NoKo Nuclear Test

The WaPo stakes out a bold position:

North Korea's apparent nuclear test last night may well be regarded as a failure of the Bush administration's nuclear nonproliferation policy.

No!

However, the ongoing quest for the silver lining turns up this:

Yet a number of senior U.S. officials have said privately that they would welcome a North Korean test, regarding it as a clarifying event that would forever end the debate within the Bush administration about whether to solve the problem through diplomacy or through tough actions designed to destabilize North Korean leader Kim Jong Il's grip on power.

Now U.S. officials will push for tough sanctions at the U.N. Security Council, and are considering a raft of largely unilateral measures, including stopping and inspecting every ship that goes in and out of North Korea.

"This fundamentally changes the landscape now," one U.S. official said last night.

Spoken like a Yankees fan.  (My idea - fire Joe Torre and have him join the State Dept., where he can exert his calming influence on Kim Jong-Il - is not yet fully formulated.)

Comments

[PeterUK]

Their Dear Leader

[Mackenzie]

Just another example of our inept foreign policy - making empty threats against a genuinely evil regime, then failing to follow through. No steps forward, 2 steps back.

[Sue]

I also saw a report today, I'll see if I can find it, that claimed NK had the nuke when Bush took office. That 1994 was when we could have stopped it.

[SteveMG]

making empty threats against a genuinely evil regime,

What were those "empty threats"?

And what, may I ask, would be your policy had you been running things?

Really, it's not enough at this date to just say "Bush, Bush, Bush". There's a real world out there with real threats emanating from actors acting on their own interests and desires. Whether Bush is the president or Hillary Clinton or John McCain or Joe Biden, these actors will do what they think is in their best interest, however warped that may be.

It is insane to us that a country would divert billions of dollars to building nuclear weaons while millions of their people were literally eating grass and starving to death.

How can threats work against such a regime?

SMG

[Florence Schmieg]

So what is Mackenzie's complaint and that of all the inevitable complainers who now bash Bush like night follows day? Should Bush have bombed North Korea back to the stone age? I think they are just about there already. OR is it that we should have been better able to "negotiate" like the extremely successful Europeans have been doing with Iran?? Should we institute a draft and invade with 2 million troops? OR should we grovel at the feet of NK and Iran so we will be better liked abroad?? Come on, I await your brilliant solution here. Maybe you can think one up after you finish hyperventilating about Mark Foley and Dennis Hastert. These are serious times for serious people. Thank God Bush is an adult.

[Mackenzie]

The problem is that the Cheney foreign doctrine is a failure. Not talking to enemies is a tough-guy approach that isn't working in N. Korea and isn't working in Iran. Yesterday James Baker (so belittled here for his foreign policy successes) repeated his phililosphy that talking directly to our enemies is not a sign of weakness.

[SteveMG]

. Not talking to enemies is a tough-guy approach that isn't working in N. Korea and isn't working in Iran.

Well, you've gone from making "empty threats" to not talking to them. Which, sorry, indicates to me that you have no idea as to what we could do to prevent their development of weapons.

Talk about what? Over what issue? This is a regime that has allowed millions of its people to die through starvation. What foreign policy tools can influence such a government?

North Korea is a hermit regime that the US has very little influence over. Economic and political sanctions by the US, if they don't include China, are meaningless. And China, for whatever reason, has decided not to use that leverage against the North Koreas.

The military option is out since no nation in that region would support such a measure. South Korea would be devastated by a North Korean reprisal and there would be millions of North Koreans fleeing into China. So neither of those countries would endorse such an action.

What does one do in such a situation? Soft power doesn't work and hard power can't be employed.

Okay, ignore all the above and just blame Bush. Or Cheney. Or the neocons. Or whatever lame excuse you want to come up with for domestic political gain.

SMG

[Jimmy's Attack Rabbit]

SteveMG- You accurately have described what China and South Korea have been doing. The policy of the administration has been to Isolate, Ignore, (more bi-lateral discussions), and to let the North Koreans Implode. The idea is to seal the Norks off and let China and South Korea deal with a bankrupt and failed state.
A naval blockade is about all that is left to do short of a shooting war.........Unless Halliburton has a giant shrink-wrap machine.

[SteveMG]

You accurately have described what China and South Korea have been doing.

I can understand the motivation behind South Korea's actions but China's unwillingness to put the hammer on N.K. puzzles me.

Clearly they must see that this will lead to a arms race in the region? Japan will re-arm and the other nations surrounding Peking will follow. Perhaps the end game here is to allow this to happen with the hope that this will force the US out of the region. Then China has to deal with a much weaker Japan vis-a-vis the US and other assorted other regional powers that can managed more easily.

Quite a gambit.

SMG

[anon]

Mackenzie, what magic words would you have us say to the North Koreans and Iranians? If you know how to solve all these problems I think you owe it to the country, in fact the world, to come clean.

[vnjagvet]

Mackenzie, you are an example of criticism by slogan. What specifically do you think should be our approach to negotiations with the KIJ and his NOKO?

KIJ's "negotiating" seems restricted to repeating time after time one message: The US is bad and we are good.

Why not let Japan, China, Russia and SOKO do the heavy lifting here? After all, it is their national interests which are most directly at stake.

[Syl]

I'm reminded of the five minutes I spent listening to Soros on BookTV this weekend.

On Iran (paraphrasing:
--------
It would be horrible for the world if Iran got nukes.

It would be horrible for the world if we attacked Iran to get rid of their nuke program.

We must use diplomacy even though it will be very very very very difficult.

Otherwise we have to live with Iran nukes.

Therefore diplomacy has to work.
---------

Yeah, through magic. The guy is an IDIOT.

[Syl]

mackensie believes in magic too, I see.

[Semanticleo]

Amazing how Iraq gets morgued to the back of the sports pages when the Plausible Denialists
finally see the truth of that idiocy. But it seems to be only a subconscious admission of failure, because they're still defensive and reminisce about 'purple finger's majesty'. Maybe Maguire can weave a connection between
NoKo and Saddam's Iraq. You know, the Nuke thing? Otherwise, he ain't talkin' 'bout Iraq.

[clarice]

Wait a minute, Syl, the entire nuanced crowd thinks he's a genius.

[Stormy70]

Of course, Iraq and Afghanistan happen to border Iran, who only have to look across their borders to all the military hardware still sitting around. Looking at a map sometime might answer the "Why Iraq?" question. North Korea basically has had this technology since the 90s, when the last administration gave it to them. NK then gave it to Pakistan. See Khan network, the one liberals conviently forget about because Bush shut it down because of the invasion of Iraq.
Japan and South Korea will be getting nukes now, and China and Russia will have to accept the new reality. I would think the last thing China wants is Japan feeling their oats again, backed by the US.

[Extraneus]

The threat to us from NK is minimal. We've been working on systems to thwart an actual missile attack from these guys since Reagan was ridiculed for proposing to fund them, and they'd have nothing else if not that. The real threat is that they sell Iran their technology, ushering in an early dramatic entrance by the 12th imam, putting us right back where we were already: dealing with Iran. And that's what we should be doing, without the slightest thought for the feckless appeasers who would prefer they nuke Israel just to help the Democrats beat the evil lame-duck demon Bush.

And of course the Hillary's comments were priceless.

[Extraneus]

Speaking of NK, I just wanted to make sure everyone's seen the pic of the NK newslady with the aquatic backdrop. Click if you haven't.

[barrydauphin]

I believe we have talked with NK; it's called the 6 party talks. There happen to be other countries in the region that are even more worried than the US about NK nukes. I thought the left would be able to "empathize" with these other countries and "understand" their interest in being party to any such talks. Oh, well, another illusion about liberals bites the dust.

China probably does not know exactly what it wants to do except punt. They are very afraid that NK will implode and tens of millions of people looking for food and shelter will pour into China. On the other hand, they are just as afraid of NK having nukes and doing something suicidal with them. Gee what happens if Kim Jong Il ever got some sort of terminal illness or decides it is in his interest to set something off somehwere or decide to endlessly blackmail China for food and fuel. China has supported NK because they thought it was in their interest and in the interest of Communism. Do they ever want to be in the position where NK is simply blackmailing them in its own interest with little in it for China except averting some nuclear explosion?

James Baker has his good points, but he was also part of the Administration that latched onto UN mandate or bust, which is why Saddam was still alive and kicking in 2003. So, will the solution be to make sure Kim is in place, so that the problem is dealt with on someone else's watch? Rinse and repeat.

[steve sturm]

I'm with the group that thinks this is a clarifying event. No longer do we have to wonder if NK has nukes, we now know for sure and can deal with NK as it is and not as we hope it was.

[Crew v1.0]

John Kerry's magic wand on Iraq is to hold a conference ("when I'm elected, we're going to hold that conference" and invite Iraq's enemies to the table to help Iraq decide Iraq's future). His solution was going to be very inclusive, it would involve dialogue, it would pass the "global test," and it would demonstrate his flair for diplomacy.

What does John Kerry think about the six-party talks with North Korea?

Failed policy. We outsourced our foreign policy. Bush bad.

Well! I guess that settles that! Thanks, long John, for reporting for duty.

From the WaPo (Russakoff), on Kerry's legal career in private practice after his stint as a prosecutor:

"The questions Kerry grappled with as a lawyer hardly seemed as grand. In one of its more lucrative periods, Kerry & Sragow was representing bald men who had suffered grotesquely unsuccessful hair implants. Lead plaintiff Charles DiPerri, then maitre d' at the exclusive Brookline Country Club, still remembers Kerry holding up color photographs of an oozing sore in DiPerri's scalp and demanding of the jury — in an oddly familiar cadence — "How do you ask a man to work with the public with his scalp in this horrendous condition?" DiPerri was awarded $90,000 in damages. "

I have argued, since reading this account during the 2004 election cycle, that John Kerry missed his true calling. Luckily, he is still around, advising us on how to deal with Kim Jong Il. That is our great good luck, and some unfortunate hair transplant victim's bad fortune.

[SteveMG]

Here's an interesting interview with one of the highest ranking officials ever to defect from North Korea, Kim Duk Hong (Link)

Couple of highlights:

Question: From the Clinton administration's point of view, they were able to negotiate a freeze of the nuclear plant at Yongbyon. Didn't that slow the nuclear program?

A: Of course, I think the Clinton administration was great. The United States solved the problem peacefully. It was historic. [But the North Koreans] resumed the development of nuclear weapons as soon as they signed the Geneva Agreed Framework, even before the ink dried on the paper.

In 1995, the national military industry secretariat went to Pakistan to trade skills in exchange for producing nuclear weapons. They sent engineers to Pakistan after they signed for Geneva Agreed Framework in 1994. They began to talk about nuclear weapons with Pakistan 1995. It is true.

Q: Do you believe that Clinton administration was naive in dealing with Kim Jong Il?

A: First of all, I think that they didn't know North Korea, Kim Il Sung or Kim Jong Il. That was their big mistake.

Q: What is Kim Jong Il's ambition?

A: Firstly he wants to have nuclear weapons. My complaint is that the United States gives North Korea time to work on developing weapon programs. Kim Jong Il doesn't care that people are starving and poor. He spent almost all the money on nuclear weapons.
____________

Nah, forget all this stuff; it's easier to just blame Bush. The North Koreans were begging (according to Slate's Fred Kaplan) for an agreement but Bush rebuffed them.

Man, if only liberals were as sceptical of out enemies as they are of conservatives.

SMG

[Dale in Atlanta]

Well, Well, Well, check out Drudge for the latest on the Faux NK "nuke"!

You heard it here, first...!

I called it at 8am this morning, for my Intel buddies up in DC....

[Neo]

These guys can’t even read Abdul Khan’s schematics correctly.

Durka durka durka

.. or was it "Team America: World Police" at their best. LOL

[Neo]

In all fairness, I want to give credit where credit is due, so my hat is off to Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton who did stop the development of a uranium based nuke by North Korea, instead they have a plutonium based nuke.

Now how did that happen ? It's always the one that got away.

[Mackenzie]

Which foreign policy shop is responsible for our North Korea policy - the Office of the Vice President or the State Dept? The hard liners or the diplomats?

Maybe the 6-party talks should be renamed the 7-party talks, since there are 2 American parties pursuing different policies.

[TomT]

I've got to think George Soros was involved in this. He's the one who funded the nuclear program in South Korea all along. He's the one who would want to do the test right before the election.

The scary thing is that the Democrats probably knew about this nuclear program for months and did nothing about it. Once again, they've put politics before national security.

[Steven Burda, MBA]

Thanks! Great read!

- Steven Burda -
e-mail: steven.burda.mba @gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/burda

[SlimGuy]

Well John Kerry was also the dork who said on one hand he trashed our unilateral action in Iraq (forgetting about 30 other countries in the process) and then demanded direct talks with NK. DUH

[SlimGuy]

Somehow I get the impression that if John Kerry were to be elected he would be the second coming of Jimmy Carter... not a pleasant thought after just having breakfast

[Pofarmer]

He's the one who funded the nuclear program in South Korea all along

Just so ya know, George Bush unilaterally removed our tactical nukes from S. Korea, to take that talking point away from the Norks. Although I know that's not what you meant.

[Neo]

Let's consider our options, but first let's consider North Korea.

North Korea, besides have over a thousand artillery pieces facing the South and a very large army, is a basket case. The PRC knows it is a basketcase, as it has been propping up North Korea, just to avert a collapse.

The military options mentioned by some in regard to North Korea are complicated by two possible unwanted outcomes. A military option that breaks the armistice could mean all out war with the immediate endangerment of over 5 million civilians and military. It is doubtful that any realistic troop levels on the part of the US (with or without Iraq) would stop this outcome, if some provocative military action was undertaken. This is the reason that No. Korea knew it could thumb its nose at us.

The second and eventual outcome is a collapse of the government in North Korea. Many in the PRC believe that eventually the government will collapse sometime in the next ten years. Their efforts to prop out the government is not ideological, but rather economical. North Korea is such a basketcase, that the collapse of the government will spur a humanitarian crisis on a scale not seen since World War II. The PRC is hoping for a soft landing in North Korea, but the definition of "soft landing" will be stretched beyond recognition. The nightmare scenario is a collapse of the government following a breaking of the armistice.

The hope of the international community has been that the eventual collapse would occur without a nuke in the mix, but given that it will eventually happen, it is now even more important to keep the regional "6-way" talks and working groups intact to handle the eventual humanitarian crisis.

[Maxwell]

Why not supplement the 6-way talks with 2-way talks? Baker doesn't think that direct talks are a sign of weakness, but the White House believes that talking to them would be a reward for bad behavior. Talking to them doesn't mean a State Dinner at the White House or a weekend at the ranch at Crawford. And it may be too late for 2-way talks. But ignoring the problem hasn't accomplished anything yet.

[Gary Maxwell]

Just in case anyone is wondering, the author of the insightful and penetrating piece directly above, aint me. Perhaps we could offer them a nuclear reactor while we are chatting?

[Dale in Atlanta]

Neo: it's over 10,000 Long range artillery pieces, aimed directly at Seoul; already pre-registered on target, most in hardened revettments, or even in tunnels, safe from airstrikes, and counter-battery fire, with days of ammunition stored nearby....it's a nightmare like no other...

American casualties would be over 250,000, IF we could get that many into country; we only have 40K+ troops in country now; to get 250K killed, we'd have to do an immediate emergency Draft, and gear up to WWII levels!

An estimated 2 MILLION South Korean civilians would be killed, by the Artillery alone, in the first 30 days of the war!

Talk about a nightmare?

The ROK keeps the DPRK propped up, because they do NOT want to take the socio-economic "hit" that West Germany took, integrating East Germany!

This would make that, look like a cakewalk, and the South Koreans want no part of it...

[SPQR]

Because 2-way talks are just North Korea's attempt to exclude the Chinese, the only ones with any leverage on North Korea, from the negotiations. 2-way talks are also North Korea's propaganda to delegitimize the South Korean government. There is nothing about a 2-way conference that would actually present any progress over 6-way talks. It is North Korea's tactic to argue about meaningless points - see the armistice negotiations during the Korean war where the shape of the negotiating table occupied months of "negotiation". The demand for 2-way talks are a fraud which everyone knows. Anyone who says otherwise is just using North Korean propaganda points to attack the Bush administration.

[Maxwell]

Are you suggesting that James Baker is attacking the Bush 43 Administration?

[Gary Maxwell]

Is it just me or quite illuminating that James Baker is being held up as a good guy by lefties? Holy cow the names they called him in November 2000 were not repeatable except in a locker room. But for the moment, he is DA MAN. Sheesh.

[D Maxwell]

Why is that anyone who doen't agree 100% with every policy of the Administration is labelled a leftie? And why is any mention of a different point of view "Bush bashing"?

[Bruce Hayden]

The biggest problem with two party talks is that of all the parties there, we have less leverage than most, and China the most.

The other thing that must be remembered is that North Korea and the PRC are still, I believe, officially allies. So, Chinese face is also at stake here. A lot of it.

Of course, even if we could survive attacking the North, which we probably could, there is the problem that the PRC was presumably a party to the cease fire that ended the Korean War. And a renewal of the fighting there would potentially drag them back in, which they most likely do not want - just think of what that would do to their drive to build up market share in the electronic parts market. Right now, they are a primary source for many of the components that go into many computpers these days. This would cease almost immediately if they went to war with us.

So, they have every incentive to keep a war from reerupting on the Korean penensula. More so than anyone except for South Korea.

My expectation is that the reason that the North Koreans want two party talks with us, is that we have so little leverage over them. Their neighbors, esp. China and South Korea, but also Japan, have a lot more. And so, by engaging in dialogue with us, they can avoid facing the leverage that these other countries can bring to bear.

[Rick Ballard]

D. Maxwell,

The two party Danegeld talks were held already and the Nork's test is the result. In fact three parties, the PRC, the US and the ROKs have been laying out the geld for years. We all still wind up with the Dane in the living room, again.

What would make one think that "this time" could be different than "last time"?

[PeterUK]

"Which foreign policy shop is responsible for our North Korea policy - the Office of the Vice President or the State Dept? The hard liners or the diplomats?"

There seems to be a total misunderstanding of reality here,all that foreign policy can do is hope to influecne the internal policies of sovereign nations.
There are only two ways of doing that the carrot or the stick,this is dependent on how much carrot it will cost and how much stick the internal politics and the international community will let you use.

So MacKenzie,do you know what price North Korea has put on eschewing nuclear weapons, selling South Korea down the river? Secondly to what level of coercion are you willing to go to enforce compliance,as far as a full scale invasion?

[Specter]

So let me see if I have the Democratic Talking Points When The Republicans Have The White House correct:

1. When dealing with dictators/despots that are possibly armed with WMD, the only approach is to hold negotiations - talk the situation out because, of course, all dictators/despots are ultimately reasonable people underneath it all. 2. Use the UN to employ sanctions against the same dictators/despots so that they will eventually see the "error of their ways" and come to the negotiating table. 3. Allow the UN to take bribes under the table so that the approved sanctions are moot and the dictator/despot goes on their merry 'ol way. 4. When it becomes apparent that "talking" won't work, support the opposition party's president in his goal to take down the regime. Give plenty of speeches supporting said president and make sure all votes are transparent and counted. Lots of fan-fare to go alone with it. 5. Immediately start criticizing said president for taking us into war. Make sure to emphasize "War is Bad - Talk is Good". Use that as "ammo" for next election cycle. 6. If the president starts the cycle with negotiations with the dictator/despot, criticize him/her for not being forceful enough - for not getting things done. Imply that the use of force should have been considered. Do the opposite of Steps 1 through 5. 7. Repeat as necessary. Ad Lib as necessary. 8. MOST IMPORTANT: Deny that the democrats had anything to do with any of the messes we left the president with. Deny, Deny, Deny. And if someone actually points out facts, ridicule them for trying to obscure the real issue - use whatever tactics are necessary.

All right gang - go to it. And HC - stop trying to act as if we don't know what we are doing. You will bring us all down.

Signed,
Dr. HD, Spkr(2B) NP

[mark c.]

This is a US/China chess match. China has way more skin in this game than people realize. A destabilized far east will cost them in military, humanitarian and political terms. Millions of refugees at their doorstep, military buildups by their historical enemies would require alot of new paradigms and loss of face for not being able to control a pissant client state. imagine 2 party talks between China and the norks. if they failed people would ask how China could let that happen. that's the same thing that would happen to us.

[SteveMG]

North Korea has engaged in a predatory security strategy that they believe is the safest way to finance the survival of their regime. And so they export insecurity abroad and internally develop a military arsenal based largely on nuclear weapons. They've done this now for decades with special emphasis in the past decade on the develop of these weapons of mass destruction.

And who is to blame for this?

George Bush.

Not Kim Jung-il. Not the regime itself.

But Bush.

And someone here asks why we call it "Bush bashing"?

Amazing.

SMG

[The Unbeliever]

Why is that anyone who doen't agree 100% with every policy of the Administration is labelled a leftie?

That's funny, I've criticized the Bush Administration many times over a variety of issues, on several blogs of varying political bent, and I've never been accused of being a leftie. Perhaps there are certain critiques which are inherently leftist, no? Ones which are unlikely to be made by those we traditionally label conservatives?

And why is any mention of a different point of view "Bush bashing"?

Hyperbole much? I don't see the problem with SPQR's analysis which you have not yet rebutted, i.e. calls for 2-way talks are either naive or inherently dishonest. And if we assume a bit of intelligence on the part of those who criticize the Bush Administration by saying he should have engaged in 2-way talks, it pretty much leaves politcs or "Bush-bashing" as the motivation for making such an absurd criticism.

I am, however, open to the idea that the above assumption gives such critics too much credit.

[J. Mark English]

Hello,

This is a great blog. I'm going to be sure to link yours to mine. Would you mind doing the same for me?

Thank you very much.

My site:
www.americanlegends.blogspot.com

Take care,
Mark

[Neo]

But ignoring the problem hasn't accomplished anything yet.

I believe I heard that same line back during the Reagan years. And it was obvious to everyone when Reagan left the White House the Soviet Union was as strong as ever.

August 1991 Soviet Union dissolves.

[D Maxwell]

Why not refute SPQR's point that "The demand for 2-way talks are a fraud which everyone knows. Anyone who says otherwise is just using North Korean propaganda points to attack the Bush administration."

Because I don't want to be a tool for N. Korean proganda. I will spend the afternoon repeatedly reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, ashamed of my treachery.

[Neo]

Let us examine the negociating record of North Korea ..

Sept. 19, 2005: North Korea signs denuclearization agreement, pledging to “abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs” in exchange for a U.S. promise to respect North Korea’s sovereignty and to prepare for normalizing relations with Pyongyang.

Sept. 20, 2005: North Korea declares it will not abandon its nuclear weapons program unless the U.S. first gives it a free nuclear power plant.

The US went into these talks knowing that North Korea had counterfeited in excess of 100 million US dollars, but was willing to cast it aside for a deal that maintained the NPT status quo, but instead North Korea acted like a spoiled child that always wants more.

Sept. 23, 2005: The U.S. slaps North Korea with financial sanctions and labels North Korea a “criminal state” for counterfeiting, money laundering and marketing illegal weapons.

Reporter Selig Harrison provides Newsweek readers this chronology less the events of Spet. 20, 2005. Now how is that ?

[cathyf]

I wonder if China has a plan where they declare war on North Korea and slaughter a huge fraction of their young men. Then they can marry the Korean women. The Chinese are missing approx 100 million women killed by the one-couple-one-child rule and are facing the demographic train wreck of having a huge cadre of men who cannot marry.

There is already a small trade in kidnapping NK women and marrying them off in the China-Korea border areas. A war with lots of casualties would allow this to happen on a much larger scale.

[jcuknz]

What had the peanut farmer that GWB doesn't?

[The Unbeliever]

I will spend the afternoon repeatedly reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, ashamed of my treachery.

Good. At least you'll be doing something better with your time than advocating naive policies with a track record of dismal failure.

[D Maxwell]

Sorry to upset so many people. I have been watching James Baker make the rounds of talk shows promoting his new book. Baker believes in direct negotiations, having engaged process himself including going to Damascus 15 times when he was Secretary of State. It just reminded me of better times when diplomacy worked for America. But I hadn't realized that Baker is now persona non grata amongst conservatives. I will try to update my knowledge of who is a good conservative, and who is a bad conservative.

[PeterUK]

"Baker believes in direct negotiations, having engaged process himself including going to Damascus 15 times when he was Secretary of State. It just reminded me of better times when diplomacy worked for America"

Yes the Tehran hostage issue was brilliant and Dasmascus has been such a good ally to you in the Middle East.
When are you going to realise there is no such thing as "Diplomacy" only horse trading between parties with self interests? If you haven't got anything you can give them,nothing that frightens them,you don't have a deal.

[Pofarmer]

Baker believes in direct negotiations, having engaged process himself including going to Damascus 15 times when he was Secretary of State. I

Which acheived what? Exactly?

[D Maxwell]

Syria supported us in the first Gulf War. Thier subsequent interference in Lebanon and support of terrorist groups cannot be tolerated. But we aren't even talking directly with them any longer. Dr. Rice says we have sent them messages, but 1-way messages aren't the same as 2-way talks.

[Pofarmer]

This is who you want to negotiate with.

She screamed like a pig

[Sweetie]

At the grown up table it's generally expected that an actual argument be offered. Name dropping is for the kids table.

Why is having China NOT at the table a plus for US interests? Seems counter intuitive to me, but surely you'll have no trouble explaining this.

[JM Hanes]

D Maxwell:

"Why is that anyone who doen't agree 100% with every policy of the Administration is labelled a leftie? And why is any mention of a different point of view "Bush bashing"?

In the first instance, it's because Baker's observation on talking to the enemy is such a current favorite on the left. I'd attribute the second to assertions like "But ignoring the problem hasn't accomplished anything yet."

Bush has hardly ignored N.Korea! He determined early on that it will be China, not the U.S., who ultimately brings Kim Jong Il to heel. They could topple Kim tomorrow if they felt it were in their own best interests to do so, and no effort of our own could succeed without them. That's why Bush has insisted on six party talks from the start, despite Chinese recalcitrance and despite critics at home who simultaneously condemn unilateralism when the subject is Iraq while virtually demanding it everywhere else. Contra Baker's maxim, US/NoKo talks will hurt the extraordinarily difficult, (and yes, agonizingly slow) process, of bringing China around.

China, Japan and India, not N.Korea itself, have been the focus of U.S. efforts in the region for good reason. The Chinese would love nothing better than seeing the U.S. bogged down in two party talks, which get them off the hook. Such "negotiations" inevitably end up with the U.S. providing either the economic or humanitarian aid which keeps NoKo from the brink of implosion by actually propping up the Kim regime (and leaving it free, of course, to spend its $$ on nukes). As long as the U.S. is preserving the status quo, China has zero incentive to do anything, and we have zero chance of accomplishing anything.

I'm not the least bit convinced Kim fears a U.S. invasion at all, despite the example of Iraq; I suspect he depends heavily on U.S. aid, however modest it may be. It doesn't matter if his rockets fall short of the U.S. or if his nuclear boom is less than earth shaking, because he has no intention of attacking us either. Advertising his wares is just good business in the Kim equation, designed, IMO, both to stimulate the black market and to suck the U.S. back into direct negotiations. Interdicting arms shipments will be key to the effectiveness of any sanctions regimen. Needless to say, China's cooperation is, again, pivotal to success.

Where Japan is concerned, the Bush/Koizumi relationship has paid enormous dividends. The U.S. negotiated a stunning, precedent breaking treaty in which the Japanese have officially signed on as party to the U.S. defense commitments in Taiwan. If it looks like Japan is headed toward serious rearmament on Kim's account, China might well begin to contemplate turning its NoKo spigots off.

On China's opposite flank, this Administration has also broken new ground in India. In what is essentially a rollback of Chinese influence there, we have cultivated, expanded, and solidified the Indo/American relationship at almost every level. The strategic importance of growing that alliance cannot be underestimated. The fact that it never even comes up in most discussions about N.Korea simply demonstrates to me that most of the folks beating the drums for diplomacy don't actually recognize it in action.

Chinese reaction, which like their war games with Russia etc. can be unsettling, is, in fact, a valuable confirmation that they're feeling the pressure that the U.S. is exerting in the region. We often underestimate or misinterpret the role that sabre-rattling plays in eastern diplomacy. It should, however, also confirm that the slow motion here is feature not a bug. You can't turn China on a dime, and progress -- like John Bolton's recent success in forestalling a Chinese veto at the U.N. (yet another ground breaking achievement!) -- will necessarily be incremental.

[The Unbeliever]

Syria supported us in the first Gulf War. Thier subsequent interference in Lebanon and support of terrorist groups cannot be tolerated.

So token support for one operation, followed by substantial support of Hezbollah for over a decade, is your scintillating example for the successes of diplomacy? You'll have to pardon us for looking so unimpressed.

Dr. Rice says we have sent them messages, but 1-way messages aren't the same as 2-way talks.

Come on now, you're not making any sense; 2-way talks nothing are a series of 1-way messages going different directions. What do you want to do if one side won't send, hold a gun to Assad's head and force him to write us a telegram?

[anonymous]

"Syria supported us in the first Gulf War." Because Saddam Hussein was a danger to them,it probably escaped your notice that Syria is an ally or Iran.

[D Maxwell]

What exactly has not talking to N. Korea, Iran and Syria accomplished in the past 5-1/2 years. And what will it accomplish in the future?

[Neo]

D Maxwell:

Come come now we haven't been talking to the Iranians for almost 27 years now, since the last year of Jimmy Carter.

[anonymous]

"Why is having China NOT at the table a plus for US interests? Seems counter intuitive to me, but surely you'll have no trouble explaining this."

China is the regional superpower to whom, incidentally,the US owes vast amounts of money. Of course North Korea and the US can have bilateral talks,but so can North Korea and China,or India,Japan or anywhere else for that matter.
What you have to consider is why North Korea should bother having talks with the US at all,the only country in a position to take measures against NK is China,the US cannot invade,cannot bomb,it is impossible to sanction a country so dirt poor that sanctions would be unnoticable.Ultimately all that is required is the neutralisation of North Korea's military capabilities,it isn't a matter of US interests,it is everybodies interests.

[D Maxwell]

Should we never talk to Iran again? Two years ago they had a slightly less objectionable regime, attempted to open a dialogue, we refused, and now they have a worse regime. So we are relying on 3 European countries to carry the ball for us, just like China is supposed to be doing vis-a-vis N. Korea.

So I pose the question again, what has not talking with N. Korea, Iraq and Syria accomplished so far, and what do we expect that policy to accomplish in the future?

[D Maxwell]

Sorry, that last line should have been N. Korea, Iran and Syria. (I seem to have arthritis as well as memory loss)

[Specter]

Don't know if you have seen the YouTube ad by Zucker against the Dems, but if not you should go look here. It features some of the brightest stars in the business - Albright, OBL, Kim Il, suicide bombers, and more. I guess the Repubs have decided not to run it though...what a shame...

[Davis]

This is stating the obvious, and even Tony Snow didn't push it too hard today, but the N. Korea nuclear program should have been stopped during the Clinton administration.

[Gary Maxwell]

OK I am convinced. I think we should get Maddy and Jimmy together and have a little love in gab fest and just talk talk talk. Offer some nuclear reactors and sign a bunch of mutual respect resolutions and then go chase a few interns around. Boy cuz that worked so fing well the first time around, why not stay with the one that brung ya?

[SteveMG]

what has not talking with N. Korea, Iraq and Syria accomplished so far

By talk you obviously mean negotiate. And when one agrees to negotiate with another party, one is willing to give up something in return for something. A quid pro quo.

Okay, since you're leading our negotiations with these regimes, what do you want to give them?

SMG

[anonymous]

"Should we never talk to Iran again? Two years ago they had a slightly less objectionable regime, attempted to open a dialogue, we refused, and now they have a worse regime."
You are not getting the message,this isn't the staff room,dialogue about what exactly? The regimes are the same,they have one ambition that no amount of talking will dissuade,they want to be nuclear powers.Both North Korea and Iran have lied consistently,moving the goalposts at every step,Iran has run rings around the EU3,negotiation to them is a way of buying more time.

[Dale in Atlanta]

"Syria supported us in the first Gulf War." Because Saddam Hussein was a danger to them,it probably escaped your notice that Syria is an ally or Iran.

Let me tell you, as I was "involed", that that was "support" with a small "s"; even though Saddam was a threat to them, they had to be threatened, cajoled, and most importantly BRIBED with Million$$$ from the Saudis, to include Free Oil, and also money and arm twisting from the Jordanians and Egyptians and all the Gulf Countries as well.

They contributed one Brigade, that was so worthless, it was more of a danger to the Allies than it was the Iraqis.

At one point, as soon as the Ground War started, they acutally starting shooting at the Allied Trooops; they were quickly moved off the line, and marginalized to the point of non-existance!

[Gary Maxwell]

They contributed one Brigade, that was so worthless, it was more of a danger to the Allies than it was the Iraqis.

Another crack regiment of Arab troops? remember how we where constantly warned about the crack Republicna Guard forces?

If there are any crack forces in Syria, they are guarding the palace where the Opthamalogist turned Dictator hangs out. More so to avoid the judgement of his people, should they manage to get free hands upon him.

[the Unbeliever]

So we are relying on 3 European countries to carry the ball for us,

Darn that unilateralist Bush! How dare he engage our allies in the WoT!

just like China is supposed to be doing vis-a-vis N. Korea.

And how exactly do you propose to do anything about North Korea without the Chinese at the table? Or is your plan "give NK everything they want"?

I swear, it's like the "more talks" crowd has never sat through a hostile business meeting in their entire collective lives.

[The Unbeliever]

What exactly has not talking to N. Korea, Iran and Syria accomplished in the past 5-1/2 years.

Well for one thing, we managed to avoid giving NK any more reactors. We also avoided pretending Iran was any different from the last 20 years (before Bush got elected) when we weren't talking to them. And we saved quite a lot of gas by not sending some pansy over to Syria 15 times in a row before he was able to return with utterly laughable results.

Beyond that, I'd say the most important result was letting the world know that Bill Clinton and his gang of ineffectual misfits are no longer running the show. Quite a valuable message to send, IMO.

And what will it accomplish in the future?

More of the same, I hope. With the added benefit of providing moral clarity in our diplomatic dealings. As well as keeping the US from getting embarrassed like France and Germany were when Iran kept its nuclear program chugging merrily along while diplomacy was pretending to make headway.

[Pofarmer]

And we saved quite a lot of gas by not sending some pansy over to Syria 15 times in a row before he was able to return with utterly laughable results.

Whoa, whoa, whoa there Unbeleiver.

Technically we didn't save any gas. It's JP-4 which is a kerosene derivative. More like diesel fuel.

Glad we got that cleared up.;)

[PeterUK]

"even though Saddam was a threat to them, they had to be threatened, cajoled, and most importantly BRIBED with Million$$$ from the Saudis, to include Free Oil, and also money and arm twisting from the Jordanians and Egyptians and all the Gulf Countries as well."

You mean,multilateral diplomacy was engaged in? Shocking.

[Maxwell]

Now I understand. We don't talk to countries we don't like because we lack confidence in our negotiating abilities, and are afraid we will give something away. And if we change our policy of not talking with them, that would be a sign of weakness. So we will stay on course even while North Korea and Iran establish themselves as nuclear powers. Then we will blame Democrats and pansy Republicans. Got it.

[Specter]

Don't be obtuse. Several people have asked you questions - why don't you answer them?

[PeterUK]

"Now I understand. We don't talk to countries we don't like because we lack confidence in our negotiating abilities, and are afraid we will give something away."

Maxwell you are either simple or you are extracting the urine,which do want to be?

[Maxwell]

I have asked repeatedly what the policy of not talking to North Korea, Iran and Syria has accomplished and will accomplish, and no one can provide answers other than we will avoid making mistakes that have been made before.

I will ask another question. Can anyone state how we are better off with respect to either North Korea or Iran than we were 5-1/2 years ago?

[Maxwell]

I have asked repeatedly what the policy of not talking to North Korea, Iran and Syria has accomplished and will accomplish, and no one can provide answers other than we will avoid making mistakes that have been made before.

I will ask another question. Can anyone state how we are better off with respect to either North Korea or Iran than we were 5-1/2 years ago?

[Gary Maxwell]

I promise not to blame Democrats for anything that they dont have their finger prints all over ( while I busily hide the silverware !)

We should engage our allies, OR go it alone. Or saomething! And negotiate (or something) and damn how did it get so screwed up anyway, why Clinton even had the Palestinians eating out of his hand! Everything was in perfect order including the Balkans. Maddy should be given a job for life, she was so effective, ( ok time to wake to reality again ).

[PeterUK]

"So we will stay on course even while North Korea and Iran establish themselves as nuclear"

I am all agog wating to hear what it is that you will say that gets Iran and North Korea to give up their nuclear ambition.
"Don't do that you two,it's not nice".

[SteveMG]

I have asked repeatedly what the policy of not talking to North Korea, Iran and Syria has accomplished and will accomplish

And you've been repeatedly asked in return what should the US give to those countries during these negotiations.

At the very least, talking with these rogue nations legitimizes their governments. That, whether we like it or not, sends a signal to those democratic elements within those countries. And it's not a good one.

Again, you're the leader of our negotiating team. What will you offer these regimes?

SMG

[Maxwell]

2-party talks don't necessarily include trade-offs. An important aspect is that 2 sides have a better chance of understanding each other when they meet face-to-face.

For example, Dr. Rice said recently of Syria that "we sent them a message". Fine, but are we certain that they understood that message? And have we heard directly from Syria what its regime is thinking? Have we explored possible common ground that might wean them away from their association with Iran? Unless we are talking with them, at some relatively high level, we just don't know.

[SteveMG]

2-party talks don't necessarily include trade-offs.

When the two parties are at odds with one another, they most certainly do.

Look, we use back channels and other methods (third parties, private individuals) to communicate with these countries all the time. We did this with Iran when its former president came here. And I'm sure that private Americans who've gone to Syria or Iran have carried diplomatic messages to those governments.

You have this fetish over talking and apparently no one can dissuade you of this attraction.

SMG

[Pofarmer]

Fine, but are we certain that they understood that message? And have we heard directly from Syria what its regime is thinking?

Geez Maxwell, I dunno, would you like Rice to pen the return message as well?

What makes you think that Iran, N Korea, or Syria, are interested in negotiating in the first place? The only thing they want(nukes) we ain't giving em.

[Maxwell]

Not talking is getting us absolutely nowhere.

[PeterUK]

One more time,
"An important aspect is that 2 sides have a better chance of understanding each other when they meet face-to-face."

The North Koreans don't need to understand you,it isn't an encounter group.The two positions are crystal clear they want nukes and you don't want that.They have lied to successive administrations and have still begun nuclear testing.
But do you really think that the totalitarian ruler of a country which is down to its last dog stir fry is rational?

[maryrose]

Sanctions against North Korea. Arm Japan and let's play some hardball. Time for China to get tough too. It's time to smackdown North Korea and put an end to their intimidating tactics.

[PeterUK]

OK,unfair,how about the Iranian president,the one with the jolly green aura,the one who thinks the Twelfth Imam has been living down a well for several hundred years.
Exactly what are you going to say to these guys?

[Pofarmer]

Not talking is getting us absolutely nowhere.

"Talking" got N Korea Nukes.

You ever heard of Isolation.

[Gary Maxwell]

Or as Sen John McCain just said in Nationally televised remarks " every time the Clinton admin told the North Koreans not to do something, they did it anyway. Dont kick out the inspectors, dont remvoe the spent fuel rods etc etc, they did it. And they were met with further talks by the Clinton admin."

Given that the behavior has been well reinforced, it might take a little while of cold turkey to break them of the habit. You have had some psycological training haven't you? Or just tried to raise a 2 year old? Its not much more complicated than that, but then I see an amazing amount of bratty behaviour out in public so maybe its too complicated for some. I suspect you are not so much bamboozled as deliberately walking a line cuz somehow you think you are being witty though...

[maryrose]

Ot:
Morning Call poll has Casey only up by 5points 46 to 41 over Santorum with 13% undecided. Now those are numbers I can get behind. Here's hoping Santorum wins in a sqeaker!

[maryrose]

OT;
Corker leadind Ford 48% to 46% a 5 point turnaround for Corker.

[SteveMG]

This fetish over talking mystifies me.

Somehow the differences between the US and Iran (or Syria or North Korea) emanate from our failure to sit down and talk?

These differences will be mitigated by simply moving our lips and exhaling words?

It has nothing to do with, say, the fundamental differences between these countries over the relationship between individuals and their government? Or differences over God and man, or the one-and-the-many, or democratic theory or freedom of conscience, or the rule of law or a hundred-and-one other fundamental disagreements?

No, the problem is that we don't sit down and talk with one another.

Good grief, we're back in grade school again.

SMG

[Other Tom]

"It just reminded me of better times when diplomacy worked for America."

Right. Sure worked for Clinton with North Korean nukes; sure worked at Oslo; sure worked for Jimmy Carter in getting those embassy hostages home; sure worked for James Baker with Syria--look what a marvelous place it is today. And let's not forget thirty-odd years of negotiations with the PLO.

[Specter]

Maxie,

Do you still think that when police shoot a bad guy they should just shoot the gun out of their hand or just wound them in the leg? That's also a fantasy belief....