North Korea says that any sanctions resulting from their recent missile test will constitute a declaration of war. These guys are just desperate for somebody—anybody—to declare war on them. Three months ago, North Korea believed that a declaration of war constituted a declaration of war. Then they said that any attempt to interfere with their missile launch would be a declaration of war. And now they say that if anybody reacts to the launch, that’s also a declaration of war.
What North Korea is saying is that they’d really, really like to be able to tell their citizens that somebody’s declared war on them. They’re like an unstable middle school bully, stalking from person to person, asking who’s “got a problem with me” and why “you’re looking at me.”
It seems unlikely that we—by which I mean the world—can negotiate our way out of an impending North Korea problem at this point. It’s certainly worth trying, but what’s more likely is that we’ll have to work around North Korea, determining from without how to solve the problem within. It’s a damned shame we blew our cred overthrowing Saddam Hussein—the DPRK is in far worse shape, and potentially much more dangerous, than Iraq was in 2003.
But they have lots of artillery in range of Seoul. Also, they don’t have any oil.
Kim actually seems like a fairly pragmatic ruler, his objective of course is keeping himself in power, but he has pursued it fairly pragmatically creating a public image of himself as an impulsive leader who will make war if he doesn’t get everything he wants. War is not in his interest, but with all of that artillery pointed at Seoul it would be devastating for the west too. He’s just in a high stakes poker game aimed at winning concessions from the west.
Kim is not looking too healthy these days, thank goodness.
Your headline made me laugh, Waldo.
You’re correct, of course, about the threat posed by North Korea. Want to read something really chilling? Try “One Second Later,” by William Forstchen (try to ignore that Newt Gingrich wrote the forward; you’ll just make yourself crazy).
‘Problem is, now that your boys have the power, what are they going to do about it? This “we blew our cred” nonsense has all the hallmarks of what your complaint really was back in 2003: an excuse to demonstrate cravenness in the face of a critical and immediate threat, based upon current intelligence. Now that you’ve seen the light on North Korea, there are doubtless among your colleagues in the moonbatosphere who will rant that the threat is overblown; that North Korea isn’t an “imminent” threat (something, BTW, that the Bush Administration never said); that we’ll do more harm than good by addressing it militarily; that freeing millions of people enslaved to a lunatic isn’t worth American lives. If only “Team America: World Police” had effectively demonized Saddam to the extent that it brought the lunacy of Kim Jong-Il into the popular consciousness!
If North Korea is a threat — and I agree that it is — our present “cred” — as you so delicately put it — is irrelevant.
Sounds a lot like you’ve found another excuse for inaction, Waldo, even though you recognize that action is necessary. Congratulations.
It’s entirely relevant. We’re the boy that cried “wolf.” Many countries will surely want to distance themselves at any attempt at regime change led by the U.S. Without having Japan, South Korea, and China on board, we’ve got ourselves a bad situation. Especially if China is opposed to action, because then we’re stirring up a hornet’s nest, to understate things.
“We’re the boy that cried ‘wolf.'”
Bull, Waldo! You mean while everyone else was crying “Wolf!” at the same time? You must, since there was a worldwide intelligence consensus as to Saddam’s efforts. I’ve yet to see anyone even on the moonbat Left bother to deny it, because it’s undeniable. The dispute was not whether Saddam had WMDs, and was trying to develop a nuclear capability; the dispute was over what to do about it.
And my point was not that “our present ‘cred’ … is irrelevant” in what other countries do. My point is that our present “cred” is irrelevant to whether we should take action.
But I see the point of your post. It’s not really to advocate effective action; it’s merely to blame Bush. It’s so much easier, after all, than blaming your boy when he does what the far Left does so frequently in the face of threats: nothing effective.
Whatever consensus that there was clearly weak, since it was insufficient consensus for any international body to take action. Hence the U.S. invading with token representation from other nations (with the exception of the UK, who participated meaningfully). If the consensus was as unanimous as you claim, then a UN coalition would have participated in the invasion, rather than opposing it as illegal. Instead, the UN’s inspection team found no evidence of WMDs. Only three countries’ governments claimed that Iraq had WMDs: the U.S., the U.K., and Spain. And George Tenet—the head of the CIA—had personally informed President Bush prior to the invasion that Iraq had no WMDs. A great many countries opposed the war on grounds that there was insufficient evidence to invade: China, India,Russia, and, of course, most of “old Europe,” as Rumsfeld memorably referred to the bulk of the continent.
And yet millions of people marched carrying signs expressing disbelief that he had any such things. Were they psychic? Inspectors found nothing and concluded that there was nothing to find, just failed attempts to develop weapons.
No, it’s quite clear that a great many nations’ leaders doubted seriously whether Iraq had WMDs, and that a great many more nations’ citizens believed likewise.
And you are wrong about that. If we had the sort of credibility that caused nations to follow us, rather than flee, we’d be in a far better position to convince, say, China to support regime change in North Korea. Given that our cred is actually negative, they’re apt to support the opposite of whatever we want. And I imagine you’ll find that few people believe that we should take military action off of China’s coast in the face of opposition from them.
Your belief that the United States can act unilaterally in this scenario is simply wrong, and is precisely the sort of attitude that got us into the six-year-old quagmire that is Iraq.
James,
I am sorry that both Waldo and myself have once again disappointed you by failing to fulfill the fantasy that you have of Democrats being toothless peaceniks. You are just going to have to accept the fact that sometimes Democrats want to nuke Bejing and flatten Pyongyang as much as the next guy.
My position at the time we prepared to invade Iraq was that we should go after North Korea instead. We could have done one or the other but not both.
Regarding any sort of ‘declaration of war,’ we technically *are* at war with North Korea as it stands. It’s just been a very long cease-fire. I’m all in favor of forcible regime change in North Korea. We might be able to get it done after Obama has finished pulling our troops out of Iraq and gotten our people rested, re-equipped and moved through a proper training cycle. Until that time, we literally do not have the manpower to fight a hot war on the ground against North Korea. They have got a standing army of about 1,100,000 troops, all of whom are right there in-country with their equipment on site and very short supply lines. We have only something like 30,000 troops along the DMZ at any given time. Going to war with North Korea right now would mean our guys getting slaughtered by the sheer numbers.