[W]hat you cannot do is argue as Dick Cheney and Bush have consistently argued about the WMD threat, then look at their current position on North Korea and consequently make any coherent sense at all.
The Cheney argument, as outlined in Ron Suskind’s book-length brief for the CIA, The One Percent Doctrine, is clear. It is that if there is a 1% chance that terrorists can get access to WMDs, the US, after 9/11, must treat that chance as a 100% certainty.
Under that Cheney risk-rubric, Kim is easily the gravest threat to American lives since Bush took office. He has the materials; he has the motive; all he lacks is a delivery system.
And the failure of his missile delivery system is not a cause for relief. It merely means that if he is to deliver the nuclear goods to his enemies, he has to find another way.
A suitcase? An Al-Qaeda suicide bomber? A Pakistani intelligence agent?
You think these options aren’t available to him? If you live anywhere near a western city you should be concerned.
July 9, 2006
"Under that Cheney risk-rubric, Kim is easily the gravest threat to American lives since Bush took office."
Andrew Sullivan detects incoherence:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
26 comments:
Oh dear, Andrew Sullivan feels "conned" because the U.S. is engaging in "multlateral blather" on NK. What does he want, an invasion north across the DMZ next month?
The fact is that the countries most at risk from North Korean nukes are Japan and South Korea, democratic countries that happen to be allies of ours. Ignoring their interests would be both unwise and immoral,IMO. Sullivan's whining about anything GWB does is getting pretty old.
The argument is entirely straightforward:
South Korea is a strong ally, and doesn't want us to do anything, and we respect that, not least because they would bear the brunt of casualties.
We are restrained by circumstances and reality in what we can do. Yes, the DPRK is a terrible threat. But strategic concerns (including allies) constrain us.
This is classic misdirection by a man who is desperately trying to retain some shred of his "hawk" credentials.
That North Korea is a threat is not in dispute. They've been a threat long before Maddy Albright was clinking glasses with Kim Jon Il. The problem with dealing with them has everything to do with both our ally South Korea and their ally China.
As one who theoretically lives within the range of harm's way, I refuse to lose one wink of sleep over this despite Andrew Sullivan's hysteria.
And the failure of his missile delivery system is not a cause for relief. It merely means that if he is to deliver the nuclear goods to his enemies, he has to find another way.
...
A Pakistani intelligence agent?
That is simply stupid. Pakistan already has nukes. Wouldn't it make more sense for a Pakistani agent to get hold of a Pakistani bomb?
Screw upsetting China, and screw the complexities. We can't invade North Korea because we physically can't.
Why? Because we don't have anywhere to invade from. China isn't going to offer itself as a staging area. As long as Seoul can be hit by a barrage of North Korean artillery, South Korea won't let us invade from there, no matter how much we demand it. An amphibious assault from Japan is well beyond our capabilities. Finally, we couldn't paratroop in enough forces to fight the North Koreans if they gave us a free month to drop and organize.
This is not a case of Kissengerian realism; this is not a case of incoherence. This is a case of not being physically able to do something given the nature of reality, and accordingly not doing it. You know, basic sanity? Sullivan might as well complain that Bush is being incoherent because he hasn't repealed the law of gravity in North Korea, thus flinging the WMDs safely into space.
Sullivan stopped being an honest critic of the Bush Administration some time ago. Nowadays, he just uses whatever rhetorical club he can find to attack the man who dared endorse a national constitutional amendment against gay marriage. Remember when he tried to blame the less than life sentences for abusive Tennessee state correctional workers in Tennessee on Bush?
Another sad victim of Bush Derangement Syndrome.
North Korea has over 1,000,000 men in the Korean People's Army, of which 700,000 troops, over 8,000 artillery systems, and about 2,000 tanks within minutes of the demilititarized zone, while the United States has 37,500 men and women stationed all over South Korea.
Seven - They can't do that without South Korea's permission and they aren't about to get that under the circumstances. Besides, the DPRK would be bound to notice and react before any significant build-up occurred. It isn't like it could happen over night ;-)
(the other kev)
'Andrew Sullivan detects incoherence'
No.
'Andrew Sullivan = incoherence'
Easily corrected.
I think certain people on the right hate Andrew Sullivan much the way certain people on the left hate Ann Althouse.
Internet Ronin:
North Korea has over 1,000,000 men in the Korean People's Army, of which 700,000 troops, over 8,000 artillery systems, and about 2,000 tanks
That's just more targets. The truth is, North Korea's technology is even more antiquated than Iraq's was, and our technology has gotten even better since the Gulf War and it's extension, the Iraq War. The war would be extremely bloody for North Korea, and the North Koreans would kill hundreds of thousands of South Koreans, but we could take them easily.
The war would be extremely bloody for North Korea, and the North Koreans would kill hundreds of thousands of South Koreans, but we could take them easily.
Well, anything that results in the death of hundreds of thousands of South Korean civilians isn't easily, and isn't something that is practical or doable unless something is really imminent.
It underscores the fatuous comparisons between the DPRK and Iraq. Yes, the DPRK is more dangerous, but when there's a reasonable possibility of so many South Koreans dying, our hands are largely tied.
I think certain people on the right hate Andrew Sullivan much the way certain people on the left hate Ann Althouse.
Probably so, but I hate it when ANYBODY brings up the DPRK card in such a way, ESPECIALLY when they claim to be concerned about our allies, international opinion, or civilians in other contexts.
I'm opposed to torturing suspected terrorists in Guantanamo, certainly. But I'm surely MORE opposed to starting a war with the DPRK opposed by the ROK which could kill hundreds of thousands of their civilians. If torturing suspected terrorists is never acceptable, even if it produces good intelligence (and I agree), then certainly sacrificing so many civilians of an allied country is not acceptable, and nor is proposing it in order to talk tough.
As long as we're discussing Korea, I'd like to recommend the movie JSA. It's about a group of soldiers on either side of the Joint Security Area (border between North and South Korea) who become friends. Very good.
I think certain people on the right hate Andrew Sullivan much the way certain people on the left hate Ann Althouse.
I don't think that's true. He used to be a favorite blogger on the right. I remember when my father used to read him everyday. Then the gay marriage issue came up, and it's been Sullivan's sole compass ever since. (Not just on politics either.) His arguments have become weaker, and the argument above is a great example of that. He's a smart man. He must be aware that the NK situation is not comparable to the Iraq situation.
"I think certain people on the right hate Andrew Sullivan much the way certain people on the left hate Ann Althouse"
Pointing out that his position is nonsensical doesn't constitute "hate". And I don't seriously believe that AS supports military action against North Korea. He's just talking tough because he knows that no one's going to take his lame advice.
What are you saying John in Nash?
What in the hell does Bush's suppressed desire to schtupp his mother have to do with Saddam or Kim Jong Il?
Do you even know what "Oedipal" means?
Should someone from Tennessee even be making incest jokes?
That last part may sound a bit snarky. unintended on the last sentence.
Sullivan returned from Provincetown in 04 with a fairly severe case of BDS that has gotten progressively worse. I've never understood his (or the LBGT rights movement in general's) rabid hatred for the guy who wants to destroy terrorists who would burn them at the stake or stone them to death, while avidly supporting politicians who would appease those terrorists, solely because those politicians support gay marriage. The LBGT crowd needs to rethink their priorities.
The idea that the NK and AQ situations are analogous is idiotic, but sadly representative of journalistic knowledge and understanding.
"What in the hell does Bush's suppressed desire to schtupp his mother have to do with Saddam or Kim Jong Il?"
He said cheerleader, not commander. All he's saying is that Bill O'Reilly thinks KJI is his mother. Or something.
What must be remembered here is that NK (DPRK) is a client state of China (PRC), and the last time we invaded NK, in the early fall of 1950, the PRC intervened, with deadly results. Ultimately, the U.N. forces were able to push the PRC+NK back out of SK (ROK) again, but not until a lot of Americans had died.
What must be remembered is that the Chinese see this as a matter of face. If we (re)invaded NK, they would have to invervene. By all indications, they aren't happy with NK, but also by all indications at present, would come to their rescue if invaded.
Let me add that we never did get a peace treaty there, just a cease fire. And, for the most part, that cease fire has held for the last 53 years. I haven't read it, but rather suspect that the PRC was a party to the same side as the DPRK.
Indeed, has the DPRK done anything here more egregious than the constant sniping, etc. that they have been doing across the DMZ, etc., for that 53 years? Could we justify invading NK w/o violating the cease fire?
And that is the big difference between NK and Iraq - Iraq didn't have any major power patron state willing to go to war with us, and NK does.
And that, BTW, is the real reason that we are insisting on mult-nation discussions with NK - we aren't going to get anything done there without the cooperation of the PRC. The Chinese are supplying food and energy to NK, and could force that country to heel, by cutting such off. They haven't yet.
Some scattered, not-comprehensive, observations, the implications of which to ponder:
China has balance of power issues with which it is contending. N.K. serves as a buffer state. China, which really is not all that concerned about a nuclear threat from Korea since it has its own nukes, among other reasons. It has no particular interest in dismantling the N.K. regime, and quite a bit of interest in maintaining key aspects of the status quo. Its concern is to prevent the spread of nukes to Japan, S.K. and, it goes without saying, Taiwan.
A complicating factor is that South Korea identifies far less with us than China, which is its top trading partner. It's also critical to remember that South Korea and North Korea, despite their vastly different experiences and situations over the past 60 years, are artificial constructions. Korea was one country which, with the strike of pen wielded by Dean Rusk and Charles Bonesteel through the 38th parallel. This was largely to establish a surrender line that would prevent the Soviets from seizing all of Korea. This division was never intended to be permanent.
[fast-forward through years of history since then]
There is also an "age gap" in attitudes toward North Korea between South Korean youth and those old enough to remember the Korean War and the historical period to which it belongs. This gap in attitudes is reflected in views toward North Korea, China and--largely as an extension of those entities rather than actual anti-Americanism as we usually understand it--the U.S.
Younger South Koreans tend to hold some romantic (I do not use this term dismissively) views of North Korea, and in many cases are revisiting the vision of unification into a single country, which after all was what was originally promised. A very significant proportion of younger South Koreans not only say they'd support North Korea over the U.S. should the latter attack the former, but that they identify China as the power with which it is important to maintain good relationships--and by a significant margin over the U.S. (This, by the way, it can be argued, isn't really a reflection of anti-Americanism, but rather of some of the factors to which I have already alluded.)
All of this, and implications emanating thereof, make the situation very complex indeed, not just in terms of what we actually do or do not do now, but the long-term fall-out not just for the Korean Peninisula, but a much larger chunk of Asia.
This really may not be our hand to play, or at least to win with, at least not as it appears to stand now.
Just some thoughts ... .
Seven, Wickedpinto:
That's all true. But it doesn't matter how many troops we have in South Korea, even though yes, we'd have plenty there to invade North Korea. The problem is we cannot invade North Korea with them without South Korean permission, because that be an act of war against South Korea. The odds of a successful invasion of North Korea from South Korea in the face of South Korean opposition to us are nil; that's what makes the invasion a physical impossibility.
South Korea is not a U.S. colony; over and above their soverign status, they have enough military muscle that they can veto our staging from their soil. And Roh's not going to trade Seoul to calm our fears about maybe losing L.A., no matter how much we demand it.
Now, if you have an argument that will cause Roh to give us permission to launch from South Korea, then yes, it becomes physically possible to invade North Korea. Similarly, if you have an argument that will cause ther Chinese to let us stage from China, it becomes physically possible. But without the permission of either (or maybe Russia), we cannot sucessfully invade.
Which is all to say Bush cannot unilaterally order the invasion of North Korea Andrew Sullivan is criticizing him for not ordering. He must—not as a legal matter, but as a matter of making it possible—have permission from at least one of North Korea's neighbors. As long as they all say no, no invasion is possible as a practical military matter. It's not a matter of respecting our allies or world opinion—it's a matter of logistics.
What must be remembered is that the Chinese see this as a matter of face. If we (re)invaded NK, they would have to invervene. By all indications, they aren't happy with NK, but also by all indications at present, would come to their rescue if invaded.
What is it that China sees as most important to their own interests to keep propping up the North Korean slave state? Is it that they want a buffer on their border, or is it that they'd be afraid of millions of North Korean refugees pouring into China if North Korea's government fell?
I've been told that any war with North Korea would lead to the complete destruction of Seoul, South Korea and perhaps millions of lives. Someone even told me that Seoul has natural gas lines piped all through the city and would be engulfed in flames in a matter of hours, but I'm just going by what some dude said to me at a bar.....
I feel unable to evaluate the job our leaders in the Clinton and Bush administrations have done because it's so tricky. But from my layperson point of view, I'm pretty sick of countries like China and Russia undermining every attempt to civilize this world and since they're being enablers of evil in North Korea they should be paying a higher price for that. But if China's agenda is partially about fearing refugees from North Korea, I'd think we should be able to negotiate away those fears.
One thing you're all leaving out is the possibility of NK using its nukes as theater weapons rather than against a civilian population. What would our response be if NK nuked a U.S. carrier group in response to an invasion? The U.S. would have a lot of trouble responding with a nuke against a civilian population, as that would be a significant escalation.
Meanwhile, NK doesn't need nukes to decimate South Korea's civilian population, they have artillery for all that.
Worst plausible scenario (because NK using nukes against civilian populations seems unlikely, that would trigger MAD)--The U.S. starts an invasion, which immediately results in NK killing tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of South Koreans with entrenched artillery along the DMZ. U.S. soldiers on the peninsula are also decimated in the initial artillery attack. A U.S. carrier group is either nuked or simply attacked by Nodong conventional missiles. With the U.S. presence in Asia severely weakened, China launches its invasion of Taiwan and declares NK's civilian population to be under its nuclear umbrella. The U.N. does nothing because of China's veto. The U.S. military has to settle in for a long slow land war, as NK's remaining nukes are held in wait for further U.S. carrier groups.
Internet Ronin said... North Korea has over 1,000,000 men in the Korean People's Army, of which almost all are inadequately fed.
I propose a food drop into the DMZ.
In any case it appears we have outsourced the problem to the Japanese.
"It is that if there is a 1% chance that terrorists can get access to WMDs, the US, after 9/11, must treat that chance as a 100% certainty"
Yes, Andrew ... "CAN". In the case of the NOKO's, it's not "CAN" it's "Already have".
Sullivan's inability to understand even the fundamentals of verb tense makes you wonder why he doesn't just slink away in abject shame.
Post a Comment