February 12, 2018

Frustrations at the White House and the Pentagon

By Loren DeJonge Schulman and Julianne Smith

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.

  • Reports
    • January 20, 2022
    Dealing with a Taliban-Controlled Afghanistan

    Executive Summary Nearly 20 years after U.S. forces overturned Taliban rule in Afghanistan, the fundamentalist Islamist movement is back in power. This follows the U.S. troop ...

    By Lisa Curtis

  • Congressional Testimony
    • January 19, 2022
    The Strategic Importance of a U.S. Digital Trade Agreement in the Indo-Pacific

    Chairman Bera, Ranking Member Chabot, and the other distinguished Subcommittee Members: I appreciate this opportunity to speak with you about digital trade with the Indo-Pacif...

    By David Feith

  • Commentary
    • Foreign Affairs
    • January 14, 2022
    Washington’s Missing China Strategy

    The Biden administration has repeatedly identified China as the United States’ foremost foreign policy challenge. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has referred to China as th...

    By Richard Fontaine

  • Video
    • January 13, 2022
    No Progress Seen After Russia-U.S. Talks Over Ukraine Tensions

    The United States and Russia locked horns over Ukraine and other security issues Monday with no sign of progress from either side at highly anticipated strategic talks. Andre...

    By Andrea Kendall-Taylor

View All Reports View All Articles & Multimedia