Hello Hawk Ron, <<… China … have to make a decision ... exports to the US … pressuring "Krazy Kim", or risking the loss of US markets for their goods?? Tough decision, but I think they are rational people and understand what's at stake>>
… Precisely, get involved in a possible nuclear war or possibly export less to the US by US, int’l invested and domestic companies in China. I think you know what they would choose.
<<… encouraging a re-militarization of Japan is the trump card that I believe Bejing feels is not worth the cost>>
… I think they believe Japan re-arming is a given and, if so, S.Korea will as well, so therefore this card has no leverage. Further, a re-armed Japan is not the same as a Japan wishing to go to nuclear war, and besides, a re-armed Japan may not have to be at the side of the US on all issues.
<<… S. Korea to develop nuclear weapons to maintain a balance of power and economically they are more able to sustain such an arms race than the North. Thus, N. Korean generals will see their ability to coerce the South diminished substantially, and will likely perceive Kim as taking them down a path they don't want to travel. Setting up the possibility of a coup>>
… I think this is US media claptrap wishful thinking. N.Korea’s leverage over the South is due to N.Korea’s perceived and, I believe, genuine willingness to use WMD. This is what makes N.Korea dangerous, and this is why China wants no part of the situation, and this is Bush’s mistake in poking at a hornets’ nest by aggregating N.Korea in an Axis of Evil construct, which has only caused problems and has not generated any discernable advantages.
<<… the best strategy the US can play is to require any talks to be multi-lateral, negating Kim's desire to create the sense that NK is now some kind of "superpower"..>>
I hope you are proven correct that this is indeed workable, but I fear much stands in the way of multi-lateral solutions in a uni-polar world that you so admire. The UN has been made nearly null and WTO almost void. China is labeled a ‘strategic competitor’. There is a perceived and long list of “enemies of America”, and there is a growing list of less-than-friendlies … shall I continue with India, France, Germany, Russia, Canada, … and maybe eventually Italy, Spain, and second to last, Britain? At this moment, global democracy may be working against uni-polar world construct.
<<… long term places Iraqi oil assets under the control of the west, who will likely opt to pump as much as possible in order to diminish Saudi economic power, or at least as leverage in forcing reform in SA, or at least repression of the Wahabbists, while draining their coffers and ability to fund Islamo-Fascism>>
… that certainly looks to be the plan, and this …
…. <<It will become apparent that the economic lot of the average Iraqi will improve>> is the hope, but this …
… <<And bringing in friendly Arab states such as Kuwait, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, and Qatar to help administer the rebuilding of the country>> … is not in the cards, on the table, or in the room.
And this … <<the US is not planning on turning the country into a colony>> is neither the current perception nor the announced intention.
<<9/11 happened without our doing anything>> … that certainly appears to be a strong belief of yours, and as long as you keep believing that, then we may be missing a critical independent equation that would help in the search for the solution set to the simultaneous equations.
<<Mubarak … But fortunately, the US has converted his military to US weaponry. Thus, he is dependent upon the US for spare parts and technical support, without which his military is vulnerable and unable to sustain long-term combat>> … I think this is one of the many realities that will undergo change all around the world.
<<Mubarak … And it ties him to the US and limits the ability of his people to push him into a regional conflict>> … You may have under-estimated the power of the mob.
<<The solution is to bring order to the region Jay. There are too many regimes who live by only their own law. Saddam and Assad are two primary candidates, closely followed by the hardliners in Iran>> … true, but I believe you are ascribing too much influence to individuals and not enough power to the mob out of which these individuals came.
<<Because it would be unthinkable to see US forces stationed in Saudi Arabia, as we were in Germany for long-term protection. It would only inflame the Islamist like Bin Laden even more... In fact, many analysts have asserted that the continuing US presence in SA for the purpose of containing Saddam, has been one of the primary reasons that Al-Qaida were able to attract such a following>>
… I think this is pure wishful thinking, as in ‘pull out of SA and Al-Qaida will be less’. If so, try pulling out of Afghanistan/Pakistan and see what happens.
<<So the solution is to create sufficient stability in the region that US forces can exit, and thus, deflate the "raison d'etre" for Al-Qaida and Islamic groups like them>>
… Sounds like a plan, from another era, in another part of the world, just as hot, but considerably more humid, except this current plan involves actions against a lot more folks with much more dedicated belief system. I am guessing that before attempting military solutions to socio-politic-economic problems, one should gather the opinions of professional and not politicized military leaders.
<<But in the short term, as I said, there may be some increased recruiting for such organizations>>
… increased recruiting? I am seeing on my cable network that folks are gathering on apparent free-will from as far away as Indonesia and all around Iraq, eager to do I cannot imagine what.
I am still hopeful that all will work out OK, as indicated by my asset allocation, which speaks louder than words, but will continue to monitor the situation and continuously check my assumptions, premise, construct, and guess at the eventual outcome and interim waypoints.
Chugs, Jay |
