I share your opinion regarding the NK road to nuclear weapons. This has been a long term goal because they know it fundamentally shifts all US policy. However, strategically, nuclear weapons should be our first priority. Chemical and biological weapons are way down the list in importance. NK has nuclear weapons, and Iran will have them shortly. Either one of them alone posed a 100x greater risk than Iraq. I think Kerry's idea to have bilateral talks with NK is just tough talk, although as you pointed out, China has its own reasons not to fully engage NK in disarmament talks.
As to commitment, I would prefer a leader capable of flexibly responding to a changing world than one who doggedly sticks to his first idea, however much it doesn't pass a reality test.
Others, for example, General Zinni, Former General and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, Former Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, and former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki have also had misgivings about Iraq.
Try this Zinni quote on for size...
There has been poor strategic thinking in this,” says Zinni. “There has been poor operational planning and execution on the ground. And to think that we are going to ‘stay the course,’ the course is headed over Niagara Falls. I think it's time to change course a little bit, or at least hold somebody responsible for putting you on this course. Because it's been a failure.”
cbsnews.com
See also this precient analysis of the prewar conditions of success.
cdi.org |
