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.

  • Commentary
    • The Washington Post
    • July 2, 2020
    The U.S.-China confrontation is not another Cold War. It’s something new.

    With U.S.-China relations in free fall, the Trump administration’s chief arms control negotiator recently proclaimed that "we know how to win these races and we know how to sp...

    By Richard Fontaine & Ely Ratner

  • Commentary
    • War on the Rocks
    • July 1, 2020
    Thrones Wreathed in Shadow: Tacitus and the Psychology of Authoritarianism

    On May 10, 1626, Sir John Eliot — an English parliamentarian and statesman — delivered a blistering speech to the House of Commons. One of the finest orators of his day, Eliot...

    By Iskander Rehman

  • Video
    • June 24, 2020
    The Pitch: A Competition of New Ideas

    On June 17, 2020, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) hosted its premier event to elevate emerging and diverse voices in national security. Sixteen applicants made t...

    By Richard Fontaine, Michèle Flournoy, Michael J. Zak, Loren DeJonge Schulman, Shai Korman, Carrie Cordero, Kristine Lee, David Zikusoka & Cole Stevens

  • Podcast
    • June 24, 2020
    Richard Fontaine appears on Utrikespodden med Axel och Zebulon

    A bonus episode of the pod, all in English! Axel talks to Richard Fontaine, who is the CEO of Washington-based think Center for A New American Security (CNAS) and a former for...

    By Richard Fontaine

View All Reports View All Articles & Multimedia