Continue reading "The Whisper in Her Ear "

Forgive me for a certain skepticism about how genuine are Sen. Clinton’s convictions about the threats to National Security, how she would lead as Commander in Chief, how she would direct Iraq policy differently than the Bush Administration.

More importantly, how would she make judgments between the eternally opposed perspectives of the CIA, the State Department, and the Pentagon? Does she even recognize that these three spheres are in covert (and often overt) battle with each other? Is she already a party to the internecine warfare?

One clue is here prescription, described as “Step 2: Diplomacy:”

The second thing that needs to happen is an international public gathering of the parties in the region. Right now, we have sort of private conversations with all these different groups, with the exception of Iran and Syria. So we talk to the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, the Jordanians, the Turks — but we're not bringing them to any kind of resolution about what they will publicly do and get them on record in a way that we can then bank on.

So, there is no understanding. The Turks are massing troops because they're scared to death about the Kurds and the infiltration. We know what the Iranians are doing. The other Sunni countries are playing their double game. And we're basically sort of watching it.

Our failure to have even backdoor talks with Iran and Syria with respect to Iraq and everything else in the region is, I think, another in a long line of mistakes on the part of the Bush administration.

Here we go again. All we need is an “international public gathering of the parties in the region.” Kind of sounds like a UN solution, doesn’t it? Sen. Clinton maintains that the reason all of our various private and public conversations with all these interested parties (excepting our sworn enemies of course), is one of a failure in “bringing them to any kind of resolution.”

Has the Junior Senator not had a chance to get briefed up on the UN and other natter-ma-bob organizations? Can she really be that naïve?

The problem is with her premise, which fails on multiple counts. Nations conduct international diplomacy as a helpful but largely irrelevant backdrop for whatever practical steps they take behind the scenes. Nations lie, cheat, misrepresent, and try to manipulate foreign and domestic public opinion. Communist Dictatorships and other autocratic and fascists regimes, do it at orders of magnitude more.

The Senator Clinton, in just the next breath suggests that, despite our neglect in opening private conversation with them, “We know what the Iranians are doing.” Senator, might you go ahead and state what that is? I know I know, but I sure would like to believe you do. I don’t, because I know by not saying, you don’t really believe whatever you’d say, and whatever you’d have to say publicly, you wouldn’t agree with at all.

Backdoor talks with Iran and Syria? Unless that backdoor talk runs along the lines of, “this shotgun is loaded and the next time you step out of your yard into mine, you get both barrels,” dear Lord, I’m not interested. This sounds an awful lot like John Kerry’s “I’ve talked to a lot of foreign leaders” type of foolishness.

(More commentary, and an unexpected Frank Capra reference, over at Dadmanly.)

All done!

Continue reading "Progress in Iraq? "

The combined population of DhiQar and Muthana provinces is roughly the same as Kosovo(roughly 2 million). I would note the continued presence of roughly 17,000 "Foreign Troops" in Kosovo 7 years after initial deployment.

While the provincial security forces and governments of AlAnbar and Baghdad continue to struggle the rest of the provinces are getting their acts together at a reasonably quick pace by international and historical standards.

All done!

Continue reading "Carter Joins in the Blame Game "

Carter's announcement was a bombshell to the White House because somebody acting as a private citizen had taken control of US foreign policy and the White House appeared to be by standers. People in the meeting actually called Carter's actions of cutting a deal without White House approval as "near traitorous" and Clinton actually put out an order for people in the meeting to not engage in Carter bashing to media despite their private feelings.

Clinton's instincts initially was that the North Koreans could not be trusted and only understood force to get them to quit their nuclear program, however Carter's actions made it politically impossible for him to take action against North Korea when Carter publicly announced on CNN that he had prevented war by cutting a deal with Kim Il-sung. Attacking a country after publicly announcing that you cut a deal with them never goes over to well internationally or domestically for that matter and Clinton knew it and he was forced to deal.

Additionally the deal was cut with Kim Il-sung who Clinton and even I believe may have been acting in good faith at the time when he agreed to end his nuclear program and allow in IAEA inspectors if the US gave him aid and built two light water reactors. Kim Il-sung I think was beloved by his people enough that he would have been able to survive any reforms that would have opened up the country. Thus he saw this deal as opportunity to feed his people and provide them energy, which in turn allowed North Korea to then focus their limited resources on rebuilding a post-Soviet Union economy.

However, Kim Il-sung died a month later after striking the deal with Carter. Was this just coincidence or did Kim Jong-il have something to do with it? I for one wouldn't be surprised if Kim Jong-il and others in the military who wanted the nuclear bomb and resisted opening the country did away with Kim Il-sung and installed Kim Jong-il because he promised to implement the Songun (military first) policy which would ensure the elite status of the North Korean military within North Korean society.

Something else I found disingenuous about Carter's article was his claim that his 1994 deal led to the 2000 inter-Korean Summit between then South Korean President Kim Dae-jung and Kim Jong-il. Carter made no mention of the fact that the summit only happened, not because of Carter's 1994 deal, but because of the $156 million dollar bribe that Kim Dae-jung authorized Hyundai to give to Kim Jong-il in order for the North Koreans to agree to host the summit.

The dishonesty only continues in Carter's editorial:

But beginning in 2002, the United States branded North Korea as part of an axis of evil, threatened military action, ended the shipments of fuel oil and the construction of nuclear power plants and refused to consider further bilateral talks. In their discussions with me at this time, North Korean spokesmen seemed convinced that the American positions posed a serious danger to their country and to its political regime.

Carter makes no mention of the fact that North Korea cheated on the 1994 Agreed Framework deal and continued a covert nuclear program, which the Bush Administration called them on and to everyones surprise, the North Koreans even admitted to.

The dishonesty in this article only gets worse:

Six-nation talks finally concluded in an agreement last September that called for North Korea to abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and for the United States and North Korea to respect each other’s sovereignty, exist peacefully together and take steps to normalize relations. Each side subsequently claimed that the other had violated the agreement. The United States imposed severe financial sanctions and Pyongyang adopted the deeply troubling nuclear option.

Carter leaves out some more critical information by forgetting to mention that the financial sanctions had nothing to do with the six party talks. The financial sanctions were due to North Korea's counterfeiting and money laundering of US currency. Ever wonder why the US$20 dollar bill keeps changing? It because of North Korean counterfeiting which Carter makes no mention of.

So what does Carter suggest to end the current stand off? Well implementing pretty much the 1994 Agreed Framework again:

The other option is to make an effort to put into effect the September denuclearization agreement, which the North Koreans still maintain is feasible. The simple framework for a step-by-step agreement exists, with the United States giving a firm and direct statement of no hostile intent, and moving toward normal relations if North Korea forgoes any further nuclear weapons program and remains at peace with its neighbors. Each element would have to be confirmed by mutual actions combined with unimpeded international inspections.

You have to give Carter credit for one thing, he is persistent in wanting to implement failed policies.

As you can see there were various factors that led to the failed 1994 Agreed Framework. Was it Clinton's fault? Even though the policy failed I don't see it as being Clinton's fault because due to the circumstances he had no choice but to cut the deal. This issue has taken on it's current political context solely because of next months elections. None of this rhetoric is helpful in actually resolving the crisis but since when have politicians cared more about solving issues over protecting their own political power?

So what do I think it going to happen? Kim Jong-il counted on sanctions before he decided to test his nuke and knew that the international community would condemn him including China and South Korea. Even though he would be condemned for the test, Kim Jong-il gambled that China and South Korea would still protect him from sanctions that would lead to the end of his regime like a naval blockade. I would love to see a naval blockade because I doubt the North Korean regime would last a year if a naval blockade is implemented. However, all signs are that the South Koreans and Chinese will not support a blockade and I find it unlikely the US would implement a blockade without a UN Security Council Resolution.

So what does this mean? Well it means that North Korea will get hit by increased sanctions, but China will keep the oil flowing and the South Koreans will keep the food and fertilizer coming in because neither country wants to deal with a collapse North Korea. China doesn't want a possible war or a humanitarian crisis to threaten their hosting of the 2008 Olympics and the South Koreans do not want to pay both the financial and social costs that reunifying with North Korea would cost plus the possibility of war would devestate the peninsula. Plus the North Koreans will be allowed to keep bringing in hard currency through their weapons sales, counterfeiting, and other illicit activities without a naval blockade, which means that the Kim Jong-il regime will survive with more time to develop and perfect their nuclear weapons, while our political leaders aided by the irresponsible US media continue to play politics and blame each other for the crisis, which is just what Kim Jong-il counted on.

All done!