THE DEMOCRATIC PLAN - ER, "PLAN" ON NORTH KOREA
TKS
jim geraghty reporting
A friendly left-of-center reader forwarded the more detailed version of the Democrats' plans on national security.
The good news is, this one is longer and more specific, 123 pages. The bad news is that while the headlines are bold, the proposals are vague, mild, and not terribly different from the current policies.
(And let me say, if the Democrats had/have a better idea, I'll be out cheering for it. I don't want to thumb my nose at a good idea from somebody who comes from a political party I generally disagree with.)
Take, for example, the section on North Korea. It's easy to argue that the Bush administration's efforts on this front haven't generated the results we want. But coming up with something better is more difficult. And some proposals completely contradict other lines of criticism of this president, such as:
<<< "President Bush must put an end to the debate within his administration between those who favor diplomacy and those who favor pressure/regime change." (page 58) >>>
Aren't we always hearing that Bush stifles dissent, he's surrounded by yes men, he never encourages debate or differing views? Come on. It's good to have a hard-liner like our UN ambassador and a kindler, gentler type like our folks at State. Provides options for good cop and bad cop.
I do kind of like this section:
<<< Diplomacy or pressure/regime change is not a choice; it is a sequence;
o The U.S. should devise a Plan A for diplomatic success to employ first, and then a contingent Plan B for pressure to use if diplomacy fails;
o Plan B serves two purposes: to aid Plan A by showing North Korea the penalty for failing to end its nuclear program; and to create a realistic prospect of containing and ultimately eliminating the nuclear threat from North Korea. >>>
Of course, this more or less commits the Democratic Party to regime change if the talks with NK fail. I'm sure you're familiar with the bizarre style of North Korean negotiations - one moment they're insisting they want to talk, the next they're threatening a preemptive strike.
Oddly, the Democratic "Plan A" requires the U.S. to "pledge not to attack North Korea" and "renounce efforts to force a regime change."
Then they have a much tougher "Plan B." Why wouldn't the North Koreans sign an agreement in which we pledge not to attack, break their word the way they did with the previous deals, and then when we object, wave our pledge to not attack in our faces and scream on the world stage that we're breaking a specific promise?
Anyway, Plan B on North Korea also includes:
<<< Political pressure to deprive the North Korean government of international legitimacy and to undermine it within its borders; Economic pressure via sanctions and embargo, assisted by as many nations as the United States can enlist >>>
Well, North Korea's already a pariah state, has little signficant international trade, shuts out the outside world, and is willing to starve its people. I'm not sure there's much more political and economic pressure to apply.
I'm more positive on the rest:
<<< aggressive prosecution of the wide range of illicit activities sponsored by the North Korean government;
o Military pressure to include the threat of strikes on North Korean WMD production, testing, and deployment facilities;
o Robust steps to enhance deterrence of attack by North Korea upon any other nation. >>>
I notice the plan says "the threat of strikes," but not anything about actual strikes. Rattle the saber, but never use it?
Really, if there was something in here that I thought would seriously improve the situation on the Korean peninsula, I'd be singing its praises. But it sounds like this plan would have us pledge not to attack and foresake regime change, try to increase political and economic pressure that's pretty much maxed out, offer a deal that the Norks would probably balk on, insist upon verification methods they would almost certainly reject, and then take military action after we signed a high-profile treaty promising we would no longer consider it.
tks.nationalreview.com
democrats.senate.gov |
