Japan Shifts Military Posture to Defend Against Chinese Threat

I like it.

At New York Times, "Japan to Shift Its Military Toward Threats From China":

TOKYO — In what would be a sweeping overhaul of its cold war-era defense strategy, Japan is about to release new military guidelines that will reduce its heavy armored and artillery forces pointed northward toward Russia in favor of creating more mobile units that can respond to China’s growing presence near its southernmost islands, Japanese newspapers reported Sunday.

The realignment comes as the United States is making new calls for Japan to increase its military role in eastern Asia in response to recent provocations by North Korea as well as China’s more assertive stance in the region.

The new defense strategy, likely to be released later this week, will call for greater integration of Japan’s armed forces with the United States military, the reports said. The reports did not give a source, but the fact that major newspapers carried the same information suggested they were based on a background briefing by government officials.

The new guidelines also call for acquiring new submarines and fighter jets, the reports said, and creating ground units that can be moved quickly by air in order to defend the southern islands, including disputed islands in the East China Sea that are also claimed by China and Taiwan. These disputed islands are known as the Senkakus in Japanese and the Diaoyu in Chinese.

Details of the realignment, which had been delayed a year by the landmark change of government in September 2009, have been leaking out since large joint military drills earlier this month between Japan and the United States that included the American aircraft carrier George Washington.

More at the link.

This is especially interesting since I've been blogging East Asian security issues. Japan issued some of the most forceful statements on the recent North Korean artillery attacks, for example. And this discussion of Japan's emerging posture reminds us of realists argument on the constraining and shaping forces of international power dynamics. China's growth is clearly triggering some strategic thinking in Tokyo, and the growth of Beijing's power --- combined with the ambiguity surrounding the intentions of the Chinese leadership --- is pushing Japan even tighter into its alliance with United States. I've written more often on regime change North Korea, and not to mention some reflections on China's influence on the peninsula, but I just saw this recent piece from Elizabeth Economy, and it makes Japan's moves look quite natural considering: "The End of the 'Peaceful Rise'?"

China and Korean Reunification

Update to my earlier post, "Prospects for Regime Change in North Korea."

It turns out that the cable dump has some interesting information on Beijing's strategic thinking. See Simon Tisdall, "Wikileaks Cables Reveal China 'Ready to Abandon North Korea'." Check the link. China's ready to deploy troops to the border to prevent a massive influx of North Koreans. Personally, I doubt Beijing would let Pyongyang go so easily, and so is Professor Daniel Drezner (who rarely takes a controversial position while blogging). That said, here's this at LAT, "Beijing Support for Korea Reunification Not So Clear, Despite Leaked Cables":

Is China really willing to dump its old ally, North Korea? Would Beijing support a German-style reunification of the Korean peninsula in which economic powerhouse South Korea absorbed its wretchedly poor communist neighbor?

These may have been the impressions left by a stash of U.S. diplomatic cables relating to North Korea made public this week by WikiLeaks. But analysts who have followed the long entanglement of China and North Korea say that much of the information in the outed memos amounts to little more than dinner party chatter that reflects outdated opinion or wishful thinking.

RTWT.

Turns out that:

The reclusive Kim Jong Il has made two trips to China in 2010, receiving lavish red carpet welcomes, and in October, Chinese Politburo member Zhou Yongkang had a front row seat at a military parade where Kim's son and designated successor made his public debut.

Right.

And next they'll be throwing these guys out on their asses?

At the video, John Bolton's fairly sanguine on all of this — which is amazing for an EVIL NEOCON WARMONGER!!

Prospects for Regime Change in North Korea

At the clip below, with Donald Kirk of the Christian Science Monitor. He speaks toward the end on the extreme dangers of a military overthrow in North Korea, especially a refugee crisis. Interesting how these dangers are raised primarily in the context of outside intervention, and not in the case of an implosion of the dictatorship in Pyongyang. Most problematic is the size of the North Korean forces, with nearly 1,000,000 troops under arms. A military incursion from the south would only be feasible with a combined contingent of American and South Korean units. The U.S. would provide air support off shore through carrier battle groups. Tokyo has indicated its support for military retaliation --- and Japanese military forces were deployed to Iraq in the first outside operations since WWII --- so perhaps the operation could be multilateralized. And then there's China. We can only speculate, but it's unlikely any force options would be available without some kind of support from Beijing. Regime change North Korea would require buy-in from all the major actors, and so far I don't see much realistic discussion of it on the Chinese side. (But see, "Is China About to Throw North Korea Under The Bus?") Certainly China relishes the regional prestige from propping up its NoKo client. But should the Kim dynasty continue its bellicose actions, perhaps leading to the additional loss of life, the situation will be an increasing reminder of the false peace of 1930s Europe. A huge blowout of historic proportions could be expected.

Kirk's got a report from yesterday: "Disillusioned South Korea Weighs Response to North Korean Flare-Up."

And New York Times has another installment on the diplomatic cables: "Leaked Cables Depict a World Guessing About North Korea." And related news at Memeorandum.

Axis of Evil: One Down Two to Go

There are few presidential slogans more reviled that President George W. Bush's "Axis of Evil" from his State of the Union Address on January 29, 2002. Endlessly ridiculed, leftist media outlets argued such rhetoric "heightened dangers" while some claimed the speech came back to "haunt the U.S." in 2006. But President Bush stayed the course, and Iraq now boasts a democratic government that is unique among Arab states of the Middle East. See, "Seven Years Later, Iraq War Bearing Fruit." Unfortunately the Obama administration's precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces leaves a tenuous security balance between the Iraqi government and its long-time nemesis Iran. At the height of the insurgency Shiite power spread like an arc across the Persian Gulf and today Iran presses its claws on political developments in Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, and even the Pakistani hinterlands controlled by the Qaeda-Taliban-Lashkar enterprise. See, "Obama's Lose-Lose Iraq Policy." Now we have not only an emboldened Iran but an increasingly bellicose alliance between Tehran and Pyongyang. And while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denounced the document release as an "attack on the international community," there's a demonstrable clarity to the nature of global threats today following the WikiLeaks disclosures. Even New York Times reporting occasionally concedes the dangers. See, "Iran Fortifies Its Arsenal With the Aid of North Korea."

I have called for regime change in North Korea. We'll hardly see a better time than right now. Japan has pressed the U.S. for a military response and Sen. John McCain argued for lobbying China on toppling Pyongyang. Continued soft-peddling will only bring more conflict on the Korean peninula, and more military and civilian deaths. It's time for American foreign policy to return to the animating vision of the early Bush years. President Bush's Axis of Evil speech identified the threatening storm of rogue regimes in the early post-9/11 period. Toppling Saddam in Iraq was costly, but the world benefits with one less leg of the rogue revisionist triad of terror. It's time to work on making the Axis of Evil two down and one to go.

John McCain Calls for Regime Change in North Korea

I've been out in front on this issue: "Regime Change North Korea." But I'm not pussy-footing around the military option. The story's at Politico and CNN (at Memeorandum):

"I think it's time we talked about regime change in North Korea, and I do not mean military action, but I do believe that this is a very unstable regime" ...

China Calls for North Korea Talks

At WaPo:

SEOUL - South Korea and the United States on Sunday began joint naval exercises that will include live fire and bombing drills as hermetic North Korea deployed missiles close to the Yellow Sea and warned that it will turn the region into "a merciless shower of fire" if its territory is violated.

With tensions high in the region, China on Sunday called for an emergency session in December of the long-suspended six-way talks over North Korea's nuclear program. The call for new talks, announced at an unusual Sunday afternoon foreign ministry briefing in Beijing, came from Wu Dawei, China's top nuclear negotiator.

China has been under intense pressure to rein in its often erratic ally, North Korea, and Beijing this weekend was engaged in an intense round of diplomacy to try to prevent the recent crisis -- the most serious in months -- from escalating into a full-scale conflict. The six party talks include China, Japan, Russia, the two Koreas and the United States.

PREVIOUSLY: "Korean Joint Exercises in Futility."

Korean Joint Exercises in Futility

The government in Seoul is frustrated: "With Limited Options, South Korea Shifts Military Rules." (At Memeorandum.) It's a war footing, frankly. And think about the implications of this passage amid calls for increased diplomatic engagement:

North Korea has already weathered years of economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation. In fact, the tough economic conditions appear only to give the North motivation to continue its brinkmanship, to extract aid as it faces a winter of food and fuel shortages. Some analysts say the North is also using the provocations to burnish the military credentials of Kim Jong-un, the youngest son of the North’s leader, Kim Jong-il, and his heir apparent.

Now reports indicate that North Korea is escalating the tensions. Pyongyand launced a provocative volley of artillery fire following the visit of U.S. Gen. Walter L. Sharp at Yeonpyeong Island. Mainstream outlets suggest the peninsula's on the "brink of war" (at Christian Science Monitor and New York Times, via Memeorandum). Meanwhile, domestic criticism of Seoul's response is growing:

Hundreds of South Korean veterans demonstrated in the border town of Paju today, accusing the government of being too weak.



"The lazy government's policies towards North Korea are too soft," said Kim Byeong-su, the president of the association of ex-marines.



"It needs to take revenge on a bunch of mad dogs. We need to show them South Korea is not to be played with."

I criticized the futility of diplomacy earlier. See, "Regime Change North Korea." As noted, the threat to use force should be backed with international support embodied in a U.N. Security Council resolution. Interestingly, the administration has rebuffed such calls, for example, earlier this week from Japan, "Washington Spurns Tokyo's Demand for Reprisal Against North Korea":

Washington roundly condemned the North Korean Nov. 23 artillery attack on the populated South Koreanislandof Yeonpyeong on the Yellow Sea border, calling on North Korea to halt its belligerent action and abide by the terms of the 1953 armistice agreement. But the Obama administration was clearly not about to meet Japanese pressure for joint military action in support of Seoul or reinforce its fighting forces on the peninsula – even as a deterrent. Two South Korean marines were killed and 17 soldiers and 3 civilians injured as the flames engulfed the targeted island.



A Pentagon spokesman also said it was too early to discuss redeploying US tactical nuclear arms to South Korea, a possibility raised by South Korea's Defense Minister Kim Tae-young Monday when North Korea's parade of its uranium enrichment and light water plants came to light.



The Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan's second demand in his call to President Barak Obama after the North Korean attack was to convene an urgent UN Security Council meeting. That too went unheeded. The session France announced would take place Tuesday night was indefinitely postponed.



The Japanese prime minister maintained to Obama that North Korea must not be allowed to get away with two armed attacks on the South in the space of eight months without a military response. On March 26, North Korean torpedoes sunk the South Korean Cheonan cruiser. At least 46 seamen were lost.

And at the conclusion:

... Obama's lack of response to the Japanese call, despite the presence of 28,000 US troops on the Korean Demilitarized Zone border – even with limited military action - is bound to devalue the defensive umbrella against North Korea the US has pledged South Korea and Japan. U.S. unresponsiveness is already resonating loudly in the Middle East and Persian Gulf which is beginning to take it as betokening feeble resolve in dealing with Iran and its nuclear weapons aspirations.

Of course, the administration thinks appeasement will lessen tensions in those regions, and according to reports out today, the White House is worried about China. See WSJ, "China Protests U.S.-South Korea Exercises." But see Stephen Hayes comments on U.S. deference to Beijing, "The Sixty Years War":

It is up to the White House to break the cycle of futility ....



For years, U.S. policy on North Korea has been outsourced to China. Successive presidents have asked that Beijing use its muscle to control its combative ally. It hasn’t worked, because the Chinese believe that the status quo is preferable to escalation. The Obama administration needs to flip that equation by making the status quo less acceptable. Rather than asking China politely to do our diplomatic spadework, why not use our diplomatic and economic leverage over China to demonstrate that there are consequences for Beijing’s recalcitrance?



In the short term, we can reimpose the tough sanctions that were unwisely lifted by President Bush in the summer of 2008, and immediately return North Korea to the list of state sponsors of terror. The administration could also urge South Korea to end its participation in the Kaesong Industrial Complex—a zone of joint economic cooperation with North Korea in which South Korean companies provide capital and North Korea provides labor. Beyond that, America can aggressively seek to interdict North Korean ships suspected of carrying illicit materials, and increase the number of regular, high-profile joint naval exercises we conduct with South Korea.



No doubt, it will be tempting for President Obama to take the easier path—to pursue meaningless nonproliferation agreements, to offer platitudes about a nuclear-free world, to restart the six-party talks and otherwise seek dialogue about disarmament with regimes committed to nuclear weapons. But as French president Nicolas Sarkozy reminded Obama at the U.N. Security Council last year:

The people of the entire world are listening to what we’re saying, to our promises, our commitments and our speeches. But we live in a real world, not a virtual world. We say: Reductions must be made. And President Obama has even said: ‘I dream of a world without [nuclear weapons].’ Yet before our very eyes, two countries are doing the exact opposite.

And what have the repeated offers for dialogue produced? Sarkozy answered his own question.



“Nothing.”

More at USA Today, "N. Korea: Joint Exercise Pushes Countries to 'Brink of War'." (And Memeorandum.)

Regime Change North Korea

I joked about it the other night, but frankly toppling the Kim dictatorship is the only way to solve the never-ending nightmare of North Korea. And now Max Boot is taking that possibility seriously, "North Korea & Iran: Containment vs. Regime Change." After some background on the limited options vis-à-vis Pyongyang — with discussion of the Cheonan incident, which killed 46 South Korean sailors — Boot notes the obvious solution:

The ultimate solution is plain: regime change. But how to achieve it is another matter. China is North Korea’s major remaining lifeline, but unfortunately it is hard to see how to persuade the Chinese to cut off their client state. They may not like Pyongyang’s powerplays, but they are even less wild about the notion of a unified Korea allied with the United States.

Actually, the way to achieve it is clear: The Obama administration should go to the United Nations requesting a resolution condemning North Korean aggression under international law. The U.S. should invoke Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, declare a breach of international peace and call for a "police action" to preempt further North Korean attacks. This is not idle armchair analysis. South Korea's Foreign Ministry yesterday accused North of violating the 1953 armistice, and Seoul "has decided to sharply bolster its military arsenal in the tense Yellow Sea to counter any possible additional attack from North Korea." And the government has directed the military to revise its rules of engagement. Of course, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao has already warned that Beijing "opposes any threat of force" on the Korean Peninsula, so we know the difficulties ahead. But we shouldn't blink. Given the Obama administration's soft-peddling responses to global threats so far, the U.S. needs to move beyond the current pleasure cruise gunboat diplomacy now under way off the Korean peninsula. The Washington Post reports on U.S. goals in the naval deployment, "U.S. Aircraft Carrier's Arrival Off Korean Peninsula Also Sends a Message to China":

In dispatching the aircraft carrier USS George Washington to the Korean Peninsula on Wednesday, the Obama administration said it was putting on a show of U.S. support for South Korea.

South Korea was attacked Tuesday by a deadly North Korean artillery barrage, days after the North revealed what could be a new nuclear weapons program, and President Obama said he wanted to stand "shoulder to shoulder" with an American ally.

But the carrier - with 6,000 sailors and aviators and 75 warplanes - has another audience: China. Exasperated with a lack of help from Beijing on the Korean Peninsula, the Obama administration is trying to pressure China to constrain North Korea.

That should be just a start. Developing news earlier today indicated that South Koreans were badly shaken by reports of civilian casualties in the Yeonpyeong attacks. And things won't get better with more patty-cake diplomacy and meaningless démarches from the Hillary Clinton State Department. B.R. Myers' essay at NYT is suggestive: "North Korea Will Never Play Nice." But to be even more explicit: Topple the regime in Pyongyang or be prepared for the next generation of deadly hostilities as Kim Jong-il prepares to cede the stage to his successor.

U.S. Weighs Options After North Korean Attack

Interesting piece at Business Insider, "North Korea May Be Too Dangerous to Attack."

And at WaPo, "North Korean Attack on South Korean Island Leaves U.S. With Few Good Options," and NYT, "Korean Clash Forces the U.S. to Weigh Options."

Korean Peninsula on Brink of War

A big write-up at WaPo, "After attack, Koreas on brink of conflagration."

North Korea launched a massive artillery barrage on a South Korean island Tuesday, killing two South Korean marines, wounding at least 19 other people and setting more than 60 buildings ablaze in the most serious confrontation since the North's sinking of a South Korean warship in March.

South Korea immediately responded with its own artillery fire and put its fighter jets on high alert, bringing the two sides - which technically have remained in a state of war since the Korean armistice in 1953 - close to the brink of a major conflagration.

RTWT.

Saberpoint has a nice summary: "North Korea Fires on South Korea." Plus, from Instapundit, "JUST WHAT THE WORLD NEEDS NOW" (via Memeorandum). Actually, I'd like regime change, but who's to quibble? And interesting comments from John Hawkins, "Are North Korea And South Korea Going To War? Probably Not."

And at Wall Street Journal, "Japan on High Alert Following North Korea's Attack."

North Launches Deadly Artillery Attack on South Korea

At NYT, "North and South Korea Exchange Fire, Killing Two." (At Memeorandum.)

And from Yonhap News, "Foreign Ministry Accuses N. Korea of Violating Armistice":

South Korea's foreign ministry on Tuesday called North Korea's artillery attack a "clear provocation" that violates multiple agreements between the two nations and instructed all of its overseas missions to be on emergency alert.

Ministry spokesman Kim Young-sun said Tuesday's attack violates the inter-Korean armistice, the United Nations Charter and other agreements that call for non-aggression between the two sides.

Also, at WSJ, "North Korea Aggression Sets Major Test for President Obama":

When America wakes up this morning the world will look to Washington and weigh President Obama’s words. For all China’s growing power, and its status as North Korea’s principal supporter, in an international crisis the U.S. president is still in the hot seat. The situation demands a clear-throated response and a robust commitment to support South Korea that the North Korean government and the Chinese hear properly. The alternative, a load of waffling, won’t be taken seriously by the aggressor.

Well, I'm not holding my breath.

More at London's Telegraph, "North Korea shells South Korean island: Q&A." Plus, at LAT, "South Koreans wonder about North's motives," and "North Korea's mind games at the negotiating table."

Thai Authorities Seize Massive North Korean Arms Cache!

Thirty-five tons of North Korean weapons have been seized by Thai officials. At Fox News, "North Korean Weapons Seizure Could Affect Nuke Talks":

The seizure in Thailand of some 35 tons of war weaponry from North Korea and the arrest of five foreigners charged with illegal possession of arms may prove a blow to efforts by the United States to negotiate a halt to Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions, observers said.

Thai authorities, reportedly acting on a tip from their American counterparts, impounded an Ilyushin 76 transport plane, carrying explosives, rocket-propelled grenades and components for surface-to-air missiles, during a refueling stop at Bangkok's Don Muang airport Saturday. Four men from Kazakhstan and one from Belarus were detained.

Also, at the Wall Street Journal, "Officials Probe North Korea Arms Flight: Plane Loaded With Weapons, Detained in Bangkok Under New U.N. Rules, Expected to Reveal Details on Pyongyang Dealing":

Thai authorities will spend the next several days sifting through a massive cache of explosives, missiles and other weapons seized from a plane from North Korea in a case that could offer new details about the secretive country's involvement in the international illicit-weapons trade.

Thai officials detained the plane and its five crew members late Friday after they landed at Bangkok's Don Muang Airport for refueling. Although the final destination of the plane remained unclear, a Thai government spokesman said it was scheduled to land next in Sri Lanka for further refueling and was possibly headed to another location after that.

The detention of the plane and cargo is among the first executions of new rules created by the United Nations Security Council in June to try to halt Pyongyang's ability to sell and transport arms. The rules were developed after North Korea tested a nuclear explosive in late May in defiance of previous U.N. sanctions.

Since then, international authorities have tracked at least two vessels, including a ship detained in the United Arab Emirates carrying North Korean arms and explosive powder that was headed to nearby Iran. But the size of the latest haul -- more than 30 tons -- could provide a broader range of information about the variety and quality of weapons North Korea is capable of producing.

More at the link.

See also, "North Korea, Which Was Removed from the List of State Sponsors of Terrorism Last Year ..."

Nuclear Testing Will Ensure the Credibility of Our Deterrent

I've been preparing a brief talk on arms control and nuclear proliferation for my afternoon lecture in world politics. Senator Jon Kyl's piece at today's Wall Street Journal is thus perfectly timed. See, "Why We Need to Test Nuclear Weapons":

President Barack Obama made history last month when he presided over the nuclear nonproliferation summit at the United Nations Security Council. Since nuclear proliferation is among the most pressing threats facing the world, one would have thought that the president would use the Sept. 24 summit to condemn the newly discovered uranium enrichment facility in Qom, Iran.

He did not. Instead he asked the Security Council to pass a nonbinding resolution stressing the urgency of global disarmament and arms-control treaties among the five permanent Security Council members. The resolution never mentioned Iran or North Korea.

Mr. Obama also said, on behalf of the U.S., that "We will move forward with the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty" (CTBT). This is a profound mistake, as a ban on testing nuclear weapons would jeopardize American national security. Ten years ago this month the U.S. Senate rejected the treaty, and the reasons for doing so are even stronger today.

The CTBT then, as now, does not define what it purports to ban, which is nuclear-weapons testing. This ambiguity leaves countries free to interpret the treaty (and act) as they see fit. Thus, if the U.S. ratified the treaty, it would be held to a different standard than other nations.

Another concern in 1999 was that clandestine nuclear tests could not be verified. That, too, is still the case. While the treaty has not entered into force, the world still uses the treaty's monitoring system (the CTBT Organizations International Monitoring System) to detect nuclear-weapons tests. But even when Pyongyang declared that it would conduct a nuclear-weapons test and announced where and when it would occur, this monitoring system failed to collect necessary radioactive gases and particulates to prove that a test had occurred.

The CTBT relies on 30 of 51 nations on its executive council—most of whom are not friendly to the U.S.—to agree that an illegal test has been conducted, and then to agree to inspect the facilities of the offending country (which can still be declared off-limits by that country). This enforcement mechanism is obviously unworkable.

But there's another defect in the CTBT. There were concerns a decade ago that the U.S. might be unable to safely and reliably maintain its own nuclear deterrent—and the nuclear umbrella that protects our allies such as Japan, Australia and South Korea —if it forever surrendered the right to test its weapons. Those concerns over aging and reliability have only grown. Last year, Paul Robinson, chairman emeritus of Sandia National Laboratory, testified before Congress that the reliability of U.S. nuclear weapons still cannot be guaranteed without testing them, despite more than a decade of investments in technological advancements.

Treaty proponents, nevertheless, believe the prospective benefit of ratification outweigh its risks and problems. And what, exactly, is the benefit of ratification?

More at the link.

A perfectly argued commentary (which, of course, won't get much traction with the arms control freaks ready to sell off American security to some amorphous multilateral "peace" consensus among academics and America's enemies.)

Shocker! Obama Pentagon to Bury Bush Doctrine

If there's one thing leftists hate more than anything else about the foreign policy of George W. Bush, it was the administration's bold willingness to use force in defense of American interests.

So as the Pentagon prepares for its Quadrennial Defense Review, leftists are getting a chance to demonize the previous administration once more (see, "Bush Preemptive Strike Doctrine Under Review, May Be Discarded"). While it's almost comical that this strategic assessment is being framed as a way to revise U.S. doctrine on preemptive war (since President Obama is the personification of exactly the opposite), you've got to love how Daily Kos represents the Bush administration's foreign policy:

Preemption, that is, initiating a first strike against another nation that appears to be preparing an imminent attack or is already in the process of launching one is not particularly controversial. It's self-defense. And every nation has the right to it. Supporters of preventive war, on the other hand, argue for strategically attacking nations which may, someday, pose a military threat. Preventive war cannot, therefore, be distinguished from a war of aggression, a violation of the most fundamental international law ....

It's this kind of thinking which says it's not only OK but downright prudent to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities to prevent that country from ever building its own nuclear weapons. Moral issues aside, from a strictly utilitarian point of view, such thinking is no different from saying that torturing an enemy soldier is OK: It lets that enemy or a future enemy justify the torture of one's own soldiers. If it's all right for the U.S. to strike preventively at Iran, why isn't it all right for the same to be done by Iran - which during the Cheney-Bush administration had good reason to believe it was under threat of attack?

Despite all the theoretical justifications of preventive war, the neoconservative Cheney-Bush administration made every effort to present the Iraq war as pre-emptive. That was what all those exaggerations and fabrications were about in the run-up to March 2003. Just days before the Bush Doctrine itself was made public, Bush at the United Nations told the lie that the Iraq "regime is a grave and gathering danger."

Ending the Bush Doctrine and the associated policy spin-offs, would not, of course, mean an end to all the perniciousness of American exceptionalism. But it would be a major step in the right direction. Although it would elicit an extended round of shrieks against Obama from the crowd which claims no war America fights can be called aggression, taking that step would improve our national security instead of weakening it as the Bush Doctrine has done.

Of course, President Bush didn't lie. Virtually all of the major European defense ministries claimed similar intelligence on Iraqi WMD. There was a consensus on the reality of threat, just not what to do about -- especially among countries like France and Russia who were loathe to forfeit their massive oil concessions in Saddam's Iraq should the U.S. fight to uphold the 17 United Nations resolutions the Baghdad regime had long abrogated.

In any case, checking that link at Daily Kos leads to President Bush's speech to the World Body on September 12, 2002: "President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly." This passage is especially noteworthy:

The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

We can harbor no illusions -- and that's important today to remember. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. He's fired ballistic missiles at Iran and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians, and 40 Iraqi villages.

My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.

Also, see Arthur Borden, "Iraq War's Valid Origins":

President Bush has often invoked the memory of Sept. 11, 2001, to justify the war in Iraq. This is understandable, but the war is widely misunderstood as a result. The conflict was based not solely on the terrorist attacks of 2001 but also on decades of bipartisan consensus on foreign policy.

As President Jimmy Carter phrased it in 1980, "An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force." Since that time, every U.S. president has been prepared to protect American interests in the Middle East. Recognizing the risks of Saddam Hussein, President Bill Clinton considered attacking Iraq doubtless for the same reasons as George W. Bush - concluding however that such a war would lack popular support.

The long-term challenge of the Iraqi dictator was his desire to control the vast resources of the Persian Gulf. He rightly saw that the acquisition of a nuclear capability would give him a free hand throughout the region, and a dominant role in the global economy.

This discussion shows that -- from President Bush's own words, to those of military experts on the origins of war in 2003 -- U.S. policy was not only predicated on larger strategic rationales of both human rights and deterrence, but that the administration was indeed working from a longstanding tradition in American foreign policy as well.

But what's especially bothersome is the Daily Kos passage above suggesting "the perniciousness of American exceptionalism." This concept is fundamentally at issue in leftist foreign policy in Washington, and it's the current administration's abandonment of America's foundational uniqueness that is placing Americans and citizens of the world at greater risk than in other other time in decades.

As I've said many times before, it won't be too soon when American voters reject Barack Neville Hussein and his Democratic (Socialist) Party at the ballot box. In the meanwhile, conservatives can gather strength in the increasing indicators showing that the current administration's days are indeed numbered.

Added: See also Common Sense Political Thought, "The Difference Between Theory and Practice."

Krauthammer on North Korea's Release of U.S. Journalists: 'It Was a Hostage Ransom. No Question at All'

The video and transcript aren't up yet for last's night Fox News Special Report. For now, check Fox's story, "Pardoned U.S. Journalists Return Home From North Korea, Reunite With Families."

Charles Krauthammer's comments are below the related videos:

And Krauthammer comments are posted at National Review (via Memeorandum):

Well, it's the return of hostages in exchange for stuff. And we will learn about that stuff. It's clear that this was wired in advance.

There probably was an apology [offered by President Clinton in Pyongyang]. After all, the secretary of state, the president's wife, had said openly, as we saw earlier, that we were sorry about the incident, and we were asking for amnesty, which was implying the legitimacy of the arrest and the trial. So we have already issued an apology.

Secondly, it is obvious that he was an envoy of the Obama administration, despite our denials. This is the one time in history in which the official news station of the North Koreans told the truth, but it does happen once every 50 years.

But thirdly, there was obviously a quid pro quo. The first of it we saw because we had Kim Jong-Il, who has had a stroke- - he's been wobbly and unsteady, and you can understand in a dictatorship like his how that begins the rumors of succession — so by standing up in the photos that we just saw, obviously engaged with Clinton, he looks like he is back in charge. That helps him personally.

Secondly, by getting a very high level envoy — you can't get higher level than a former president of the United States — it does help the North Koreans in their legitimacy.

And it's a demonstration of direct negotiations with the United States, which is what Pyongyang has always demanded. So...it got a lot.

And it probably has gotten stuff that we haven't even heard about and we may never hear about — aid in food and oil. All of that stuff will happen quietly in the future.

But it was a hostage ransom. No question at all.

I think so, and I don't think the U.S. had much choice on this one. North Korea took advantage where they could, mercilessly, and once again prolonged the regime's legitimacy and its quest for nuclear status.

Barack Obama and North Korea's March to War

From Pamela Geller's new piece at the American Thinker, "North Korea's March to War"

North Korea has been busy, busy, busy since the election of our weak President. This week, they have sharply increased their war rhetoric. On Wednesday they issued this threat: "If the U.S. imperialists start another war, the army and people of Korea will ... wipe out the aggressors on the globe once and for all." And on Thursday they promised a "fire shower of nuclear retaliation" if the U.S. attacked them. The media is pretending that it isn't happening, whistling in the dark, but how can anyone avoid noticing that since Obama's failed policies have been introduced, the evil forces of the world have been unleashed?

The full essay is here.

Added: Hot Air, "US won’t use force to inspect NoKo ship." And Memeorandum.

Matthew Yglesias: George W. Bush's Guantánamo Archipelago

Isn't this despicable?

Matthew Yglesias has used the North Korean prison sentences of Laura Ling and Euna Lee to make a political attack on the policies of the George W. Bush administration. Yglesias' post is "Hard Labor in North Korea." After a long discussion of forced labor in totalitarian societies, Yglesias concludes with this:

As in the Soviet Union during the high tide of the Gulag, it appears that the forced labor camps are important to the regime not just as a mechanism of repression ....

Needless to say, it’s easy to recognize this sort of barbarism as the torture that it is when you read about it being done by North Korea (it appears that the Bush administration and the DPRK were both modeling themselves on the Chinese Communist tactics from the Korean War). And it is being done, and on a massive scale. Meanwhile, a related angle to this is that many of the people in the prison camps are people who actually escaped from North Korea and then wound up getting apprehended in China and deported back. In terms of practical things that could be done to help the population of North Korea, getting the Chinese to stop doing this.

I don't have much to add.

If radical leftists today really think the Bush administration's detention policies - which were the product of a national, bipartisan, and democratic consensus on the clear and present dangers following 9/11 - are coequal to the policies of not only Kim Jong Il, but to Joseph Stalin's Gulag Archipeligo, than we really have reached the Rubicon of partisan polarization in American politics today.

Words. Utterly. Fail.

Matthew Yglesias is just a sick, awful man.

My thoughts and prayers go out the families of Laura Ling and Euna Lee. And I'm praying for their safe return home.

There's more commentary at Memeorandum. Senator Jim DeMint's statement on North Korean terrorism, at Red State, is also worth a look.

**********

Added: It's not just Yglesias. Check out Spencer Ackerman as well, "What Laura Ling And Euna Lee Will Endure."

Bolton: "Iran and North Korea Trade Information on Ballistic Missiles"

Via Atlas Shrugs, check out Grata Van Susterin's interview with Ambassador John Bolton on North Korean nukes: "We Need to Apply More Pressure to North Korea's Regime":

This section's key:

VAN SUSTEREN: How do we know they have enough money? If they get $10, it does not go to feeding their people. It goes to their weapons program. But if their weapons program ends up costing $30, $40, or $50, they still do not have enough money for their weapons program.

Is it possible that they will be strangled economically so they can't even build their weapons program?

BOLTON: Well, there is some reason to believe that there may be an Iranian financial connection here, as well. Certainly Iran and North Korea trade information on ballistic missiles. We know that. That is been going on for over 10 years.

They may be trading information on the nuclear programs too. It has not gone unnoticed that North Korea was building a nuclear reactor in Syria, very unlikely that Syria could pay for that.

So the Iranian connection is quite significant. And it's a major reason why I do not think you can look at North Korea's nuclear program only as an east Asia problem. It is a Middle East problem, too.

See also, Fausta, "North Korea Threatens Strike" (with a Charles Krauthammer video, "We Need a Nuclear Japan").

Related: New York Post, "North Korean Nuke: O's Kick in the Teeth," via Memeorandum.