Why Not North Korea?

Belying previous foreign policy rhetoric the Bush Administration takes the Diplomatic High Road

Published on July 20, 2006 By Deference In Politics

I've seen so little word from chickenhawks lately regarding N.Korea. Maybe post-911 fever has finally worn away and maybe the stomach to make someone, anyone pay for innocent deaths had dissipated. Maybe even the Bush administration would take a less costly and more pragmatic approach to foreign policy noting the peons are sick of supporting a war they have seen little return on?

I consulted Devon Largio's undergraduate thesis paper Uncovering the Rationales for the War on Iraq: The Words of the Bush Administration, Congress, and the Media from September 12, 2001 to October 11, 2002 and compared / contrasted some of the more prominent reasons for war with Iraq to see how they would match up against N. Korea. The exercise proved to be illuminating.

War on terror? Iraq Y, N. Korea Y

Part of "Axis of Evil"? Iraq Y, N. Korea Y

Prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction? Iraq Y, N. Korea Y

Lack of inspections? Iraq Y, N. Korea Y

Regime Change? Iraq Y, N. Korea Y

Evil dictator killing his own people? Iraq Y, N. Korea Y

"Liberate" the people? Iraq Y, N. Korea Y

Third largest reserves of oil in the world (10% of all oil on earth)? Iraq Y, N.Korea N

Test fires missiles close to Japan? Iraq N, N.Korea Y

Excepting the last two questions, N.Korea and Iraq hold consistant with each other. Is the rhetoric used to dupe Americans into supporting the Iraq invasion losing it's appeal to it's speakers? Maybe our 'leaders' who probably didn't believe in their own b.s. simply realized the people wouldn't swallow the pill twice without another major attack on U.S. soil keeping them scared.

William Kristol, neocon extraordinaire could easily attack President Bush today for his administration's handling of N.Korea, as he did their handling of China in 2003, "Appeasement of a dictatorship simply invites further attempts at intimidation."

Bi-lateral trade talks, negotiation and compromise are important tools to dealing with other nations, particularly economically and militarily powerful nations, but chickenhawks like Kristol only understand 'nuke-em all' mentality. I have grown curious as to where all the chickenhawks at JU have gone. Despite all the reasons I've been given by these fellow bloggers as to why invading Iraq is a good thing I've seen little support for our invading N. Korea.

Why?

Because these people are also Bush supporters. And the Bush administration has done little but offer a strong word to N. Korea then diplomacy. Then the admin. has counseled patience to it's public. Just as a sane rational nation should - without investing hundreds of thousands of troops, without spending nearly hundreds of billions of dollars, without killing thousands of our troops and without bombing the heebie-jeebies out of a civilian populace and then gone broke trying to put a whole country back together again.

I'm very glad the Bush Admin. is pursuing a more diplomatic route, I'm more comfortable now, because it makes me understand there is a severe possibility we won't take a military role in the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, nor will we invade Iran. I am still bothered, however, by the sheer hypocrisy that is so evident and so grand. Bush lovers, however, will shrug their shoulders at the administration's duplicity and await their new marching orders from neocon pundits.

Paul Wolfowitz(Bush Advisor, PNAC member regarding reasons for Iraq Invasion in Vanity Fair, 2003):

The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason...there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people... the third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it.

In a speech to the Institute of Petroleum in London in 1999, Dick Cheney, then CEO of oil services company Halliburton, commented:

By 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? ... While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies.

Comments

Dr Guy

on Jul 20, 2006

First, your comparison does not make sense since you give nos to NK when no one that I know of is denying them.

But beyond that, your Oil issue is very lame as quite simply, we would have to suck all the oil out of that country for years to recoup the cost. But that will not stop the slogans. Slogans after all are a way for the sheep to bleat the message of the handlers.

But finally, you fail to take into consideration 2 important issues. Now whether Bush used these or not to justify his 2 different approaches, others may argue.

But Issue #1: Those who proclaim the weapon do so for deterance. not because they intend to use them. NK has always shouted that to the roof tops, Iraq has always (badly I might add) tried to hide them. The dangerous one is the one that hides them. For the only reason to hide them is for the "Gotcha last" scenario.

Issue #2: Iraq was friendless in the region. NK has a big bad friend (who is now getting pissed) just across a border. If you remember (or not), we already went into NK once. About 55 years ago. And history has recorded what happened.

Deference

on Jul 20, 2006

First, your comparison does not make sense since you give nos to NK when no one that I know of is denying them. Doc Guy

Yes, I'm in a rush (as usual) and my dignity takes the lashing for my haste. I've corrected the N.Korea / Iraq yes and no checklist. Sorry for the confusion.

Iraq was friendless in the region. NK has a big bad friend (who is now getting pissed) just across a border. If you remember (or not), we already went into NK once. About 55 years ago. - Doc Guy

I've studied the Forgotten War a bit. I've read up on China and Korea's somewhat cordial history.

As far as reasons NOT to invade N.Korea, I think one finds a stronger argument in the lack of strategic economic interests then one would the argument "hey, they're friends with China" - seeing as to how we are a much greater "friend" economically to China then any other country in the world.

Thanks for the response.

Dr Guy

on Jul 20, 2006

Yes, I'm in a rush (as usual) and my dignity takes the lashing for my haste. I've corrected the N.Korea / Iraq yes and no checklist. Sorry for the confusion.

Ah! That makes more sense! Thanks.

As far as reasons NOT to invade N.Korea, I think one finds a stronger argument in the lack of strategic economic interests then one would the argument "hey, they're friends with China" - seeing as to how we are a much greater "friend" economically to China then any other country in the world.

Maybe I am tainted. But have you read Tom Clancy's "The Bear and Dragon"? China is an ancient and proud society. You may be right. But I tend to think their arrogance overrules their economic 'friends'. But that is just my feelings.

Maybe we can get them to swat NK. Ya think? It would be the crowning irony!

pseudosoldier

on Jul 20, 2006

As for reason NOT to invade North Korea, I think a stronger argument might be the troop strength available to the United States military. Don't misread me, here; we are fully capable of defending ourselves, our country and our country's interests on a global scale. Remember that any war or even military action causes a strain on the rest of the United States as well, and there is already a pressure there.

Contrast this with our continued presence in the Middle Eastern theater, and the mobility of our forces there. Even a crisis such as that in southern Lebanon has seen our forces respond, but that was certainly easier with them already staged in that general area.

Any military action taken against North Korea would most likely *not* closely resemble the actions taken against Iraq. NK's military is certainly more staunchly built, right? However, it would take as long (or longer) than things are taking in Iraq now... Is it impossible that this administration has taken a stance of "Okay, let's try things the other way, since so many people are asking for it?" to go the way of extended diplomatic talks?

Any social (and therefore political) interaction is imprecise and relatively unscientific. No matter how many variables you weigh, there's always that damned 'human factor' that you can't entirely account for.

await their new marching orders from neocon pundits

Heh. I'm not due for new orders for awhile.

stutefish

on Jul 20, 2006

Another thing to keep in mind is that the capital of South Korea, Seoul, is within artillery range of North Korea.

Seoul is a bustling metropolis, home to millions of Koreans and others.

Since before the establishment of the Demilitarized Zone, North Korea has been setting up heavy artillery positions in the mountains overlooking Seoul.

These positions are very well-hardened, buried deep in the stone of the mountains, and they cannot be easily destroyed. Even nuclear weapons would be unable to quickly and completely neutralize these heavy artillery positions.

At the first sign of trouble, North Korea is prepared to rain destruction down on Seoul, killing thousands of people. With chemical warheads, they would kill hundreds of thousands of people before an evacuation could even begin.

This has been the case for over forty years, now.

If you go back and look at George W. Bush's speeches about Iraq, you may notice a recurring theme: the idea that Saddam Hussein was a violent dictator, and that he desired to acquire WMDs so that he could use them to blackmail other nations and extort concessions from them, and to back wars of aggression against his neighbors.

In effect, Bush was arguing that we should deal with the Hussein regime now, before it put itself in the same position of power currently enjoyed by the Kim regime in North Korea.

The fact is, we can't preemptively strike North Korea, because Kim Il Sung holds the citizens of Seoul hostage. We don't have the technology to neutralize that threat quickly enough to save Seoul.

If only we'd put a stop to Korea's shenanigans years or even decades before they matured into serious threats... the way we did with Saddam Hussein.

Dr Guy

on Jul 20, 2006

The fact is, we can't preemptively strike North Korea, because Kim Il Sung holds the citizens of Seoul hostage. We don't have the technology to neutralize that threat quickly enough to save Seoul.

If only we'd put a stop to Korea's shenanigans years or even decades before they matured into serious threats... the way we did with Saddam Hussein.

First point, I am not sure we dont have the means, but perhaps the will?

Second point. Very good. And on target.

terpfan1980

on Jul 20, 2006

At least you do say you are glad that the Bush administration is trying to use diplomacy and use a go slow approach to North Korea, though you also, of course, try to compare and contrast it to Iraq to make political hay out of the situation.

They are different situations, and not just because of OIL.

I would have preferred to see diplomacy be used against Iraq, but it had been tried over a long period of time and was being undermined thanks to friends like France and Russia.

In the case of North Korea, Kim Jong (mentally) Il(l) is isolating himself more and more. He takes crazy to a whole 'nother level. Actually, I'm really surprised that Baghdad Bob, the spokesperson for Saddam, hasn't found work for KJI, as it would seem to be right up his alley.

Anyway, why not North Korea? Because we don't need a nuclear war at this time, and for the most part North Korea is fairly well isolated. It would be nice if someone could keep them from helping to supply missiles and rocket technology and supplies to places that help get them into the hands of idiots like Hezbollah, but again, that's another issue.

stutefish

on Jul 20, 2006

We don't have the means to eliminate these artillery positions in a timely manner. A massive attack with conventional weapons would be a good start, but such a massive attack would not have the advantage of surprise. North Korea could begin shelling Seoul even before our first bombs hit the mountainside.

And that's what we'd be doing: hitting the mountainside. These artillery posistions are inside the mountain. They're set up so that we'd have to pulverize many cubic feet of rock before ever threatening the artillery itself. And there are multiple sites.

Believe me when I say, there is not a technique you can imagine, that has not already been predicted and prepared for, by several generations of Chinese-advised North Korean military planners.

Until a new generation of weapons technology evolves, Seoul is a hostage. And that is why we must all dance the diplomacy dance, while Kim Il Sung calls the tune.

The next generation of "bunker-buster" nukes might be able to do the trick, and then it would become a question of will.

Right now, the question of will is, "do we have the will to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of South Korean civilians living in Seoul, in order to put a stop to Kim Il Sung?"

The answer, of course, is no.

schekker

on Jul 21, 2006

I think the main difference between Iraq and North Korea is the international support for it. Believe it or not, but the US actually had quite some support for the invasion, and as Iraq was more or less under Western influence there was no strong opposition from Russia and China.
With North Korea that situation is different. North Korea is under Chinese influence and China will not look the other way if a war arrises. Furthermore, the US can hardly wage a war there without the support of South Korea, which is doubtful if such a war would ruin that country, and Japan, which given its history will not be a strong supporter either.
Even a super power has to choose its battles, and I for one am glad the government is at least aware of that.
Besides, given the lack of natural resources in North Korea, you can afford to just wait them out. That government will either collapse on itself eventually .

schekker

on Jul 21, 2006

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!