I hope the President, and his "new" administration feel that preemptive measures against such regimes as North Korea and Iran are the prudent thing to do and follow through. I know a lot of folks don't like the idea of pre-emptive, but, I honestly believe that diplomacy will not work. Every drop of diplomacy has been rung out of the effort.
The unacceptable behavior of N.K. and Iran has been long standing, way before our current administration. And yes, as you've said before, the potential for more deaths is quite true with these two rogue nations as they have developed the means for mass destruction. But, what choice do we have? Their leaders are not rational individuals. I know I sound quite hawkish but I believe we are up against the wall on this, with no other viable option.
From the 2002 State of the Union portion you posted: "We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."
We need to hold true to this statement. Two years have passed and I'm afraid that passage of time has only emboldened the likes of Iran and N.K. I truly believe the danger is gathering. The next 2-4 years are going to be mighty interesting.
Like I said, we may be left with no choice. Hundreds of thousands of civilian and military casualties now or millions later. But if there is a way to denuclearize North Korea in the same way as Libya, or promote a regime change from within, then we might prevent the loss of literally hundreds of thousands of American lives.
But again, in the end, we may be left no choice.
For the first time in the decade this crisis has gone on, we issued a warning stating our "red line" (I posted the article last night). Given the stakes, it leads me to believe something is happening that is forcing us to draw the line in the sand.
If we discover they are about to transfer a weapon to al Qaeda, then we have no choice. But the cost in human life could be staggering.
Bush isn't coddling anyone. He is simply trying to secure the country while minimizing the inevitable casualties. It is a tough decision to start a war where 1,000 die. It is far worse to have to decide to send tens of thousands of American troops to their deaths in what would be some of the most intensely violent warfare in human history.
But there was no way to defeat Hitler without D-Day, and if all else fails, there may be no way to prevent the destruction of numerous American cities without this unfathomably costly preemptive action.
As much as I opposed Clinton, I actually empathized with his dillemma in 1994. After ten years, the dillemma is many times worse for President Bush, because the North Koreans can now possibly launch on the continental United States.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/01/21/nkorea.war
(snipped)
North Korea: The cost of conflict
By Andrew Demaria
CNN
(CNN) --When U.S. President George W. Bush met with South Korean President Kim Dae-jung last October, he was reportedly taken aback by a horrific scenario. . . .
Casualties
When the U.S. drew up plans for a possible military action against North Korea in 1993 -- again over its suspected nuclear weapons program -- a Pentagon estimate suggested four months of high-intensity combat would be required, using more than 600,000 South Korean troops and half a million U.S. reinforcements to the personnel already stationed in South Korea.
In 1994, advisers to then President Bill Clinton predicted 52,000 U.S. casualties in the first 90 days of combat alone, Don Oberdorfer, a former Washington Post reporter, wrote in his book The Two Koreas
.
To put that figure in perspective, 55,000 U.S. military personnel were killed in the 1950-53 Korean War, and about 58,000 in the 1957-75 Vietnam War.
Some estimates went as far as forecasting a million casualties, not to mention economic damages and war-related costs that ran into trillions of dollars.
Now, the casualty estimates are higher, with North Korea's massive firepower moving closer to U.S. and South Korean forces stationed on the border.
To wage a campaign against North Korea would require hundreds of thousands of extra U.S. troops.
That's a tough demand -- despite Washington's claims to be able to fight two separate conflicts simultaneously -- given the military build up in the Persian Gulf and ongoing operations in Afghanistan.
Lack of options
This lack of military options is at the forefront in Washington's pursuit of diplomatic efforts in trying to resolve the current nuclear standoff with Pyongyang.
The U.S. has categorically said it has no intentions of taking any military action against North Korea.
For its part, Pyongyang has been seeking a non-aggression treaty from Washington -- a pledge from the U.S. not to attack.
Any strike, no matter how covert or pin-point should the U.S. choose to hit one of North Korea's nuclear facilities runs the risk of pushing the standoff into a full-scale war.
On Sunday, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice rejected comments from South Korean President-elect Roh Moo-hyun who said some officials in Washington were talking about striking North Korea.
Bush decided for diplomacy over force "at the very beginning" of the confrontation with North Korea, Rice said.
Roh has since backpedaled from the remarks, saying he had been misunderstood and was referring instead to media accounts of Washington's policy towards the situation.
The president-elect added he was "well aware" the U.S. had no intentions to attack the North.
Roh, a backer of his predecessors so-called 'Sunshine Policy' of engagement with Pyongyang, is no doubt also well aware of the consequences of any conflict.
The frightening image of a smoldering Seoul, and a Korean Peninsula once again engulfed by war, will be weighing heavily on his mind.