Anticipate Crisis in Korea before September 2004

[TahitiNut]

It now seems far too likely to me that we'll be seeing a crisis in Korea, abrogating the armistice, before the Repugnant Konventional CircleJerk in NYC in 2004. I thus also fear we'll be seeing a call to reactivate the draft and a new round of rabid psychopatriotism. Such a scenario is, I fear, far more likely than a terrorist attack (unless tied to North Korea) which would be too easily seen as a repudiation of this regime. It's also far more likely, IMHO, than an attempt to speciously rationalize an invasion of either Syria or Iran. With over 30,000 US troops (and over 300,000 South Korean troops) stationed near the DMZ, it wouldn't take much to ignite that powderkeg. The UN would be dragged along whether it liked it or not, preempting any appearance of unilateralism. This fits the M-O of the Bushoilini Regime to closely for my comfort.

Comments?

[Eloriel]

1. Sigh

You're probably right.

I would hope that as badly as Bush has screwed up the "diplomacy" with NKorea, it will get blamed on him. Some sources in the media seem to be taking a somewhat less rose-colored view of the dimwit, so I have a little bit of hope.

Eloriel

[charlie]

2. Hooboy, do I agree

A Korean crisis would be no sweat to gin up, and invaluable to the PNACers (for whom thrusting the US into inextricable long-term commitments in the world's hotspots is most desirable), AND has the benefit of engaging the public's fears without directly endangering them (our servicemen in Korea and Japan are about to be incinerated by that madman Kim! Save us Dubya!). And whaddya know, Rummy has just the plan for making insane despots feel desperate enough to go for broke.

[HFishbine]

3. Thoughts

My first reaciont was "of course!" But there may be another scenario. As dumb as the misadministration appears right now, they cannot be underestimated. What would best serve their goal of another term? It would be to repudiate the criticism that they are unilateralist war-mongers who are no good at foreign policy.

Don't be surprised to see a diplomatic solution to N. Korea.

[charlie]

6. Honestly, I don't think re(se)election

is critically important to them. I believe the reason they moved like a scalded cat right out of the box (reversing sunshine laws, allowing their buddies free reign to game energy and fund markets, decimation of the treasury, LIHOP, Patriot Act, gutting FCC ownership rules, etc, etc... ) was to ensure that the radical changes they were making would have enough time to become intractable.

PNACers have their MidEast presence (and the more chaotic it becomes, the more likely the US will be drawn into further conflicts, requiring expanded occupation and growth of empire). Defense contractors have bounteous long-term commissions. Tax Patriots/Fundies are happy the government is hobbled with a wrecked budget. The public is properly cowed with the malleable spectre of Terrorism. Everything is roses if you're a Bushite.

It would take years, if not decades, for a Democratic administration and all-Democrat Congress to turn this mess around.

The Bushites have won. If they pull off a rapprochement with NK, and win re-election points for statesmanship, great. If they screw things up, there's always golf.

[TahitiNut]

7. While not beyond the imaginable,

I don't see them as having such a wide repertoire of tactics. These are obsessively militarist folks, I believe. I see no indication that they're engaging in anything but "might makes right" -- and no 'diplomatic' forays whatsoever. Indeed, they've candidly eschewed even talking with Kim. The only 'diplomatic' efforts seem to be coming from China -- which I can interpret as a harbinger of their deliberate detachment from any near-term conflagration. Thus, the PNACers would be even more emboldened if they view China as staying out of it.

[Snow]

4. It's a very interesting situation....

The new southern president, Noh Moohyun, is a self-taught lawyer, practiced human rights-type cases. He's been bringing in younger people who are not old party hacks as cabinet ministers, igniting a lot of controversy, esp from the old party hacks. He is perhaps the least beholden to the US of any Korean president since the fall of the Yi Dynasty, and is seemingly able to a greater degree to not knuckle under to everything the US wants. For example, he refused to send armed troops to the Iraq War - yet met a lot of objections at home for even sending engineers and medics. There's a continuing progress - starts-and-fits, true - but progress towards opening the borders of north and south. South Korea is afraid of reunification or even of opening borders too quickly because they saw the economic impact of the German reunification on west germany, and consider their economy, while strong, more fragile. Also, there's still a lot of fear and distrust of the North among older people. South Korea is no longer a third-world country, but it was not so long ago. My sense of the moment is that the South, Noh included, are doing their best to ignore BushCo's rants, and to be conciliatory towards the North when they can't be ignored. I think they understand why the North is making belligerent noises - the interpretation usually is the North is fishing desperately for money and for resumption of things like the oil shipments that allowed them to keep warm etc. Having said that, of course, Kim JongIl does have an odd world view and will sometimes do very strange things that you would think could not possibly be helpful - viz. killing that group of South Korean cabinet ministers and scholars in Burma some years ago. Neverthless, the South is pushing diplomacy and drawing China in to act as the 'big brother' - a role China has played with Korea for many, many centuries.

The most worrisome problem is Bush's attitude towards Kim JongIl - he seems to regard him a non-human - troll, or demon, perhaps, and therefore may not have any interest in preserving his regime. May, in fact, consider Kim to be an evil that should be stamped out. Whether President Noh, Japan, China, or anyone else understands that and can block it is a worrisome question. There's also the more venal considerations - South Korea is getting richer, but moving away from its traditional role as US colony, starting to sass back at dad, and maybe it's time for a little (or not-so-little) smack-down. I don't think the US would do another regime change in the south, but they have been part of several previous changes of dictators.

In short, the North is a hungry country, very socially inept on the world stage, fearful and inclined to bellicosity and belligerence, and selling things like weapons on the world market 'cause they ain't got much else. How they might act or react is hard to say, but more worrisome is the Bush gang and what they might decide to do. They also have shown themselves to be out of touch with the social graces, and might think stomping Kim JonIl would be a popular move. It's a very interesting time, and very frightening.

[TahitiNut]

8. While I agree with your assessment,

I think you miss appreciating how the "Pax Americana" Reich views such conciliation as a threat to their global agenda. The very fact that the North and South are making progress on reconciliation and mutual accommodation threatens those who have a vested interest in the stresses. Indeed, I think it's this very "might makes right" interest in keeping an hegemonistic leash on the Korean peninsula that drives them to exacerbate the divisions and hostilities. The demonization and dehumanization of an 'enemy' is the essential harbinger of war.

[Snow]

11. Yes, absolutely.....

It's of a piece with the whole business of keeping our dictators in power as opposed to 'their' elected leaders. I think what's different this time is that the South is not rolling over for the US. I suspect BushCo tried some of the usual pressures and got a negative response, so now they're trying the reduction of forces gambit....something else that has been done before, with very good results - ie, panic from the Korean populace and quick accesion to any US demands by the Korean government. I believe the last time that was pulled was before Kim TaeJoong, during those miserable dictators after Pak ChungHee. But I'm not sure. Anyway, they're trying it again, and thus far it doesn't seem to be working. Another piece I'm very unsure of is where Japan sees their interests - would they want a more peaceful Korean peninsula or do they prefer hostilities stirred up for some weird reason? No idea.....not even sure of what the Japanese relationship to North Korea is.

[Bandit]

5. You usually have a solid awareness of what's happening

I truly hope you are proven wrong in this instance.

[TahitiNut]

9. So do I.

Believe me, so do I. I am, however, almost as inescapably anticipatory of such an eventuality as I was in September/October 2000 when I went public with my predictions that a foreseeable result of Bush/Cheney prevailing in the election would virtually guarantee we'd be in a war before the end of 12-18 months. Among the locales I predicted then were the Middle East (including Iraq), Afghanistan, and Korea.

I must admit to only being appalled and shocked, not surprised, by the events of the last 33 months. My greatest disappointment has been that We The People didn't take to the streets after the USSC's overtly corrupt decision in Bush v. Gore. In my view, that abject failure of the cancer-ridden 'body politic' further guaranteed all my other misgivings.

[NNN0LHI]

10. When the N.Koreans test a nuclear device very soon the crisis will be over

The genie will be out of the bottle at that point and the policy of MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) goes into effect.

Don

[sweetheart]

13. already the case

MAD exists today. The amount of artillery trained on seoul (pop. 10,000,000++) would make a mass murder out of any armed event along the dmz. Fortunately i think the financial problem of having no money to pay for any government or wars will come home to roost... this fiscally inept bunch of morons will finally have to answer for the chequebook.

I hope TN is wrong.... and sadly, the more americans who die "reconstructing" iraq, the less likely further stupid invasions.

[ProfessorGAC]

12. Not Sure About That, TN

I don't think the people will sit still this time for it.

The Iraq thing was easy to sell the "unwashed" masses, because they could tie in the whole "AyRab"/Muslim, "hate us for our freedoms" thing. After 9/11/01, it was a fairly easy sell to a bloodlusting populace craving vengeance.

Now, the NK situation is far less concrete. There is no evidence of threat, no already extant "war" on which to lean (from either direction), and a negative press carping on about Iraq failures.

I don't doubt that these slimeballs will TRY to use a NK crisis as a shield. But, i would suggest it will be exposed by an increasingly skeptical fourth estate and not bought by the heretofore "sheeple".
The Professor