The major portion is economic, with South Korea cutting off most trade relations. But there is a military dimension with our backing:
Until Monday, the Obama administration had been intentionally vague on how it might respond to the report blaming North Korea for the attack, out of a reluctance to stoke tensions.
But on Tuesday, the Obama administration shifted gears, taking its cue from South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, who announced Monday that he would cut all trade with the impoverished North.
A Defense Department spokesman, Bryan Whitman, said the joint U.S.-South Korean exercises would take place in the "near future" and would focus on detecting submarines and monitoring illicit activities.
The Pentagon confirmed the planned exercises are directly tied to the torpedo attack two months ago.
I understand that an immediate military response might escalate to war. It would be a war that South Korea would win--but would cost South Korea their capital Seoul, being pounded by artillery deployed just north of the DMZ. North Korea is weak economically, so it makes sense to emphasize economic warfare.
However, I still think that eventually, after the immediate crisis cools off, that South Korea needs to make something go boom up north. Quietly, of course, so as not to put their backs to the wall--but clear enough for the Pyongyang elite to understand. I hope our visible support goes that far, too.
For while it is all well and good to prepare for the next threat so that South Korea can beat it on the spot, if South Korea does not respond militarily to this attack, Seoul will have signaled that North Korea can get away with occasionally killing scores of South Koreans.
