Blame Game on North Korea

Like the earlier questions of who lost China or who lost Vietnam, we're now going to get a round of "who let North Korea get nukes?" George Bush is an obvious target for those on the Left, and Bill Clinton gets whacked from the Right.

And that question completely misses the boat. The fact is that neither party has distinguished themselves particularly well on national security, and that the 1994 Agreed Framework was a massive failure, in large part because the Framework didn't include stringent verification. The Bush Administration's reliance on Six Party Talks was contingent on the assumption that the Chinese and other regional powers would be able to coax the North into ceasing their nuclear ambitions.

Yet, for all the recriminations, the key point is that North Korea wanted nukes and stopped at nothing to obtain them. Nothing.

Nothing short of going to war would have dissuaded them from going nuclear.

What exactly was the US supposed to do to keep North Korea from going nuclear? We were already engaging in diplomacy with North Korea, via the Six Party Talks. Was that the right kind of forum instead of direct negotiations? Hillary Clinton and others will certainly make hay that the Bush Administration should have tried something different. What exactly could or should have been done differently given the backdrop of the DPRK's insistence on going nuclear?

And there are now reports that the North detonated a second device.

The US is preparing sanctions against North Korea, which will do little to alter the fundamental nature of the conflict. North Korea already is isolated, and sanctions will do little to harm Kim Il Jong and his ruling elites. Even smart sanctions will do little, as the elites are largely isolated from any kind of sanctions because they can always take what little the rest of the North Koreans have. That's the problem when trying to deal with totalitarian regimes.

So, with all this in mind, what exactly is the US to do about the situation. Some, like Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), and John Kerry (D-MA) think that the US is bogged down in Iraq and that prevents the US from taking the lead on action with respect to North Korea.

Pardon me, but who the heck is advising Democrats on this?

We're supposed to believe that the US forces that are supposedly bogged down in Iraq are going to be somehow part of a vanguard of international forces that will do what precisely against the North Koreans who have nuclear weapons and wouldn't be afraid to use them? Considering that the Leftists don't want to deploy US forces anywhere, it is curious that they would want to place those same troops in the most dire situation imaginable with a nuclear regime that isn't afraid to use them. After all, the DPRK has already killed millions of its own via starvation and disease, so what's thousands more to add to their body count?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that putting more US troops into South Korea or within short range missile range would be a major mistake because the North Koreans could just as easily lob a nuclear tipped missile their way, and bye-bye, there goes 10,000 US troops in an instant.

So, the answer to Democrats is no, this is not limiting the US military response in the slightest. The US has been drawing down the number of its troops in South Korea, and bolstering air assets in the region, because they offer the most flexibility to deal with multiple threats and limit the number of US ground forces that could be in harm's way.

Then there's the question of what the US should do going forward. Democrats say plainly that they think there's a different and better way, but don't actually provide any details. The GOP isn't much better, but there are a few clarifying points to consider.

Who voted to approve ballistic missile defense and maintain and/or expand appropriations for ballistic missile defense? Who continues to support a strong and expanded military and provide the means necessary to potentially shoot down those missiles that North Korea can aim at the US and its interests in the region. By and large, it has been Democrats who opposed ballistic missile defense, and we're now supposed to believe that they're got the solution for dealing with North Korea? I'm not buying it.

If someone wants to provide a persuasive and rational response to North Korea's nuclear ambitions, I'm all ears because I'm not hearing it from the Democrats and most Republicans either.

Technorati: north korea, nuclear, kim jong il, six party talks, bush, DPRK.