That never was the strategic objective. It would be nice, of course, but that's not what containment is about. Containment is about containment -- preventing the nasty state from doing major damage beyond its borders.
North Korea hasn't actually *attacked* anyone. If it does, then I'll concede that containment has failed, and humbly apologize to you for advocating it. (Although I would still stick to my position that containment would have continued to work with Saddam's Iraq, which was militarily much, much weaker than North Korea.)
But until North Korea actually *does* attack someone, I'll stick to my position that containment is working.
Edit: This is why we fail to see eye to eye on the question. Our success criteria are different. Your success criteria involve rendering the rogue state either incapable or unwilling to inflict damage on its neighbors, third countries, or its own population; my success criteria are much more modest -- simply deterring or preventing it from inflicting damage on its neighbors or third countries, whatever it does to its own population, whatever capability it retains, and whatever lesser (and therefore manageable) mischief it may be up to.
Edit 2: Therefore, by your criteria, America's policy vis a vis the USSR was a disastrous failure, because it never managed to make a dent in the USSR's military capability nor its capability to oppress its own population, nor even the population of third countries within its sphere of influence -- until it collapsed of its own accord, due to the fundamental unsustainability of its system. OTOH I consider that very same policy a roaring success, since it prevented the USSR from extending its influence further, or starting a third world war.
