----- Original Message ----- From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 8:14 PM Subject: Re: N Korea threatens to 'destroy world'
> At 07:41 PM 1/3/2003 -0600 Dan Minette wrote: > > From every indication, Clinton preparing to > >start the second Korean war if N. Korea continued with the plutonium > >production. > > People keep saying this now, but it sounds like revisionist history to me. > I've seen the US prepare for military action in the First Gulf War, > Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Taliban Afghanistan, and now > again in Iraq. My memories of 1994 recall few to no similarities with > these events in terms of military action. Clinton may have tossed the > idea around in a meeting or something, but the idea was never seriously > pursued. To quote the LA times: "When North Korea reached about the same point in nuclear weapons development in 1994, the Clinton administration beefed up U.S. troop strength in South Korea and prepared to attack the North. The Pentagon shipped Patriot missiles to Pusan and brought in more advanced Apache attack helicopters." Why was this done if the idea was not seriously pursued? It was done without a lot of fanfare, but it was done. Further, the point was to defend S. Korea after knocking out the reactors, not a tanks across the border attack on N. Korea. > > Considering the difference in quality between the reactors there was > definitely some gain to the Koreans. But this is quibbling over straws. > Moreover, the oil shipments were definitely bribes. The oil shipments were temporary, to cover the power lost when the reactors were shut down. The reactors have not been built. > >But, since you mock this deal, let me ask a couple of questions: > > > >Would you attack N. Korea when this deal was offered, knowing that it is > >likely that Seoul would be bombarded? > > I did not mock the deal at the time. > > Indeed, I do not mock the deal at this time. > > Rather, I mock those people who view the deal as successful, despite the > evidence that it was a complete and utter failure. DPRK said they would > stop building nuclear weapons. Instead, they built two bombs and started > a whole 'nother nuclear weapons program to boot. And we didn't even know. They stopped producing plutonium. They probably built two bombs from the spent fuel that they already processed. They now have a slow project to process weapons grade uranium. The reality is that they were putting in production capacity that could produce at least 8-10 bombs/year. That process is restarte > Moreover, I mock those people who the history of DPRK notwithstand, > essentially want to repeat this policy with Iraq > > If people want to criticize Bush's handling of the DPRK situation, they > need to do so in a way that presents a third-way alternative between the > policy we already know to be a failure, and Bush's current policy. > Otherwise, they are just engaging in knee-jerk criticism of Republicans. Failure is a big word. Some goals were met, others were not. The hope that the N. Korean government would fall was as much in vain as the hope that Hussein would fall. But, neither Bush Sr.'s nor Clinton's actions should be called a failure. > > The goal was not to limit DPRK to 1-2 bombs instead of 10-20 bombs. The > goal was to never let DPRK get a bomb. The goal was to stop plutonium production. It stopped. I can reference an article stating that the South Koreans persuaded the Americans to take that deal. Now, its restarted in earnest. This is better? Many times you cannot get what you want; you settle for the best available option. The only other option would have been to overrule Seoul and bomb the facilities. Should Clinton have done that. > Whether you lose a football game by 3 points or 30 points, you still lose > the football game. The Clinton policy is failed - notwithstanding the > continued longing by some liberals to continue this policy. Football isn't reality. The tradeoff between a possible death toll of hundreds of thousand (2 A-bombs) and a highly probable death toll that was estimated at close to one hundred thousand is different than the tradeoff between a possible death toll of say ten millions (50+ bombs) and the same probable death toll. Further, N. Korea would be less likely to sell their only nuclear bomb, but would be likely to sell one of 50+. > >Bush changed things by snubbing the S. Korean government and hinting that > >it wouldn't live up to Clinton's agreement. While I think some of the > >criticism of Bush on the difference between N. Korea and Iraq is rather > >shrill and unwarranted, as people who can read earlier posts can see, his > >record on this matter isn't spotless. At the present time, he seems less > >likely to use the military option than Clinton, but sounding a lot more > >belligerent. I see no point in blustering if one isn't ready to carry > >through. > > So, by your own admission then, Bush is acting wisely by not blustering > about war with DPRK when he is not prepared to attack DPRK then? He blustered and bluffed for two years. Now, he is caught bluffing. He never should have bluffed to begin with. He insulted our ally, who is now showing the first open breach with the US in my memory. This is an improvement? > >I'll give Bush a lot of leeway with N. Korea because his hand was never > >that strong. But, I think it is a mistake to mock Clinton's policy as > >soft, when he was actually more successful and more able and willing to > >risk and wage war than Bush appears to be. > > I'm not going to judge Bush on DPRK until the regime change in Iraq is > completed and he can bring the full diplomatic and military resources of > the US to bear on the situation. After the regime change, the real difficulty will begin. At best, it will be many difficult years. At worst, it will be a quagmire. > At least now we know why the military wanted the guns and manpower to fight > two wars at once for all these years.... On paper, we and the South Koreans are supposed to be ready to defend S. Korea with the available troops. Indeed, there seems little question of who would win a second Korean war. The problem is that the force needed to wipe out the N. Koreans instantaneously is overwhelming, while Seoul is very close to the N. Korean forces. The problem in Iraq is not the war; I have little doubt that we can handle the army in Iraq. Their ability to cause harm during the war is minimal. Its what to do afterwards. Remember what you wrote in 2001 about turning Afghanistan into a model country? What is the reality there, now? The national government controls the capital, while warlords rule the rest of the country. Iraq will be much harder than Afghanistan, post war Germany or post war Japan. It will be filled with carpet baggers, eager for a taste of the oil money. The potential for the appearance of corruption on the part of the US will be overwhelming. You know I argued against the idea that the US is invading for control of the oil. That would be a very stupid thing to do. I'm not accusing this administration of being utterly stupid. But, if the US follows the Japan model, it will run the country until it can sort out who it can trust to be honest leaders, all the while it will be required to make decisions on matters that will affect the profit potential for a number of individuals. The losers will all cry foul. My take is that the hawks in the administration think that this problem will sort itself out, once the battle is done. If we were more successful winning the peace in Afghanistan, I'd be more sanguine. But, I don't get the feel that we have any idea how we will accomplish nation building. GWB has often stated his distaste for it. But, that is exactly what we will be signing up for in Iraq. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
