Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
My point is that with Bush in the WH, NK had no leverage and was not going to be able to posture, delay, lie and pretend in the manner that they had grown accustom to. Bush established a precedence with Iraq. If we had continued to let Iraq get away with world defiance and the oil for food fraud, NK would have continued on their path of development of nuclear weapons. Bush diplomacy works, just the way Reagan diplomacy worked. Bush deserves some credit if NK stands down on this issue.
|
Ace fundamentally I do not disagree with you. But I personally think you give to much credit to the Dubya foreign policy, at least how it relates to North Korea.
This is probably me just speaking out my own understanding: I by and large maintain Bush W operated under the Neo-Con foreign policy, predominately as it was framed by the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld, but most importantly Paul Wolfowitz; the Wolfowitz doctrine pertained particularly to Iraq. North korea by and large had no legitimate ties in policy in to how we dealt with the world at large under the current understanding.
North Korea really is not a threat to America. Never has been, but could possibly be... down the line. I would say you have to approach policy by region. In the Pacific region North Korea is not our primary worry, China is. This is what would ultimatly feed into the Wolfowitz doctrine, as I have come to understand it.
America his its flagship naval unit in the pacific, starting with the 7th fleet, along with the 3rd. North Korea was not a prevailing threat, even now if it is actually nuclear. America operates under a regulating capacity, that would be the reason for this. Our biggest threats going forward is China, and perhaps a destabilized Russia.
If you look at the Middle East, there is no major threat even an Iraq that had WMDs is no great threat to us. No one would deny that militarily Iran, Syria, et al., could stand up to us militarily. The Neo-Cons had to shift policy at the offset of the cold war, this belief was that by establishing a strong presence/stake in the ME would ultimately benefit us. If we regulate the oil supply other countries wouldn't escalate militarily. Who gets their oil from the ME? Not America, but European countries, China, Japan.
Reminscing the likes of Rummy and Cheney went to Clinton in the years of Operation Desert Fox and pushed for regime change... this was in 98' (In Iraq). As such N. Korea is a complete after thought to our policy to Iraq.
North Korea has nothing we want, the country by itself cannot sustain itself, it has no resources, and by and large noting that they have the 4th standing military (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...active_troops), they are not a threat. They have no navy, no airforce, their missle capabilities are limited, and their nuclear capabilities although feared are not completely established.
If anything dealing with North Korea only keeps the status quo going, which equates to nothing more than regional stability. You have Japan doing their half de-miltarized thing, a split Korea (where we have clearly sided with the south for the last half a century), Russia is more pertinent to the equation in so far as influence, which ultimately leads us back to China. We have a cute dance going their, giving CHina the full diplomatic recognition, yet simultaneously having defense compacts with Taiwan... were Taiwan to be so brash as declare complete self rule and CHina were to move in, I get the impression we would side with Taiwan.
Not attempting to thread jack I am going to leave that point there, and hopefully make it move forward into legit discussion as to how this thread has evolved.
At the same time Will, I think it is really false to say our diplomacy was to merely call N. Korea evil and not deal with them. We've dealt with them, perhaps not the best way, but still they were a wayward nation that Bush and the Foreign Policy thereof inherited. I think Bush was smart to change it up and deal it with on if not "our" terms, at least on different terms where Clinton signed a compact with them where they got aid which propped them up, yet they were able to maintain their nuclear ambitions, which nobody wanted then and nobody wants now.
Ultimately I can't won't say Bush's FP worked with North Korea. They claim they have nuclear capabilities, and as of the 2nd of Sept. apperently we have reached some deal where they are going to dissmantle said programs, this sounds a lot like the same song and dance of 94' with Clinton. They might not be saber rattling anymore, but worst case scenario now they have nuclear capabilities, so I fail to see how the Bush policy in Iraq worked at least in deterrence to NK.
I hope this makes a lick of sense. I've been away from this forum for a few months and I am feeling the rust. I hope you are kind in repsonse.