Replies

We have no choice. Pyongyang has cast the die. The moves they've made this week (and the incendiary rhetoric) fly in the face of all "acceptable" maneuvering. The admission of nuclear capability was one step. If they left it there, perhaps we could have saved face and dealt down to a point where they would agree to dismantle operations for some financial assistance (bitter pill for us, though it would be). Instead, they started shipping SCUDS to Iraq. Now they are demanding a non-agression treaty (impossible), and threatening to destroy the world. With the likelihood these gorillas can produce a simple atomic bomb within a month (according to British scientists), we are forced to take action.

One positive byproduct of this situation is that it may force the U.S. to throw off the yoke of the U.N. and take unilateral action. One can appreciate the reluctance to create a pre-emptive strike precedence, but we are dealing with lunatics and zealots who have openly professed a desire to destroy us.

A Washington insider, whom I spoke to over Christmas, told me that Iraq is foregone -- that the Bush team is expertly putting on the good cop/bad cop charade between Powell and Rumsfeld while they are setting the table for a quick and decisive victory in Iraq. He says Powell has been taking the heat for putting forth the diplomatic drive, but in essence he has been an a good soldier throughout.

Given their penchant for getting all their ducks in a row, one would have to assume a contingency for Korea has been on the table for some time. So if something is going to go down (like a nuclear reactor), we have to be confident that the Bush White House is going to do everthing in their power to make this go away in an effective manner. It's potentially bloody, but this is crunchtime for the free world. If the U.N. wants to fall on it's plastic sword and be run roughshod by a bunch of Cretins, so be it, but when it comes down to it, we're going to do what we need to in order to survive...

I hope you are right. Sometimes I see genius in Bush, and sometimes, I just don't know. Maybe that is part of the genius.

A Washington insider, whom I spoke to over Christmas, told me that Iraq is foregone -- that the Bush team is expertly putting on the good cop/bad cop charade between Powell and Rumsfeld while they are setting the table for a quick and decisive victory in Iraq. He says Powell has been taking the heat for putting forth the diplomatic drive, but in essence he has been an a good soldier throughout.

It has always been my opinion that Powell is playing the good cop to Rummy's bad cop. When people start whinning about his diplomatic approach they should remember what Powell is, a General. That means he understands that he serves at the pleasure of his commanding officer, the president. Nothing Powell does is done without the explicit approval of the president. It is as simple as that.

Interesting post. One diplomatic factor to consider is the recent election of a dreaded "moderate" in South Korea. It could be that the NK's are rattling their swords for regional reasons and not trying to pull the US into a unilateral invasion.

That said, the situation in NK seems to warrant an Israeli-like air strike to take out the operable nuclear sites and not an all-out military action. Iraq didn't respond in 1981 and I doubt NK will today.

Someone with military experience -- does this make sense?

"Crunch time" for the free world feels like an understatement.

Let us earnestly pray it's not Custer's last stand in the coming months.

...Instead, they started shipping SCUDS to Iraq...

I wonder if Iraq is offering to pay North Korea for bomb material, and that's why North Korea kicked out the UN inspectors and started up the reactors.

"One positive byproduct of this situation is that it may force the U.S. to throw off the yoke of the U.N."

That would seem to be expedient at this point unless we can use them as a disinformation foil.

Everyone please pay close attention to this snipet of the President's State of the Union Address in January:

Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.

Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

-----------------------------------------------------

That last sentence is key, because 10 years of indifference has potentially cost the world far more than it gained in those 10 years.