|
|
May 22, 2013
|
|
|
|
 Joe Conason: Bush Bluster Fails to Halt Nuke ThreatPosted on Oct 11, 2006By Joe Conason If North Korea’s first nuclear weapons test was indeed a dud, we will hear another round of jokes at the expense of Kim Jong Il and his clown haircut. But while mocking an eccentric dictator is always fun, he has equal reason to chortle at the Bush administration’s erratic foreign policy, which has stumbled into a dangerous corner. Back in January 2002, George W. Bush invited the world to judge him according to a single crucial objective. That was when the president first denounced the “Axis of Evil,” composed of Iraq, Iran and North Korea, and vowed that the United States would not tolerate their acquisition of “weapons of mass destruction.” The result has been a disastrous war in Iraq, which had no such weapons, and a diplomatic stalemate with Iran and North Korea that encouraged those states to continue their nuclear weapons programs. By invading Iraq on the pretext of disarming a hostile regime, Washington sent an unmistakable message to the two remaining members of the so-called axis, which was reinforced by the American refusal to engage in bilateral talks with Tehran and Pyongyang. Only military power, underscored by the actual possession of nuclear weapons, could guarantee survival against a superpower bent on “regime change.” Both regimes took the hint and did precisely the opposite of what Bush said he wanted. Over the past five years, the Bush policy toward Iran and North Korea has vacillated between threats and negotiations. Sometimes the White House tries to rally world and regional powers toward solutions through multilateral talks, and at other times the administration appears to prepare for violent confrontation with one or both countries. With our military strength diminished and our forces distracted by the Iraqi sand trap, however, that destructive option no longer seems realistic. That won’t stop the usual chorus of right-wing extremists, who maintain their influence on American policy despite the debacle they have created in Iraq, from banging their war drums. Advertisement And they will further urge that the United States accelerate construction of its missile defense system, which doesn’t work; curtail humanitarian aid to North Korea, which could starve millions and precipitate a crisis on the Chinese border; and encourage Japan to drop out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which might destroy that highly effective agreement and instigate a new arms race in dozens of countries that have refrained from nuclear weapons for decades. Such chest-puffing exercises require strict ignorance of certain central facts, including our financial dependence on the Chinese, and the potential impact on the world economy of a sudden North Korean implosion that cripples China. The right-wingers argue that the United States must not engage in direct talks with North Korea or Iran. To agree to bilateral discussions with either of those rogue states would merely reward bad behavior, they insist, and not without reason. But of course that is because our own government has backed into a corner where negotiations become a “victory” for the other side and expose Bush’s bluster as hollow. At a time when the gruesome realities in Baghdad have begun to penetrate even the dimmest minds in Washington, with hints of new policy alternatives being dropped by presidential friends like James Baker III, perhaps the Bush administration should abandon bloody fantasies of toppling Tehran and Pyongyang. Change should come to those countries, but neither war nor the threat of war is the most effective way to achieve reform. Decades ago, American policy refused recognition to China, and U.S. military planners mulled a nuclear first strike against Beijing when Mao Zedong proclaimed his intention to build atomic weapons. Today, although China remains far from ideal in its progress toward human rights and democracy, we are deeply engaged with that country and seek its assistance in coping with the North Korean problem. Whatever progress we have made in our relations with China—and whatever progress China has made toward decent government—has resulted from diplomacy, engagement and endless discussion rather than isolation and belligerence. Our government and its allies should take measures to discourage the treaty violations of Iran and North Korea. But ultimately we will have to talk with those regimes, too—and the sooner we face that reality the better. To find out more about Joe Conason, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com. Copyright 2006, Creators Syndicate  Previous item: Marie Cocco: Wait-and-Walk Next item: Molly Ivins: Dear Leaders New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
Glaciers Are Melting Slowly but Surely
 . '/' . substr('9781844674510',-6,3) . '/' . '9781844674510' . '.jpg'; ?>)
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By jjohnjj, October 16, 2006 at 4:01 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The whole reason for BushCo’s antagonism toward N.Korea was to put pressure on Congress to keep funding the “Star Wars” missile defense system.
There’s no oil on the Korean penninsula… just a goldmine of U.S. tax dollars for American defense contractors.
Now that Pyongyang has a testable nuke and a dubious assortment of rockets, profits will “go ballistic” as Congress votes for another trillion dollars of development funds.
“Halting the Nuke Threat”, was never BushCo’s intention.
Report thisBy gh, October 14, 2006 at 7:48 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
It may be a mistake to characterize a small nuclear detonation as “a dud”. Maybe we are being misled once again. What if we recognize it as “tactical” or “battlefield” as we call our newest nucs? Wouldn’t that be more effective from their perspective (more “usable”)? A big one would cause too much damage too near home to use. Small is better… Small they could actually use.
Report thisBy dave, October 14, 2006 at 6:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
When it comes to Iraq,Clinton is on par with G H bush SR ( harsh deplomacy )
GW is still a JR. because he isnt at war for the mentioned reasons
America is broke flat on skid row !If Iran goes petro /Euros!
iraq oil is to be sold off outright
the deal enables America to have breathing room from having to secure and pay higher prices for oil
and iran is next along with all those who say no to Amero / oiland to those that don’t like it to bad
thats about the drift of it to my unerstanding.
China has 20 icbm missles lol
and they own a trilion of america’s debt they may get whacked hard here it would aleviate alot of debt.
and russia seems to co-operate but IRAN is toast they want the petro/euro it is their death warrant.
Report thisbig mistake to test the super power at it’s weakest point in time.head for the bunkers!NWO
or boom
that is the real agenda here !
By dave, October 14, 2006 at 6:15 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Iraq was biggest blunder of the last hundred years.
Report thisWhat the Generals would have done was to enter via afghanistan and remain there set up bases of long term duration with at least twice the men needed to effect repairs and improvements
IRaq is quicksand George Bush sr. knows this he listened to the generals
G W Bush listened to Cheney Mr haliburton
And this is not to put down GW no he ran up the debt and got in trouble with the real people who wield the power money is the power of America
and money says America is either bankrupt and on skid row or America is now iraq oil and iran oil and mabe even Saudi oil
fold in russia and former ussr states and you have alot of oil control and that is what the power of America wants
otherwise America is a dried up prune on skid row it can no longer pay for foreign oil at prices heading for 200$ (dollar heading south when the dam goes )a barrel who can
Dont forget to DUCK and COVER and use duct tape and plastic
your on your own
good luck and good night
By OCPatriot, October 14, 2006 at 10:01 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Bush had no idea what he was doing when he unleashed the Iraq War. Congress, likewise. A stupid stampede. Our government has been acting the way amateurs do, not knowing or understanding the impact of what it has been doing. From President Bush, who makes a joke of his ignorance, to stooges such as Rumsfeld and truly unfeeling fixed-idea men such as Cheney, we have suffered from inept and uninformed leadership. Iraq is just one example of such amateurness, with a war that had no plan for any follow-up. Iran is another. The way weve handled Afghanistan is still another. Our ignoring the essential conflict between Israel and the Palestine peoples, just hoping it will go away. Add them up and we can now see how inept this administration has been. Then look at the current economy, changed from a positive one in which our assets were growing to one in which almost everything except oil has been declining. Asking the military, who werent trained to build nations and who did their job heroically in the war, to sort out what needs to be done in Iraq or Afghanistan is truly amateurish; such work was never the militarys job. Not even having a full professional cadre of those who speak the language of our enemies, from Afghanistan to Iraq to Iran to Lebanon how could this administration even pretend to understand what forces it has unleashed? The author of Fiasco, Tom Ricks, has said well probably have troops in Iraq for fifteen years because of how amateurishly things have been handled. I grieve for our sons and daughters and our grandchildren who will be forced to handle the mess that on.
Report thisBy Mad As Hell, October 13, 2006 at 3:57 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Scary. Who’s the crazier bully with nukes? The weird, sick “Dear Leader” of the DPRK or Mad King George and his band of Merrie Fascists?
Certainly DL has played his hand beautifully and MKG has been bluffing with a pair of deuces.
I’m no admirer of Kim Jong Il. I think he’s crazy and dangerous. He’s also paranoid. Given North Korea’s geographic location and political system, paranoia is comprehensible.
What isn’t comprehensible is how Bush and McCain expect ANYONE to believe that the failure of US foreign policy regarding the DPRK is ANYTHING but Bush’s fault. The Clinton methods were working. Colin Powell and the ROK president enthusiastically embraced continuing them back in 2001. Then MKG publicly and humiliatingly kicked their legs out from under them and announced he was going to FORCE the DPRK to knuckle under and REVERSE the Clinton and ROK policy of engagement—WHICH WAS WORKING!
But through his magical powers Bush “knew” that the DPRK was cheating—just like he knew that Saddam Hussein had the WMDs, despite all evidence. So he changed to his pseudo-John Wayne “the new Sheriff’s in town” mode.
Now it’s blown up in his face like a trick cigar and who’s to blame? BILL CLINTON!
Excuse me: If I put up signs around gas pumps that say NO SMOKING, then you tear them down and light up and it goes BOOM, then how is that MY fault?????? That’s as stupid as Bush and McCain’s claim about North Korea.
Report thisBy Jumpin Jack, October 12, 2006 at 5:26 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The parallel with China under Mao is not a complete one. China was nowhere close to having an ICBM. North Korea is quite close. Also China, despite Mao’s power, was ruled by the Central Committee. North Korea has but the single and singular madman at the helm.
I’m not going anywhere in particular with this; just pointing out that your parallel is facile, not illuminating. Incomplete past parallels do not guarantee the future; hell even complete ones are less-than-predictive.
Report this