On War #40: Curiouser And Curiouser

Free Congress Foundation ^ | October 30, 2003 | William S. Lind

[Chapita]

If there is one thing that all Washington should be able to agree on, it is that the United States does not want to fight another war in Korea. The bloodbath would be horrific, the financial cost would be ruinous, and the effects of such a war on the stability of northeast Asia would be unpredictable. Plus, we might not win.

Yet when President Bush was asked during his recent Asian trip about North Korea's request for a non-aggression pact with the United States, he replied, "We will not have a treaty, if that's what you're asking. That's off the table."

For heaven's sake, why?

North Korea has offered to give up its nuclear weapons program for such a treaty. Speaking with Thailand's prime minister, Mr. Bush later said, "We have no intention of invading North Korea." If that is true, then what is the Administration's objection to a formal non-aggression pact? At the very least, offering North Korea such a pact would put the onus on them if they chose to continue their nuclear program instead. And if they did in fact give up their nukes in return for a treaty, we would walk away with a very good deal.

Here we see the underlying problem with the Bush administration's foreign policy. On the surface, its actions often do not make sense. There is no obvious, clear, or even rational explanation for positions the administration takes. Naturally, that leads people at home and abroad to ask what is really going on. What is the Bush team up to? What is their hidden agenda? What are their real intentions and plans?

The Iraq war is exhibit A. Since Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction and was not working with non-state, Fourth Generation forces (aka "terrorists"), what are the real reasons America attacked Iraq? For oil? For Israel? For world dominion? Everyone speculates, because the official answers don't make sense.

Now the same speculation is underway about American intentions in Korea. Does America perhaps plan to attack North Korea's nuclear facilities? Does it think a war in Korea would injure China, which elements in Washington see as a probable future enemy? Do Pentagon advocates of the so-called "Revolution in Military Affairs" believe they could win an easy victory over North Korea, thereby justifying even more money for high-tech weapons? What are the unstated, real reasons behind Mr. Bush's refusal to consider a non-aggression pact?

It appears that North Korea may save the Bush administration from itself in this case. Secretary of State Colin Powell has indicated that the U.S. might offer a written guarantee of some sort that it will not attack North Korea, a guarantee that would be backed by China, Japan and Russia as well. After first rejecting this offer, the North Korea now appears willing to reconsider. This is wise from their perspective, because a guarantee involving the other regional powers would put more, not fewer, constraints on Washington than would a bilateral treaty. If America signed, then attacked North Korea anyway under the administration's preventative war doctrine, it would have serious problems with China, Russia and Japan. It is all too easy to imagine Mr. Rumsfeld, at a news conference following an American strike on North Korea, referring to a non-aggression pact as a mere "scrap of paper."

But the underlying problem remains. So long as Washington's actions do not make sense in terms of its stated policies and intentions, people will keep wondering what the real game is. Curiouser and curiouser, as Alice would say. One is tempted to revise a bon mot from that worst of years, 1914: in Pyongyang, the situation is serious but not hopeless; in Washington, it is hopeless but not serious.

[Chapita]

For your comment!

[harpseal]

North Korea agreed with the USA under the Clinton regime that it would forego any nuclear development so now they claim they have weapons it makes no sense to negotiate a treaty with them since it would not be worth teh paper upon which it was written.

[avg_freeper]

I know, why don't we just offer to help North Korea with their nuclear power plants in exchange for them no longer developing nuclear weapons. I mean, how could that possibly not work?

[JohnGalt]

It's a fair point, but the return to the bribery regime was not exactly a solution.

Perhaps Lind believes that a treaty, any treaty, is all Kim is looking for to save face at home, and that might make sense considering the stretched out nature of American resources.

[The Duke]

Actually, I think we could take the North Koreans, and if we played the game right and had just a little luck on our side we'd come out AOK.

I'm starting to think it's not the conquest we have to be concerned about, but rather how much "Haliburton" is going to charge us to "rebuild" (apparently Haliburton is the only company left the knows how to drive a bulldozer).

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

"(apparently Haliburton is the only company left the knows how to drive a bulldozer)."

Halliburton is about the only company that has the organizational skill, people, equipment and expertise know how to hit the ground running at point zero and get the job done. Brown and Root, the subsidiary of Halliburton is the most respected name in the construction industry.

Perhaps you like others would prefer that American taxpayer dollars be given to France, Germany, Russia, and red China for rebuilding an Iraqi infrastructure almost totally destroyed by the rule of Sadam, not the US bombing or tank and artillery fire.

[usurper]

For heaven's sake, why?

Because only an idiot would make an agreement with a chronic liar.

[harpseal]

The precedent of even giving Kim Jong Il a little face saving in this situation could haunt us in other nations such as Iran.

[woofie]

Lets sign all sorts of agreements and use them for toilet paper

[lepton]

about North Korea's request for a non-aggression pact with the United States, he replied, "We will not have a treaty, if that's what you're asking. That's off the table." For heaven's sake, why?

It would make North Korea free to attack our allies with impunity.

[meenie]

I would imagine a non-agression treaty would apply to both countries using preemptive strikes in their foreign relations. China, Russia, and Japan guarantees would help ease the situation. We should not be fooled, though, because China and Russia are aligned against us militarily as well as ideologically.

[Dolphy]

Here we see the underlying problem with the Bush administration's foreign policy. On the surface, its actions often do not make sense. There is no obvious, clear, or even rational explanation for positions the administration takes...The Iraq war is exhibit A. Since Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction and was not working with non-state, Fourth Generation forces (aka "terrorists"), what are the real reasons America attacked Iraq? For oil? For Israel? For world dominion? Everyone speculates, because the official answers don't make sense.

I can't really consider an argument that uses a lie as its first exhibit in support its premise. We absolutely do not know that Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction. And there is countless evidence of terrorist connections with Saddam, including the very visible support of Palestinian suicide bombers.

It's no wonder the author is confused and can't make sense of the world around him.

[Chapita]

I think they want to SELL another agreement!

[JohnGalt]

Oh, I agree, don't get me wrong. But the Iraq adventure forced the administration's hand on North Korea to our detriment, and I am not sure the Iraqi Hawks are willing to own up to the fact.

[The Duke]

Halliburton is about the only company that has the organizational skill, people, equipment and expertise know how to hit the ground running at point zero and get the job done.

Yeah, right, only Haliburton can drive a freakin' bulldozer. Sure. </sarcasm>

There once was the concept in this nation call "The appearance of impropriety". I never saw the obituary for that concept, but I wish I know where it is buried, so I could go pay my respects.

[pawdoggie]

It would make North Korea free to attack our allies with impunity.

Bingo! North Korea could, for example, commit acts of sabotage, terrorism or guerrilla warfare against the ROK or Japan, and we would be forced to look on in impotent rage because no regular NK military forces had crossed the 38th parallel to commit "aggression".