Third Party & Independents: Archives

The aggressive cowboy foreign policy of the first part of Bush’s Administration is already looking like a model of internationalism and diplomacy in retrospect.

Yes, the passive New England/Berkeley foreign policy we had for so long before 2000 worked SO WELL for us and the rest of the world. :(

Talk about eating my words. Just when I think that, because Feith resigned, & Rice was “saying the right things, doing the right things, and generally accomplishing what a good diplomat should do; smoothing ruffled feathers, discouraging talk of war, and encouraging good relations and peaceful resolutions,” she comes out with this.

Unbelievable.

Exactly right! Iran should know from our resolve on Iraq that we are not kidding around. Hopefully they will have the same intelligent self-interest as Lybia and stop their admitted nuclear program. America’s threats are no longer empty words, and that is a good thing.

Possibly as many as 100,000 dead Iraqis. A good thing?
Hey, you and Peter in the red column, who referred to the dropping of a few nukes on Japan as one of America’s high points, should get together. Or, wait a minute. Maybe don’t.
It is simply stunning to me how cavalier people can be when it comes to non-American deaths.

If there is anything the Iranian mullahs have learned from Bush, it is that going nuclear is the only way to guarantee their own security.

I’m convinced it will happen, that Iran will eventually develop nuclear weapons. The timeframe on that is unknown, but faced with repeated threats from the Bush administration, can there be any doubt the Iranians have made it a national priority? They’ll keep making promises and protestations of innocence, but I don’t believe those for a second.

It’s hard to believe the US would go to such trouble to install a Shia government in southern Iraq, only to opt for confrontation against the Iranian Shias. It’s such dim-witted diplomacy.

Given that the timeline for developing, testing, deploying, and creating a delivery system for a nuke takes so long, why on earth should the US choose confrontation? Encouraging democratic reform from within is far more likely to achieve the desired results. Offering the mullahs a unifying external threat gives the opponents of democracy & western culture exactly what they want.

I find it curious that the Republicans have stayed quiet on North Korea but then again they really do have Nukes, don’t they?

Misha:
Libya has been trying for YEARS to get back to the right side of the law. They did not just decide to do it because Iraq got invaded. The British have been negotiating with them since 2000. To assume to think the Libya got intimidated by the Iraq Invasion is just buying to the Bush Spin Machine. You know? The same Spin Machine that made 40% of Americans think Iraq did 9/11 AFTER Congress said they did not? Talk about gullible.

Ingrid- the world isnt like that, its a much more interesting place. We fought a war against a horrible dictator, where several thousands of innocent Iraqis died as an unfortunate consequence. Many of those people who died in the war would still be alive, but many others would have been murdered by Saddam- plus several MILLION would still be living under tyrrany if you and yours had your way. I find it interesting that you claim that I am cavelier about innocent life, but you are the one who wanted to allow Saddam in power. A little ironic, if you ask me.

Aldous- to say that Lybia wasnt scared by our actions in Iraq is to deny reality. After all, we are in constant negotiations with almost every dangerous country- they were just one of them. Interesting how they were so much quicker to come to terms after Kadafi saw Saddam in a hole. Pure coincedence to those on the left who are incapable of saying anything positive about anything Bush has done.

And my last point is exactly the problem with much of the left today. They have become so completely unobjective because of their hate for Bush that they cannot see the good results of ANY of his policies (really no different, intellectually, than Bush worshipers who can see no wrong in what he does). Like I said in the first sentence in this post- the world isnt like that, its a much more interesting place.

Yes, I supported the war- yes, I was sickened by the fact that Bush sold it from pretextual reasons- yes, I am proud to have supported the liberation of that country which is not only a boon to human rigts, but gives us our frist chance to really make a dent in the hornet’s nest of middle eastern (which, by the way, is why I supported the war). You may disagree, of course, but to pretend that this war is oh-so-wrong and had no positive effects or possibilities to just partisanship.

Phx8,
I suspect you have a good point. The mad mullahs of Iran are going to pursue nuclear weapons and there is little the US can do about it.
It is in Iran’s national interest, or better yet, it is the mad Mullah’s self-interest to develop nuclear weapons. All the promises of aid and such will not prevent this from happening..but perhaps a democratic Iraq will put even more pressure on the mad mullah’s from democratic reform..

Misha, we invent nuclear technology, then we export that technology to friendly allies, then we sell that technology to nations in need of affordable energy, then a host of nations get into the business of creating nuclear energy, like Iran. Then we say, NO, you might not use it the way we want you to, so you may not have nuclear energy.

If the US thinks it is going to come out on top of a policy like this, the US has no brains whatsoever… just a death wish for all, us and them. Trying to stop a demanded product from reaching consumers capable of paying for it, did not work with drugs, did not work with prostitution, did not work in stopping white collar crime, and will not work in halting the proliferation of nuclear power production.

The time to have thought about the dual use nature of nuclear power was before we began exporting it. Now, if we don’t sell it, other nations will. Stupid, stupid, stupid Americans.

I thought Rice mentioned that the next steps involved UN sanctions. Look: I don’t trust this administration either but if they say they appreciate the EU’s efforts with Iran, and they want Iran to cooperate but if not they will face UN sanctions, then let’s hold them to that. I don’t think we have to jump to conclusions with accusations of war mongering. Criticize them for failures, not for speculation on hidden meanings behind public statements. It’s one thing to be alert to suspicions, it’s something else to simply assume pretense.

Misha:
The US had no contact with Libya. It was the British who were negotiating. The reason Khadafi suddenly became acceptable to Bush is because Bush needed something, anything to prove Iraq was a good thing. You can easily browse this from non-US news sources. Unfortunately, like the Right’s Belief that Saddam did 9/11, Republicans just have too many American Journalists in their Payroll.

Why is it the people who want to give nuclear technology to the dictators in Iran are the same ones who want to take away 50 caliber weapons from a law-abiding Americans?

Isn’t any lib curious why the country with the 3rd largest oil reserves in the world needs nuclear power?

Peter, ever heard of Mutually Assured Destruction? It worked for decades, is a tried and true policy. If Iran achieves nuclear weapon capability, it is a simple matter of telling them that if any kind of nuclear weapon is launched from their territory or satellite territories, or if a dirty bomb of any kind is released in the US - Iran will be targeted unmercifully.

While individuals may choose to die for their religion, nation governments are not. It is a simple rule. If one has power, one does not piss it away on tactics that guarantee one’s loss of power.

We have the power to allow Iran to push us into the bad guy role in the eyes of the rest of the world, or we can maintain control and apparent moral high ground by giving them the benefit of the doubt with the 100% assurance of their complete and total destruction if they take any hostile act toward us. The world will both understand and accept this latter position, which btw, is the true position of power.

Preemptive sanctions or war to prevent a ‘possible’ act is itself an act of an afraid and fearful nation. The U.S. should not act afraid or fearful; in fact, there is no reason for the U.S. to act that way at all. And that is where the Right is failing America and her future, because they continue to act out of fear, instead of confidence. Instead of reacting to reality, America reacted to its own nightmares regarding Hussein and Iraq. That is not a quality of confidence and strength. That is an act of fear and paranoia.

And it is not an act we should repeat in Iran lest the rest of the world become convinced the U.S. is no different than a paranoid schizophrenic with access to nuclear weapon launch codes.

David, “Mutually Assured Destruction” (MAD) is exactly what is says it is. Mutual. The term only holds relevence when each of two parties is capable of totally destroying the other, regardless who pre-empts. The only two nations currently capable of MAD are the U.S. and Russia (China will probably reach that capability eventually when it has more ICBMs). MAD “worked for decades” during the Cold War, and spurred the nuclear race which helped to bankrupt the Soviet Union. If/when the U.S. completes a functional anti-ballistic missile system or some other sort of national defence shield, MAD will no longer be applicable - except that China and Russia will eventually be able to completely destroy each other, which would ensure the U.S.’ continued dominance as the world’s only superpower for many years to come.

Anyway, that’s a long way of saying that the term you want to use instead is “deterrence”.

Gandhi, you are thinking one dimensionally. MAD does not have to mean mutual destruction by the same means. There are a host of ways the US is vulnerable today in ways having nothing to do with nuclear weapons. Iran can destroy the US by forcing Bush to play the role of the heavy and alienating the rest of the world against the US. The US is extremely vulnerable to cyberattack, that could make the economic costs of 9/11 look like peanuts.

Rev_Matt_Y, I think you have drawn entirely the wrong conclusion from the fact set.

Iran is defying Bush’s warnings intentionally. One has to ask why? And the answer is very simple. The whole world knows Bush has his big stick tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US is militarily weak and vulnerable right now and incapable of launching yet another protracted conflict on a third front. The only way it could, is to reinstate the draft which would kill Bush and the GOP politically.

Hence, as long as the US demonstrates it will stay in Iraq “as long as it takes”, and as long as enough insurgency and terrorism is capable of tying US military hands up in Iraq, countries like Iran can feel confident in defying Bush and the US ‘s idle threats.

Of course, if Bush would reveal an exit strategy from Iraq with a relatively short exit date, Iran would have to think twice about thowing down the gauntlet over nuclear power. But, in the absence of Bush’s willingness to free up our military, Iran, N. Korea, and Syria are free to pursue whatever courses they wish to except attacking US forces or interests directly. In fact, it is in their interest to fuel the war in Iraq, since it is so effectively tying Bush to the “all talk, no bite” position America finds itself in.

David - sure, there are other ways Iran could hurt us politically, but for a country the size of the U.S., nuclear MAD is the only way our country could be physically knocked out. I don’t believe that cyber attacks (unlikely to come from Iran, of all countries) would be able to target our nuclear plants, and even if they could that still wouldn’t be enough to destroy us.

What gives America the right to dictate to the world what they can and can not do?

David said …
“countries like Iran can feel confident in defying Bush and the US ‘s idle threats.

Of course, if Bush would reveal an exit strategy from Iraq with a relatively short exit date, Iran would have to think twice about thowing down the gauntlet over nuclear power. But, in the absence of Bush’s willingness to free up our military, Iran, N. Korea, and Syria are free to pursue whatever courses they wish to except attacking US forces or interests directly. In fact, it is in their interest to fuel the war in Iraq, since it is so effectively tying Bush to the “all talk, no bite” position America finds itself in.”

AND WHERE is the REST of the WORLD??? Screaming about U.S. policies and calling for our help to fix everything?
Just how is it that people can expect the U.S. to fix problems AND mind our own business at the same time?
Does the rest of the world expect us to send money and troops under their terms alone? It will not and should not ever happen that way.
I would much rather see mistakes made while attempting to do something. It seems some countries love to holler about OUR mistakes while sitting on their hands.
It is a mistake to sit back and watch the U.S. make ALL the MISTAKES.
Example - France
When is the last time France said they stand behind those that want freedom and liberty? They might try to do business with them, but I doubt they would help in the fight. Just what does France ‘stand for’ anyway? Anything that opposes the U.S.? Doing business with any country as long as they are making a profit?
(and don’t get on the bandwagon about U.S. companies doing business. It does not compare.)

How did Europe deal with Iraq?
They tell Saddam not to worry, that they will hold back the U.S.
What are they telling Iran?
It can’t be, ‘We will get the U.S. after you if you don’t straighten up.’
And N.Korea?
Not much. Letting others try and deal with it. LIKE the big bad U.S. bully.

The leaders of Iran and N. Korea are nothing but big wussies hiding being big weapons. They don’t know how to make their own people happy so they feel the need to ‘stand up’ to the rest of the world. Thus making themseves look stronger while trying to prevent uprisings in their own countries.

Where are the people in OUR country that always find fault with our policies?
Why is there no yelling about the countries that don’t do anything but scream about the U.S. doing things wrong?
Why is there no “Shut up about it, unless you are willing to do something.” talk from those who hate what our own country is doing?
Instead we hear those same people defending countries like France and their crook of a leader.
Maybe the people on the left should broaden their ideas to include what other countries do and don’t do right instead of constantly finding all the fault here at home.(maybe if fault found with other countries were added to the conversation more people would listen to the arguement)
We are still not alone on this planet. We are NOT the only country that relies on oil.
Everything is NOT the U.S.’s fault alone.

Giving an ‘exit strategy’ with an ‘exit date’ is going to help with the Iran situation?
Nothing like calling for another war.
I suppose you also thought Saddam was not such a bad guy because he didn’t have nuclear weapons.
People who do not like war calling for war? We fought the ‘wrong’ war?
Snap out of it people.

BTW - people on the ‘right’ do not enjoy war.

Anyone feel like contributing a constructive idea to addressing North Korea’s latest declaration? Suggestions, not complaints, would be more productive.

I would suggest signing a treaty with N. Korea limiting the amount of Nukes, the range of Nukes ect. in exchange for a relaxation current embargos or strengthening embargos and possibly blockading N. Korea to make it impossible to build any more Nukes.

‘What gives America the right to dictate to the world what they can and can not do?’

Because we can. Besides, the rest of the world tries to do it to us.

I think I may have gotten to the root cause of GWB re-election. The fact that the left in this country would voluntarily enter into a Mutually Assured Destruction policy with Iranian Dictators rather than piss off a few Europeans speaks volumes.

The rest of the world will NEVER see us as moral authority, they are too busy being jealous of us.

As for North Korea, it shows what a great success multi-lateralism can be.

I will sign up to a treaty limiting North Korea to zero nukes!

Iran, N. Korea, and Syria don’t need anything from the US except that the US stay bogged down in Iraq, and that is the plain unmistakable fact of the situation, which is why Iran is figuratively giving GW Bush the finger while Rice says, well, someday, there may be action.

Please, GW Bush has done more to weaken our military strategically in the world than Clinton did, and that is saying a lot.

Iran, N. Korea, and Syria realize that the only that could stop GWB from “changing their regimes” is military logistics. The only stopping the libs from regime change is their fundamental weakness. I am sure they would feel much more comfortable with Kerry in the White House right now.

Peter,
The Bush administration policy towards North Korea is very similar to the Clinton administration policy. Why? Because there are no other good choices. It’s not a matter of liberal weakness or even military logistics. There is nearly unanimous agreement in this country that North Korea’s government is an odious regime. However, removing it by force would result in a large number of South Korean deaths, not to mention North Korean ones. The North Korean regime knows full & well it would lose a war in a short matter of time, South Korean casualties, nuclear weapons, or not. In short, we find ourselves back to a version of Mutally Assured Destruction. Neither side can wage war without unacceptable consequences.

Like Clinton, Bush finds himself committed to a policy of containment. Negotiations are futile in one sense, in expecting anything from the North Koreans. Negotiations are very useful in a subtler sense because they engage neighboring countries, particularly China, to become fully involved in containment.

Does North Korea actually have nuclear weapons? I would not discount a bluff until they test one. A bluff works as well as actual possession. Also, until they test it, the North Koreans would be fools to count on a nuclear weapon working. Placing a reliable & small enough weapon on a sufficiently reliable ballistic missile is even more complex.

Whether it’s Bush or Kerry really doesn’t matter. The situation makes US foreign policy a pretty easy call.

An effective tactic might involve subtly calling them on their bluff. Have Mrs. Rice challenge the Pyongyang assertion that it has nukes, and force them to test a nuke to prove that they have one. If they test it, international pressure goes up. If they don’t, they lose clout in negotiations. We could even threaten nuclear strikes on any major N.K. forces within range of South Korea, significantly inhibiting their strike capability. (However I don’t think this last suggestion would prove very popular, and would have severe detrimental effects on U.S. foreign policy elsewhere - i.e. with Russia and China).

Peter, Kerry’s plan was not significantly different from Bush’s - I fail to see how or why enemies in Iraq would be any better off under Kerry — nor how or why other countries would prefer Kerry to Bush… either President would have continued to tie down our military in Iraq for years.

David is correct. One of Kerry’s critical failures in the debates was to distinguish himself in foreign policy. First he said he woudln’t have gone into Iraq, then he said he would have. I seem to remember him suggesting that bilateral negotiations with N.K. might have been a good idea, but multilateral negotiations were probably smarter because it got China and Japan to put pressure on N.K. without making the U.S. out to be a bully.

Misha,

Yes, the world is complex. I prefer to use that word instead of interesting. I don’t find all this man-made destruction interesting, exactly. The belief that America went into Iraq to liberate it is far too simplistic to account for stark contrasts in response to dictatorial regimes. It does not answer questions like, why did America do nothing while Suharto murdered hundreds of thousands of people in East Timor? Where were the liberating troops then? Is Iraq somehow more deserving of democracy and freedom? Why did the US support Saddam Hussein in the 80s when it was known that he was gassing the Kurds? Could it have anything to do with the fact that Hussein was useful to the US during the Iran-Iraq war? Why did the US help overthrow Mossadegh in Iran in the 50?s (a fledgling democracy in the region) and install the dictatorial Shah? Couldn?t have anything to do with Mossadegh wanting to nationalize Iran?s oil, could it?

You really expect me to believe that geopolitics, the struggle for control over resources and power has nothing to do with this situation?

I suppose it was just a coincidence that in the first U.S. combat operation of the war in Iraq, Navy commandos stormed an offshore oil-loading platform. Although not talked about in the media, the oil connection is no secret. In 1980, then President Jimmy Carter made explicit what had long been stated informally: that any hostile effort to impede the flow of Persian Gulf oil would be regarded as an “assault on the vital interests of the United States,” and, as such, would be “repelled by any means necessary, including military force.” This principle even has a name: the Carter Doctrine.

It?s also interesting that in September of 2002, the doctrine of preventive war was announced explicitly in the National Strategy Report and that within six months, the war in Iraq had begun.

Seems to me that at least three birds have been killed with this stone: control over oil reserves, establishment of military bases for tighter strategic control over the region, and setting an example that preventive war is not an empty promise.

Ask yourself if you believe that the US has the right to control the world’s resources by force or the threat of force. I believe with my aching heart that this is the unsavory truth hiding behind the noble facade of “spreading democracy”.

Gandhi,
Calling the North Korean’s bluff to see if they actually have functional weapons sounds good at first blush, but it’s probably not a good idea. A nuclear North Korea would encourage Japan and South Korea to also go nuclear. Given their history and their current economic competition, China would not like to see a nuclear Japan. This explains why China has been at the front of the negotiations to date.

As tempting as it may be to blame Bush or Clinton and so on, there really is no one to blame for this one. The choices for North Korea policy have always been limited. Going back over 50 years to the Korean War, this regime has been notorious for negotiating in bad faith. It’s just a question of how tight the containment should be, for example, allowing humanitarian aid into the country.

Ingrid, very well stated and I agree entirely. Political cover is what “spreading democracy” is really about.

This is the kind of international politics however, that will continue to be inevitable given globalization of interdependently needed and provided resources. Which makes the peoples goal of getting educated and informed supremely necessary, and the government’s goal of depriving the masses of education and information also supremely necessary. The Bush government is holding up its end very adeptly.

Fair point, phx8. But a couple more questions.

Is it in our national interest that South Korea and Japan - both allies of ours - remain nuclear free? I’d be very surprised if the U.S. doesn’t have dozens, if not hundreds, of tactical warheads already in both countries. On an absolute scale, the proliferation of either country would pose little threat to China, while posing a significant one to NK. Given NK’s lack of stability, China’s attention would be shifted to that focus rather than to a nuclear Japan.

It is also a significant national interest of the U.S. to protect Taiwan. If Japan goes nuclear, it would be easier for Taiwan to go nuclear, which would give it much more clout in dealing with its bullying neighbor and increased ability for it to defend itself without help from us. Threats of MAD on all borders (except North Korea) could in some ways increase stability in the region. Would this be such a bad thing?

I just had another idea, which is perhaps better. The U.S. quietly dispatches missle defense systems to South Korea to neutralize NK nuclear strike capability - a political move rather than a tactical one, since we know our systems aren’t fully accurate yet, but it’s an even match for NK’s untested strike capability. After our defense systems are in place, we announce their presence and threaten to attack NK if they won’t dismantle their nuclear program and allow inspectors back inside. In exchange, NK gets back the deal they had in the first place - food aid and no sanctions. Our bluff just might work. We might not even have to bolster our troop strength in the region. It’s the next generation of nuclear diplomacy.

Gandhi said: The U.S. quietly dispatches missle defense systems to South Korea to neutralize NK nuclear strike capability - a political move rather than a tactical one, since we know our systems aren’t fully accurate yet, but it’s an even match for NK’s untested strike capability.

That comment made me laugh in light of the fact that every major test of the system has failed utterly. At a cost to Americans of how many 100 billions of dollars? They aren’t telling….

David,
It’s true, the ABM systems revealed to date have been an expensive bust. I can’t prove it, but I’m pretty sure there are already ‘low-tech’ ABM systems in existence; F-15’s which can be used as high-altitude platforms for lauching anti-missile missiles, for example. I’d guess there are systems under development which never reach the newspapers.

Gandhi,
“I’d be very surprised if the U.S. doesn’t have dozens, if not hundreds, of tactical warheads already in both countries.”
In Japan, yes. Don’t know about South Korea.

If North Korea ever launches an attack, they’d do so knowing it was the end of their government & military. Hard to see how any additional deterrences would help.

David - this depends which defense system you’re referring to. We haven’t had much success intercepting ICBMs (these are what you hear about in the news), but there was a faily successful (five-for-six) preliminary testing in 2001 or 2002 for surface-to-air, missile-to-missle interception. These tests may have involved Patriot 2 missiles. I don’t think they can take down ICBMs, but could probably knock out the sort of missiles that NK has tested. Given 2-3 P2 missles to a scud they could probably be neutralized at a “safe” probability. (I also seem to remember there being a successful test on using a laser to shoot down an artillery shell. This might be even more applicable to defending against the sort of bombardment NK would be likely to rain down on South Korea.)

Phx8 - correct with your point on deterrence, however there’s another factor to consider - the possibilty that we could hit North Korea first, using tactical nukes, without them being able to hit us back. This forces them to strike first (a no-gain for them) or back down and cut their losses. That’s compellence.