All these regimes are a problem for us with North Korea, Iran, and Syria requiring attention before the 2004 election, which I don't know will happen. I expect we will not use our nukes until one million Americans have died due to an attack by one of these states or its terrorist partners. I hope I'm wrong. I don't think the majority of the nation supports the Bush doctrine. I don't think the majority of FreeRepublic posters support the Bush doctrine. I expect we will suffer another attack before we strike. I pray I'm wrong.
I agree 100%. Which is why Pakistan worries me so much. Al Qaeda and the Taliban have both taken up refuge there. There are nukes there. The only thing standing between the nukes and al Qaeda is Musharraf. Doesn't exactly instill a lot of confidence does it? Furthermore, the area in which al Qaeda has taken refuge is the are where Musharraf has the least control. If I were bin Laden or whoever is in charge of al Qaeda right now, getting my hands on those nukes would be my only goal. I wouldn't care if it took another five years, all my resources would be focused on that.
I have my own personal ideas about how to solve that problem but I feel they are too radical to air publicly. It hinges around getting Musharraf to agree to destroying his nukes and nuclear program and what would have to be used as leverage to make him do so. The end result would be- no nukes= no nukes for al Qaeda to grab.
Iran's nuclear threat is easily neutralized if we care to do so. It wouldn't even take a massive airstrike, just a pinpoint one. But there are lots of interesting dynamics in Iran that must factor into the situation. There is unrest from within, for example.
For me, the problem we have the best chances of dealing effectively with through sustained military force is Syria. Our troops are getting attacked on the ground apparently from insurgents who are using Syria (among other places) to infiltrate Iraq. Assad claims he can't do anything to stop it. He might even be telling the truth. What I suspect he means when he makes those types of noises is he doesn't have the sway to deal with the hardliners in the Baath party who approve of the attacks in Iraq.
But Israel is already providing much pressure against Syria. Israel is Syria's biggest strategic threat. If we were to apply serious pressure to Assad now, we would have his codsack in the ole nutcracker and we could make him move in the direction that pleased us.
What I would like to see is our carriers head back to the Med to patrol off the coast of Syria. No official announcements, no overt public sabre rattling, just those carriers cruising back and forth off the coast and behind the scenes bare bones, no holds barred diplomacy (read serious arm twisting). Maybe with enough pressure and some honest to goodness support and reward, Assad could be induced to clean out his hardliners.
It is a longshot I admit. But if you could accomplish this without committing American troops, it would be a huge coup and would pay huge dividends on the ground in Iraq and in Israel. This would free up our attention for Iran and the other problem of Pakistan.
I personally don't view North Korea as that much of a threat as long as they don't try to sell their nukes. Or if a threat, then an equal threat to Russia, China and Japan. What I'm saying is, there are other players there who have as much or more interest in keeping North Korea sorted out as we do. China has much more sway there than we do and it is their back yard. If they want to be a player on the international stage, they need to step up and take some responsibility for their neighborhood.