Now That We Know He Don't Got Nukes
In '94, when I heard the details of The Agreed Framework put together by Carter/Clinton I said: "This is nonsense". Kim Jong-Il gets oil and reactors and we get the discreet pretense that he is not making weapons. It was clear he would be pretending because there was no Anytime/Anywhere inspection-and-varification language.
I was tremendously critical: "The time to deal with him is now," I said, "Not after he has Nukes." When it became clear Dole was going to lose in '96 I said: "Oh well, at least Clinton will have to deal with his own mess."
I was wrong, because the problem didn't surface again until "02(?) when The North declared they had the bomb (or were reprocessing). Speculation at that time, with various degrees of hedging, was that they had between 2 and 12. Now though, we know he doesn't have any. At least none he can make go boom, so in fact he has none. So the same criticism I made of Clinton I now make of Bush: "This is the time to deal with him, before he gets nukes, not after." Bush has two years. What's he going to do?
There is the problem of the million man army, the immense amount of armament along the DMZ, Seoul only 25 miles away, and a South Korean people seemingly unable to acknowledge the possibility of war. The positive is the North's extraordinarily weak economy. If there is a general agreement that the North needs to be brought to heel, economic pressure seems the way to do it. If there's not a general agreement --that means China--there's no way to bring a change anyway because presumably, with this nut regime, there's no such thing as a small war possible.
And that's my generally agreed upon statement of the general situation. The question is, what will be China's interest in the matter, and how can that interest be tweaked? It's thought that a defensively nuclearized Japan and Taiwan would not be in China's interest; and Asian nations in general moving toward a war footing would not be in their commercial interests. So this does seem like a diplomacy thing --without the United States!-- because the US talking to Korea would be the victory they need, and they could never make a meaningful agreement because that would be to lose the victory.
North Korea does seem to be a psycho regime. It's hard to see that they have any rational for existence other than ego, the attempt to gain international status by the threat to develop the bomb. --If that's the case they must be feeling very bad right now.
..........................
Is Foley finished? I don't find follow-up, and I know that personally it absolutely no longer enters my mind. I always presume that what's true for me is true for most Americans (plus 50%), at least in terms of what in the news excites my interest.
.........................
Hugh Hewitt has a post arguing that the Dems high water mark was a week ago. --This sudden drop off in interest and intensity does fit with my explanation as to why there was intensity in the first place. It never was a political scandal, it was pure gay bashing, and the bashing came out because the source of the homo-erotic expression was from such an unexpected source, a pretty decent appearing Republican; so caught offguard, people incautiously expressed what they really felt. Sobered now, by a week, and by a genuinely serious news event, they've moved back into their habitual social discretion. The great value of this experience was the demonstration of the instinctive aversion people do feel toward homosexuality --And I still argue that the one person most violated in this episode was Foley.
I was tremendously critical: "The time to deal with him is now," I said, "Not after he has Nukes." When it became clear Dole was going to lose in '96 I said: "Oh well, at least Clinton will have to deal with his own mess."
I was wrong, because the problem didn't surface again until "02(?) when The North declared they had the bomb (or were reprocessing). Speculation at that time, with various degrees of hedging, was that they had between 2 and 12. Now though, we know he doesn't have any. At least none he can make go boom, so in fact he has none. So the same criticism I made of Clinton I now make of Bush: "This is the time to deal with him, before he gets nukes, not after." Bush has two years. What's he going to do?
There is the problem of the million man army, the immense amount of armament along the DMZ, Seoul only 25 miles away, and a South Korean people seemingly unable to acknowledge the possibility of war. The positive is the North's extraordinarily weak economy. If there is a general agreement that the North needs to be brought to heel, economic pressure seems the way to do it. If there's not a general agreement --that means China--there's no way to bring a change anyway because presumably, with this nut regime, there's no such thing as a small war possible.
And that's my generally agreed upon statement of the general situation. The question is, what will be China's interest in the matter, and how can that interest be tweaked? It's thought that a defensively nuclearized Japan and Taiwan would not be in China's interest; and Asian nations in general moving toward a war footing would not be in their commercial interests. So this does seem like a diplomacy thing --without the United States!-- because the US talking to Korea would be the victory they need, and they could never make a meaningful agreement because that would be to lose the victory.
North Korea does seem to be a psycho regime. It's hard to see that they have any rational for existence other than ego, the attempt to gain international status by the threat to develop the bomb. --If that's the case they must be feeling very bad right now.
..........................
Is Foley finished? I don't find follow-up, and I know that personally it absolutely no longer enters my mind. I always presume that what's true for me is true for most Americans (plus 50%), at least in terms of what in the news excites my interest.
.........................
Hugh Hewitt has a post arguing that the Dems high water mark was a week ago. --This sudden drop off in interest and intensity does fit with my explanation as to why there was intensity in the first place. It never was a political scandal, it was pure gay bashing, and the bashing came out because the source of the homo-erotic expression was from such an unexpected source, a pretty decent appearing Republican; so caught offguard, people incautiously expressed what they really felt. Sobered now, by a week, and by a genuinely serious news event, they've moved back into their habitual social discretion. The great value of this experience was the demonstration of the instinctive aversion people do feel toward homosexuality --And I still argue that the one person most violated in this episode was Foley.
posted by mouse at 11:55 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home