On Monday, Pastorius wrote about U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Chris Hill's strongly-worded statement of four days previous:
"We are not going to live with a nuclear North Korea, we are not going to accept it," U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Chris Hill said. He warned Pyongyang that "it can have a future or it can have these weapons. It cannot have both."
Terrific, we're not going to accept it. But what does that mean? As Pastorius pointed out, Bush's plan was to push for sanctions. This inspired Pastorius to blurt forth the following excited utterance: "For God's sake, what does this say about our policy on Iranian nukes?"
Now, we have gone a step further and affirmatively announced to North Korea that we will not attack them militarily. In fact, they have our "guarantee." Is this how brinkmanship is done? Is Bush now getting advice not just from James Baker, but from Ned Lamont as well? I hate to say it, but this president truly seems to have lost the "look of Hippocleides".
I think North Korea is motivated somewhat by rational self-interest and a desire for self-preservation of the regime - unlike Iran, which is motivated by the apocalyptic ambitions of genocidal Islamonazis. So, unlike with Iran - for whom all carrots are non-tempting and sanctions are a pathetically non-threatening stick, with North Korea I think we could realistically make the craven and immoral route of bribery work (not that anyone should be happy with this solution).
Iran is a different story: the mullahs would happily see half a billion Muslims wiped out in a nuclear war, if it meant they could destroy Israel and possibly usher in the Mahdi. There's no bribing Iran, and I hope whoever now has Bush's ear understands this. As Blankley points out - in the non-tempting-carrot article linked to above, we have chosen to go down the road of appeasement with Iran. This is true. The only people who deny this seem to be the pollyannas who feel that we should negotiate with terrorists and madmen, and warn of forthcoming Bush-warmongering as a caution, not unlike how they floated absurd rumors before the 2004 election that Bush was planning to reinstate the draft. Booga booga!
Now, we have gone a step further and affirmatively announced to North Korea that we will not attack them militarily. In fact, they have our "guarantee." Is this how brinkmanship is done? Is Bush now getting advice not just from James Baker, but from Ned Lamont as well? I hate to say it, but this president truly seems to have lost the "look of Hippocleides".
I think North Korea is motivated somewhat by rational self-interest and a desire for self-preservation of the regime - unlike Iran, which is motivated by the apocalyptic ambitions of genocidal Islamonazis. So, unlike with Iran - for whom all carrots are non-tempting and sanctions are a pathetically non-threatening stick, with North Korea I think we could realistically make the craven and immoral route of bribery work (not that anyone should be happy with this solution).
Iran is a different story: the mullahs would happily see half a billion Muslims wiped out in a nuclear war, if it meant they could destroy Israel and possibly usher in the Mahdi. There's no bribing Iran, and I hope whoever now has Bush's ear understands this. As Blankley points out - in the non-tempting-carrot article linked to above, we have chosen to go down the road of appeasement with Iran. This is true. The only people who deny this seem to be the pollyannas who feel that we should negotiate with terrorists and madmen, and warn of forthcoming Bush-warmongering as a caution, not unlike how they floated absurd rumors before the 2004 election that Bush was planning to reinstate the draft. Booga booga!
great post. you make a good casse. but... though i don't think we are as tough as we should be, i don't think we are actually appeasing either the nokos or the persians.
ReplyDeletewe are biding our time.
we will choose the time and the means of our attack - IF it becomes necessary.
with iran, bush has until jauary 2008.
and actually, if the noko announced nuke test was a sham, then it might mean they are very close to collapsing and are very desperate. kim's regime might fall as the USSR's did.
sure: i think we need to be doing more: aiding iranian democracy advocates more, and arming the japanese more.
and i think we shoud mine iraq's borders with syria and iran.
but we do not have to attack iran or noko right now, or set deadlines now.
the clock is ticking, sure, but we have time.
i have confidence in Bush. he is a good poker player who has not lost many big pots in the last six years.
That's a good point, Reliapundit. However, it is also as if he is a poker player with an out-of-control posse of idiots, shamans, and deadheads following him around, reminding me of the Dennis Hopper character in Apocalypse Now.
ReplyDelete"Bush, man, he is a great man. He will END the North Korean regime, because he KNOWS the apple needs to be pared, man. Heh heh, the apple need to be peared, man. That's funny. He won't accept a nuclear North Korea, man, because he know that to accept a nuclear North Korean, is to accept a nuclear universe, man. And, only God could create a nuclear universe, man. That's all I'm sayin'.
Since this is the comments section, I will say what i really feel. I am sick of the Condoleeza Rice's, and the Chris Hill's, and all of the out-of-control idiots on Bush's payroll.
Let your yes be a yes, and your no be a no, FOR GOD'S SAKE.
I blurt forth.
By the way, I think Bush is a damned good leader, but have you ever seen a great leader with so many people waiting to stick knives in his back?
ReplyDeleteFor a great leader, he sure doesn't know how to pick partners.
I hope that one day, like Michael Corleone, he chooses to "settle all scores."
The only guy remaining might be frickin' John Bolton.
i don't know of a hawkier guy who might become potus except maybe rudy.
ReplyDeleteand every great world leader has always been surrounded by men of selfish ambition and conflicting aims.
and no leader is perfect.
we mustn't ever make the perfect the enemy of the good.
my next MAIN point is: before a critical election... well, it's NO time for dumping on Bush and the GOP. it is WRONG. only a mole would do that.
and my next to last main point is that it's GOOD AND IMPORTANT to pressure our leaders and criticize them. just not now.
don't depress the GOP GOTV. or we will end up with Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi.
after the election we can HAMMER the administration and Congress. and push for more action in the gwot.