This is purely personal opinion and mostly to see what sort of response might be forthcoming from RBers. I'm no expert on Korea. Just a guy who's read a bunch of stuff. Here's what I've taken away from that spotty self-education. I'm sure there are all sorts of solid objections out there, but this is how it appears to me today.
Seoul.
Seoul translates to "capitol". Due to its proximity to the border, Seoul has been vulnerable to NKor artillery attack since the ceasefire of July, 1953. There is some off and on political will (proponents: Park, 1978; Roh, 2002) to relocate "Seoul" to the Chungchong region (in the center of SKor) by 2014. Looks like that's going to be too late, IMO and it's far easier said than done. Greater Seoul is actually 13 adjoining cities, IIRC, represents 12% of SKor territory, approx 25% of the population, and approx 50% of the economic output. It is now vulnerable to SCUDs, (Nodongs, Rodongs, DingDongs) as well as artillery.
When NKor could only threaten SKor, Seoul in particular, it made strategic sense to have US troops there to deter attack and to make it clear Seoul, though extremely vulnerable, would be the tripwire and would be defended at all costs. It was an effective deterrent. SKor was satisfied with this arrangement since they almost universally harbor a deep desire for reunification and were willing to live with the situation and walk the tightrope of Seoul's vulnerability in hopes of finding a route leading to that end.
53 years of stalemate have passed without reunification. Nothing has actually changed except NorK has acquired far more dangerous weapons than artillery and SCUDs.
The equation has also become regional, since NKor can now threaten Japan - and soon the US. Japan is enough, however, to change the military picture and the US has been reassessing the situation since learning of NKor advances in nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Adding in the political changes in SKor further alters the logical US view and position regards defending Seoul with US forces. Seoul is no longer the only "asset" under threat and the present tripwire is an obsolete response.
Before NKor can effectively deliver on the threat beyond Seoul, it must be neutralized. Utterly and completely. Permanently.
Will NKor attack Seoul if attacked? Almost certainly. The decades of stalemate have yielded no reasonable chance of a reunification other than capitulation by SKor. The SKor gambit has failed. Even if SKor were to suddenly begin serious efforts to reunify, it would not change the threat situation as no one could reasonably believe that NorK would disarm and Japan would still be vulnerable. On the contrary, that is most likely what Kim Jong Il prays for: SKor capitulation saving his regime and fanatical cult military and boosting his technological and industrial capabilities 100-fold.
Should we wait for him to perfect missiles that can reliably hit Japan and the US with nuclear payloads? That is his clear intention. He has the nuclear warheads, we're told. We can see he's working on the delivery systems. He'll eventually create a working package that will truly threaten the existence of Japan and the Western half of the US. There is nothing to stop him, except either being militarily destroyed or sealed off via some impervious layered ABM systems. The problem is that an ABM system would not be a solution, since none are perfect and we are talking about nuclear weapons. It would merely be more stalemate, more stop-gap. Another decade, perhaps much less, of makeshift defense from an insane regime which would be busily working to overcome the ABM systems. And what if there was a sudden reunification, voluntary or not? That would likely accelerate events dramatically. Trusting the SKor population not to do the stupidest thing imaginable is not something I care to do.
The threat grows every day. Japan is already under the gun. Trying to perfect systems which will be able to shoot down NorK missiles is not a permanent answer. Kim Jong Il will not disarm or cease attempting to become a global nuclear power. We have but one alternative that can be termed a real solution.
Time's up. Game over. Obliterate everything in NorK. Seoul is forfeit. Always has been.
My $0.02.
P.S. Another amateur opinion: Start selling any stock in SKor companies whose manufacturing facilities and equipment yards are within 200-250 miles of the DMZ. I'm not talking about HQ offices - I mean the real stuff, the equipment, the rolling stock, the plants. Perhaps, if you're a real smart gambler, start buying stock in construction (road, and rail, for example) companies whose equipment and manufaturing facilities are beyond 200-250 miles from the DMZ. They'll have to rebuild.
#1
Will NKor attack Seoul if attacked? Almost certainly.
They could shoot salvos of missiles for generations into Seoul. When I was stationed at Camp Casey, between Seoul and the border, I always suspected that wed be sacrificed because the politicos wouldnt allow us to deploy in order not to provoke the Nkors when things started getting hot. . So, wed know they were coming when the first round of firing came crashing into our position. Theyve had decades to get the exact position of every building on the compounds. When I was there the whole compound conducted an exit exercise. Using the >two< gates, it took over 24 hours to move all the personnel and equipment out. Casey was nicely tucked into a topographical cul-de-sac.
The problem for the Nkors is that theyd largely be limited to rocket and artillery. When Skor had very little in the way of a trained Army, it took the commies days to get into Seoul . Today, not only do the Skors have a real army as things are ajudged these days, but Seoul itself is one major metro complex. The topography leading into Seoul channelizes the routes and the terrain offers great opportunity to establish hard defensive positions. Unless you have the training and technology the Americans have, city fighting is going to be a bitch and because you quickly end up compartmentalizing the battlefield, the fight can only be pushed by local initiative, something a mother may I command system can not effectively apply. Yes, you can push bodies into the fight, but it is just a meat grinder like WWI. That approach is further undermined by the American/western concept of deep battle which would be attacking and attriting the follow on reserves in those geographical lanes to the city. Battle doesnt continue if you have nothing to throw in.
How many and what yield are the Nkor's nukes [note well, they haven't been 'proofed' yet]? And Seoul like Nagasaki has some topography issues which will mitigate some effects. One or two can do some serious damage, but anymore than the Kobe earthquake did to that city? Some of this may just be the Hollywood scare effect.
#2
Quarantine Nkor and its economy collapses and its exports of weapons end. No need for violence beyond boarding parties. If the Norks want to start the artillery barrage because of that, Sorks should do something now.
#3
Let me add something to the discussion, which may or may not be worth the bandwidth.
I think SKor wants the status quo to continue indefinitely. Sure, they don't want Seoul getting shelled, nor do they want to be ruled by Kim Jong-Il; nobody in their right mind wants either of those things to occur.
But . . . they also don't want Kim to go down, because then they (at least think they) get saddled with the rebuilding costs for NKor. They look north and see a giant vacuum cleaner ready to suck the life out of their economy. Therefore, cold-hearted as it may seem--those are fellow Koreans starving up there, after all--the inertia is all on the side of, well, inertia.
That worked just fine for 53 years, when SKor's self-interest was most at stake, but once Kimmie attains the capability to hit Tokyo and Harbin and Seattle, there are other calculations of self interest by other countries that come into play. I doubt the Japanese can be persuaded to risk Osaka to protect Seoul, and China (at least) is cold-blooded enough to trade away collateral damage to Seoul to eliminate a threat to Mukden.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/12/2006 10:25 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Quarantine Nkor and its economy collapses and its exports of weapons end.
Credibly announce that any attacks by N. Korea or by others with arms from or built with the assistance of N. Korea will earn a military response against China and you do the same.
#5
I doubt the Chinese would stop running the trains based on that threat. They'd know it was hollow when they heard Hagel/McCain/Lugar condemn it on the Sunday morning shows and threaten the president with impeachment.
#8
If we have a way to take out Kimmie and the leadership, we should do it now. China is not about to lose us as a trading partner and after Kimmie there is no power left and whomever took over would not have the cult appeal and little following.
#9
In the inscrutable game, China must understand that if Nkor collapses and leaves the field to Skor, the Americans will leave the peninsula. So, why doesnt China want the Americans to leave? They must understand by now that the policy is only making the Japanese-American alliance tighter not weaker. Keeping the Americans around only means more obstruction concerning Taiwan. So why are they doing these things to keep the Americans around? Something is going on here that is not apparent, because their actions mean they want the Americans around.
Sixty-one years after the end of World War II, Japan is on the verge of becoming a mature, responsible democracy.
Once Japan's troops raped and murdered their way across China, enslaved women as prostitutes for their soldiers, and starved, beat and worked Allied POWs to death. Taken with Germany's blitzkrieg and Holocaust, it stands as history's most naked, unbridled and unprovoked case of aggression.
At war's end the Japanese, finally brought to submission by two atomic bombs, got religion. It was a rebirth, one of the most remarkable transformations of history, as the chastened Japanese and Germans foreswore the projection of military might. Their once war-obsessed people became some of the noisiest advocates of peace in the world, presuming even to lecture the United States on the subject, ignoring the glaring irony that the United States had been compelled to level their cities to end their warmongering and then took on the costly burden of defending them from the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China.
Japan was content to allow the United States to handle its defense for six decades, while Japan prospered and assumed the appearance of a leading nation in the world. Japan was in fact a nation-sized factory and merchandizing operation. With the exception of some aid programs, Japan's primary contribution to world stability has been to act as a convenient naval port and airfield for American forces off the coasts of North Korea and China.
That has been shifting slightly. There has been talk for the last couple of decades of Japan assuming more responsibility for its own defense and Japan has shown increasing interest in the plight of poorer natins. Then, to howls of domestic protest, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi took the audacious step in 2003 of dispatching military engineers -- strictly non-combatant and defended in no subtle irony by Australian troops -- to give the people of Iraq clean water.
But North Korean despot Kim Jong Il has at longlast provided the impetus for what could be a sea change in modern Japan's role in the world. In 1998, North Korea fired a missile through Japanese airspace. Last week, the Taepodong II -- purportedly an intercontinental ballistic missile -- was test-fired and crashed into the Sea of Japan, along with half a dozen Scuds. These incidents followed several decades of the unimagineable national insult and injury of North Korean agents abducting Japanese youths from Japanese beaches, to be used in spy programs against Japan.
The July 4th launches were seen as a message to the United States, another effort to boost Kim Jong Il's international prestige and angle for attention and aid. But the chances that North Korea will credibly threaten the United States in the foreseeable future are remote. Japan is demonstrably already in range, and Japan's government is in no mood to play games with Kim.
Japanese officials said Monday they believe negotiations may not be the answer to the Korean problem. Dawn over Tokyo.
"If we accept that there is no other option to prevent an attack ... there is the view that attacking the launch base of the guided missiles is within the constitutional right of self-defense. We need to deepen discussion," Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe said.
"It's irresponsible to do nothing when we know North Korea could riddle us with missiles," said Tsutomu Takebe, secretary general of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party. To legally allow such an attack, he said, "We should consider measures, including legal changes."
Japan's military currently remains on a defensive footing, and would at best be strained by the execution of such a plan. A Japanese ramp-up to offensive capability probably could be achieved in relatively short order, once legal issues are resolved. Japan may then also have to tackle the issue of whether to go nuclear, as an added defensive measure in a bad neighborhood that includes two aggressive nuclear players -- China and North Korea. These are not only reasonable steps for a mature democracy to consider in that kind of environment, they are vital to stabilizing a region where the United States has not only had to provide security but is regularly blamed for creating tensions it is there to defend against.
As Japan mulls its right to projecting military power in its own self-defense, expect an uproar from homegrown peace advocates who believe that pacifism is the highest international virtue, and fail to recognize that mature, responsible democracies must be prepared to act aggressively in defense of themselves and others.
Jules Crittenden is a Boston Herald city editor and columnist for bostonherald.com. Crittenden has covered foreign policy, military affairs and social issues in India, Pakistan, Israel, Kosovo, Armenia, Iraq and Kuwait.
4th of july piece, missed it at the time. HT the fine folks at No Pasaran!
From the desk of Paul Belien
When the Emperor Romulus Augustulus was deposed in 476 the Roman Empire ceased to exist. The dark ages descended upon Europe. Christian civilisation in the West collapsed. The second christening began about one hundred years later from an area that had itself been christened by Roman missionaries but had geographically never been part of the Empire because it was situated across the sea, even more to the west than the Western outskirts of the Empire had been. From here the Saints Columba and Aidan and other holy men travelled east to bring the ancient heritage back to the lands where they had originally come from.
History never repeats itself, and yet similarities are often so striking that in a way there is nothing new under the sun. In the 17th and 18th centuries North America was colonised by freedom loving people who brought the political institutions and traditions from Europe to a new continent across the sea. Many of them had left Europe because they wanted the freedom to live according to their own conscience instead of the conscience of the centralist absolutist rulers of the new age that was sweeping across Europe from the 16th century onwards. Their traditions were rooted in the decentralised traditions of the late Middle Ages and the Aristotelian philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas. Europes Middle Ages had been characterised by an absence of central power, while man was bound to multiple legal systems: the legal order of his city, that of the land, that of his guild, that of the church. There was not one monopolistic ruler, as in China or in the Muslim world, but many, which guaranteed greater freedom for the individual. The philosophy of Aquinas, moreover, was centered on the individual. God had called man to be free from sin, but in order to be free from sin he had to be virtuous, and in order for virtue to have any value it had to be voluntary, implying that the virtuous man had to be free in every aspect of his life including, as Aquinas followers later pointed out, his economic activities.
Hence the paradox came about that the civil society developing in the new continent was in a sense older than the new Modern Age of the absolutist monarchs governing Europe. When the Americans rebelled in 1776 they rebelled against absolutism in order to keep their old freedoms. Theirs was a conservative revolution. Europe had its own series of revolutions from 1789 onwards, but these were revolutions of a different sort. They toppled the ruling absolutists to replace them by absolutists of an even extremer form: totalitarians. These were not satisfied with controlling their subjects political and economic lives but also wished to control their minds and souls, i.e. to become their god.
The different historical evolution of Americans and Europeans has greatly influenced them. American society is a society whose culture and view of mankind resembles that of the old mediaeval Europe from which it organically evolved. It puts man before the state because it accepts that man should come to God as a free being. Europe, having lived through the perversions of the Modern Age, has absorbed much of the absolutist and totalitarian spirit. Though the state was rendered democratic in the second half of the 20th century an event, moreover, that would not have been possible without American assistance it has in fact developed into a totalitarian democracy. Europeans still tend to put the state before man, still see the government as a god (a benefactor who feeds and supports his people), while the real God He who wants people to come to Him freely because otherwise their choice for Him is no choice at all has almost totally disappeared from present-day European society.
Americans have never lost the vital understanding that freedom has to be indivisible in order that man may lead a virtuous life. Democracy and freedom of expression represent only the political and moral-cultural fields of life. There is a third important field of social life: economics. In this field the Americans have adopted a system that allows citizens the greatest possible economic freedom and severely restricts the power of the government. It is called capitalism, which to most Americans is something positive, while to most Europeans it appears deeply repulsive.
The strength of America's political system lies in the fact that ordinary Americans have never underestimated the supra-economic function of their economic liberty. One way or another, consciously or unconsciously, ordinary Americans have always felt economic liberty to be an indispensable guarantee of their democracy and freedom. Most ordinary West Europeans do not. In welfare state Europe, capitalism is a dirty word, as despicable as communism. Its euphemistic equivalent is free-market liberalism. But many West Europeans aren't even in favour of that. Economic freedom in Western Europe is severely restricted by a multitude of regulations and laws. Although these are designed to protect the citizen against risks, they discourage him from taking risks altogether and thwart his prosperity.
Hence Western Europe's economy stagnates while Americas keeps growing. This causes jealousy, which reinforces the political frustration Western Europe already has towards its Atlantic partner. Many Europeans compensate for their frustration by feeling culturally and morally superior to the Americans, whom they regard as backward. Though the Americans live in the so-called new continent, they represent the old, pre-modern Europe: They believe in God, they refuse to realise that the state can be a benevolent institution and subsequently distrust it. Large parts of the West European population consider Americans to be naive, simple, unsophisticated, even dumb a nation without any real culture or significant history. Such views are held not only by ordinary West Europeans (who get their political education in state run schools and from state run and/or state controlled media), but also by many intellectuals who ought to know better.
Europe, however, is being overrun by barbarians. Its populations are dwindling, its welfare systems are collapsing and its old religion, Christianity, which the Europeans had cast aside, is being replaced by another one: Islam. If Europe is to be saved it must return to its old heritage which has survived in the land across the Ocean. We need to bring Americas values to Europe. These values are our own lost heritage. To survive as Europeans we have to become Americans. It is time to save ourselves by establishing a Society for American Values in Europe.
#1
As good a summary of the why and how of Euroland's impending extinction as I've seen.
Two threads came out of the Enlightenment period - the American Revolution one and the French Revolution one. The former has had numerous faults over the years - slavery, Jim Crow, non-universal suffrage, mistreatment of native people - but slowly over time we're working it out, and we find ourselves today in a strong and improving situation. We don't pretend to be perfect, but we're aiming to get better. True tolerance of religion and trust in entrepreneurship are the hallmark of this thread of the West.
The latter has spawned the Terror, Bonapartism, communism, fascism, and the current extinction-bound version of socialism/welfare state capitalism that dominates in Europe and in much of the current Democratic party in the United States. This thread is headed AND populated by folks who think of themselves as godlike and perfect. Contempt for and even bigotry towards devout Christianity/Judaism and deep mistrust of entrepreneurship are pretty much required to be a member.
Most of the violent death and oppression of the twentieth century - worldwide - can firmly be laid at the feet of the French Revolution thread, and now they are in the process of demographic self immolation.
The problem is technology. In an age of nuclear weapons, decaying civilizations like Europe are a deadly wild card. America has its work cut out for it if we are to guide Europe through these dangerous times without conflagration. Colonization of the continent may some day become necessary.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
07/12/2006 6:47 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The former (the American Revolution) has had numerous faults over the years - slavery, Jim Crow, non-universal suffrage, mistreatment of native people
First thing the French revolution did was to have non-universal suffrage on the basis that the people was not learned enough. Second thing: Was to close the free schools who had florished during the XVIIIth century (the revolutionaries considered that instruction was bad for the people)... Also most of the revolutionaries and of the French enligtenment philosophers were for slavery and slavery was abolished only because the weakening of the once fearful French Navy had made impossible to defend French colonies. Let's also remind that French ships were prominent in the smuggling of negro slaves during XIXth century, that their captains didn't have qualms about throwing negros over the board when pursued by British ships enforcing the slave trade prohibition and that French public opinion supported the murderous captains.
Also Napoleon (ie the heir of Revolution) created the "livret Ouvrier", a booklet that industrial workers had to present to employers and police when they moved or changed compeny and where employers and police wrote comments on their behaviour.
#4
I have often felt that the French Revolution was a travesty and a disaster for the world. I believe that the French Revolution is the point of origin for the disaster that is the world today.
Yes, I suppose we will have to save Europe eventually but, as is with my errant brother-in-law, I really don't want to. The only reason I can see for doing so is that it is in my own self interest.
Posted by: kelly ||
07/12/2006 12:03 Comments ||
Top||
#5
One thing he didn't mention, but which I feel is necessary to re-establish in today's world is that each human has been given a free will.
That means each of us makes his own choices in life. Not Allan, not Mohammed, each by himself can choose to act, or not to act; to kill or not to kill; to pray or not to pray; to laugh or not to laugh. Every human, eveny man, woman, and child posesses free will.
yoo hayte jews? fite me asshaolez! im not even jewish. ima mexican, but my kidz are half jewish. kep talkerin thes krap, and ima gonna shuve yore ballz up your unkles ass before shovin em down yore fatherz throat. kapisce?
Pat Buchanan's little vanity newsletter (TAC) is anti-Semitic.
Sun rises in East.
Grass grows.
Water runs downhill.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/12/2006 6:46 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Sun rises in East.
Well, technically speaking, it doesn't rise. The Earth rotates. How comfortable we still are with geo-centric pre-Renaissance concepts. ;)
A world view that fits Messr. Buchanan well.
#6
The final solution has just started and I don't think its the solution the anti-Semites were wetting themselves over.
Instead it will mean the destruction of the tyranny in Syria replaced by either an Israeli occupation force or anarchy. It will eventually lead to the expulsion of Arabs from the West Bank and Gaza as things escallate and the Pals continue to make the absolute wrong decisions.
Well, it does NOW in most places. But you apparently never saw the river in Pittsburg that BURNED a handful of decades ago. I've seen industrial wastewater that not only could run, it could do marathons ... LOL
Russia and China seem to have the United States -- at least publicly-- flummoxed. In recent days, President Bush has praised China as "a good partner to have at the table with us" regarding North Korean negotiations. This week, he has cited his "good friendship" with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Yesterday, Bush praised Putin for his "helpful role" in diplomacy on the same day it was revealed that the Russian government forced Russian radio stations to stop broadcasting news from Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty. And, since 2001, Bush has talked about America's "strategic partnership" with Russia.
It is true that often diplomacy requires a statesman to insincerely publicly express friendship with nations that are well understood not to be friends. Such public diplomatic utterances become of concern only if they betoken an actual assessment of the nations' relationships. In the cases of China and Russia, there is evidence that our government still sees them as partners in a dangerous world.
We all should wish that they were partners -- or could be in the future. I am not in the camp that sees either of those great powers as inevitable enemies. And we should constantly direct our foreign policy toward gaining as amicable relations as possible with each of them (while, of course, being ever vigilant and prepared to deal with their hostility as it may emerge).
But it is becoming increasingly suggestive that currently it would be a miscalculation to premise our actions on the assumption that either Russia or China view themselves as our partners in any meaningful use of that word.
Regarding the North Korean missile controversy, China would appear to be opposing our aims. While China told us before the missile launches that they were pressing North Korea not to launch, North Korea's non-compliance would suggest that China did not really insist. After all, China can turn on and off the energy and food spigot to impoverished North Korea. While one cannot be sure of these things, the better judgment is that China is perfectly happy to have their ward, North Korea, continue to show up American impotence. Each time we make and then withdraw various deadlines, American diplomatic credibility is reduced worldwide. (As we pointed out last week in a Washington Times editorial.)
Whether it pleases China to let this humiliation continue, or whether China finally enforces its mandate on North Korea (perhaps in exchange for an American concession to China on some unrelated economic or foreign policy matter), the conclusion must be accepted that China is not "our good partner to have at the table."
The sad fact is that America currently is not able to stop North Korea short of military action -- which at this moment would be an act of wanton recklessness on our part. It is true that we have been and continue to be squeezing North Korea semi-covertly through economic, naval and other means -- which may over time coerce North Korea to more acceptable behavior. But such factors will not be determinative in the current missile controversy.
Thus our government looks increasingly foolish and pathetic as we plead to "our partner," China, to bail the world out. Rather, we should start, and then ratchet up, our public criticism of China for not being a responsible member of the international community. They should pay an international price for their irresponsibility. With their Olympics coming up, they may even give a damn for a while.
With Russia, the story is a longer and sadder one. After the fall of Soviet Russia, there were high hopes in the West that Russia would become what it had never quite been: a part of the West. And after Sept. 11, 2001, there seemed a genuine opportunity to unite with Russia in common cause against our mutual mortal threat: radical Islam. But whether due to high-handed American foreign policy and annoying demands for American-style democracy in Russia, or whether out of Russia's historic otherness, it is now quite clear that Putin's Russia is ably crafting an independent stance.
Those who thought Russia would ever become our junior partner in the western alliance were probably never realistic. When I was last in Russia, before Christmas last year, meeting with leading politicians, academics and media people to discuss my book on Islam and the clash of civilizations, the central point made by almost all my interlocutors was that Russia was its own civilization -- not part of the West.
Across the partisan and ideological Russian spectrum, their deep Russian pride -- and their fury at what they saw as America's exploitation of their temporary weakness after the fall of the Soviet regime -- made it clear to me that Russia intended to chart a fully independent course. Ironically, the high oil prices caused in part by the Middle East turmoil has made it possible for Russia to finance such an independent foreign policy.
This doesn't make Russia our enemy. But it requires us to recalibrate our expectation that Russia will behave like a partner in seeing their own interest advanced by advancing our common international interests. We may well have common ventures with Russia, but they will be hammered out on a case by case basis -- not as friends or enemies -- but dispassionately as two independent peoples who do not see a common path to a common future.
It would be dangerous to be in a world without partners. But it would be more dangerous to see friendship where none exists.
Posted by: DanNY ||
07/12/2006 6:34 Comments ||
Top||
#2
They're competitors desperately searching for some sort of international Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the means to enforce it. The UN and behind the scenes trading and bartering is the best they can come up with. The alternative [gasp] would be to offer a better service or product. Unfortunately, such an item is an anathema to their being.
What is this assumption that Russia and China will carry our water. Nations have permanent interests, not permanenet allies.
China is not the problem, North Korea is. China may not have much more leverage on Korea than we, It's just not as transparent. We could as easily quarantine NKor as China could cut off the trains. But if China destabilizes Norkland, the starving millions head to China for a meal. Why is it in their interest to destabilize Nork?
Likewise Russia doesn't have its act together. That's news? That doesn't make them an enemy, or even a player.
I can't believe Blankley ever took the "partner" BS to heart. He knows how long partnerships last.
#4
"Rusland bleibt Rusland" (Russia remains Russia) -- an old German saying.
No matter how much Russia might be tempered with its very new experiment with democracy, both it and China have a tremendous amount of historical baggage that will never free them from their unpleasant behavior.
This ingrained breeding goes right over the heads of the internationalist intellectuals, who believe that if they just have enough committee meetings and dedicated bureaucrats, then pigs shall soar aloft with the seagulls.
But the bottom line is that it just isn't natural.
Russia and China will retain their essential character, even if it destroys them, as it well might. But theirs has never been a way of partnership. It is unnatural to them. They might embrace it momentarily, but soon it becomes intolerable, and they revert to xenophobia and isolationism.
In its own way and right, the US is the same with asserting its prerogatives. But the US has the double advantage of not having an ancient history, nor having only a single ethnic or cultural background. Thus the US never fully partners, nor does it become fully isolationist any more.
#5
Russia can only look at envy towards Germany and Japan. They at least got to be reconstituted by the US after they lost their wars to it and they still have American occupation troops keeping the peace 60 years later. Russia's big mistake was not to ask to be occupied and reconstituted by the US in 1991.
#7
"Why is it in their interest to destabilize Nork?"
The options on North Korea are limited. If anyone has the chance to change the governments in North Korea without destabalizing it China is the one. An invite to Kim to visit China, a word to a top general while he's out of town. Coup's happen.
The other option is the collapse of North Korea, the eventual reunification of Korea (with nukes) and a remilitarized Japan.
Given the two options China would be idiotic not to attempt a coup, work to unifying the Koreas on their terms so that it becomes a client state (the young in South Korea already buy the propoganda) or at least a neutral, non-nuclear, state.
#8
Assume the ChiComs and Russkies will oppose us diplomatically on every relevant issue.
Next?
Posted by: Captain America ||
07/12/2006 17:33 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Russia is still still pissed-off about our interference in the Ukraine, Georgia, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria issues. Putin wants to put the Soviet Union back together so bad he can't stand it. So now we get a little payback for that. As for NKor, I don't believe there will be an attack from us. We will simply help our allies, Japan,Skor,India,Australia, and Taiwan build their armies with technology and cooperation. A backbreaking,nerve racking game of chess to be sure, but the only one that has a reasonable outlook. Utter annihilation of NKOR is not really something that would be charactaristic of us. Unless he starts throwing around WMD's, then all bets are off.
In the last twenty-five years the Muslim world has witnessed a very significant increase in the appeal of Islamism among their people. The overthrow of monarchy and the emergence of the masses-based leadership of the ayatollahs in Iran; the demand for incorporating Sharia as the law of the land; the appeal to incorporate Nizam-e-mustafa in Muslim countries; the vehement opposition to Western military attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan among Muslims all over the world; the global Muslim backing to Iran in its effort to develop nuclear technology, indicates that this trend is proving to be a viable rallying point for mobilizing the Muslim masses.
Muslims the world over do not form a homogenous community. Apart from differences in languages and cultures the class divisions and economic inequalities are wide and sharp. Islam is not an autonomous and independent category but only one of the many factors which shape the attitudes of Muslims wherever they may be.
To understand the reasons for the resurgence of Islam as a political system in recent years one should review the background of the Muslim societies in the preceding decades, which may be surmised as follows.
Substantial economic gain in the middle-eastern countries due to increased oil revenues did not result in reducing socio-economic inequalities in Muslim societies. The dispossessed and alienated classes in the Muslim societies who are in majority have chosen Islam as a vehicle to express their discontent. They feel that Western liberalism is opposed to the Islamic way of life. The assessment of a vocal majority in the Muslim world has resulted in the condemnation of past ideologies. The failure of socialism, Marxism, liberalism, Western capitalism in military, economic, political and social fields encouraged the search for a different ideological framework for political movements. The people of West Asia are returning to the all embracing ideology of Islam which once permeated all aspects of their lives and struggles.
The credibility of the Muslim champions of Western liberalism who criticize the Islamic ideology has plummeted in the Muslim world. In the absence of other channels mosques have become viable means of expression of the popular resentment of the masses against Western imposition of their culture in Muslim societies.
It is interesting to note that the content of Islamism differs from country to country. In Iran it was the basis for the struggle of the masses against monarchy. In Afghanistan it was first the basis for nationalism against the Soviet occupation and later a basis for restoring law and order. In Pakistan it was first a tool for legitimizing the rule of the army junta and later a movement to restore democracy. In Egypt it is an effort to promote democracy against an authoritarian government. In Saudi Arabia it is a plea for keeping the royal family in power. In Morocco and Tunisia it means the condemnation of modernism. In Turkey the conservative party leaders want to use Islam for partisan politics. In Sudan it is the basis for keeping the country from breaking apart under the strain of tribal rivalries.
The diverse application of Islamism brings up the need to understand the ideology of this movement. Based on the observations of various social scientists the following could be construed as the elements of Islamism.
Islam is a comprehensive way of life and is integral to politics, state, law and society.Muslim societies have failed in recent times because they departed from the understanding of Islam and followed Western secular and materialistic values. Islamic renewal calls for an Islamic political and social revolution that draws its inspiration from Quran and prophet Mohammad who led the first Islamic movement. To establish Allahs rule a Western inspired civil law must be replaced by the Islamic law which is the blueprint of a Muslim society. While the Westernization of Muslim societies is decried, modernization is not. Science and education are accepted but they are to be subordinate to Islam in order guard against the infiltration of Western social values. Establishing an Islamic system of government is not simply an alternative but an imperative.
That brings us to the inevitable question of the future of Islamism as a movement in Muslim societies. It is a grim reminder of the historical fact that Muslims are no longer in-charge of their own destiny. It is the realization that efforts to modernize and protect societys cohesion requires a serious re-examination of the Islamic heritage as a potential mode of action.
The term Islamism suggests not a program but a style and above all a mindset. The preoccupation of the critics of the Islamic movement with programs and solutions that leave the movement open to accusation of naiveté is misplaced. Even the most benighted rulers whether Muslim or not will usually respond to pragmatic concerns. Whatever one might think of the Islamic government of Iran, the heritage of Ali, Hasan, Husain, the Sharia and the Shia-Sunni theological conflict, it remains true that the rulers of the Islamic Republic of Iran are managing a democratic state.
The fact that the rulers of Iran are animated by Islamic convictions does not seem to be leading to the downfall of the regime in a situation where Western powers are openly targeting Iran with a well-planned hostile action from the outside and well orchestrated internal subversion.
The fear of those who see in Islams resurgence some great revolt against modernity is mistaken. Whether Muslims respond to the Islamic message on the material level of class and social interest groups, or the ideal level of spirit and mind, nothing suggests that the crisis of identity which inspires the message is near an end. For this reason it is most useful to view the Islamic revival movement not as a narrow and specific programmatic entity with discrete beginning and ending points, but as a broad endeavor which Muslims are pursuing as a necessary aspect of contending with the bad situation of Muslims in the contemporary world.
There is no predictable conclusion to the movement. Whether it will bring joy to its adherents or it is another attempt to regain equal footing with the Western system is hard to say. What we are more likely to see is the emergence of a heterogeneous multiplicity of social character within the world of Islam.
The writer is a community activist in Washington DC. He can be reached at: kaleemkawaja@hotmail.com
Mr Kawaja lives in Washington DC where he works as an engineering manager in the Space Science program of National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Mr Kawaja is originally from Kanpur, India. He obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, and a Master of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from Brooklyn Polutechnic Institute, New York.
Posted by: john ||
07/12/2006 16:02 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#7
It was a viable political system when people were covered with hair, lived in caves, and hunted mastadons. Well, maybe not mastadons. There is no mention of them in the Koran, so they never existed.
#8
The failure of ... Western capitalism in military, economic, political and social fields
Atta maroon! Countries of the Western civilization--the more capitalistic, the more this applies--are the only viable and thriving part of the world! The rest compete for the title of biggest shithole!
THESE were two or three incidents that were quite unrelated to each other. They were symptomatic. In the first, a posse of ISI officials picked up a retired brigadier, his daughter-in-law and his grandsons from their Islamabad home and took them to some place and beat them up. Another was far more serious and portentous. Headlines spoke of a big military operation in Dera Bugti in which the real target was Sardar Muhammad Akhar Khan Bugti. Twentyfive persons died. In yet another incident 23 Bugti tribesmen have been killed. The real target apparently remained the Bugti chief who happily has survived both attempts, though still somewhere in hiding. The question is: are there any similarities or common elements in these incidents?
Insofar as the first one is concerned, it merely shows that how hollow and petty the senior officers of the ISI are. Apparently, a few boys came to blows on the playing field in Islamabad. The one who seems to have received more beating was the son of a senior officer in the secret service, who (the father) sent a squad of ISI personnel under a major who did what has been reported. It just shows the way ISI operates right in the heart of the capital, picking up a retired and decorated brigadier for a trivial reason and beating him and his progeny. The illegality and the high-handedness, not to mention the petty arrogance of the senior officers of the service, have been disclosed.
If a secret service could do this to a retired army officer in Islamabad, how have they been behaving in other parts of the country where less privileged people live? It shows that the intelligence services are now becoming far too lawless. A lot of people complain that these secret agencies are becoming a state within the state. It would seem that they are justified. It underlines the feeling that the country lacks rule of law altogether where some people with authority think themselves to be above the law. This needs to be checked. There must be some accountability for secret services.
This incident was indeed a small one, if also symbolic. Far more serious is a large number of "disappearances" of Pakistan citizens, not to speak of unexplained killing or harassment of journalists. In all these cases people were picked up by the intelligence services and have not been heard of since. No one knows how they are being treated or where they are being kept, with no contact with their families and relatives. It is commonly believed that intelligence agencies are doing this as a matter of policy. Which may be the reason why they think of themselves as being the real ruling authority with no check on them and thus they behaved the way they did in Islamabad or elsewhere.
Who is responsible? Every country has intelligence agencies. Their secret services do not behave like this. What is so peculiar about Pakistani agencies? Peculiarities of Pakistan politics are responsible for it. How does this happen? There is nothing obscure about it. What the country has is a facade of democracy, not the real thing.
Intelligence agencies behave arrogantly simply because they have unchecked power and unaudited money at their disposal for dubious purposes. They are not answerable to any elected authority. The regime is using them as the main political instrument. That is the reason. Since the government does not draw its strength from the people and the source of its power is the army, therefore, the ultimate responsibility is that of the Pakistan army as an institution. It can't be true that its intelligence services are manipulating the army or the country. Somebody has to be held responsible. The tail does not wag the dog.
This consistent pattern of "disappearances" has reduced Pakistan to a Banana Republic. In the Banana Republics of Latin America, dictatorships were working in close cooperation with the US. Indeed the US was playing one against the other all the time and selling arms to combatants in various nationalistic wars. It does look as if Pakistan has also acquired some of the characteristics of the politics of those Banana Republics.
As for the specific incident of the attack on the Bugtis, it was a shameful act, targeting an individual who has not been adjudged guilty of some heinous crime. It becomes a murder attempt. It could not have been done by any military unit on its own; here the responsibility will have to travel upward. A state cannot behave like a murderer. Nor does a responsible state mount military operations against its own people. We know what happened in East Pakistan in 1971. It is playing with fire.
True, Balochistan may be geographically big but its population is only a 5 per cent. True also, Balochistan is not East Pakistan. But Balochistan has as developed a nationalism such as East Pakistanis did not have. Who is Bugti? He is not a mere individual. He is now a symbol of Baloch nationalism and represents its honour. This is a war between Islamabad and Balochistan Liberation Army. No matter which side kills how many, it will still be Pakistanis being killed. This is madness and the healing touch of statesmanship is needed.
The Pakistan government cannot behave like Herr Olmert or Sharon have been toward the Palestinians. Military operations within the country simply show political bankruptcy and foolishness. As it happens, the military leadership has unwittingly started two or three insurgencies that are going on in the country. BLA's war on Islamabad's alleged exploitation of Balochistan resources is one.
The Pakistan army, 80,000 of them, are supposed to be engaged in flushing out foreign militants, supposedly linked to al-Qaeda. Then Pakistan has been fighting and negotiating with the Taliban. In addition there are the political connections: those who created the Taliban and are its progenitors are governing the Frontier and Balochistan provinces. Insofar as the various Agencies of FATA are concerned, the country should be told as to who precisely is being punished. Who are the criminals targeting the Army and the various paramilitaries? Are there militants other than al-Qaeda and Taliban? The word "miscreants" have been used. Sometimes Taliban have executed robbers and criminals. What kind of criminals were they?
There is another dimension that has grown and grown. It is the sectarian polarisation. The Shia-Sunni tension and clashes in the Frontier areas and in the rest of the country have grown into a serious political threat to Pakistan. Now a new one has been added: It is between the Barelvis and Deobandis. The question is: how long can the army alone handle NWFP's FATA and Balochistan?
All said and done, the army is an instrument for defending a place or attacking others. Peacemaking is not done by the armies; it is done by politicians. Are there any politicians in this country who are trying to make peace? While we are on the subject, it is necessary to ask what is the precise nature of relationship today between Islamabad and the Taliban. Are they trying to make up or are they at war with each other? Have Taliban finally gone out of control and severed contact with the Islamabad? Or is a rapprochement being negotiated?
MB Naqvi is a leading columist in Pakistan.
Posted by: john ||
07/12/2006 14:25 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
IMHO, while the proliferation of small arms is a real problem in failed/failing States (and the main culprits are Russia and china here), the RTKBA is a *real* basic human right.
Note that disarmement of citizenry in Europe is not so old, it dates back to the 20-30's, when the gvt feared populist movements; before that, AFAIK, gun ownership was pretty free in most european countries, in late 19th/early 20th, french military rifles were sold to average civilians without any restriction, this was even encouraged by the authorities, to militarize society in view of a war vs Germany.
The old "Manufrance" catalogs are testimony of that bygone era, with service rifles for sale to all.
And access to gun is getting stricter every year (back in late 80's/early 90's, one could buy 12 gauge pump shotguns in the supermarket without any registration), because the Enlightened Elites are afraid of their people again... all this while heavy weaponry, automatic firearms and Rpg, abound in the 'hoods.
#3
Nations by boldly reminding them that in the United States we do have a right to possess firearms. Bolton caused further consternation when he told the gathering that the administration would not allow the international organization to diminish that fundamental right. The audience visibly gasped at the audacity displayed by this upstart diplomat. The anti-gunners (gun grabbers) are insidious, constant, and naive simpletons. They will try any ploy to disarm this country. The Second Amendment makes this country fairly unique and provides a line of protection between citizens and thugs, terrorists, and anyone else with evil intentions. The UN would like to make over countries in their image, bloated, ineffectual, elitest, do-nothing, and corrupt. Our freedoms were costly and came from the blood of our citizens.
#4
As much as I applaud our "holding that line", I cannot agree that a stalemate is a win. When someone tries to sneak something unreasonable past you, or tries the gradualism trick, the *only* effective technique is to counterattack--to drive them back.
In this case, the US should push for an international right to bear arms. Slap the UN with statistics that show how a well-armed citizenry protects itself from crime and violence.
Push them on the issue of allowing the widespread legality of licensed and concealed firearms by private citizens.
This would frighten them so much they would drop the whole issue permanently, out of fear that the US might actually win.
#6
I don't see many pictures of Armalite rifles and Colt pistols being carried around by insurgents and terrorists. Every one of them has an AK-47. Now lets see, who could have made and sold them an AK. Russia, China, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia? Why don't the candy asses at the UN go dick them around.
#8
IIRC, Bros. Judd had an interesting article last week(?) about Brazil.
The UN and about 500 gun-grabbing orgs tried to pass a major gun-grab measure. Until 3 weeks before the vote, 70% of the public was for it.
Then came the commercials.
It wasn't about guns, it was about their rights, no references to America, but showed Tiannamen and other areas of the world. Voted down almost 2-to-1.
#9
Why don't the candy asses at the UN go dick them around.
Because that wasnt the point of the whole thing Big Jim. This was supposed to be a big PR poke-in-the-eye to neanderthal Americans like you and me: why else schedule it to begin on the 4th of July? The UN doesnt oppose violence of any kind. Simply put, it opposes the sort of individual freedoms championed by American society.
. . . as long as Im feeling screedy: Its the hapless and jape-free Joel Stein, writing about finding a flag planted on his lawn. Its called Eek! A flag on my lawn, which suggests that the entire column was dictated from a chair on which Mr. Stein stood, shifting from leg to leg in panic. Anyway, he dithered about how to dispose of the flag, until
my wife, Cassandra, got sick of this conversation. So she plucked the flag out of our planter and threw it away, not even in the recycle bin. This is a woman who hates both political parties.
Id say she hates a bit more than that. We continue:
It threw me into a moral tizzy. Why didn't I want a flag in front of my house? Why didn't I ever have one before?
Substantial moral issues rarely manifest themselves in a tizzy, but we are in Eek! Territory. . . .
Go read it all; 'tis a shining example of the Art of the Fisking, and includes a hilarious imagining of "the patented Hugh Hewitt death-by-literal-interpretation radio interrogation."
Posted by: Mike ||
07/12/2006 06:52 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Funny, but what flag is never stated. I get the feeling Joel would've been comfortable if it had been a simple white flag with no markings on his lawn.
#2
Shining through was his attitude that being an American is his self centered right and he can distain it all he wants. It was clear he does not understand the responsibility associated this nation and democracy.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
07/12/2006 7:49 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Nah, he'd never think about the responsibility part. That implies he'd have to, you know, do something, and that would just totally cut into his time listening to NPR. Can't have that.
#5
I think Hugh Hewitt did interview Stein last year. A righteous flaying, as I recall. Gerard Van der Leun did a number on him not long ago with a title something like "The Cry Of The Neuter".
#10
what we used to call a bunch of old "sourpusses". Bet the neighborhood kids love putting cherry bombs in their mailbox. Of course, times have changed. Now the muslims put c4 and antrhax in them. Much as things change, they stay the same.
#12
One thing you gotta say about ol' Joel. He doesn't even try to qualify his elitism and tranziism. In a strange sort of way, it's refreshing after reading and hearing the holier-than-thou "how dare you question my patriotism" whine of the NY Times set.
#13
I got to spend my 4th with my wifes family in Omaha, Nebraska. My sister-in-laws husband always bragged about how conservative Omaha was and I got a taste as I drove to their house. A Real Estate company had bought and placed a small American Flag in front of every house. They had done that days before my arrival and I could not see one that was removed.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
