North Korea has developed nuclear weapons. Not really a problem. FedEx doesn’t pick up in North Korea and the North Koreans don’t have a delivery system (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile, ICBM). Oh, wait, they just tested an intermediate range missile. Well, that couldn’t reach the United States. So, not really a problem, yet. It could reach South Korea or Japan, however, and both are American allies. So, that’s a problem.
North Korea has been “carpet sanctioned” by the United Nations (U.N.) for its nuclear program and other things. Chinese support is North Korea’s only lifeline. It seems to be widely agreed that Chinese pressure could bring an end to the regime. According to President Trump, “China has control, absolute control, over North Korea.” So, why doesn’t China topple the North Korean psychocracy? It could be that North Korea isn’t any more trusting of China than it is of anyone else. Perhaps lots of Chinese agents of influence and spies within the North Korean government keep ending up dead? That could cut down the scope for action short of war.
Or, perhaps China sees North Korea as a desirable destabilizing force in the region. China, The Peoples Republic, of has been intruding aggressively into the non-state waters of the South China Sea. This program of reef-claiming, reef-enhancing, and reef-arming has put China at odds with Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Vietnam. In these alarming circumstances, North Korean aggression and the perception that China has a leash on North Korea may work to enhance China’s bargaining power. In this context, China’s Foreigners Ministry has argued that the Americans should deal directly with North Korea.
Meanwhile, the United States is at war with radical Islam. In Afghanistan, the Taliban use safe-havens in Pakistan from which to wage war in their own country. According to the local American military commander, the war is a “stalemate.” A mere 8,400 American soldiers are trying to brace-up and train the Afghan army and police. The Taliban seem able to learn how to fight a war without such trainers.
In Iraq and Syria, the Islamic State has been battered into fragments. Again, a small number of American troops are serving as trainers and advisers for Syrian and Iraqi troops, and as spotters for air strikes. Still, several political problems remain on front-burners. First, ISIS will not long survive as an organized military force or a political community. What will become of the survivors as they flee the cauldron? Will they attempt to return home, there to continue the struggle? Then, the defeat of ISIS is a long way from the defeat of radical Islam. What new insurgency will pop up, either immediately or in the future?
Second, much of the heavy lifting in both Syria and Iraq has been done by Kurds. Over the long-term, American support for the Kurds challenges the national integrity of Syria, Iraq, and Turkey. The Russian-backed Assad regime in Syria may be in no position—or no mood—to carry the fight to ISIS. An Iraq riven by sectarian conflicts may find itself in the same boat. That would leave Turkey—a NATO ally of the United States—as the chief opponent of Kurdish nationalism. That, in turn, will create a dilemma for American diplomacy. Will America back the Kurds or the Turks? In either case, the Russians will find an opening.
 “America’s Military Challenges,” The Week, 3 March 2017, p. 11.
 That doesn’t seem to have done the trick.
 The sloppy murder of the half-brother of the North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un in a Kuala Lumpur airport and the subsequent hasty execution of five North Korean intelligence officers may complicate matters for China.
 Or, alternatively, take up the rocker and thrill younger generations with their tales of daring-do?
 “Gratitude has a short half-life”—Thomas Harris, The Silence of the Lambs.