[KS] Re: literature types on NK perspectives

[David McCann]

My thanks to Morgan Clippinger for an edifying post.  Points taken.

Further analysis-- or not exactly analysis, the point is so obivous, if
curious; call it an elemental sorting:  on the one hand, academic types,
CIA analysts, and others who may be said to know something about a place
and its history, and on the other, the overly busy or otherwise preoccupied
policymakers who don't read any of the analyses.

Where does this go?

It might be possible that the policy making is informed in some other way.
It might be possible that behind or beneath the obvious provocation of the
speech in Seoul, there might be some other line or objective of
communication between the US and the DPRK which encouraged the DPRK to
ignore or dismiss the -- What should one say if not 'yapping'?  Maybe
'highly insulting remarks'?-- by the White House spokesperson, and keep
pursuing multilateral talks.  (-- efforts underway to avoid Armageddon--)

Assuming there is little if any transfer of information from the area
specialist realm to the policy making realm, one might reasonably suggest
that it doesn't matter much, in a literal or figurative sense, if some
expert on Korea makes an error, or reaches a faulty conclusion.  That isn't
the case on the policy making side, however.

But one might push this line of thinking along a little farther...  Do the
economists read what the historians write?  Do the historians read what the
lit types write?  Does the West Coast read the East Coast?  Does the US
read Europe?


David McCann