www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/821349/posts
The military response that will be necessary when diplomacy fails is a different issue, but one that is at least as problematic. It will be better when he no longer is in the public debate. Unfortunately, his style seems to be stuck in primitive journalism. He could remedy this deficiency by training for a few days at the side of any of several literary quarterly editors. You see the same comments every time something from Kissinger is posted here. One might at least acknowledge the existence of the oncoming train. Fear of North Korea collapsing is rife among their neighbors, who would bear the brunt of millions of refugees. Apologists in South Korea are coming out of the woodworks to portray us as the villian. There will be no winners from this, but some will lose worse than others. All the diplomatic maneuvering now is to try and pin as much of the blame and suffering on us as they can. This is a case, if there ever was one, for a multilateral approach. Our interests are in pulling out our troops, erecting a missile shield, and monitoring North Koreas dealings with rogue nations and terrorists. This needs to be an Asian problem, with an Asian solution which may mean Japan acquring nuclear weapons of their own. If China doesn't like that, then thay better deal with their problem client state, North Korea. One might at least acknowledge the existence of the oncoming train. I think Kissinger's point is that the diplomatic position has to be that we can't capitulate. That does leave unanswered what the next step would be assuming North Korea does not decide to become reasonable. But in his final paragraph, Kissinger does conclude that America would have to take action, and he's speaking of the military option. What interests do we have in serving as a "trip-wire" cannon-fodder for the southward-bound North Korean Army ? Because they devote most of their national effort towards militarism? The NKs believe they can remain isolated and act like a snarling, rabid dogs at the entrance to a cave. The Soviet Union disintegrated, but the people of Eastern Europe were much closer to civilization and information than the NK people. The NKs will strike militarily if they think they can get away with it, but their tactic now seems much like the way the Soviets threatened Western Europe and hoped to intimidate the Europeans into strategic surrender. The NKs have every reason to feel optimistic, based on their success at subversion in South Korea. Nuclear fears will make many in the South simply be more willing to permit the likes of Kim Jong Il to dominate a unified Korea. And when scores of countries can threaten each other with nuclear weapons, global catastrophe and seepage of these weapons into terror operations beckon. What he is trying to say though is it is a global concern. Any quid pro quo -- however disguised -- would represent a triumph for North Korean nuclear blackmail. Making concessions under its nuclear threats would establish nuclear blackmail as a permanent recourse and not only in North Korea's relations with the rest of the world; America's critics seem to forget that it is other nations that would bear the principal burden of failure. In other words, if we kick their ass, refugees won't be flooding into California, but rather Japan, and China, and South Korea. The combination of missile defense and a vast retaliatory arsenal enables the United States to manage a world of nuclear proliferation better than any other country and to protect its allies. Any diplomacy that begins with stigmatizing the United States as the principal cause of tensions evades the issue. This is a case, if there ever was one, for a multilateral approach. Koreans are more of a threat to their neighbors than they are to the US. In its first phase, this conference should endorse the restoration of the nuclear status quo ante. This is DEFINITELY what the Chinese have been asking for. Same agreements, etc etc, despite the fact that they never followed through on the first agreements, except in word only. Henry Kissinger: And it knows that if a nuclear weapons capability remains on the Korean peninsula, the nuclear rearmament of Japan is nearly certain. Yet China would prefer to thwart North Korea's nuclear ambitions by methods that do not jeopardize the survival of the Pyongyang regime. This is why China is willing to say things like nuclear free Koreas'. Pulling out would be tantamount to stupidity, at least strategically. It would embolden those hostile forces and not eliminate the "front". America itself would be much better served by simply eliminating North Korea. Because they devote most of their national effort towards militarism? Street protests: Don't happen per se, but local insurrections due to starvation and desperation have been known to occur, although met with drastic responses and no results. Internal Dissention: A certain amount is assumed, as (the incompetent, childlike buffoon) Kim is advised by a number of senior military commanders who may be of differing opinions. Whatever intrigue goes on is with the understanding that North Korea itself must not change, or they all be swinging from lampposts. Coup: A coup is at least theoretically possible, but it would have to be in concordance with the established cult of personality. One of his bumbling sons could take the helm, if Kim died of 'natural causes', otherwise, installing a new god out of nowhere would cause confusion, panic, and unrest. Democratic revolution: Probably less than a thousand people in all of North Korea know what the word 'democracy' is or what it means. It is a terrorist regime intent on blackmailing the United States (and doing a very good job at it). North Korea knows very well that the United States will never attack them and risk sacrificing South Korea and Japan. And so now we have North Korea holding South Korea hostage. It is in the end that America's policy Im afraid will obviously continue as one of appeasement. North Korea threatens - and the United States evently capitulates and pays whatever ransom that the North Koreans demand. The sad thing is that as the article says, the world will know going nuclear is the only way to "beat" the United States. Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Iran and the rest of the world are watching as North Korea gets paid off. Terrorists, brutal dictators and terrorist regimes only respect and fear one thing, and that is not negotiations. It was/is turning into a world where everyone is totally indecisive and no one stands up for what they believe in. Bush is creating contrast, for the sake of open and democratic values. That is the basis for real fear -- not a collapsing North, but a unified totalitarian-leaning Korea with nukes, It's like knowing someone in a bad relationship. They refuse to, because that would mean that they would have to reassess themselves, a prospect much harder than just blaming us. Reunification at any cost, Korean people are brothers, they would never hurt us, America is a bigger threat to peace than the North, etc. These views are very common in the south, to the point that there is a lot of technology and information that we don't share with the ROK government and military. It is a terrorist regime intent on blackmailing the United States (and doing a very good job at it). What if you said this question during the Clinton years? North Korea threatens - and the United States evently capitulates and pays whatever ransom that the North Koreans demand. Bush has given North Korea the 'either you disarm your nukes and we give you nothing', or the 'you refuse, we embargo' choice. Bush is dealing with North Korea splendidly, giving them all the rope they need to hang themselves with. It may end in a blood, steel and fire, but that's the only way it ever was. We've swept this problem under the carpet for so long we can't even get in the room anymore. We're in the endgame for the North Korean problem, but better now than in 20 years when they have hundreds of nuclear weapons. If 37,000 Americans are annihilated as a trip wire for a country which, based on current rhetoric, wants us gone, we'll fight the Viet Nam Synd...
|
http://csua.com/feed/