Defiant N. Korea Vows to Confront U.S.

AP via Yahoo! ^ | January 1, 2003 | By PAUL SHIN, Associated Press Writer

[Austin Willard Wright]

P.S. Is is ironic that you chose to quote from Lord Acton to justify a campaign for Wilsonian social engineering. Acion was a great advocate of prudence and restraint in foreign policy. Perhaps the new conservative social engineers should re-read Acton's quotation on the corrupting influence of power and what could be *more* corrupting that a futile effort to police the entire planet!

[Defender2]

Post #60. Afghanistan is a hell of a lot better than it was before 9/11/01!!!! The Taliban no longer rule the country and the terrorists no longer rule the country!!!!

[Austin Willard Wright]

I agree but that wasn't my question. I simply asked whether Afghanistan was "secure." My contention is that is not, not even close. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it. BTW, I supported the Afghan U.S. military operation...because it *directly* related to the defense of the U.S.

[Austin Willard Wright]

"national interest" is the foreign policy analogue of the "general welfare." Both are weasel terms which can be used to justify anything.

Instead of a vague terms, I prefer to describe myself as an advocate of national defensivism. In other words, if we are attacked, hit back and hit hard. Under such a rationale, the Afghan operation was justified but crusades to attack create a Democratic Iraq or create a "secure" Middle East, or "help our friends," "fight several wars at the same time" are merely a waste of valuable taxpayers resources. In this respect, defensivism, which is not weighed down by Wilsonian side considerations, is the ultimate realism in the grand tradition of George Kennan and George Washington.

[maxwellp]

"I say pull our guys out". I agree! Then let South Korea's Mr. Roh handle North Korea any way he wants.

[OReilly]

Tell the dog-eaters that this is Step One of a plan to vacate the country completely.

Die Another Day...

(soon the whole peninsula will be dark at night, unless you are looking through a radiation sensitive objective)

[WatchNKorea]

"Better yet, let's concentrate on something that is manageable: "securing" building up the defense of the U.S. rather than overextending ourselves in futile and expensive world policing."

Let's review now Mr Wright; is one of the reasons you propose this earnest buildup of our defense so that - oh yes - this must be part of your logic:

"Clinton Bankrolled North Korea's Nuke Program"
http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2002/10/17/80959

"Clinton Deal Gave N. Korea 100-Nuke-Per-Year Capacity"
http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2002/10/19/114657

[elfman2]

"Okay, let's use your standard. Do *you* think Afghanistan is "secure?""

I think Afghanistan is secure enough that we can be assured that it will be denied as a massive safe haven and training facility to our enemy with present forces while focusing our efforts to eliminate the next.

Afghanistan with its porous border with Pakistan and tribesmen content to live in little fiefdoms in mountain hideouts for ever will probably not be completely policeable in our lifetime. But that’s not necessary and not our objective.

The threat of international terror is greater when there is some hope among their leaders of success. When we deny them everything but the mountains of Afghanistan, impoverished shi'its tribes in southern Iraq etc… and take out their grip on recognized governments and the resulting funds and military technology, they will likely lose critical mass and their existence as an organized threat will be threatened.

In one sense, it's a matter of diminishing returns. We could spend the next 10 years chasing gunmen through the Afghan hills while greater threats are strengthening.

[WatchNKorea]

"I prefer to describe myself as an advocate of national defensivism."

Considering you're a Grand Master of defense - would you Mr Wright -give credance to the following application - of simply and easily Spearing all North Korean nuclear reactors?

Poker Beats Chess
Monday, Dec. 30, 2002

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/12/30/30344.shtml

[Selous]

Well said. A thoughtful analysis, but a few thoughts on your suggested options:-


> 1. --Assassination/Coup d'etat and regime change by purely internal elements but
supported to external forces

2. --A stream of N. Korean refugees into China into UNHCR refugee camps causing
internal collapse in Pyongyang

3. --A propaganda campaign of hijacked N. Korea TV/Radio frequencies and balloon
drops with leaflets/food to reach the people directly

4 .--And finally, a strategic strike on N. Korean nuke plants and missile
production/launch facilities, with probably a larger invasion war. <


1. Probably the best solution but highly unlikely. Kim may be certifiably insane but he rules with a rod of steel. The only assets which could be used by the west to infiltrate and foment the conditions for a coup would be South Korean and the latter are not trustworthy. The Cold War is over, S.Korea is of no strategic significance and, if we had any sense we would withdraw all US forces form the South. The North and the South deserve each other. The US should focus, solely, on the threat which the North presents to American interests and security.
2. The regime would probably be glad to have a few million less mouths to feed. They’d be likely to lay on free bus services to the border. And can you really see China going for that?
3. A propaganda campaign aimed at an impotent populace?
4. The only viable option. However, to limit pre-emptive action to only nuclear plants and missile facilities would still leave open the possibility of retaliation. Short of a simultaneous strike by thousands of conventionally armed Cruise missiles, there is no way that US forces in the South and Japan would remain unscathed. As commented elsewhere on one of today’s posts:-

“"Diplomacy has consistently failed with North Korea," said
Robert Maginnis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and a military
analyst. "It has never honored its agreements nor will it in the
future.”

Any and all softly, softly approaches to what is arguably the gravest threat posed by any of the clutch of nuclear-armed rogue states is doomed to failure. Immediate nuclear annihilation of all North Korean military capability is not only the optimum solution but it would send a very clear signal to Pakistan, Iran, et al - ‘Get rid of your nukes now. We mean business’.

[WatchNKorea]

pardon my typo Mr Wright - credence

[Austin Willard Wright]

Actually, you are proving my case! Clinton's "realpolitik" of buying off North Korea (likely to be soon followed by Dubya as well) was a collosal failure. Deals of this type (remember Reagan's aid to Saddam?) go hand-in-hand with attepts to police the world and micromanage "the balance of power." I say bring the troops home, defend our borders, build a strong SDI, and stop this wasteful and counterproductive effort to buy friends or control events in every knook and cranny of the planet. It is hard enough to secure our own borders first!

As I said, I'll wager that Dubya will soon try to buy off North Korea. Do you want to take my bet?

[elfman2]

"justify a campaign for Wilsonian social engineering"

Most relationships between nations following war has had an element of "social engineering". Hopefully well choose an amount that is both sufficient and affordable.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Bombing on-line nuclear reactors? Dubya will never do that. Far more likely is another "bribe" a la Clinton. To answer your question directly, I believe that the "let's bomb Pearl Harbor" first strategy brings diminishing returns over time and does little to advance real national defense, such as an effective SDI. Unfortunately, nuclear proliferation has already happened and will continue to happen, no matter how reactors we bomb. That is the simple reality.

[hinckley buzzard]

"Immediate nuclear annihilation of military forces" in North Korea, or in Iraq, for that matter, would only need to be done once.

You are absolutely right that the craven scum in the other sh*tholes of the old Third World would get the idea instantly. In addition there would be a very large and welcome silence among the chattering classes!

[Pravious]

I agree that Bush is handling this very well. Let South Korea, Japan and China deal with the demented N. Koreans, and if S. Korea keeps whining about us being there, we should leave and let them battle it out with the North themselves.

We shouldn't have to be in position where we have to beg S. Korea to allow us to defend them... sheesh.