04-21-2003, 06:49 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-21-2003, 06:55 PM by Occhidiangela.)
It has been so since about 1953.
My only additional comment is: if anyone attempts to apply a cookie cutter to policies in Asia and the Middle East, they miss the point. The regional security picture in Asia is a different kettle of sushi than the Mid East regional picture.
Each case, in any event, is itself unique, with its own history, itw own character, and its own list of players. Applying the 'WMD/NBC' sticker to it in an attempt to make cookie cutter policy easier is reductionist, and dangerously reductionist. I suspect that is the substance of Secretary Powell's position. Note that South Korea is not in the LEAST bit interested in pre-emptive policies: they gotta live in that neighborhood, and they can't if Seoul is turned into rubble within 48 hours by conventional methods! :) Deep Kimche indeed, and hence a need for a long term and well agreed approach: the risks are different, hence the policies must be tailored to that reality.
OBTW: Two 'not quite simultaneous' Major Regional Contingencies has been a security goal for a long time, (back to Secretary Aspin's 'Bottom Up Review') even if some think that such a posture holds quite a bit of risk as a policy when done 'on the cheap.' It is only viable if each 'contingency' is undertaken with considerable support from allied nations. 'Going it alone' is not a viable policy option. Anyone who pretends that it is simply does not understand the problem.
Edit: Grr, this got left out.
Consulting is a nice nebulous term. :) My experience tells me that Japan, China, South Korea, among others, are not pushovers! We shall see what the consultation process leads to. :)
My only additional comment is: if anyone attempts to apply a cookie cutter to policies in Asia and the Middle East, they miss the point. The regional security picture in Asia is a different kettle of sushi than the Mid East regional picture.
Each case, in any event, is itself unique, with its own history, itw own character, and its own list of players. Applying the 'WMD/NBC' sticker to it in an attempt to make cookie cutter policy easier is reductionist, and dangerously reductionist. I suspect that is the substance of Secretary Powell's position. Note that South Korea is not in the LEAST bit interested in pre-emptive policies: they gotta live in that neighborhood, and they can't if Seoul is turned into rubble within 48 hours by conventional methods! :) Deep Kimche indeed, and hence a need for a long term and well agreed approach: the risks are different, hence the policies must be tailored to that reality.
OBTW: Two 'not quite simultaneous' Major Regional Contingencies has been a security goal for a long time, (back to Secretary Aspin's 'Bottom Up Review') even if some think that such a posture holds quite a bit of risk as a policy when done 'on the cheap.' It is only viable if each 'contingency' is undertaken with considerable support from allied nations. 'Going it alone' is not a viable policy option. Anyone who pretends that it is simply does not understand the problem.
Edit: Grr, this got left out.
Quote:But by midday Friday, American, Japanese and South Korean officials said that when read in the original Korean, the statement said that North Korea was poised to begin producing plutonium, not that it had done so. Today the White House said it was consulting with its allies about whether to go ahead with the talks, scheduled to begin Wednesday.
Consulting is a nice nebulous term. :) My experience tells me that Japan, China, South Korea, among others, are not pushovers! We shall see what the consultation process leads to. :)
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete