N. Korea Tests Bomb. Iraq Redux?

| | Comments (0)

The Washington Post reports:

North Korea declared on Monday that it had conducted its first nuclear test, a claim verified by monitoring authorities in China and South Korea...
Must the world now put an end to the Kim Jung Il regime?

Before folks respond in knee jerk fashion to that question, consider this. What if the consequences of the options to remove Kim Jung Il from power, are more devastating than leaving him in power? The world now faces the same decision the United States had to make when deliberating whether to invade Iraq. Will the cure be worse than threatening illness?

If ever there were a time to bring the best minds together to develop all possible courses of action and contemplate and weigh the consequences, both likely and possible, this is such a time. Unilateral action by the United States will cost her a considerable sum of what diminished political and diplomatic capital she still has in the world amongst allies and neutral countries. Multilateral action can go in a very positive or, very negative direction depending upon whom the partners are in the coalition.

Multilateral action which does not include China, carries a possibility for enormous global economic and politically negative consequences. China is moving rapidly toward economic independence with the U.S. and Europe. However, China is not yet so dependent that it can be bullied into geopolitical arrangements which it may perceive as a potential short or long term strategic threat to its own border, like U.S. forces and weapons on her border.

The bulk of the European Union nations may also have to assent. Should Germany and the United Kingdom sign on without the rest of the EU, the tenuous union itself may be threatened with dissolution and possible internal civil unrest. A prospect with enormous economic costs for the whole of Europe.

Cordoning off N. Korea with military blockades which permit no ships, nor other vehicles to leave N. Korea uninspected, could result in a costly and protracted escalation of containment costs and military engagements between the N. Korean army and members of the military blockade. The cordon, of course, would preempt N. Korea from exporting its nuclear capability to black marketeers, in return for needed cash and food. A complete economic cordon around N. Korea could force an invasion of S. Korea as starvation and other privations becomes even more prevalent amongst the N. Korean people, causing a humanitarian crisis for which the coalition forces would share blame.

Should such a cordon be accompanied by humanitarian aid to N. Korea to forestall a humanitarian crisis? But, would such aid not also be converted by Jung Il's regime for its own militaristic purposes? Sounds familiar, doesn't it? It is the pre-invasion Iraq sanctions redux.

No doubt, one option that will be considered will be a massive mulitnational surgical invasion which has but one objective: taking out Kim Jung Il and the heads of his military. But, that leaves in its wake, the Iraqi mandate to establish a new government, rebuild infrastructure, and recreate society from the ground up. While there truly is little liklihood of a civil war consequence in N. Korea, there will be an insurgency that will want to prevent loss of N. Korean autonomy via a united North and South Korea into one Korean nation.

I am by no means an expert on N. Korea, nor the geopolitical situation surrounding Korea. But, surely, if I, as a regular consumer of current world events in the American news media can foresee such possibilities, would it not be prudent for the American people to insist that our government also give at least this much open and deliberative examination of the options available before commiting to a plan of action? Should our government be obligated to develop a plan, share it with the people via the Congress, and get their assent by proxy in the Congress, before committing our nation to the costs of rebuilding yet another nation in N. Korea?

And shouldn't our Congress, this time, fully exercise their oversight duty, and vet all of the options and administration plans and intelligence, BEFORE committing our sons and daughters to die in yet another far off land? Should the American people know before hand, what the deficits and national debt increases will be BEFORE the our representatives commit. Should we the American people not start contacting our representatives and demanding nothing less, in light of their past record, with Iraq?

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Contact

Monthly Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.25

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by David R. Remer published on October 9, 2006 5:33 AM.

Iraq: Republican Confusion was the previous entry in this blog.

2006 Politics: Election Strategies is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.



Offsite Links