Asymmetrical Information

In other words, those who make this particular accusation against the president are either squirrels or snakes: either chattering stupidly or poisonously biting the president while he’s trying to protect us and our friends from a serious danger.

Right. It's so clear now.

Gosh, I wish I could be smart like that!

GT: Read the whole cited article. The exerpt is, well, just an exerpted teaser.

Actually the best part of the article I thought was:

Our reply: “We will not discuss Taiwan.”

Their [China's] reply: “Then we will not discuss North Korea.”

Which shows why a map is needed to prevent squirrel or snake status as a commentator.

Meanwhile in the real world things are different. How much longer before the Bushies come to an agreement with NK? You know, just like Clinton.

We're already seeing the signs.

Jane, Enjoy the site. I wanted to ask how you found the RhinoTimes and the article from OSC? The RhinoTimes is a great weekly newspaper based in Greensboro, NC with a Charlotte, NC edition as well. The editor is a conservative and for 12 yrs has presented " A fair and balanced view" on local and national politics. Congrats on finding the Rhinotimes and check out LiberalWatch... the back page of the paper when you get the chance. You will find interesting comments on John Edwards weekly.( No he won't win a second term in NC so he needs to aim high) OSC has been a great addition to the paper over the last year.Thanks Jane for a great site!

GT, you need to read the OSC article -- and respond to the (massive) China issue as clearly illucidated by the author -- before counter claims of a George W. 'cop out' will have any credibility.

Why does anyone respond to that GT jacka**? He's just a troll and makes the comment threads here on Ms. Galt's otherwise wonderful blog quite a chore to read.

To put it plainly: don't feed the troll!

anony-mouse,

I read the article.

We'll soon find out won't we?

I have begged the President, as I did in '94, to put the generators in South Korea and just transmit the power North. This would get power to them quicker, and it would give them an incentive to behave that the present agreement did not.

I’ve read Orson Scott Card’s “Ender’s Game”, “Speaker for the Dead”, “Xenocide”, “Children of the Mind” and “Ender’s Shadow”. Only the first one describes, mostly in the games at Battle School, military tactics. None of them, if I remember correctly, describes any real-life historical battle. It may be that Card has studied the histories of Agincourt, Lepanto, Waterloo, Stalingrad, Normandy, Manzikert, and Thermopylae, but this isn’t obvious from his writing. Certainly Card is familiar with strategic games. Witness the complex interactions between Ender, Peter, Valentine, Rackham, Graff, Anderson, Jane, Pipo, Dona Ivanova, the Buggers, the Piggies, the Warsaw Pact, the International Fleet, Ender’s parents, Bean, Alai, Petra, Bernard, Bonzo, Achilles, and Wang-Mu. He’s just a guy who can read a map…and sometimes other’s motives.

GT,

That's very weak. The point, I believe, is that the topic of this discussion -- the Card article -- makes a strong case for the way the administration currently appears to be handling the North Korean situation.

Then you pop up with a post pointing to a news item that adds little to and subtracts nothing from the content of our topic article, yet imply that it is evidence of the Dubya team taking the easy way out.

If you want to believe the latter in spite of the former, that is certainly your option; but do be clearer in making that distinction, eh? Otherwise, if you happen to have a logically-sound refutation of the claims made in the OSC piece (which would, in turn, greatly strengthen your own position), go for it.

Card has an interesting theory there. Is there a shred of evidence to support it?

And what about me? Haven’t I just made all those private negotiations public?

Of course not. The Chinese don’t care what I say. I don’t speak for the government. I don’t have any contacts in the White House or the State Department.

I’m just a guy who knows how to read a map.

In other words, he's guessing. I won't hold be holding my breath to see if he's right.

Once again, can anyone tell me what evidence there is that North Korea actually right now has nuclear weapons? I don't seem to be able to get an answer to this anywhere. Is everyone just assuming this?

Robert, incontrovertible evidence seems to be elusive or yet-classified. The best I can determine is this: the CIA's report on Foreign Missile Developments reported in December 2001 that:

The Intelligence Community judged in the mid-1990s that North Korea had produced one, possibly two, nuclear weapons, although the North has frozen plutonium production activities at Yongbyon in accordance with the Agreed Framework of 1994.

Apparently, neither of the two assessments is correct, and the situation is somewhat a combination of the two. It has been determined, through intelligence and good old conference table confessions (since denied and accompanied by Boschesque invocations of "lakes of fire") North Korea has continued with plutonium activities but is not necessarily known to have deliverable payloads.

But diplomatically and militarily, North Korea is being considered nuclear and a far more delicate target - than Saddam. It's also nowhere near as intimate with the respiration of Islamic terrorism as Ba'athist Iraq. Hence the Bush administration is engaging in what is derided by some as a dichotomy; recognized by others, wearily, as a short delay necessary before Saddam is felled (foreshadowing for Kim Jong-Il) and democracy can establish an Arab beachhead (a Overlord of sorts in winning the war against terrorism), at which point in time American attention can be turned to North Korea.

Adam Garfinkle wrote a similarly sobering article about North Korea in NR yesterday. Far be it for Bush to pass on North Korea. He recognizes that the palpable risk of annihilation can silence a proto-nuclear pariah; Saddam would serve as a striking example. Bush also prefers American forces to confront as few American enemies as necessary simultaneously, especially when those enemies are more dischordant than not (one of the brilliant aspects of the Axis of Evil - combine freedom's enemies in a way they themselves could never do) and cannot benefit collectively from time. This is a luxury Bush may not be able to enjoy for much longer.

Anony mouse,

In a situation like this we (meaning outside commentators) have two options. We can accept the obvious, that we are not privy to all that’s going, and abstain from any commentary. I think nobody wants that.

Or we can analyze it based on what we do know, with the understanding that if more information comes out in the future we will revise out views. As Keynes supposedly said “When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do?”.

As Jason points out it’s an interesting theory but it can’t be backed by any available evidence. Card’s point is that we are pressuring the Chinese to solve the problem. How will we do that? Card suggests:

1) Stationing tactical nuclear weapons in South Korea ... with the option of placing them under the control of the South Koreans.

(2) An embargo – or even a blockade – of North Korea’s ports, so that China becomes the sole supplier of all goods to North Korea.

(3) Holding China economically responsible by cutting back – or cutting off – trade between the US and China.

All fine options. Except Bush is not doing any of this. And I suspect he will never do any of this.

On the contrary the Bush administration is clearly backing away from its more confrontational tones and is openly talking of a new agreement with the NKs that would provide them with fuel. Gee, sound familiar?

So I’ll stick with the interpretations that are currently backed by facts, and not by wishful thinking.

Jane,

Why would an extraordinarily intelligent woman be suckered by such weak-ass rhetoric? "Either the critic is hopelessly ignorant about geopolitical and diplomatic realities . . . or the critic knows that Bush cannot respond"? The man's qualifications is that he writes fantasy, and that's clearly the level of delusion at which he is operating to insist that he knows so much more than Sandy Berger, Madeline Albright, Thomas Friedman, and Colin Powell. I mean--is this the quality of source that you are relying on? The captain of the Dungeons & Dragons team?

I assume you'd say it's the reasoning that swayed you. But you conveniently forget that it is the Bush Administration that decided to abandon the KEDO because it was a Clinton policy, and the Bush Administration that decided to brand "delicate" North Korea as a member of the exclusive Axis of Evil. The Bush Administration changed course, and ran into a thicket of geopolitical headaches. Are we not allowed criticism?

The negotiate with China ploy might work--but then again, that is what led to the Four Power Framework of KEDO that is universally (and thoughtlessly) derided by conservatives as a sell-out. Add to that the fact that the Right thinks China is the next resurgent evil and almost martyred Dr. Wen Ho Lee on the paranoid assumption that the Chinese were stealing our nuclear secrets (and c'mon, I have conservative friends and you all still believe Clinton should be charged with treason for "crimes" that occurred under Bush I and Reagan).

No, the problem is the Bush Administration's inflexibility, it's unwillingness to admit that it's wrong in the face of reality. Iraq is not an imminent threat. We should not act unilaterally in that theater. Britian doesn't count as world support. The KEDO was a workable framework if we had applied as much pressure on verification in North Korea as we did in Iraq. We wouldn't be facing a two-front war if we didn't have 150,000 troops refighting Desert Storm.

What your benighted author fails to admit is that critics of the hypocrisy of Bush's foreign policy are really criticizing our action in Iraq, not North Korea. We applaud his decision to wake up and smell the coffee and attempt to solve problems diplomatically, and multilaterally. We think that he should apply this newfound lesson to other theaters, and to the problem of nonproliferation generally.

Preventative war? It is the Right that is ignorant of geopolitical realities.

GT - Card's point is that the lack of "facts" cannot, in this case, be used as evidence the Administration is not talking about North Korea with China. Card suggests the Administration could make three THREATS: 1)Put nukes in South Korea, 2)blockade North Korea, or 3) cut off trade with China.

The fact the press has not reported that the US has taken these steps is NOT evidence that the Administration has not THREATENED to do so. Card did not suggest the US would DO these things, he said China would "handle" North Korea to prevent our taking these steps.

Finally, the fact the US is talking "nice" to North Korea also is not evidence we are not talking with China. The Chinese may have told us they would whisper in Kim's ear that the nukes need to go if we would make a public offer of oil for the north. This would give Kim cover and might make it easier for the Chinese to handle things.

Does this mean any of this is happening? No. It just means that we will not know exactly what is going on behind the scenes until the files are declassified in 50 years. In the mean time, it makes sense to believe Bush is doing something along the lines of Card's theory. Why? Because it would be smart thing engage the Chinese. And, GT, as much as it must bother you, the past two years have proven its safer to bet Bush is doing the smart thing than the dumb thing.

GT,

Not sure whether you're misreading Card's article or just trying to keep a discussion going.

All fine options. Except Bush is not doing any of this. And I suspect he will never do any of this.

Card is very clear that the US's pressure on China cannot be made public. Is there some reason that you would know about what Bush is doing and the rest of us would not? Or are you really saying, "It doesn't look to me that Bush is doing any of this." In which case, I refer you back to Card's article.

On the contrary the Bush administration is clearly backing away from its more confrontational tones and is openly talking of a new agreement with the NKs that would provide them with fuel. Gee, sound familiar?

Gosh, so Bill must have been right all along. Why can't that silly Bush administration just admit that the DPRK deserves nuclear weapons? Then we can get back to more important things like running the nation's medical system, and checking up on the interns? </sarcasm>

I don't know how accurate the NY Times is on this issue. There certainly haven't been any announcements from Washington, or from Bush, or from Powell, saying we're offering oil in return for more promises. Kelly's statements all seem to be of the "after this nuclear issue is resolved, we might reach a deal to supply oil/trade/etc."

And I would note that Kelly is in Beijing today. If you do have inside sources, GT, I hope you'll fill us in on what he and the Chinese are talking about.

PJ, David,

Yes, you are both right that maybe the things Card describes are happening in the background.

But I doubt it. Every single one of the 3 mechanisms Card suggests that the US is or will be using to persuade China sound to me like wishful thinking on his part. I see no evidence of that. What evidence I do see directly contradicts that.

We’ll see, won’t we? If Card is right the evidence will show up soon enough.

My prediction? The Bushies will huff and puff and do exactly what Clinton did, come up with a new deal.

GT:

How much money are you willing to put on that? I'm currently broke, but I'm sure there's someone here who'd like to monetize your confidence in Bush's foreign policy ineptness.

GT - Great prediction! The problem (and the point) is we won't know soon enough what Bush did or didn't do. The resolution to the problem may well look like what Clinton did -- because Bush would not be able to announce after the fact he had pressured the Chinese into intervening. After the nukes are gone, we may well provide more oil. If that happens, you and many others will claim Bush gave oil to get the North Koreans to remove the nukes -- not knowing that it was Bush's threats that got the Chinese to persuade the Koreans to play ball. So, you'll claim you were right all along when, if the true facts were known, everyone could see that you were in reality wrong.

Card's point still stands: your prediction is pretty safe (and gutless). You will be able to claim you were right no matter what happens--and can't be proven wrong for 50 years. Sorta like those who claimed Kennedy had struck a secret deal with the Russians to resolve the Cuban missile crisis were right (even though the popular press said they were wrong), only the evidence of the deal wasn't available until quite recently.

Every single one of the 3 mechanisms Card suggests that the US is or will be using to persuade China sound to me like wishful thinking on his part. I see no evidence of that. What evidence I do see directly contradicts that.

Well, actually, it's really only one mechanism (steer the DPRK by poking China); Card mentions three different possible sticks. Still don't see why you think you should see evidence. And the evidence you do see (apparently referring to Kelly's speeches) is not "directly contradictory;" if accepted at face value, it's no more than a contra indicator.

I'd be glad to stake Jane $20, at least, but what exactly are we betting on? Whether China is involved in the negotiations? (If so, I think we've already won, based on the article here.)

On the other hand, there's a short article just up at the NY Times saying, "President Bush said Tuesday he would consider a plan to give North Korea energy and food aid if the communist regime disarms its nuclear weapons program." (click here) This sounds like more "after the nuclear issue is settled, we might consider..." talk to me, but GT will probably see it as identical to what his prescient idol did in 1994.

Why is a deal along the lines that Clinton followed inept? North Korea stayed on the reservation for awhile. Frum suggests at least one reason why NK might have come off the reservation. Brief learning curve for the decision makers in the administration not fully familiary with NK leaders. Then assurances that axis of evil status need not mean attack from the US. A bit of sweetener in terms of resumption of food and energy assistance, and the status quo may be restored.

For those who feel a strong desire to make this a victory for either the present administration or the one just gone by, the characterization of such a course of events is all-important. "Bush good" vs "Bush inept - Clinton good". Tell you what, "Colin Powell good".

I suspect a great deal of policy making springs from acknowledgement of what is possible in a world not of our making. Has Card caught the essence of what is possible? "We'll see" has to be balanced by the possibility that we won't know for a very long time. The public answer will be fostered by non-public pressure, but whether it takes the form Card suggests may not be revealed in the life-time of North Korean of Chinese leaders. In which case, all bets are off.

Jane,

What, exactly, is the bet?

Doesn't matter, because it's off. Any other questions?

I'd contend that, unfortunately, "status quo" is not acceptable in the stead of North Korea's ultimate libration - for both basic humanitarian and national/worldwide interest objectives. If the Bush administration's possible solution, engaging in "non-appeasement appeasement" (particularly while defending a doctrine outlining the unacceptability of regimes exactly like North Korea), are intended to be indefinite, Bush has failed in applying his anti-terror foreign policy and will have succeeded in following shuffling, Realpolitik footsteps.

But nothing has been settled yet, and I still hold out confidence in the administration's ability to employ the stick before the carrot.

President Bush said Tuesday he may revive a proposal for substantial economic benefits for North Korea if that country agrees to dismantle its nuclear weapons facilities.

This is different from what Clinton did how, exactly?

The "dismantle" part, rather than "we'll shut them down until we want to use them again".

Jane,

The crisis did not arise because the NKs decided to reactivate their reactor. That was simply one of the consequences.

The crisis started because we found out that the NKs, while keeping the reactor in question mothballed as agreed, went ahead and built OTHER facilities.

And that's what got all the conservative talking heads in an uproar. This just proved, proved I tell ya, how idiotic and naïve Clinton and Carter had been in dealing with the NKs. You can’t trust those guys!

And of course the macho Bushies would never negotiate a deal with the NKs (or so the conservative chattering classes claimed). Nope, not him. He would tell the NKs to stuff it and not give them anything. After all, you can’t trust them.

Except of course, that everything indicates that he will. There will be some agreement (just like in 94) and the NKs will promise to behave better next time (just like in 94).

As for the ‘dismantle’ it sounds to me, like most of the conservative analysis on NK, simply wishful thinking. And the basic problem, which is that the NKs can decide to start a new program, will remain as big a problem under the Bush agreement as it was under the Clinton one.

In other words, a lot of huff and puff but we are back were we started. Providing assistance to the NKs and crossing our fingers they will keep their end of the bargain.

Josh Marshall got it right several days ago.

May I quote him?

What are some of the great political betrayals of history? One certainly would be the federal government's betrayal of the ex-slaves of the South at the end of Reconstruction. After a dozen or so years trying to impose biracial democracy on the conquered South, the then-party of emancipation and civil rights, the Republicans, abandoned the freedmen to the tender mercies of Jim Crow for about a century. Then there was the shameful, though likely inevitable, abandonment of the fledgling electoral democracies of Eastern Europe. Those which were occupied by the Red Army -- Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, East Germany and others -- at the end of World War II had to endure about four decades of Stalinist tyranny.

Of course, now we have a much more recent example: the Bush White House's betrayal of the administration-obedient scribes who rushed forward in recent weeks to defend the White House's folly in North Asia.

After the *$#% started to hit the fan on the Korean Peninsula a horde of eager conservative columnists rushed forward to applaud the Bush administration's unmasking of North Korean villainy and Clintonian appeasement.

Finally, a tough-minded policy had been established! Moral clarity. Resolve. Grit in the face of evil. All that good stuff.

Yes, yes, yes, the road ahead may be a difficult one and the price to be paid may be high, they said. And there might have to be, if not a long twilight struggle, then at least a serious all-nighter with some dismally poor lighting. But the weak-willed policy of the Clintonites had been revealed for all to see, a vindication of the 'axis of evil' slogan and all the rest.

Only now these worthies, having walked so far out on the plank, have to hear that sawing sound at their rear, as the Bush White House hangs them out to dry.

For everyone who has eyes to see, the Bush administration is now awkwardly climbing down from its 'negotiation equals appeasement' approach of the last two years and hoping that our allies like South Korea and Japan and our sometimes-allies like China and Russia will help us get the North Koreans back to the negotiating table and reverse the deterioration which has occurred in the last several months.

Having defended the Bush White House by contrasting it with the vile appeasement of the Clinton administration, they now have to watch their guys crawl their way back to embracing the path the previous administration favored.

Hung out to dry, fellas.

Ouch ...

Masterful.

GT, you may wish to hold back for a few weeks before deciding the outcome of this as-yet-very-unresolved North Korean affair.

Megan has a point with the carefully chosen wording of Bush's statements. Whatever we may believe as to his persuasions, anyone who has been watching Bush for the past two years knows that his administration's stated intents - especially when given to technical fineness - are to be followed up with commensurate action. They don't often relegate policy discrepancies to the vagaries of news flurry or the hand of spinmeisters.

As for Marshall's sneer, he doesn't need North Korea as an example of the United States' need to play dictatorships against one another and, in doing so, temporarily couple in shallow agreement. Pakistan fits the definition of a rogue, autocratic regime with obvious internal ties to terrorism. Unfortunately, Musharraf and his hench are relatively pliant and can be, for the moment, utilized to help smash terrorists in and around their nation.

Personally, I'd prefer the military to knock down all rogues in one decisive campaign; I hate field compromises. But I'm in an armchair. Like I've said, I trust the Bush administration from its performance, in that it is acting out of a desire to practically employ its idealism - defeat terror and its despot nests, but with efficiency (waiting only until one must make an enemy; we've got Khadafi cowering and waxing sycophant for the moment) and therefore effectiveness.

Michael,

As I posted above, I change my mind when the facts change. And if we waited to have all the data for every argument then Jane should just close shop. And everyone else as well.

Marshall is not sneering against (is this the proper use?) the US but rather all the conservative ditto-heads that rushed to claim how their beloved President Bush would never appease the NKs like that idiot Clinton.

Oops.

I am well aware we have to deal with unsavory characters and difficult situations all the time.

But if all those conservative commentators had stopped and thought for a moment they wouldn't have made such fools of themselves, claiming that Bush would not negotiate. Then again, that's how they operate.

The fact is, SHORT OF WAR, Clinton did not have many other options. Same for Bush. And he clearly doesn't want that.

Result? Bush is doing what Clinton did, negotiate with the NKs, knowing it's not the perfect solution, and hoping they will collapse sooner rather than later and that, maybe, they will honor their agreement.

I'm with the thumper on the Card essay. A lot of it didn't make sense, and I don't buy the part that the Chinese would immediately invade Taiwan if we were to bomb the Yongbyon nuclear facilities. I don't know that they wouldn't either, but to claim to know that the Chinese would instantaneously invade Taiwan if we take military action against Yongbyon seems presumptuous to me . . . . . .

Of course there must be lots of back channel negotiations taking place between the United States, China, South Korea and Japan.

I was also surprised that Card didn't discuss Japan's role in the crisis in more detail. The standard military axiom is that "Korea is a dagger pointed at Japan's heart". Now North Korea has already "test launched" an intermediate range missile directly over Japan. What's the attitude of the Japanese government going to be to a North Korean threat armed with pretty good missiles and nuclear warheads?

One potential gambit being gamed out reportedly is the rearming of Japan, either through a large conventional build-up or even a nuclear arming. How much pressure could the threat of that option put on China?

As for the North Koreans, the basic problem is that they're crazy. Even the agreement signed back in 1994 was technically not a treaty because there was no point in that . . . . . it will be interesting to see what sort of "deal" comes out of this mess, or maybe not. Practically speaking, though, there's absolutely no point in making a deal of any sort, because it's crystal clear that the North Koreans will pay no attention.

Clinton had no (viable, in your implication) options other than war, GT?

I suppose "stop giving NK oil" is the same as "war"?

More on-topic and less troll-whine-related, I think Card overstates modern China's relation to NK compared to that of Mao's era. Card suggests that China would instigate an invasion of Taiwan (which it cannot hope to actually take, in the face of US opposition) and nuke South Korea and possibly Japan and the US itself if the US fought North Korea, even in defense of South Korea.

I submit that the Chinese leadership isn't suicidal, and is not deluded in such a way as to imagine that committing an unambiguous act of war against the US simply to keep Kim in power (this is especially true of a nuclear attack, which would almost certainly (certainly in the case of an attack on the US itself) result in a massive counterattack on China and its utter destruction.

China knows it has clout, and it knows it can push the US around a bit in its area of influence. But it (by which, of course, I mean the Party leadership) also knows that an actual war with the US would be utterly self-destructive; their bark must, thus, be worse than their bite, as regards the US (and history, I think, supports this view).

One document from the FAS site:
http://fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/IB91141.pdf
gives the US policies and background on this issue as released in unclassified form to Congress. What was classified is anybody's guess in this forum. Of note are the capabilities based estimates of NK bomb production possibilities which are then correlated to various Russian estimates of the NK production levels on pages CRS 7-8 (10 and 11 of the pdf file). In using these estimates the reader can ponder what the North was doing with all this plutonium extraction capacity if they were not making bomb pits. Otherwise, they had no capacity to use the plutonium for peaceful generating purposes.

GT et al seem to be ignoring one basic difference between the tentative Bush positions and the policies of the past administration. In the past the US was negociating a quid pro quo on a simultaneous basis. "As you close down the breeder we will help you economically, and by the way, we are withdrawing all of our tactical nuclear weapons from Korea also." This is quite a bit different from "After you close down the reactor and destroy its ability to ever produce plutonium again, which will be open to US inspection, then we will begin again to deliver fuel oil." In trying to plaster Bush with the same tar and feathers that were appropriate to Clinton, GT is attempting to place the same stains on the blue dress of foreign policy as was placed in a prior term. I'm sure a Clinton apologist can come up with something more original than that, and my recommendation is to start with Bush's neglect of the conventional US forces role in Korea and their present status as policy anachronisms and virtual hostages to NK bravado.

I am uncomfortable about a number of things about the way Bush has handled Foreign Policy going back to the summer of 2001. First of all lets not forget tat the Russians have a bit of a stake in this as well and are currently involved in the shuttle diplomacy with NK.

But first there is the issue of where does the president stand on the issue of proliferation? Does the administration have a policy at all? In december of 2001 Bush pulled out of the ABM treaty with Russia, one of the reasons offered at the time was the threat of rogue nations and North Korea was mentioned by name (and later called out as part of the axis of evil). Now personally I think the idea of abandoning diplomacy in order to build a national missile defense is a bad idea for too many reasons to go into here, but suffice to say that a workable system is still several years away (if it works at all). We start pulling out of or demanding the dilution of treaties right and left, germ warfare, small arms trafficking, and the international criminal court. I understand there were concerns about US sovereignty and related issues but the administration was literally a bull in a china shop. It's one thing to have concerns about international treaties but it seems to me more good will could have been manufactured by working out the concerns and working through the diplomatic process.

About the same time Bush announced his withdrawal from the ABM treaty the Chinese announced a 10 billion (US) upgrade to this nuclear arsenal. Now what exactly was the strategic goal of the pull out of the ABM again? What purpose did it did it serve? Here we are in the thick of the fight in Afghanistan and we tell the Russians we're out of the ABM and don't even think about START III. And the Chinese use this as their cue to stock up! Where has the Bush administration demonstrated he is willing to work with other countries to address proliferation? And make no mistake the issue in Iraq is proliferation. No instead we decide we are going to go it alone, we announce were are going into Iraq to disarm Hussein, unilaterally if we have to, tell the Russians we're out of the ABM and make a big splashy show of making a down payment on a large scale NMD system, which is only of any use against Russia and China (please don't mention the Taepo Dong missile, it can barley reach the US now and it would take more sophistication then the NK's have to build a payload capable nuclear warhead for it.)

So now here we are, in a situation with NK. Of course were not going to invade, so what are our options? Well we have to work though China, Russia and SK and Japan. So where exactly do we have the right to complain about proliferation when the US has shown no interest in working with Russia (or China for that matter) on that issue? Clearly the Russians and the Chinese see the NMD system as escalation. We can’t invade everyone. The problem of proliferation is only going to get worse, not better. It's not like when Iraq and NK are resolved this isn’t going to come up again. Are we going to continue to build our "defense shield" and tell Russia and China to pound sand? Is that really the best solution. Please, I understand other countries lie and cheat on agreements, I would be floored if we didn't, I am also aware of the limitations of diplomacy , but the point is the administration doesn't seem to have any grasp on the big picture, if they did I find it difficult to understand how the NK issue could hav just Creeped up on us. These are not the actions of someone who has a grasp in the nuances of geo politics and it makes me down right uncomfortable.

It's always fascinating to see the conservative mind at work.

First the argument was "Bush won't negotiate like that weasel Clinton".

Oops.

No need to repeat what Josh Marshall said.

Now the new argument (fresh from the RNC faxes?) is that he will negotiate but it will be a different type of negotiation. Notice Jane hanging her hopes on "dismantle" or Tom Roberts telling us that our position will be: "After you close down the reactor and destroy its ability to ever produce plutonium again, which will be open to US inspection, then we will begin again to deliver fuel oil".

My prediction?

Ooops again.

Not gonna happen.

Tim answers what points you raise with your question, GT. Bush has only dangled the idea of "negotiations" with the North Koreans - and in every statement, his administration stresses the condition of nuclear dismantling. Nothing more has transpired.

Again, GT, don't count the chickens yet! Back in the spring of 2002, I was beside myself watching what I believed to be an indescribable lurch leftwards, with Bush trying appeasing Yasser Arafat and his attempt to bring land-gain talks about through terrorist attacks. By the beginning of summer, however, Bush had not only entertained Abdullah's stale motion for peace and exposed its disingenuous foundations (and complete impracticality among the Arab dictatorships), but he finally - and gracefully - demonstrated to the world exactly why he would not invite Arafat to the White House.

Bush plays little-ball, GT. He doesn't swing for fences; and when he does point to the bleachers, he instead bunts and proceeds to run the bases. All the same, he intends to score.

Conservatives are delineating negotiations from appeasement; I would say that they can do that with intellectual honesty for the next few months - at least until Iraq is rid of the Ba'athists. Here is how I would determine appeasement from a delay that actually benefits the Bush Doctrine: State draws out negotiations and, in fact, begins to wrap Kim Jong-Il into the same web as Saddam Hussein. The nature of the North Koreans' weapons program becomes a gateway for their receipt of aid - and thus a focus of increasing scrutiny. If the North Koreans can be lured into submitting themselves to account by the United Nations for the shutdown of their weapons program, Bush will have set them in exactly the untenable position currently occupied by Saddam. The North Koreans, you see, will have no intention to interrupt their work toward atomics - and so when their own inspections begin, preferably after the fall of Saddam Hussein, North Korea will be targeted with the same military and fashionable "internationally" moral authority as was Iraq.

That's my antithesis to "appeasement," since I'd like to consider myself critical of American deviations from the ambition to rid the world of dictatorships with the understanding that freedom is the antidote to murderous extremism. Appeasement would be an agreement without condition nor significant accountability, as seen in 1994.

But for the umpteenth time, I don't see Bush going that route. Let's watch and see what transpires, eh?

Of course.

That's what we are here for.

Rick DeMent: Your post had too many salient suppositions and outright errors in it to be considered as a balanced contribution to this argument. First, making observations about a weapon system's probity by observing "if it ever works at all" ignores a track record of both success and failure in the US BMD efforts. Before wondering further, I'd either suggest looking at the fas.org site or the MDA program site:
http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/html/milstone.html
which gives a long history of the specific ways that the system and its components have, and haven't worked.

Your analysis of the PRC's modernization program in its nuclear rocket forces fails completely to delineate between what funds are being placed on its ICBM and MRBM force modernization programs. Notably, if the best way of defeating a NMD system is to overwhelm it by numbers of decoys and warheads, we should be seeing much work in designing, developing, and testing MIRVs and the production of ICBM launchers. Quite to the contrary: what we are seeing is investment into the qualitative reliabilty of the existing Long March system through investment in the PRC's manned spaceflight program. I simply haven't read anywhere that the roughly 2 dozen ICBM launchers are being supplemented by new launchers or systems, nor is the PLA Navy testing a blue water ballistic missile sub prototype. Where the PRC is spending big bucks is in MRBM, largely being deployed in proximity to Taiwan, and to a lesser extent India. What this force augmentation has to do with your ABM treaty argument is very hard to see.

Finally, both the British and the Russians in the past month have expressed interest in participation in BMD development. Israel and India are already in negotiations concerning sale of the US-Israeli developed (and functional, mind you) theatre BMD system to India, possibly with Russian cooperation in development of booster systems and radars. So the US attitude is not one of telling the world to "pound sand".

Painting the Bush administration policies as being wrong or undesirable is your perogative. But basing your arguments on incorrect facts and assumptions leads towards illogical conclusions.

Rick: One additional, and glaring, mistake of yours. Putin and Bush negotiated a reduction in stockpile numbers and deployed warheads a year ago, and the Bush administration just forced by executive order release of funding to demilitarize obsolete WMD stockpiles in Russia. So I think that Bush does care about proliferation; just not the flavor of it you would prefer or bother to cite.

Having read all GT's contributions (and I use the word in a humorous sense), I'm moved to imagine his chances of winning a fast shell game.

I know which side I'd bet on...

Somehow, the leftist mindset renders one incapable of learning from experience; time after time, we watch them say, "Well, okay... Bush did win the last time -- but this time he won't!"

And they never manage to tally up the wins...

The fact is that NK used its own civilians as hostages and were given appeasement to stop killing them. They kept killing them anyways and continued gearing up to kill a lot of South Koreans, too.

Clinton policy inept? You betcha. What part of "Appeasement only makes things worse in time" is hard to understand?

I don't know Eric. Why don't you ask Bush?

Here's a question for you, GT. What do you suppose would happen if the Chinese told Bush that they're kinda getting tired of the deadbeat Kim family, and don't have any more interest in propping up his country?

Mr. Roberts (kind of makes you think about Henry Fonda),

I do appreciate the information I will give it a look, you seem to have a lot of information and I would like to ask you some questions but rather then take up space here perhaps I could email you? The Email address given in the link is that useable address?

But your right, I'm biased, I think that the whole Idea of missile defense is taking us in the wrong direction. In the mean time perhaps you can tell us what Bush's proliferation policy is? I'm fairly clear that he doesn’t want Iraq to get nuclear weapons. But to me the push for NMD is just opening up the door to another arms race.

Having said that I did read a recent article that talked about Russian American collaboration on some of the technologies which is what, in my opinion they should have done in the first place. But that makes the ABM pull out even more puzzling to me, unless the administration is starting to figure out that you can catch more flies with honey…

Comments are Closed.