The greater danger Iraq or North Korea?

I assumed the intent of his statement was to imply that we should take some action or not take some action based on whether or not some people might be moved to join terrorist groups should we do so. Can you tell me how you interpret it differently?

I assumed the intent of his statement was to imply that we should take some action or not take some action based on whether or not some people might be moved to join terrorist groups should we do so. Can you tell me how you interpret it differently?

Tres

It's not an on/off proposition. The range of optional actions is far greater than this administration pretends, and some few of those options have been or are being brought forward by other voices. And lets drop the terrorist connotation when talking about Iraq, for God's sake.

The point is, and it's been made by lots of credible people including military, political, and foreign affairs folks, that the US's continuing drive to war with Iraq bears a very great risk, if not a near certainty, of increasing the terrorist recruitment pool and its enthusiasm to blow up Westerners. Notions that 'all they understand is force', therefore a big military action will quiet them down are deserving of loud derision.

(Scary stuff, even if no more than half of it is true:)

...Kim Jong Il will strike first at the first sure sign of invasion. His army and people have been waiting for the moment for over half a century and will be much pleased to kill some Japanese and Yanks. Kim has over one million soldiers, more than 8,000 heavy guns that fire 300,000 shells loaded with biochemicals per hour, and missiles that can hit Japan and Los Angeles, Seattle, and other major American cities. It is believed that North Korean missiles hidden in caves are already loaded with WMD warheads and ready to go.

North Korea has more than 5,000 tons of biochemical agents, including sarin, anthrax, smallpox and the plague. The US CIA says North Korea has 1 or 2, or 4-5 or 7-8 'crude' nuclear bombs. North Korea's nuclear program dates back to 1950 and it would be naive to believe that North Korea has managed to produce only 1-2 or 7-8 bombs during half a century. The truth of the matter is that North Korea may have helped Pakistan and Iran with nuclear weaponry. A Pakistani nuclear scientist has admitted that North Korea's nuclear program is far more advanced than the Pak program and that it is nonsensical to claim that Pakistan gave nuclear secrets to North Korea. It was probably the other way around...

Bush's next war: North Korea--A Scenario

PDid, You mean to tell us GWBush is gonna be responsible for starting two wars in less than two years? My god! When does this guy quit? c.i.

Pd,

The article you've cited overstates the DPRK capability by several orders of magnitude. The North Koreans almost certainly do not have smallpox in their inventory, though they are believed to have large stocks of chemical/biological/nerve agents. The Army is indeed as large as the article says and could be very dangerous. The Army has been in garrison a very long time, and training is uneven. The DPRK has the largest number of Special Forces in the world, and they are tough and well disciplined. Almost the entire Army is concentrated within 50 miles of the DMZ. Appoximately 500 artillery pieces are located a little over 25 miles north of Seoul, but most don't have the range to hit the South Korean City.

The number of nuclear warheads (untested) is very small, almost certainly only two or three at this time. There are only two classes of missiles that conceivably might reach our shores. The TD-1 has been tested only once, and may be able to reach Alaska. Perhaps 20-30 of these multistaged missiles exist. The TD-2 is somewhat larger and has never been tested. The TD-2 is believed technically capable of reaching the Pacific Northwest, or Australia. Some analysts think the TD-2 might be able to reach as far as Phoenix, AZ, but no one really knows for sure. TD-2 components have been tested both in North Korea and Iran.

Though the North constantly probes and directs provocative operations against the South, there is no current indication that the North is contemplating a unilateral surprise attack southward. It is very unlikely that the North would initiate a resumption of open warfare as long as significant UN/American Forces remain in South Korean (currently around 65,000). The approaches to Seoul and other South Korean obectives have been pre-registered for artillery and prepared to repell an attack southward if it ever comes. The ROK army is large and strong, but would not be able to do more than hold the North in check for a short while, perhaps as long as two weeks.

Kim Jong-Il is crazy, but not stupid and his first and highest priority is to remain in power. His second ambition is to get American forces out of theater so that he can invade and destroy South Korea. He knows he can not win in a direct confrontation against a determined American military that is prepared for him in the South. The nearest current US forces is the Marine Division stationed in Okinawa, and it is vulnerable to a DPRK nuclear missile launch. There is always a US Carrier Battle Group in Theater, and if the situation begins to get dicy additional Battle Groups could be dispatched with arrival in theater within a few weeks. US Air stationed in Japan are within striking distance of any point north of the DMZ, but other air force assets might have to travel very great distances.

The Japanese are not a military element in the equation. Period. ROK and American forces in theater, if struck by a surprise attack, are intended to fight a delaying action until additional forces can be brought into play. The current strategy of dealing with the Korean situation by diplomacy is a good one. Once the Iraq situation is stabilized, we will shift forces to the Pacific Theater. Perhaps Kim will in the meantime "get religion" and begin to act in a civilized manner. The clock is ticking on him as well as on Saddam.

What's YOUR source for the contentions you make, Ash?

Almost everything I've said is available in open sources. Parameters, Joint Forces Journal, and a host of other specialized military journals are the primary sources. I'm pretty sure that most of this stuff is also available somewhere on the Internet. Is Jane's data available here?

Some of the material has probably unwittingly found its way from classified sources into my little store of knowledge. I don't often sit down and seek out any particular source, but rather write from the understanding of a subject I've acquired over a long period of time and study.

Why don't you link it?

Are we just supposed to take your word for it?

Everyone else in this forum provides sources for their contentions except you, it seems.

An erudite and scholarly tone doesn't make up for unsubstantiated 'fact'. It makes it opinion.

Which isn't a bad thing, necessarily...

Cicero,

Why do you presist in blaming President Bush for the sins of others? Saddam Hussein, and Kim Jong-Il are those responsible for bringing the world to the brink of war, not any person in the United States. We are not threatening anyone with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. Those threats originate in the actions of a few very brutal dictators who have no regard for any lives other than their own. Kim Jong-Il sees he and that his military are well fed, while babies starve to death. It is Kim Jong-Il who threatens the world with nuclear weapons and war, not the United States. Saddam has brought war to the doorsteps of Iraq, not President Bush, nor Mr. Rummsfeld.

Pd,

I can't link something in print. Information gained in discussions with military and intelligence people is not attributable. Try a google search on some of the technical stuff that almost certainly is not classified if you doubt my words. Ask people who know. I'm confident that the facts will bear out anything I've said.

You don't believe the sources that Timber or anyone else posts that don't fit your preconcieved ideas. If you don't believe me now, I doubt that any link I found for you would change your mind.

No, I would accept your evidence to support your point of view if you would only supply some once.

It would be your POV that I disagree with--as you mine.

It's your responsibility to provide the evidence for your contentions.

You do the Googling.

I'll supply linkage for mine.

That's how it works. You know that.

Asherman

Please step back and look at this sentence.

The US is now threatening more destruction than anyone in the world other than Osama, but has far more means to carry it out than he does.

Sadaam has threatened use? Please post his statement here. Is it possession that means threat. Look at your arsenal. And WHO is now threatening nuke use? Right, the US. And who has the largest stocks of chemical/biological weapons...you or maybe Russia. Would that be correct? I'm not sure, but you will be.

Of course Kim is a nut. And of course he is threatened now. He knows he's next on the 'Bomb 'em' list, even if a ton of other states have nukes.

Yes, it is Bush who is putting things on the brink.
February 27, 2003
U.S. Diplomat's Letter of Resignation

[quote]The following is the text of John Brady Kiesling's letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. Mr. Kiesling is a career diplomat who has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan.

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.

It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.

The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.

The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?

We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead.

We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. Has "oderint dum metuant" really become our motto?

I urge you to listen to America's friends around the world. Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and EU in close partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet?

Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America's ability to defend its interests.

I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share. [/quote]

Pd,

All right, here are a few links that ought to satisfy you that I'm not just making things up.

Janes

North Korean Threat Exaggerated

Global Humanitarian Emergencies: Trends and Projections 2001-2002

Foreign Missile Developments and the Ballistic Missile Threat Through 2015

North Korea's Engagement -- Perspectives, Outlook and Implications

Global Security: North Korea Military Information

This list could be made twenty times as long, but these are a few that were easily at hand.

Parameters and the Joint Forces Journal are on-line, but don't have a searchable feature. I suppose that I could go rummage through my library and back issues of a few dozen other publications, but what's the point. Even if you could find and read them, you are predisposed not to believe anything that a military or intelligence professional is going to say. Why believe a professional when there are so many commentators just out of journalism school who will cater to your prejudices.

Blatham,

Saddam should feel threatened, but he brought this on himself by his own actions extending back for many years.

Kim should feel threatened; his continued efforts to destabilize South Korea has starved his people, and his sale of muntions has greatly increased the danger to people the world over.

The United States has not once threatened to use chemical/nerve agents, or nuclear weapons on anyone. We have reserved the right to use ANY weapon in our arsenal under appropriate circumstances -- and we clearly mean that any use of WMD used against our forces or citizens will result in a retaliatory strike that will devastate the country who uses WMD. The United States has not used WMD since 1945, and will probably never use them beyond the deterent effect they have on madmen like Saddam and Kim Jong-Il.

Enough already of the Ambassador's Resignation Letter. The man acted on his conscience, and that is laudable. It is not that big a deal.

Gravitas! Please continue to inform us which deals are big enough for our concern...

Snood,

Ultimately we all determine for ourselves what is a "big deal", and what is not. The Ambasador's letter has been posted many times here and elsewhere. There is no need to repost the whole thing over and over and over. A senior administration official acted on his conscience. That's what they are supposed to do. We applaud him and hope that everyone both inside and out of the administration has such high standards. Its all to rare these days -- anywhere.

BTW, who are those two fellows you think I like anyway? I suppose they are commentators, and probably "conservative" since you seem to think I'd approve of them. Where do they appear/write, and what's their stand?

Asherman

For goodness sakes. Take some responsibility for your own country's ugliness. Sadaam brings it on himself for his actions, is your premise. Even though he was aided in ways too numerous to count by the US in getting to be a big bad guy. But regarding 90-11, the US, of course, did NOT bring it on itself in any sense.

re Kim...the US would not give a pinch of coon **** if it was just people starving...look at the rest of the world that is, so don't bother adding it to your America purity equation.

Stability, sure. That's it. That was it with Noriega, in Central America, in south America, in the middle east, in the South Pacific. Stability for US interests, but screw the locals

Of course the US has now threatened nuke use, and preemptively.

re the Ambassador's letter...just where have you seen it in print? And the point is not that he's an ambassador. The point is that he's an experienced one, and he knows what he's talking about, and he's saying that this administration and guys like you who support its present course and ideas are doing more harm to your own country, and to world peace, than your dogmatism, pride, and sycophantic loyalty permit you to grasp.

You are probably a nice fellow, Asherman. But as an objective judge of your own country and it's past and present actions and motives, you've got all the balance of a Good German.

Aha...cia.gov. ... I'll be incognito for the rest of the weekend, plowing around in Ash's links...

<raising security settings to maximum (as if that would help)>