The Command Post
Iran - North Korea - Hotspots
May 04, 2003
North Drawing Lessons From Saddam's Fall

From Chosun Ilbo (S. Korea):

North Korea is evaluating its leaders to confirm their loyalty to the regime, assuming the Saddam Hussein regime fell because its military leaders betrayed it, a private U.S. global intelligence consulting firm said over the weekend.

The consultant, Stratfor, quoted North Korean informed services in Europe as saying high North Korean officials were closely analyzing the Iraq war to learn lessons from it. The North believes that the Saddam regime collapsed due to the betrayal of Iraq's military leaders rather than superior U.S. military capabilities, Stratfor said, adding that Pyongyang thinks it can make a U.S. attack less likely if such internal betrayals do not occur.

Also FYI, you can check out Stratfor here ...

Posted by Alan at May 4, 2003 09:28 AM
Comments

Back to the 1930's (Stalin's Red Army purges).

Posted by: NF at May 4, 2003 10:28 AM

I hope so. That will destabilize the regime, and hopefully scare more important North Koreans into defecting to escape the wrath of Kim. It'll also reinforce the world's perception of Korea as a backwards, barbaric regime.

Of course, if they believe that Saddam fell solely b/c his military leaders betrayed him, they're missing the forest for the trees. Their military leaders betrayed him b/c they knew they had no chance to win. If NK thinks they can win a war with America, even if they use nukes, they're dead wrong. That's the lesson they need to learn.

Posted by: Byron at May 4, 2003 02:55 PM

Kim Jong Il: you're right you can't trust any of them. And if you're not sure, kill them...

Posted by: R. McLeod at May 4, 2003 03:27 PM

The more you tighten your fist, the more star systems slip through your fingers.

Posted by: Mark Buehner at May 5, 2003 10:35 AM

Saddam's army was also rolled up because commanders had no accurate information because no one wanted to be the bringer of bad news...

What a perfect strategy... No one wants to say that they are being attacked, meaning tactical decisions never get made...

Germany got rolled up in WW2 when commanders couldn't act independently, the same was true in Iraq, the same will hold true in NK.

Posted by: Original Mark at May 5, 2003 11:37 AM

Mark you don't know World War Two or Wehrmacht history. Germany's commanders had more leeway than any force in world war two, including US forces.

As far as Stratfor is concerned I used to subscribe, they have an incredibly bad record of predictions and analysis. Just look at their predictions of which European countries would support the US.

Posted by: IR at May 5, 2003 12:57 PM

Hmmm... thats true at the START of the war. But more and more toward the end Hitler became more and more a control freak. A good exampleis Russia, at the start of the russian offensive the german commanders had a great plan of attack (capture the oil fields), but they never got to do it because Hitler ordered them to attack Stalingrad(sp?) Same for the no-retreat-or-we'll-kill-you thing. Toward the end they had very little personnel control.

So, in conclusion Mark wasn't far off.

Posted by: NookOfNorth at May 6, 2003 12:17 AM

I know my German history... I've studied WW2 pretty extensively.

What made Germany powerful in the beginning was daring strategies that were never seen in battle before.

By D-Day, Hitler refused to allow retreats in Russia which lead to over-stretched supply lines and devasting losses.

In Normandy, a Panzer division wasn't allowed to move north because Hitler believed the main invasion was still coming.

German commanders were superior to their Russian counterparts, the Russians bled badly for every mile retaken.

Hitler also kept on believing that a "super" weapon would appear and that he would still be victorious. That's why he continued development on so many freakish weapon systems right to the end.

Posted by: Original Mark at May 6, 2003 07:54 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?