for a preventive war, right? A war that would prevent North Korea from threatening the United States with a nuclear weapon. And the president’s been very clear about it. He said, “He’s not gonna tolerate North Korea being able to threaten the United States” if they have nuclear weapons that can threaten the United States; It’s intolerable from the president’s perspective. So of course, we have to provide all options to do that. And that includes a military option.

Now, would we like to resolve it short of what would be a very costly war, in terms of– in terms of the suffering of mainly the South Korean people? The– the ability of– of that North– North Korean regime to hold the South hostage to conventional fire’s capabilities, artillery and so forth, Seoul being so close. We’re cognizant of all of that. And so what we have to do is– is everything we can to– to pressure this regime, to pressure Kim Jong-un and those around him such that they conclude, it is in their interest to denuclearize. And there are really I think three critical things, came out of the president’s very successful summit with– President Xi of China that were different– that were different from past efforts to work with China, which has always been, you know, the– the desire, right, to work with China– on the– on the North Korean problem.

How many casualties will there be:

HH: In 1994, when the first North Korean deal with signed, the people who executed it, Gallucci, Dan Poneman, Joe Wit wrote a book. And they quoted a general saying, “If there is a conflict,” called Going Critical, “there will be a million casualties.” A million casualties. Is that still a good estimate of what happens if– preemptive strike unfolds in North Korea, General?

HRM: You know, one thing about war. It’s impossible oftentimes to predict. It’s always impossible to predict the future course of events. Because war is a continuous interaction of opposites, a continuous interaction between your forces and those of the enemy. It involves not just the capability to use force, but also intentions and things that are just unknowable at the outset. And so I think it’s important to– to look at– range of estimates of what could happen, because it’s clear that at war, it’s unpredictable. And so you always have to ask the question, “What happens next? What are the risks? How do you mitigate those risks?” And– and obviously, you know, war is– is– is the most serious decision any leader has to make. And so what can we do to make sure we exhaust our possibilities and exhaust our other opportunities to accomplish this very clear objective of denuclearization of the peninsula short of war?

Should Americans be concerned:

HH: How concerned should the American people be that we are actually on the brink of a war with North Korea?

HRM: Well, I think it’s impossible to overstate the danger associated with this. Right, the, so I think it’s impossible to overstate the danger associated with a rogue, brutal regime, I mean, who murdered his own brother with nerve agent in an airport. "I mean, think about what he’s done in terms of his own brutal repression of not only members of his regime but his own family," McMaster added.

On Tuesday,  Sen. Lindsey Graham said that the president told him there would be a war with North Korea if the regime continues to try to hit America with an ICBM. Appearing on the Today Show, the South Carolina Republican Senator said that President Trump has indicated to him that the administration is prepared to strike North Korea to prevent an attack against the U.S.  Pushed on by Matt Lauer on whether a viable military option exists in the region, Graham responded: "They"re wrong.  There is a military option to destroy North Korea"s program and North Korea itself."

The Hwasong-14 ICBM seen during its test in this undated photo released by
North Korea"s Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) in Pyongyang, July 5 2017.

As reported last Friday, North Korea claimed that its latest missiles can now strike anywhere in the United States, delivering nuclear warheads. Experts have said that the country’s missile program has greatly accelerated in recent months putting it far ahead of previous predictions about when it could launch reliable long-range missiles. Speaking to Newsweek in recent days, several experts said that an attack would be the deadliest the U.S. has ever received and potentially kill more than 100,000 people if it struck in large population centers like New York City or Los Angeles.

“I’m not going to confirm [whether the latest ICBM could reach anywhere in the U.S.] but whether it could reach San Francisco or Pittsburgh or Washington, I mean how much does that matter? It’s a grave threat,” McMaster said.

He added: “It’s impossible to overstate the danger associated with a rogue, brutal regime."

McMaster cautioned that he was aware of the fact that any strike against North Korea could bring about a “very costly war” that would cause immense “suffering of mainly the South Korean people.”

Last month, CIA Director Mike Pompeo floated another option for dealing with the North Korea threat, saying that he was “hopeful we will find a way to separate that regime from this system.” North Korea responded by threatening swift and brutal consequences for any attempt to topple Kim.

“Should the U.S. dare to show even the slightest sign of an attempt to remove our supreme leadership, we will strike a merciless blow at the heart of the U.S. with our powerful nuclear hammer, honed and hardened over time,” a foreign ministry spokesman said.

Still, McMaster did not rule out such an attempt when asked whether it could be a legitimate tool. “I think it depends on the legal justifications for that. And this goes back to just war theory. And what is the nature of the risk? And does that risk justify acting in defense of your people and your vital interests?”

Last week, the local press reported that South Korea"s military is preparing a "surgical strike" scenario that could wipe out NOrth Korean command and missile and nuclear facilities following an order by S.Korea"s president Moon Jae-In.

Emails Expose How Saudi Arabia And UAE Work The U.S. Media To Push For War

Submitted by Ben Norton of Alternet

A highly influential top Emirati diplomat heaped praise on a prominent Washington Post columnist for writing pro-Saudi propaganda, a leaked email shows.

Yousef al-Otaiba, the United Arab Emirates’ ambassador to the United States, applauded journalist David Ignatius for his writing on Saudi Arabia. Ignatius is notorious for fawning coverage of the kingdom, promoting its supposed efforts at reform and taking its line on regional conflicts without a shred of skepticism.

UAE Ambassador to the US Yousef al-Otaiba

The relationship between the UAE’s man in Washington and one of the Beltway’s top pundits is especially notable in light of the conflict that has erupted in the Persian Gulf. A steadily escalating rift between the Gulf states erupted into an all-out media war this June, leading to the alleged hacking of Qatari state media source and the hacking of Otaiba’s personal email account. Before long, the conflict became a siege as Saudi Arabia and its ally, the UAE, suspended diplomatic and economic ties with Qatar, and even imposed a de facto blockade on the country.

With the Trump administration alternating between support for the siege and halting opposition to its escalation, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are demanding Qatar to cut off support for the Muslim Brotherhood and to break its ties with Iran. President Trump took credit for the policy, which he implied was an intentional U.S.-led strategy.

Saudi Arabia has used the political turmoil to deflect from its own complicity in supporting Salafi-jihadist group, portraying violent Islamist extremism as a uniquely Qatari problem. (U.S. government intelligence, on the other hand, has acknowledged that both of its Gulf clients Saudi Arabia and Qatar have supported ISIS and al-Qaeda.)

One of the key points of contention between the Gulf states is Al Jazeera, the state-sponsored cable and online news titan that has acted as an arm of Qatari soft power. Though the UAE has no such network to boast of, the emails from Yousef Otaiba — one of the Beltway’s slickest operators — show how the UAE launders its message behind influential sources in Washington.

Doing "everything" for the Saudi crown prince

Both al-Otaiba and Ignatius have huge sway in Washington, D.C. and had the ear of former secretary of state Hillary Clinton. Both men have gone out of their way to portray the monarchy in Saudi Arabia in a positive light.

On April 20, Ignatius published an article in the Washington Post, titled, “A young prince is reimagining Saudi Arabia. Can he make his vision come true?” Ignatius personally sent al-Otaibi an email on April 21 with a link to the piece. Al-Otaiba replied later the same day, extolling Ignatius. In his reply, al-Otaiba bcc"ed the UAE’s foreign affairs minister, Abdullah bin Zayed, at his official government email account.

"Thank you for taking the time to go out there and meet with MBS," al-Otaiba wrote, using an acronym for Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s deputy crown prince, who is calling many of the shots in the kingdom. It is widely speculated that his father, King Salman, is ill.

"It looks from how you wrote this piece," al-Otaiba continued, "that you are beginning to see what we"ve been seeing for the last two years. Change!”

Al-Otaiba noted the Post article will be very useful in the attempt to rebrand the draconian Saudi regime.

"I"m relieved to find that you saw what we"ve been seeing and frequently trying to convey," wrote the Emirati ambassador. "Your voice and your credibility will be a huge factor in getting reasonable folks to understand and believe in what"s happening."

"Our job now," al-Otaiba concluded, "is to [do] everything possible to ensure MBS succeeds."

This email is part of a larger leak that appears to be a politically motivated hack in response to attempts by Saudi Arabia and the UAE to isolate Qatar.

Emails obtained by other media outlets show the UAE ambassador collaborating with the right-wing, pro-Israel think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies to develop strategies against Iran.

President Trump’s recent Arab Islamic American Summit in Riyadh has put the Saudi monarchy under renewed scrutiny, highlighting its projection of extremist Wahhabi state ideology throughout the world and its support for Salafi-jihadist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda from Syria to the southern islands of the Philippines.

The UAE, however, has gotten much less attention. The Gulf state is a key ally of the U.S., collaborates militarily in Yemen and pours money into Washington, D.C. think tanks. And Yousef al-Otaiba is the UAE’s voice in Washington.

Shilling for the Saudi Regime

Fellow journalists have taken David Ignatius to task for his long history of penning PR for the Saudi regime.

In a profile for the media watchdog Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Adam Johnson detailed how “For almost 15 years, Ignatius has been breathlessly updating U.S. readers on the token, meaningless public relations gestures that the Saudi regime—and, by extension, Ignatius—refer to as ‘reforms.’”

Ignatius has published more than a dozen Washington Post columns recycling hackneyed Saudi regime talking points, echoing members of the royal family and even rationalizing the beheading of peaceful dissidents from the kingdom’s Shia minority.

Ignatius’ April 20 profile on Mohammed bin Salman was enthusiastically endorsed by numerous Saudi figures, including the mission to the European Union; the new pro-regime, Washington, D.C.-based think tank the Arabia Foundation; and Nasser al-Biqami, who was appointed secretary-general of Riyadh’s new Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology.

Ignatius influencing Hillary Clinton

Ignatius’ writings have a strong influence not just on the U.S. public, but on the government itself. His columns" impact on the administration of President Barack Obama and on his former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, was evident in the tranche of emails released from Clinton’s hacked private server. Ignatius was mentioned 40 times in the Clinton emails.

Soon after Clinton was appointed to the head of the State Department, she had two private meetings with Ignatius, itineraries from May 2009 emails show.

Clinton aides and State Department officials regularly forwarded David Ignatius’ writings to the secretary of state, including articles like “Plotting a post-Assad road map for Syria.” Jake Sullivan directly recommended that Clinton read Ignatius. Sidney Blumenthal, an outside advisor, likewise shared several of Ignatius’ Middle East columns with the secretary.

Even Clinton herself spoke with State Department officials about Ignatius’ work and asked about him. A State Department official drafted a response to one of Clinton’s emails referencing the Washington Post columnist, and added, “I suggest you call David Ignatius sometime next week laying this out.”

Ignatius was so chummy with Clinton’s staff, he sent Jake Sullivan a message in 2011 asking for a phone call and inviting Sullivan to speak to his class at Harvard University.

How Otaiba influenced Clinton and Trump

Otaiba also enjoyed close personal ties to Clinton during her time as secretary of state. A 2010 email shows he reached out to Hillary Clinton to personally wish her a happy birthday.

The Emirati diplomat is mentioned 22 times in the emails released from Clinton’s time as former secretary of state. Al-Otaiba regularly emailed Clinton’s aide Jake Sullivan, who then forwarded the messages to her. Some of the messages show itineraries with private meetings between Secretary Clinton and al-Otaiba. The messages also reveal the casual nature of Otaiba’s relationship with top U.S. officials.

Under the Trump administration, Otaiba’s influence has grown. He is especially close to the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who has been tapped as a diplomatic jack-of-all-trades despite have entered Washington with no experience in government. Kushner, whose family has forged close ties to Israel’s Likud Party, has been described as Otaiba’s student, relying on him as a guide to the Middle East.

Top influence peddler

Yousef al-Otaiba is the son of the oil tycoon Mana al-Otaiba. Mana served as oil minister for the UAE — a formidable position in a country whose entire economy and political system depends on fossil fuels. Al-Otaiba senior was also president of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) a record six times.

A 2015 profile of Otaiba in the Huffington Post details how the diplomat plays politicians and the media like a virtuoso. The chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee told the Huffington Post, “I’ve spent probably more time with Yousef than I have anybody.”

Otaiba exerted his influence on a private 2014 Pentagon meeting on ISIS strategy held by the U.S. Defense Policy Board. He was the only foreign politician invited, save for Britain’s ambassador, joining former top U.S. foreign policy honchos like Madeleine Albright and Zbigniew Brzezinski. At the meeting, Otaiba was the most vociferous proponent of regime change in Syria and violently toppling the government of Bashar al-Assad.

This was consistent with Otaiba’s history of pushing the U.S. toward massive military escalations. In 2010, he used his voice to amplify calls from the pro-Israel lobby and hawkish members of Congress for an attack on Iran. At a conference at the Aspen Institute, Otaiba declared, "I am willing to absorb what takes place at the expense of the security of the UAE."