1. I know that BMG posters tend to regard the Axis of Evil as Romney-Healey-Hillman. But Jacob Weisberg just wrote a compelling piece about the real version.
In his first State of the Union Address in January 2002, George W. Bush deployed the expression “axis of evil” to describe the governments of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea….The problem with Bush’s formulation wasn’t his use of the term “evil,” a perfectly apt description of the regimes of Saddam Hussein, the Iranian mullahs, and Kim Jong-il.
The real issue was with the “axis” part.
With the reference to the Axis powers of World War II, Bush suggested that there was some sort of alliance or cooperation among these three enemies of the United States. His turn of phrase indicated that they represented a unitary problem and implied that in taking on one, America would be dealing with all three.
Nearly five years later…thanks to his foreign policy, many of the world’s dictators do now function as a kind of anti-American axis, in a way they didn’t when he made that speech.
Worth reading.
2. Right now Senate shapes up as 49 R, 48 D, with 3 races dead even, and Dems trending up nationally.
3. Which brings me to: Assuming D’s take both House and Senate, what do they want to do now about N. Korea?
What overall strategy do you want Kerry and Kennedy to pursue on N. Korea, now that they’ll have a lot of leverage?
GGW’s usual strategy when facing four bad possibilities is to pretend nothing is wrong and hope it goes away. Also sometimes I binge on sourdough pretzels.
I’m hoping our electeds are better equipped to lead.
Always in search of a solution, I found something from Former Clinton Defense Secretary William Perry. Here’s what he recommends:
<
p>
<
p>
A Big Dig strategy: Spend a lot of money, build a road over N. Korea and drop it on them.
After all, Bechtel did build S. Korea’s high speed rail.
New ratings from Constituency Dynamics here, and a more pro-Dem reassessment by Larry Sabato here:
<
p>
As to dealing with N. Korea, foreign policy remains primarily within the control of the Executive. The best Dem’s can do in the immediate term is force removal/refuse confirmation of the incompetents responsible for the current mess, such as John Bolton at the UN.
<
p>
They should also conduct hearings exposing just hoow much the Bush-holes have screwed-up and/or committed crimes to force the resigniations of Donald Dumbsfeld and Kindasleezy Rice. Dem’s could then influence the selection of honest, competent replacements.
One of the hallmark’s of Bush’s foreign policy is the isolation of those nations he considers hostile to US interests. Rather than engage the enemy (as Nixon did with China, and Reagan with the Soviet Union) he chose to attempt to isolate them. So, here he’s isolated North Korea and refused to talk to them, hoping that the threat of that isolation, and international scorn, would be enough to get them to drop their nuclear program. Well, it wasn’t. Now what?
<
p>
I’ve heard some on the left say that a policy of engagement is now called for in north Korea. We need to sit down and talk with Kim Jong-il, and see if we can’t broker a solution. The logic, of course, is that if isolation wasn’t working, then perhaps engagement would.
<
p>
But consider though, what happens when we do engage. Kim gets what he wants, and other nations (Iran) whom we do not want to get nuclear weapons, look at that and say, “Hey, North Korea just got exactly what it wanted out of pursuing its nuclear program. The US couldn’t do a thing to stop it, and now it’s attempting to engage.” I’m not sure that’s the lesson we would want the international community to take from all this.
<
p>
I think if there is going to be a solution whereby North Korea agrees to stop its program, the US is going to have to work behind the scenes, but largely maintain its distance. Unfortunately we’re going to have to rely on China’s influence in the region to get us out of this.
<
p>
On the flip side, direct talks with Iran should begin now. Once they get the bomb, it will be too late.
I think your view is on-target.
<
p>
And it’s unfortunate that many D’s simply punt on the question (see comment above yours) and go with “Rumsfeld is bad.”
<
p>
I guess I’m looking for some kind of D leadership which creates a new framework of US strategic interests. Perhaps it’s one that puts first our fear of passing along nukes to terrorists. That’s a different message from “We fear you as a sovereign nation.”
Uh, exactly where in my comment did you read “Rumsfeld is bad” and nothing else (i.e. “punting”)?
<
p>
By now it’s a plain fact that nothing in our foreign policy will change as long as the same individuals devise and conduct that foreign policy on the world stage.
<
p>
Dumbsfeld, Rice, Bolton, Abrams, etc. simply have no credibility in the eyes of the rest of the world. Thus, no sane leader will enter into any kind of substantive partnership with the US –to tackle N. Korea or any other issue of global security– as long as these clowns constitute our foreign policy leadership; they have proven themselves utterly untrustworthy, incompetent and unwilling to abide by agreements (e.g. the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, World Court, Kyoto protocol).
<
p>
Radical ideologue John Bolton was a terrible choice for the UN who has accomplished nothing, and who everyone knew beforehand would accomplish nothing. But because the Republican Right controlled the Senate, Bush was able to force him into the UN as a recess appointment without fear of consequence. Ditto for Dumbsfeld who should have been forced by Congress to resign years ago, but was allowed to remain because we’re stuck with a rubber-stamp Republican Congress.
<
p>
Nelson Mandela couldn’t make these cock-ups suddenly appear credible, let alone Senators in a majority-Dem congress…
<
p>
Look outside the bubble of US media for 15 minutes, and you’ll quickly realize how poorly these guys are regarded by other nations. Replacing them with credible moderates is Step One toward uniting world governments to oppose nuclear proliferation, and terrorism; without Step One, we’re guaranteed more failure.
I like a little intellect with my sophmoric insults.
<
p>
How about referencing just one or two actual quotes/actions by Ambassador Bolton, or by the Seceretary of State (yes, a woman), whom you have so artlessly slurred.
<
p>
If all you have to offer are semi-clever contortions of peoples names – cripes, I could go to the kiddie pool page at DU and get that tripe all day long.
<
p>
This is a grownup site.
Act like one.
It may have slipped by past your superior powers of perception, but N. Korea just tested a nuclear device after six years of fumbling and bumbling by Rice, Rummy, Cheney, Bolton and Bush. You also may have heard that over the same period Iran has advanced its uranium processing in defiance of the IAEA.
<
p>
Despite the fact that N. Korea kicked weapons inspectors out and Saddam Hussein allowed weapons inspectors in, the Bush-nits invaded Iraq in defiance of world opinion –without sufficient allies, troops, equipment, a post-invasion plan or an exit strategy.
<
p>
The results speak for themselves. But please, be my guest and explain how this can be interpreted as anything but an utter failure of leadership, and specifically what these individuals have accomplished to earn even the slightest shred of credibility?
<
p>
“I don’t think anybody could have predicted that … they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile,”
— Kindasleezy Rice
<
p>
We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda.
— Kindasleezy Rice
<
p>
“We know where [the WMDs] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”
<
p>
— Donald Dumbsfeld
<
p>
[don’t take my word for it about Dumbsfeld. Read what his own generals have to say. –Ed.]
<
p>
“Diplomacy is not an end in itself if it does not advance U.S. interests.”
<
p>
— John Bolton
<
p>
“There’s no such thing as the United Nations. If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.
<
p>
— John Bolton
<
p>
As they say, “It’s the credibility, stupid…“
<
p>
Let me suggest that you make the effort to stay abrest of current events so that posters won’t need to re-post quotes that most of the country has practically memorized by now. And for pete’s sake, lighten-up…
…but stopped at the first infantile name distortion.
<
p>
Look, kid, if you’re going to debate politics with adults, you need to lose the playground schtick.
It doesn’t impress.
Think about it.
<
p>
Point, set, match.
Thanks
I’m not sure where you’re confused, but I’ll try to clarify:
<
p>
1. I characterized your comment as “Rumsfeld is bad” as a shortcut for your longer version of the same thing.
<
p>
Unless when you write “cock-up” and “Dumbsfeld” et al, I should be reading that as “Rumsfeld is good.”
<
p>
2. I already know that Rumsfeld is bad. I look forward to replacing him and the others with credible moderates. To say only “new people” is not a strategy. That’s punting.
<
p>
I may not be a credible moderate – I’m not credible in much besides perhaps poker and that may be a stretch – but I am a moderate, and I want a vision on non-proliferation.
“Bad” is a distortion, not a shortcut for what I wrote, which was “incompetent and dishonest.” Nor did I merely call for “new” people –I specifically called for “competent, honest and credible” people, which are particular qualities required for the current circumstances.
<
p>
Like it or not, the Executive will still be in charge of our foreign policy even of Dem’s takeover both houses of Congress. There is no reason to believe Bush will willingly fire Rummy and Rice (I suspect he wouldn’t renominate Bolton, who was a recess appointment).
<
p>
So you can “look forward to replacing” Rummy and the others all you want, but it won’t happen by magic unless Dem’s have a strategy to accomplish it (especially when you consider complicating factors like the return of Iraq apologist Joe Lieberman chairing a Senate Committee).
<
p>
Rummy’s arrogant disregard for the opinions of generals and officers, his permissive attitude toward contractor profiteering, and his dishonest public assessments of conditions on the ground in Iraq are personal character defects –not issues of ideology.
<
p>
Since Bush will never replace Rummy with a true “moderate,” our first priority should be to push for a replacement who is not a pathological liar and who knows how to draw from the best thinking of experienced officers.
<
p>
This is an urgent matter. At the moment, officers and troops on the ground in Iraq are increasingly demoralized because they have lost confidence in Donald Rumsfeld. They need a fresh face and who can restore their confidence with sharper thinking and honest assessments –regardless of the policy over the next two years.
<
p>
Ditto for State. Rice has been caught lying and dissembling so many times that she is damaged goods; foreign leaders simply don’t trust anything she says anymore. In the present disasterous circumstance, even someone like James Baker would be an improvement.
<
p>
Should they win a majority, Dem’s also must be prepared to send Bush a clear, early message not to bother nominating crackpots like Eliot Abrams, John Negroponte or John Bolton.
<
p>
If Dem’s can win the White House in ’08, then we can talk about who they’ll nominate to pursue a serious non-proliferation agenda in the UN and other international agreements.
<
p>
We can’t talk about specific non-proliferation strategies, we must only talk about electing D’s (without knowing their strategies)?
<
p>
Not only that, you view the only questions as “WHO they’ll nominate”….not how? There’s no room to wonder how?
<
p>
You’re not curious, for example, about how various Dem candidates in 08 view proliferation? Or you think they all have the same strategy? How do you choose a candidate in the primary? I was volunteering for Mark Warner until a couple days ago because….I like Nextel.
<
p>
2. Surely the President has the primary role here, but you think Congress has no role? Can’t call hearings to frame strategic questions? Congress had no role in Vietnam? Congress had no role in Kyoto? Members can’t get on the Sunday shows to articulate a vision?
<
p>
Oh, sorry, that’s right….we can’t talk about HOW to do anything. You know, something worthless like our basic security. Not like there are competing ideas of how best to do this or anything.
<
p>
ONLY, solely, exclusively about how bad – sorry, specifically how “incompetent and dishonest” – Rumsfeld et al have been. Gotcha. Now back to 24/7 DP.
<
p>
Of course we can. My view is simply that the an in-depth discussion of such strategies will not be (nor should it) the first order of business if Dem’s gain majorities in November. Dem’s immediately will have their hands full forcing the resignations of Rummy and Condi, and pushing the Bushies toward replacements who don’t lie as frquently as they exhale.
<
p>
And of course the “how” of subsequent nominatins is part of what I’m talking about. For example, if Dems win back the Senate 51-49 (which would be a HUGE upset) and Joe Lieberman is re-elected (as he appears posied to), Lieberman will then have the ability to blackmail Dems if he doesn’t get a Chairmanship or if he disgrees with forcing-out Condi and Rummy.
<
p>
Lieberman presently has support for re-election from at least two Dem colleages –Sens Nelson and Salazar– who will likely support his right to a Chairmanship (that would be of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee which oversees Senate investigations).
<
p>
So sure, we can talk all we want about who might have the best non-proliferation strategy for 2008, but given the current real-world situation –which I would characterize as an emergency– it’s not the time to be playing Fantasy Baseball.
<
p>
Every additional day Rumsfeld, Rice and Bolton have their hands on ther reigns of our foreign policy, more people die needlessly and America digs itself into a deeper hole.
<
p>
I flatly believe that is how incompetent they are (and the Generals would back me up re: Rummy).
<
p>
I agree with you that Congress has “a role” to play, but we apparantly disgree on what their priorites should be. I would prioritize immediately replacing Rumsfeld et. al. with credible leaders over working the Sunday talk-show circuit while Iran enriches more uranium, N. Korea detonates more nukes, and Iraq descends into civil war.
<
p>
Apart from dealing directly with the current emergency, the best place to debate/reframe strategic issues is during the hearings for Rummy’s replacement, not over lattes on This Week with George Stephanopolous.
<
p>
Now, back to 24/7 coverage of the federal investigation of Pretty Mitt’s Big Dig scandal…