February 12, 2018
Frustrations at the White House and the Pentagon
In early February, months-long tensions between the White House and the Pentagon over how to address North Korea spilled out into the public scene. As officials revealed to the New York Times, National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster had demanded that the Pentagon provide a menu of detailed military plans, including a “bloody nose” strike against North Korean nuclear facilities, in order to bring credibility to President Donald Trump’s threats. But the Pentagon, these officials noted, appeared reluctant to deliver on the request, seemingly worried that the White House lacked an appreciation of how quickly a military strike could escalate.
The reality is more nuanced. The Pentagon’s apparent refusal to deliver the White House’s desired military plans most likely derived from a number of factors unrelated to the Department of Defense’s feelings about the president or his foreign policy. In this case, the parameters likely set by the White House—low risk to U.S. forces, low risk to South Korea, low risk in provoking a North Korean response, but high damage to Pyongyang’s nuclear program or broader conventional force—may have simply been untenable. There is, after all, no effective surgical strike option for North Korea, no “bloody nose” that could reliably inflict determinative damage on military facilities without prompting devastating retaliation. The Pentagon always works more slowly than desired in the development of military plans, but ultimately cannot deliver on an impossible request—and is likely disinclined to offer less robust options.
Read the full article in Foreign Affairs.
More from CNAS
-
The U.S. and India–Pakistan Tensions with Lisa Curtis | The Ballpark Podcast
Podcast
To discuss the US’ part in brokering a ceasefire, and the US’ responses to disputes between India and Pakistan over the past three decades, in June 2025 the Phelan US Centre s...
By Lisa Curtis
-
Quad: The Next Phase
Reports
Executive Summary The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) among the United States, Australia, India, and Japan is becoming the focal point for economic and technological co...
By Lisa Curtis, Kareen Hart, Ryan Claffey, Keerthi Martyn & Thomas Corel
-
America’s Middle East Trap is China’s Strategic Windfall
Commentary
China’s approach to any escalation in the Middle East reflects its broader strategy of free-riding on U.S. security commitments....
By Adham Sahloul
-
U.S.-Japan Relations Under the Trump Administration 2.0
Video
In this thought-provoking discussion, Richard Fontaine, CEO of CNAS and co-author of “Lost Decade”; and Ken Jimbo, president of Asia Pacific Initiative at the International Ho...
By Richard Fontaine
