I think that your first and second scenarios are the more likely. Who gives a flip about his religion anyway ? That's a matter that belongs in the private domain, but his ilk has made it all too public, to manipulate the wayward masses who are groping for easy answers. I cringe at the thought of what could happen over the next few years before the shrub is replaced with someone with a little more experience, intelligence, and rational behavior :
upi.com
Outside View: An Asian conundrum
By Cliff Schechter
A UPI Outside View Commentary
From the Washington Politics & Policy Desk
Published 2/14/2003 7:08 PM
View printer-friendly version
WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 (UPI) -- On the first day of my graduate program in international affairs, we were
taught a few simple principles to apply to everything we learned throughout our two years of study. Most
notably: that rhetoric and consistency carry weight in the realm of international relations.
If you threaten armed conflict and provide a specific paradigm for engagement with America's enemies
around the world, such as "pre-emption," that would have grave consequences. In fact, our allies, as well as
potentially dangerous nations, will actually expect us to live up to what we say, and judge us accordingly.
The Bush administration, including its famed foreign policy team, has never seemed to understand this, for
months putting forth pronouncements almost daily pitting Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and
Secretary of State Colin Powell on different sides of the Israel/United Nations/War on Terror policy divide.
Even worse, President George W. Bush's off-the-cuff political ramblings have often been, frankly,
unpresidential. His post-9/11 proclamation that he wanted al Qaida leader Osama bin Laden "dead or alive,"
or his justification for going after Iraqi President Saddam Hussein being that "after all tried to kill my dad,"
have made many in the foreign policy establishment cringe.
But apparently, this childish behavior did not suffice. The impulse of a rhetorical flourish was just too difficult
to resist during last year's State of the Union address, when President Bush equally chastised all members
of his "axis of evil" -- Iraq, Iran and North Korea. What our president apparently did not contemplate,
however, was what he would do if Kim Jong Il, North Korea's non-benevolent despot, took offense to this
classification, and reacted the way you might expect of a tyrannical regime injured by Bush's
wannabe-John-Wayne rhetoric.
This has now become apparent as Bush's words and actions have led North Korea to kick out nuclear
inspectors, threaten the United States at every turn and restart a dormant nuclear missile program.
Every day Bush backs down farther in the face of North Korean threats, proclaiming that only "diplomatic
options" are on the table in Asia, while acting as if he'd like to ride a missile into downtown Baghdad waving
his cowboy hat, is another day his credibility is further damaged internationally.
It is hard to surmise rationally what Kim Jong Il will do, because rationality is not exactly a quality he has
displayed in the past. Imagine you are a dictator with few if any friends and are repeatedly insulted by the
president of the United States. Bush even told journalist Bob Woodward, as reported in Woodward's book
"Bush at War," that he "loathed" Kim Jong Il. You watch as his administration is repeatedly bombastic
about attacking another member of his axis because they may be building a nuclear arsenal, even though
he has no proof he is willing to offer.
Kim Jong Il on the other hand, already appears to have a few nukes.
The impetus is clear -- build up enough nukes so that it becomes a disincentive for Uncle Sam to attack.
NOrth Korea has already proven you have missiles that can reach the 37,000 U.S. troops stationed in
South Korea, and that it can hit Japan or Taiwan before we can say missile defense. Now there is even talk
that Los Angeles in not safe.
Not surprisingly, Iran, another charter member of the axis of evil, whom we know helped certain Taliban
members escape through its territory during Operation Anaconda, has also gotten the message loud and
clear. This past week President Mohamed Khatami of Iran informed us that his country was mining uranium
for "nuclear energy only." But that is for another column.
So here is the Texas-sized conundrum George W. Bush has placed us in by calling the North Koreans
"pygmies" and giving ill-advised speeches on evil axes, all of which have only shown that, in the words of
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, he "talks a lot of trash and carries a small stick."
We cower weakly to North Korea, a true threat with its million-strong army and weapons of mass
destruction, while pompously calling the -- apparently -- weaker Saddam kindergarten names. And all the
while, our president refuses to acknowledge the hypocrisy of our absolutely inconsistent behavior toward
two countries we threw into the same category only a year ago.
In a world where bin Laden is still issuing fatwas, Saudi Arabia admittedly gave funds to acquaintances of
the 9/11 murderers and Syria provides logistics and training for Hezbollah, we are making Iraq, no proven
short-term threat, our first priority. And now we have North Korea angry, too, and resuming a stalled nuclear
program to make sure we never put them in the position in which Iraq currently finds itself.
Of course Bush says he will now "talk with North Korea" after isolating them and insulting them for two
years. This talking thing, was that not the Clinton policy toward North Korea that the Republicans frequently
criticized?
Words have meaning, and the world is listening. It would do our president well to learn that fact, if he wishes
retain any allies in our war on terror and retain a shred of credibility in the global community. |
