Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

Supporters of convicted terrorist Mohiuddin AKM Ahmed have asserted that sending Mohiuddin back to Bangladesh to face his crimes would be "fundamentally unfair" because he would be taken "from the plane to the gallows." The implication is that Bangladesh is a country where the death penalty is dispensed without due process, and swiftly. Bangladesh of course is a convenient target because it is a majority Muslim country. If one were to believe Mohiuddin’s supporters, including Dana Rohrabacher, one would expect Bangladesh to be a bloodthirsty country where many people are executed on a routine basis.

Let us put some facts on the table and see if the spin coming from Mohiuddin’s backers holds up to closer inspection.

Below is a chart (click chart for enlarged image) showing the number of death penalty convictions and the number of executions in Bangladesh from 1997 to 2005 (the latest year for which Amnesty International has data). You will notice that Bangladesh carried out no executions in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2002. In the years that executions were carried out, they ranged from a low of 2 in 1997 and 2003 to a high of 7 in 2004. You will also note a sharp rise in convictions, though not executions, since 2001 when the center-right party came to power. The rise in convictions did not give rise to a rise in executions partly due to the automatic and long appeals process in death penalty cases in Bangladesh. It should be clear from the chart below that Bangladesh does not carry out a large number of executions.

Now, let us compare the number of executions in Bangladesh with those in the United States, and specifically, in the state of Texas. The chart (click to enlarge) below shows the number of executions in Bangladesh, the United States, and Texas between 1997 and 2005. You will notice that the executions in the United States and Texas dwarf the executions carried out in Bangladesh for each year represented in the chart. The executions in the United States varied from a low of 59 in 2004 to a high of 98 in 1999. Similarly, executions in Texas varied from a low of 17 in 2001 to a high of 40 in 2000. As I noted earlier, the most executions carried out in a single year in Bangladesh was 7 in 2004, while in 4 of the 9 years we are looking at Bangladesh carried out no executions.

Looking at the data above, one might conclude that perhaps the reason Bangladesh has such low numbers of executions is that it does not have a large population. So, let us look at the populations and compare them with the number of executions. The chart (click to enlarge) below compares the total number of executions between 1997 and 2005 in Bangladesh, the United States and Texas with their respective populations. The chart shows that while the United States has twice the population of Bangladesh, it carried out 38 times more executions than Bangladesh. The chart also shows that while Texas has less than 13% of the population of Bangladesh, it carried out over 14 times more executions than Bangladesh.

To put the above numbers in perspective, let us look at the number of executions per million people. The chart (click to enlarge) below shows the number of executions per million people in Bangladesh, the United States and Texas between 1997 and 2005. The numbers are striking. From 1997 to 2005, Bangladesh executed 0.11 people for every million people in the population, the United States executed 2.17 people for every million people in the population, and Texas executed 12.4 people for every million people in the population. In other words, the United States executed at the rate of nearly 20 times more people than Bangladesh, and Texas executed at the rate of nearly 113 times more people than Bangladesh.

I think the above data clearly show that the death penalty is carried out far more often in the United States than in Bangladesh. Further, the death penalty is carried out at an alarming rate in the state of Texas. Bangladesh by no means is a leading state killer - the United States, and particularly the state of Texas, are far more adept and prolific at killing their own citizens.

Clearly the notion floated by his supporters that Mohiuddin will be taken "from the plane to the gallows" is not supported by the facts. In fact, none of the other persons sentenced to death with Mohiuddin for the killings in 1975 have been executed - even though their appeals were exhausted in 2001. I do not see a rush to the gallows. Further, Bangladesh tried Mohiuddin and his cohorts through the normal judicial process of the country. Bangladesh did not create a special tribunal to try these killers - even though, because the murders involved the killing of the head of state, Bangladesh could have chosen to set up a special tribunal. Instead, Mohiuddin and his cohorts were given full due process and automatic right to appeal all the way to the High Court (where 3 of the 15 originally convicted were acquitted). Furthermore, Mohiuddin’s trial in Bangladesh was judged to be fair by the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

When Mohiuddin was sentenced to death for his crimes in 1998, Amnesty International released a carefully worded statement that reiterated Amnesty’s stance against the death penalty and called on Bangladesh to commute the death sentences. The statement also stated Amnesty’s belief that "continued determination to bring to justice perpetrators of human rights violations will not only enhance the promotion and protection of human rights in the country but also eliminate the need to deal with these at a later date." The full statement is below:

Amnesty International is disturbed by reports that 15 people were recently sentenced to death in Bangladesh on charges of involvement in the killing of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his family in August 1975.

Although the process of judicial appeal to the High Court has just begun and those sentenced have the right to appeal to the Supreme Court and to petition the Head of State for clemency thereafter, Amnesty International is calling on the government of Bangladesh to commute these and other death sentences at the earliest opportunity.

The organization welcomes investigations into past human rights abuses but insists that, once the truth is revealed, decisive measures must be taken to ensure that punishment for such abuses does not itself constitute a violation of human rights.

Amnesty International is opposed to the death penalty at all times and in all cases. It appeals to the government of Bangladesh to abolish this punishment once and for all, and calls on the opposition parties to support any move towards this goal. This will be in keeping with a worldwide trend towards the abolition — in law and practice — of the death penalty.

The organization also urges the Government of Bangladesh to ensure that the drive to investigate past human rights violations does not target only selected groups, but that all perpetrators of human rights violations are brought to justice without exception, no matter who they are or where and when the violations occurred.

At the same time, it calls on the authorities to ensure that trials conform at all times to internationally established fair trial standards, and that the treatment of the accused in detention and the sentences imposed on them by courts do not themselves constitute violations of human rights.

Amnesty International believes that a continued determination to bring to justice perpetrators of human rights violations will not only enhance the promotion and protection of human rights in the country but also eliminate the need to deal with these at a later date.

Amnesty did not say that the trial was unfair or that Mohiuddin did not get due process. Instead, Amnesty reiterated its long standing position against the death penalty in all cases.

Contrary to the claims of Mohiuddin’s supporters, all observers including the courts in the United States have concluded that Mohiuddin received due process. And contrary to Mohiuddin’s supporters’ claims, Bangladesh is not exactly a "bloodthirsty" nation that carries out swift executions.

It is more than likely that Mohiuddin would have already been executed if he had committed his crimes in the United States, and worse still, if he had committed his crimes within the boundaries of the state of Texas. As it is, he has a better chance at surviving his sentence in Bangladesh than he would have stood here in the United States.

 References

• Death penalty data from Amnesty International’s Annual Reports and from Texas Execution Information Center.
• Demographic data from CIA World Factbook (Bangladesh and the United States) and 50States.com.
• Tabular data for the charts included in this post are downloadable as an Excel Workbook.

When George W Bush was presented the Iraq Study Group report last week, according to Lawrence Eagleburger, Mr. Bush’s reaction was "Where’s my drink?"

Since its release, the report has been much maligned from both sides of the political aisle. In my previous post, I wrote that the report was significant because its assessment of the situation in Iraq has neutered Mr. Bush’s argument about "progress" in Iraq. It has also quite clearly demonstrated Mr. Bush’s foreign policy as an utter failure. While the right is making a valiant attempt to discredit the report, I think the damage has already been done. Mr. Bush will need that drink, he may even huff and puff, but I stand by my assertion that the foreign policy of the United States is no longer in the hands of this president. He has been put in a corner like a petulant preschooler.

My previous post focused on the "Assessment" part of the report. This post will address the 79 recommendations. As I mentioned earlier, I think the report’s central failure is its recommendation that Iraqi forces be trained by the U.S. military into 2008. The recommendations, taken together, really are not recommendations at all. It seems to me the recommendations themselves are simply criticisms of Mr. Bush’s Iraq policy - the recommendations point out specific failures that have led us to the Iraq of today as spelled out in the "Assessment".

The recommendations are in three parts. First, Mr. Bush’s failure to engage in regional diplomacy. Second, Mr. Bush’s failure to pursue national reconciliation. Third, Mr. Bush’s failure to properly train and equip the Iraqi security forces. The failures together have facilitated Iraq’s slide into chaos. The report holds out the hope that if those failures are remedied immediately there is a chance that chaos may be averted in Iraq. I have my doubts.

Mr. Bush’s failure in Iraq is rooted in the same failure that led to the war in the first place. It is a failure to grasp reality. When ideology drives policy, reality is not that important to the ideologues. However, reality has a way of asserting itself. The report explains the basics to Mr. Bush:

Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals. [p.95]

While the rest of the world understood that the insurgency in Iraq was complex, Mr. Bush and his lackeys "knew" that it was al Qaeda and a few "dead-enders". Therefore, no effort was expended finding out about the nature of the enemy:

While the United States has been able to acquire good and sometimes superb tactical intelligence on al Qaeda in Iraq, our government still does not understand very well either the insurgency in Iraq or the role of the militias.

…

Congress has appropriated almost $2 billion this year for countermeasures to protect our troops in Iraq against improvised explosive devices, but the administration has not put forward a request to invest comparable resources in trying to understand the people who fabricate, plant and explode those devices. [pp. 93-94]

You see, Mr. Bush knows they are "evil-doers". So, it is not important to know what motivates them and how they operate. A smarter or more curious man might think it was important to know your enemy’s motivations so that you can combat your enemy more effectively. But not this president.

The two recommendations that follow, recommendations 77 and 78, after the ISG points out our lack of knowledge about our enemy are almost cursory.

The report points out the importance of engaging Iraq’s neighbors. The reason is quite simple - all of Iraq’s neighbors have a stake in a stable Iraq, almost certainly more of a stake than the United States:

It is clear to Iraq Study Group members that all of Iraq’s neighbors are anxious about the situation in Iraq. They favor a unified Iraq that is strong enough to maintain its territorial integrity, but not so powerful as to threaten its neighbors. None favors the breakup of the Iraqi state. [p. 47]

Given the importance of engaging Iraq’s neighbors, it is striking how little has been accomplished in this area. To date, Iraq has not yet established a working embassy even in Saudi Arabia [recommendation 2].

The report also states that Iran and Syria should be engaged without preconditions:

Dealing with Iran and Syria is controversial. Nevertheless, it is our view that in diplomacy, a nation can and should engage its adversaries and enemies to try to resolve conflicts and differences consistent with its own interests. Accordingly, the Support Group should actively engage Iran and Syria in its diplomatic dialogue, without preconditions. [p. 50]

Engaging one’s enemy is anathema to the Decider - he has already scoffed at the idea. However, Mr. Bush does not hold many cards and an ostrich is sometimes forced to pull its head out of the sand if it wants to breathe. Recommendations 9 and 16 offer carrots to Iran and Syria to sit down at the bargaining table. Those two recommendations have already set the tone for U.S. foreign policy, sooner or later Mr. Bush will be forced to follow, or remain irrelevant.

It is in the area of national reconciliation where the report breaks important ground. A number of the ideas have been proposed separately in the past. The report ties them together within a coherent strategy with a nice payoff at the end:

The point is for the United States and Iraq to make clear their shared interest in the orderly departure of U.S. forces as Iraqi forces take on the security mission. A successful national reconciliation dialogue will advance that departure date. [p.67]

To that end, recommendation 34 calls for the issue of U.S. force presence in Iraq to be on the table for any national reconciliation dialogue. This is a far cry from Mr. Bush’s belligerent tone to date.

The report proposes the reversal of the disastrous de-baathification process (recommendation 27) and it calls for oil revenue to be shared based on population (recommendation 28). The oil revenue recommendation specifically addresses the ambiguity that exists in the current draft of the Iraqi constitution. The report calls for the revenue from future oil fields to also be shared based on population. This recommendation is essential to bringing the Sunnis into the national reconciliation process.

The report punts on the most difficult, and perhaps the most intractable, of Iraq’s issues - Kirkuk. Recommendation 30 does suggest wisely that the referendum of the future of Kirkuk be postponed to avoid violence. In many ways, the Kirkuk problem is beginning to resemble the Kashmir issue in the Indian sub-continent - what is popular at the local level may not necessarily be in the national interest. Unsurprisingly, Kurds led by Massoud Barzani (and parroted by Jalal Talabani) have been critical of the report because it favors more central control of Iraq than the Kurds would prefer. The Kurdish claim to Kirkuk and its oil revenues are directly challenged by the report.

Above all, the report stresses the importance of talking to your enemies - the essential ingredient of national reconciliation. It proposes far-reaching amnesty (recommendation 31), engaging all parties, including Moqtada al-Sadr (recommendation 35), and less meddling by the United States:

Recommendation 37: Iraqi amnesty proposals must not be undercut in Washington by either the executive or the legislative branch.

As part of national reconciliation, the report proposes the disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) of the militias:

The use of force by the government of Iraq is appropriate and necessary to stop militias that act as death squads or use violence against institutions of the state. However, solving the problem of militias requires national reconciliation.

…

Because the United States is a party to the conflict, the U.S. military should not be involved in implementing such a program. [pp.68-69]

The report recommends the presence of neutral international experts, who have significant experience from previous civil wars, to facilitate the DDR of militias [recommendation 38]. It is Mr. Bush’s failure to recognize the conflict for what it is that has prevented this essential step in national reconciliation from taking place.

While the report, in my opinion, errs in the area of training security forces, it nonetheless does offer one very important and necessary recommendation:

Recommendation 50: The entire Iraqi National Police should be transferred to the Ministry of Defense, where the police commando units will become part of the new Iraqi Army.

This recommendation is important for two reasons. First, the Iraqi National Police is geared toward counterinsurgency and not police work. Therefore, it does not belong under the Ministry of Interior. The Iraqi Police Service, which does police work, is the appropriate force to be under the Ministry of Interior. Second and more importantly, by moving the Iraqi National Police out from under the MOI (which is under Shia militia control), Shia militia control of the force is diluted. It should come as no surprise that SCIRI has condemned this recommendation so harshly.

The ISG report is focused on bringing parties into the national reconciliation process. This is something the Bush Administration should have been pursuing from the start. The report makes overtures toward the Shia nationalists (Sadrists) as well as the Iraqi Sunnis, the ethnic minority. It does point to the essential formula of a future stable Iraq, if one is to emerge from this chaos. In any national reconciliation, the stronger group must make accomodations to include the weaker group if peace is to be the outcome. The report thus recognizes the importance of bringing the Iraqi Sunnis into the dialogue. This is in marked contrast to the "80% solution" being contemplated by the Bush Administration. It seems to me, that taken together, the national reconciliation and the regional diplomacy proposed by the report set the groundwork for an American withdrawal from Iraq.

Upon reading the full report, one wonders why the recommendations of the report have not already been tried by the Bush Administration in the last 3 years. One wonders what they have been doing the last 3 years. While the American military have been taking casualties, it appears that the White House has been out to lunch. That is the result of ignoring reality in favor of ideology.

While it is debatable if  "success" was ever in the cards once Mr. Bush made the ill-informed and ill-conceived decision to invade Iraq, the ISG report makes it clear that whatever hope of  "success" might have existed in Iraq was out of reach for this most incompetent of administrations. That will be the legacy of this report - exposing George W Bush for his incompetence in Iraq the way the television pictures from New Orleans exposed George W Bush’s incompetence in protecting the American people at home.

The long awaited, much anticipated, and often pre-judged Iraq Study Group report was finally unleashed on Washington. Predictably, it was trashed, even before the ink was dry, in the progressive blogosphere for failing to call for an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. However, I think dismissing the report as a "dud" or ridiculing it ignores the very real and consequential substance in the report.

It is important to realize that this report is an intervention. I cannot recall any other time in modern American history when a sitting president has been so publicly and so stunningly rebuked in a time of war. The ISG report strikes at the heart of the American President’s article II power as the commander-in-chief. It accuses President George W Bush of orchestrating, by his own choice, the destabilization of the Middle East and, if left unchecked, the destabilization of the global economy. Make no mistake, this report is an intervention. It is designed to save not the President, but the Presidency and the American body politic. George W Bush has abused his commander-in-chief powers in the prosecution of the Iraq war and this report aims to relieve him of his duties. Regardless of what occurs between now and the end of George W Bush’s term in office, he is no longer driving the ship of state. Mr. Bush has effectively been impeached.

The report itself has two parts. The first part, "Assessment", surveys the current mess in Iraq. The second part, "The Way Forward - A New Approach" lays out the much talked about 79 recommendations for extricating the United States from Iraq. There is also a GWB-sized executive summary, a letter from the co-chairs, and an appendix to the report. In this post, I will cover the first part of the report and the supporting documents. I will do a separate post on the 79 recommendations tomorrow.

 The goal of the report is national consensus, not Iraqi national consensus, but American national consensus:

U.S. foreign policy is doomed to failure - as is any course of action in Iraq - if it is not supported by a broad, sustained consensus. The aim of our report is to move our country toward such a consensus. [Letter from the Co-Chairs, p. x]

The implicit charge in the report is that George W Bush has embarked on a foreign misadventure without the consent of the people of this democracy. That kind of behavior may work in a dictatorship, but cannot be sustained in a democracy.

The very first two sentences of the Executive Summary paint a bleak picture for Iraq:

The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. There is no path that can guarantee success, but the prospects can be improved. [Executive Summary, p. iii]

The ISG report does hold out the hope that all is not lost and the United States can still influence events there, although it may not be able to do so in the near future:

The ability of the United States to influence events within Iraq is diminishing. [p. 1]

I have argued before that the United States has already lost the ability to influence events positively in Iraq. By staying in Iraq, I believe, the United States acts as a force for continued instability. The ISG apparently believes there is still time to salvage the situation. This belief may be a result of hope and obligation rather than rational analysis:

Because events in Iraq have been set in motion by American decisions and actions, the United States has both a national and a moral interest in doing what it can to give Iraqis an opportunity to avert anarchy. [p. 2]

While I agree with the statement above, it does not necessarily follow that the national and moral interest is served by staying in Iraq and making one more go at it.

The flaw at the center of the report is the belief that America can control events in Iraq. The report concedes that combat operations by the United States military will not rescue Iraq. Indeed, it calls for a complete withdrawal of all American combat troops by early 2008. However, the report then subscribes to the misguided notion that the problem in Iraq can be solved by training Iraqi security forces:

The primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq should evolve to one of supporting the Iraqi army, which would take over primary responsibility for combat operations. By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq. [Executive Summary, p. vi]

The problem with Iraqi security forces is not training. Before the United States invaded Iraq, the country had a functioning military and police force, so I doubt they are incapable of training themselves. As the report readily admits, the security forces are infiltrated with sectarian militias - you simply cannot train the "sectarian" out of a militia member. There is also the problem of perception. If the United States remains in Iraq in large numbers and successfully trains the Iraqi security forces (that is, succeeds in making the security forces non-sectarian), those security forces and the government who controls them will be perceived as American puppets. American training, in either instance, will be counter-productive. We will either train militias or we will train American puppets - both will have tragic consequences (as no doubt the incoming Secretary of Defense knows from his experience in Central America).

There is also a puzzling contradiction in the report. In an attempt to avoid an open-ended commitment of American forces in Iraq, the report warns:

If the Iraqi government demonstrates political will and makes substantial progress toward the achievement of mile-stones on national reconciliation, security, and governance, the United States should make clear its willingness to continue training, assistance, and support for Iraq’s security forces and to continue political, military, and economic support. If the Iraqi government does not make substantial progress toward the achievement of milestones on national reconciliation, security, and governance, the United States should reduce its political, military, or economic support for the Iraqi government. [Executive Summary, p. vii]

It is not clear to me why it makes sense to pull out of Iraq if the Iraqi government underperforms. If as the report claims, Iraq is "vital to regional and even global stability", why then would the United States pull out if the ISG believes the United States should stay to stabilize Iraq. To put it another way, according to the report an underperforming Iraqi government will cause the United States to throw in the towel.

While the report fumbles somewhat in charting a viable exit strategy from Iraq, it quite clearly is focused on extricating the United States from Iraq. The report examines a number of alternative approaches and points out their flaws. Most notably the report categorically rejects the "stay the course" policy of George W Bush. It points out that staying the course in Iraq endangers our national security. The report points out, in a section entitled "Staying the Course", that:

Current U.S. policy is not working, as the level of violence in Iraq is rising and the government is not advancing national reconciliation. Making no changes in policy would simply delay the day of reckoning at a high cost. Nearly 100 Americans are dying every month. The United States is spending $2 billion a week. Our ability to respond to other international crises is constrained. [p. 38]

That leaves only Barney and Mr. Bush on the "stay the course" bandwagon.

The report also rejects a precipitate withdrawal from Iraq as too risky. However, it does not discuss a more orderly withdrawal as an option. The report also rejects John McCain’s plan to send more troops to Iraq as unrealistic:

Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation. [p.38]

Finally, the report rejects Joseph Biden’s idea of a partition into three regions due to potential for ethnic cleansing and the inconvenient fact that most of Iraq’s cities have mixed populations. Iraq cannot be so cleanly carved up without a massive movement of people.

The report lays out the facts on the ground that should make it clear to even George W Bush’s dog that Mr. Bush’s Iraq policy has been a failure across the board. It paints a picture of a country in chaos with mass human suffering:

The United Nations estimates that 1.6 million are displaced within Iraq, and up to 1.8 million Iraqis have fled the country.

Six percent of Iraq’s population have been internally displaced and seven percent have fled the country. That means that 13% of the country’s population have fled their homes. Those are staggering statistics.

The report reminds Mr. Bush that both the Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigade, which have infiltrated the police, are engaged in sectarian violence and the Badr Brigade in particular is involved in death squad activity. Perhaps if the report were released earlier, Mr. Bush might have chosen not to host a death squad leader at the White House last Monday.

The Iraqi economy is predictably underperforming. The freedom Mr. Bush has given Iraqis has led to misery:

Instead of meeting a target of 10 percent, growth in Iraq is at roughly 4 percent this year. Inflation is above 50 percent. Unemployment estimates range widely from 20 to 60 percent. The investment climate is bleak, with foreign direct investment under 1 percent of GDP. Too many Iraqis do not see tangible improvements in their daily economic situation. [p.23]

To compound the problem, reconstruction funds for Iraq have dried up as the Administration struggles to manage the security situation in Iraq:

The administration requested $1.6 billion for reconstruction in FY 2006, and received $1.485 billion. The administration requested $750 million for FY 2007. The trend line for economic assistance in FY 2008 also appears downward. [p.25]

As for the two countries in the Middle East that the Bush Administration does not want to talk to, Mr. Bush’s muddled policy in Iraq serves these two countries just fine:

Iran appears content for the U.S. military to be tied down in Iraq, a position that limits U.S. options in addressing Iran’s nuclear program and allows Iran leverage over stability in Iraq. … One Iraqi official told us: "Iran is negotiating with the United States in the streets of Baghdad."

…

Like Iran, Syria is content to see the United States tied down in Iraq. [pp.28-29]

In the short term, both Iran and Syria benefit from the chaotic American presence in Iraq. Only by leaving Iraq does the United States focus the attention of Iran and Syria on the need to have a stable neighbor in Iraq.

The report makes clear why there was a need for intervention to save the United States from its president:

If the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate, the consequences could be severe for Iraq, the United States, the region, and the world.

…

If the instability in Iraq spreads to the other Gulf States, a drop in oil production and exports could lead to a sharp increase in the price of oil and thus could harm the global economy.

…

Terrorism could grow. As one Iraqi official told us, "Al Qaeda is now a franchise in Iraq, like McDonald’s."

…

The global standing of the United States could suffer if Iraq descends further into chaos. Iraq is a major test of, and strain on, U.S. military, diplomatic, and financial capacities. … And the longer that U.S. political and military resources are tied down in Iraq, the more the chances for American failure in Afghanistan increase.

…

If Iraqis continue to perceive Americans as representing an occupying force, the United States could become its own worst enemy in a land it liberated from tyranny. [pp.33-35]

Far from bringing stability to the Middle East and showing American might to its adversaries, George W Bush has weakened America in the eyes of the world. His war of choice has endangered America, the Middle East and the world.

The reality that the report lays out will be hard for Mr. Bush to ignore. The conversation in Washington is no longer how to win in Iraq; it is how to salvage America and Iraq from George W Bush’s blunders. That is the importance of the report. There can now be no denying the stark reality of failure. The discussion has now moved to how best to bring our soldiers home and leave behind some semblance of stability. To that end, the report’s recommendations, however imperfect, can be a starting point for the discussion. The authors of the report readily admit that events on the ground may overtake the recommendations of the report. I believe that Iraq has already reached that point and American presence there is now counterproductive - the authors of the report disagree, at least for now.

As expected, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea tested its first nuclear weapon on Sunday after giving warning earlier in the week. By detonating a nuclear device, North Korea dramatically hammered the last nail into the coffin of the Bush Doctrine. The Bush Doctrine, or the Doctrine of Preemption, was arrogantly unveiled on June 1, 2002 by a President with little knowledge or curiosity about the world outside the United States. October 9, 2006 will be marked in history as the date on which George W Bush’s doctrine died a violent death.

Today the world became a very dangerous place.

In the days before Bush’s Iraq fiasco, he confused ideology with policy and wielded the might of the United States against all challengers and expected all to prostrate themselves. Bush declared in front of the graduating class at West Point in 2002:

The gravest danger to freedom lies at the perilous crossroads of radicalism and technology. When the spread of chemical and biological and nuclear weapons, along with ballistic missile technology — when that occurs, even weak states and small groups could attain a catastrophic power to strike great nations. Our enemies have declared this very intention, and have been caught seeking these terrible weapons. They want the capability to blackmail us, or to harm us, or to harm our friends — and we will oppose them with all our power. (Applause.)

For much of the last century, America’s defense relied on the Cold War doctrines of deterrence and containment. In some cases, those strategies still apply. But new threats also require new thinking. Deterrence — the promise of massive retaliation against nations — means nothing against shadowy terrorist networks with no nation or citizens to defend. Containment is not possible when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies.

We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign non-proliferation treaties, and then systemically break them. If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long. (Applause.)

Homeland defense and missile defense are part of stronger security, and they’re essential priorities for America. Yet the war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge. (Applause.) In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act. (Applause.)

Our security will require the best intelligence, to reveal threats hidden in caves and growing in laboratories. Our security will require modernizing domestic agencies such as the FBI, so they’re prepared to act, and act quickly, against danger. Our security will require transforming the military you will lead — a military that must be ready to strike at a moment’s notice in any dark corner of the world. And our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives. (Applause.) [Emphasis added by me.]

To Mr. Bush, however, preemption was an on-off switch. Either he went to war, or he sat around and ignored threats.

Earlier in 2002, Mr. Bush had already threatened a few countries with preemptive attack. One of those countries was North Korea. In his State of the Union address, Mr. Bush swaggered:

Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction.  Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th.  But we know their true nature.  North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.

Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people’s hope for freedom.

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror.  The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade.  This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens — leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children.  This is a regime that agreed to international inspections — then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.  By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger.  They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred.  They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States.  In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction.  We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack.  (Applause.) And all nations should know:  America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation’s security.

We’ll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side.  I will not wait on events, while dangers gather.  I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer.  The United States of America will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons.  (Applause.)

It all seemed so easy in 2002 with Saddam Hussein well within Mr. Bush’s sights.

After Saddam Hussein was unceremoniously deposed, Tehran and Pyongyang undoubtebly took notice. It must have been obvious to anyone that the only way to defend against a preemptive strike from the United States would be to acquire a nuclear deterrent. Unsurprisingly both Iran and North Korea accelerated their quest for a nuclear weapon after the fall of Baghdad. And so we find ourselves here today, with one of the surviving members of the "axis of evil" having just detonated a nuclear weapon and the other working hard to develop a weapon.

However, Mr. Bush’s dangerous rhetoric and North Korea’s perceived need for a nuclear deterrent are only half the story. Mr. Bush and his neo-conservative coterie decided early on to break off all negotiations with North Korea and undermine any effort at calming the hostility between the two nations. Soon after taking office Mr. Bush undermined his own Secretary of State and South Korea’s Sunshine Policy by discontinuing Clinton Administration negotiations with North Korea:

Secretary of State Colin Powell said Tuesday the United States has "a lot to offer" North Korea if it curbs its missile development and missile export programs.

Powell said future U.S. contacts with Pyongyang would become clearer after South Korean President Kim Dae-jung’s visit.

"We do plan to engage with North Korea to pick up where President Clinton and his administration left off," Powell told a State Department news conference.

"Some promising elements were left on the table and we will be examining those elements," he added.

However, another senior administration official, briefing reporters on condition of anonymity, struck a much more negative and cautionary note. The official said President George W. Bush had not yet decided whether to restart the missile discussions.

The administration also doubts whether a landmark 1994 nuclear deal with North Korea can be implemented, the official said.

Toward the end of his term, Clinton made what officials said was significant progress toward an agreement under which North Korea would have abandoned its long-range missile programs in return for foreign help with launching North Korean satellites. But he ran out of time to clinch a deal.

Mr. Bush was the new sheriff in town. He was going to get tough. And toughness to Bush apparently meant that he would not talk to anyone he did not like:

The Bush administration’s tough talk on North Korea’s communist regime has raised concerns in Asia about regional security.

One Japanese editorial warned that "treating Pyongyang like an enemy will ensure that it becomes one."

…

However, Li Xiguang, director of international communications at Beijing’s elite Qinghua University, urged Bush to continue the policies of his predecessor.

"It would be counterproductive to change the policy of engaging North Korea," Li said. "If that changes, the North could react with hostility and become more confrontational and defensive."

The general sentiment seems to be that Bush should try to capitalize on the Clinton administration’s progress toward curbing the North’s long-range missile threat.

…

Bush told Kim that the United States will not immediately resume Clinton-era talks with North Korea, which achieved a moratorium on its missile testing in September 1999 in exchange for the partial lifting of sanctions. 

Instead of negotiations, Mr. Bush ratcheted up the rhetoric. The situation deteriorated significantly when, citing provocation from the United States, North Korea withdrew from the nuclear nonproliferation treaty (NPT) in January 2003. The Bush Administration promptly criticized North Korea for having "thumbed its nose" at the world by unilaterally withdrawing from the NPT. There apparently was no sense in Washington that its criticisms were somewhat hypocritical since the Bush Administration unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty a couple of years ago.

The farce of the six-party talks followed with the United States working actively to sabotage any hint of progress. The failure of diplomacy has brought us to today.

It is not certain that the United States could have prevented a nuclear North Korea if Mr. Bush had chosen a more nuanced approach to foreign policy. However, the course Mr. Bush did follow was almost certain to have created a nuclear armed North Korea. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush in his arrogance has ensured that we are no longer dealing with a possibility of nuclear weapons in the Korean peninsula, we are dealing with a reality.

Now that we are here, make no mistake that we are on the brink of war. We are dealing with the reality of the world’s most isolated regime with nuclear weapons on the one hand and the world’s most powerful nation operating under a foreign policy doctrine that makes war almost inevitable on the other. A paranoid regime in North Korea has now acquired a nuclear deterrent. Washington will be tempted to try to destroy that deterrent. Any miscalculation by either party will likely lead to an overwhelming North Korean conventional attack on South Korean cities as well as American forces stationed on the DMZ. Of course the possibility also exists that a nuclear strike may also occur on the Korean peninsula either by the United States or by North Korea if it is able to find a means of delivery and if it feels that the survival of the regime is under threat.

There is also now no good diplomatic option. Where diplomacy would have been useful before today’s event, the Bush Administration ensured that only belligerence prevailed. The Bush Administration, if it stays true to its nature, will further squeeze the North Korean regime. Kim Jong Il is likely to react predictably by escalating further. In the game of escalation, the Dear Leader will find that he has a like minded foe in Washington.

I am afraid that the best case scenario might be a nuclear arms race in the Korean peninsula and Japan. With Washington on a hair trigger and television reports of the Japanese military already on the move, war however seems the most likely outcome.

Today Kim Jong Il preempted George W Bush. No doubt that the cowboy in Washington will want to swagger in response. We are living in a very dangerous world.

In the age of terrorism, the international arms bazaar is alive and well. While George W Bush myopically marches forward in his War on Terror, the rest of the world is quietly arming themselves and taking sides. Last week, America’s "strategic partner" and George W Bush’s soul mate Vladimir Putin inked a $3 billion arms deal with the always-entertaining Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Washington protested feebly as Moscow counted the money.

In a multi-year deal, Venezuela will purchase 24 Russian Sukhoi Su-30 fighter jets and 53 military helicopters. In addition, Venezuela will begin manufacturing Kalishnakov rifles under license from Russia. There are also reports that Venezuela plans to purchase surface-to-air missiles and a submarine from Russia in the future. This new deal comes on the heels of a deal signed with Russia last year for 100,000 AK-47s and 10 military helicopters. Like the current deal, the previous deal also faced feeble protests from the United States.

Russia isn’t alone in selling arms to the oil rich South American country. Last year even Spain got in on the act by selling Chavez naval patrol vessels and transport planes for "peaceful purposes". It goes without saying that the United States complained to Spain about the arms sale and was promptly ignored.

The United States has imposed a unilateral arms embargo on Venezuela to try to squeeze Mr. Chavez. Predictably, the arms embargo opened the door to the rest of the world to feast on Venezuela’s vast oil wealth. Venezuela is purchasing the Russian fighter jets to specifically replace American F-16s that it now possesses. With no spare parts available for the F-16s, it was only a matter of time before Venezuela found a more willing arms pusher.

Enter Vladimir Putin. Since taking office he has increased Russian arms exports by 70%. The revamped Russian arms export business brings much needed revenue into the Russian economy. While the United States busies itself by selling arms to allies in the War on Terror such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan, Vladimir Putin’s Russia picks up the slack by supplying arms to China, India, Venezuela, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Myanmar and the Palestinians. There is no ethics in the arms business. It is a profit-driven multi-billion dollar industry that has littered the 20th century with the deaths of millions. Now the same stellar record of death and conflict all over the Third World continues unabated in the 21st century. The wars and politics have changed, but the profit motive remains the same.

While each side accuses the other of arming countries that commit human rights abuses, the only sure result is a better-armed world. Russia, for its part, says that by selling arms to some states the United States might consider disreputable, it is violating no international embargoes or laws:

Russia says it abides strictly by international embargoes, and does not engage in trade with banned regimes. But rights groups criticize it for not unilaterally limiting itself.

The International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) says Russia has sold weapons to states whose forces have committed abuses. "In Russia’s export control system, there is virtually no reference to controlling arms exports for reasons connected with respect for international human rights and humanitarian law," the network of agencies said in a June briefing paper.

While the United States obsesses over the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction, it is the proliferation of small arms in the Third World that poses the greatest threat to the average citizen of the world. Not surprisingly, the Bush Administration opposes any treaty banning the trade in small arms because it may weaken its stance on the Second Amendment.

By itself, the Venezuelan arms deal does not pose an immediate national security risk to the United States. However, it does pose a long-term challenge to the stability of the region as Venezuela modernizes its armed forces and sets up its own arms manufacturing capability. Inevitably, if left unchecked, Venezuela will become an exporter of arms to other countries in the region. Given Chavez’s well-known distaste for the Bush Administration, the possibility of miscalculation exists both in Caracas and in Washington. Furthermore, with characters like Otto Reich and Elliot Abrams in the Bush Administration, any apparent provocation from Venezuela might trigger a neo-con fantasy war in South America. Having failed in 2002 to overthrow Chavez, the neo-cons in the Bush Administration would love to get another crack at him.

Now is the time for tough and nuanced diplomacy with Venezuela to diffuse what could become, without active diplomacy, a serious national security issue for the United States. However, I am not optimistic that the Bush Administration is capable of preemptive diplomacy. Its Doctrine of Preemption is strictly military. The irony of course is that by following its doctrine, the Bush Administration ignores the very diplomacy that would have prevented the need for preemptive war. Having proved its value in the Middle East, the Bush Administration is likely to bring its failed Doctrine to South America.

Here’s to hoping that time runs out on this Administration before a regional concern turns into a regional war.

[Cross posted at Taylor Marsh]

Ehud Olmert’s two-week misadventure in Lebanon is coming to a close. The unexpected ambush in the town of Bint Jbeil and the shelling of the UN observation post may have become catalysts for a draw down of the conflict. These two tragic events, in retrospect, will be seen to have saved many Israeli and Lebanese lives.

This war was always a losing proposition for Israel and a strategic blunder. From the start, the most obvious outcome was an exchange of Lebanese prisoners for the captured Israeli soldiers. However, Olmert wanted to prove his bona fides to the Israeli public and took what should have been a relatively minor incident and escalated it into a conflict with no good exit strategy for Israel. Having now reached a decision point where Israel could either escalate or climb down, Olmert has now chosen to back pedal:

With no sign of a cease-fire soon, Israeli warplanes and artillery pummeled targets across Lebanon without letup Thursday, concentrating fire on the rocky border hills where Hezbollah fighters are entrenched. The Israeli government called up thousands of reservists but decided against expanding its onslaught into a full-fledged invasion as some military officers suggested.

Undeterred after 16 days of attacks, Hezbollah militiamen again fired volleys of rockets into northern Israel, igniting a detergent factory and lightly wounding seven people. More than 110 Hezbollah rockets landed across the north on Thursday, following the launch of more than 150 rockets on Wednesday. More than 1,400 rockets have landed in Israel since the conflict began. [Emphasis added by me.]

The shift in Israeli direction is subtle, but nonetheless it is there and it is significant.

Israel’s climb down and the eventual end to this conflict will be seen by Hezbollah and the Arab world as a defeat. The only thing left to do for Israel and the United States is to try to soften the strategic blow to Israel by searching for a best-case withdrawal plan. To that end, the wheels have already been set in motion.

Enter Tony Blair, George W Bush’s hapless poodle. Mr. Blair will make a show of urging for a ceasefire during his meeting with Mr. Bush:

Tony Blair will press George Bush today to support "as a matter of urgency" a ceasefire in Lebanon as part of a UN security council resolution next week, according to Downing Street sources.

At a White House meeting, the prime minister will express his concern that pro-western Arab governments are "getting squeezed" by the crisis and the longer it continues, the more squeezed they will be, giving militants a boost. The private view from No 10 is that the US is "prevaricating" over the resolution and allowing the conflict to run on too long.

But diplomatic sources in Washington suggest the US and Israel believe serious damage has been inflicted on Hizbullah, so the White House is ready to back a ceasefire resolution at the UN next week. Today Mr Bush and Mr Blair will discuss a version of the resolution that has been circulating in Washington and London. [Emphasis added by me.]

The US and Israeli position will be that they can now propose a ceasefire because they have sufficiently degraded Hezbollah’s capabilities. They will proclaim victory and exit stage left. After weeks of defending the ridiculous notion that negotiations must occur before a ceasefire, the Bush Administration is reportedly ready to reverse course on the main sticking point:

The draft peace deal involves two phases. In the first, Israel and Lebanon would agree a ceasefire and a small multinational force would be deployed on the border, allowing Israeli troops to withdraw. Then a much larger force of between 10,000 and 20,000 troops would be assigned to implement UN security council resolution 1559, agreed two years ago, under which militias such as Hizbullah would be disarmed and the authority of the Lebanese government forces extended to the country’s southern border.

As with all foreign policy stands this Administration has bungled, they initially talk tough and then wither when reality encroaches on their fantasy world. So too here, when the reality of a protracted guerrilla war or an escalating regional conflict faced them squarely in the face, they crumbled. But as with all such neo-con fantasies, the cost of bravado is paid in innocent lives lost.

Adding to the chorus of voices demanding an immediate ceasefire, former President Clinton and his first term Secretary of State today firmly endorsed the position held by nearly the entire world. Former Secretary of State Warren Christopher, in particular, made the prevailing opinion on a ceasefire quite clear:

In the course of her trip, the secretary repeatedly insisted that any cease-fire be tied to a "permanent" and "sustainable" solution to the root causes of the conflict. Such a solution is achievable, if at all, only after protracted negotiations involving multiple parties. In the meantime, civilians will continue to die, precious infrastructure will continue to be destroyed and the fragile Lebanese democracy will continue to erode.

My own experience in the region underlies my belief that in the short term we should focus our efforts on stopping the killing. Twice during my four years as secretary of state we faced situations similar to the one that confronts us today. Twice, at the request of the Israelis, we helped bring the bloodshed to an end.

If only the current Democratic leadership had the courage to demand action instead of pandering for votes to save their political behinds. When this conflict is over and America’s prestige and influence in the world is further damaged the Democrats will have to share in the blame. In this instance the Democrats allied themselves with the Bush Administration, their neo-con friends and the End Timers for political expediency at the expense of America’s national security interests.

So, look for this war to draw down next week when the United Nations Security Council meets to debate a ceasefire. Look for a call for a ceasefire from the Security Council along with a carefully worded condemnation of Hezbollah and a plan to set up an international force to supplement UNIFIL in Southern Lebanon. Look for Israel to declare victory and begin withdrawing soon thereafter. Also look for the release of the Israeli soldiers followed by a discrete hand over of Lebanese prisoners a few weeks later. One might even find renewed talks on the hand over of the Golan Height and the Chebaa farms to get Syrian buy in.

Expect American pundits to flood the airwaves and declare the ceasefire to be a good outcome for Israel and a severe blow to Hezbollah’s capabilities. Expect the Lebanese to finally be able to bury their dead and begin the long path to recovery from this needless spasm of destruction.

What will be lost is a large chunk of Israel’s deterrence capabilities and some measure of America’s influence in the Middle East. What Hezbollah will have gained is adulation from the Arab masses and a greater stranglehold on Lebanese politics. What Syria will have gained is influence again in Lebanese affairs and momentum toward a resolution of the Golan Heights issues. What Iran will have gained is more regional power and clout.

All in all not a pretty picture for Israel. All of this was completely unnecessary. Ehud Olmert got his war and proved himself utterly incompetent.

[Hat tip: Beezer]

On Saturday, the United States and Japan finally got a UN Security Council resolution condemning North Korea. After much tough talk and bluster since North Korea launched ballistic missiles on July 4th, the United States and Japan backpedaled hard to save face at the United Nations. It is an indication of the weakness of the Bush Administration on the world stage that vis-à-vis the most isolated regime on the planet the United States is impotent.

The UN Security Council passed Resolution 1695 condemning North Korea’s missile launches without invoking Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. China had insisted that any resolution with the force of Chapter 7 would be met with a veto. After a week of negotiation, the French and the British brokered a resolution that does not contain reference to Chapter 7, but instead includes the following phrase:

Acting under its special responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security…

Chapter 7 of the UN Charter provides the Security Council the legal authority to act, militarily if necessary, to "maintain or restore international peace and security." Without reference to Chapter 7, a Security Council resolution has about the same force as a UN General Assembly resolution, which is to say none.

Kim Jong Il will feel emboldened after receiving a slap on the wrist for his missile tantrum. Mr. Bush on the other hand has been reduced to nonsensical musings about North Korea - a far cry from the heady days of bravado in the spring of 2001. Last week at a press conference, Mr. Bush had this to say about the Dear Leader:

Look, I don’t know — I don’t know what the man’s intentions are. I don’t know what they are. It’s an interesting question: Is he trying to force us to do something by defying the world? If he wants a way forward, it’s clear. If he wants to have good relations with the world, he’s got to verifiably get rid of his weapons programs like he agreed to do in 1994, stop testing missiles, and there is a way forward. Part of the discussions in September were, here’s a way forward. Here’s a way for — he’s worried about energy, and our partners at the table said, well, here’s an energy proposal for you to consider. And so the choice is his to make.

Clearly Mr. Bush is in need of some face time with Kim Jong Il so that he can look into his soul and find out what the man’s intentions are. It is not surprising that the Bush Administration does not understand North Korea’s intentions, but it is nonetheless quite alarming. It is also a direct consequence of Mr. Bush’s lack of a policy vis-à-vis North Korea.

Mr. Bush has not had a North Korea policy since he unceremoniously disposed of the Clinton Administration’s policy of engagement with the communist nation. In 2001, the new Republican Administration decided that America needed a new tougher policy toward the world and decided to put its blinders on. In doing so, it abandoned significant progress made by the Clinton Administration:

Toward the end of his term, Clinton made what officials said was significant progress toward an agreement under which North Korea would have abandoned its long-range missile programs in return for foreign help with launching North Korean satellites. But he ran out of time to clinch a deal.

The Bush Administration had decided to review (suspend) the Clinton Administration’s North Korea policies in favor of doing nothing. In a somewhat prophetic statement, a senior administration official was quoted at the time:

On the missile talks, the aide said before Bush took office last month: "We made clear to the Clinton administration that it was their decision to go forward and that we would then come back and take a fresh look at the entire policy.

"We don’t have a policy yet on whether we want to restart those discussions." [Emphasis added by me.]

In a sign of what was to come, Colin Powell, the chief American Diplomat, found himself advocating a policy his boss did not subscribe to. On March 6, 2001, Secretary Powell felt that the United States had a North Korea policy based on those of the previous administration:

Secretary of State Colin Powell said Tuesday the United States has "a lot to offer" North Korea if it curbs its missile development and missile export programs.

Powell said future U.S. contacts with Pyongyang would become clearer after South Korean President Kim Dae-jung’s visit.

"We do plan to engage with North Korea to pick up where President Clinton and his administration left off," Powell told a State Department news conference.

"Some promising elements were left on the table and we will be examining those elements," he added.

On March 7, 2001, President Bush publicly humiliated Colin Powell by informing the world that the United States did not have a North Korea policy:

"We look forward to at some point in the future having a dialogue with the North Koreans but … any negotiation would require complete verification," Bush told reporters in the Oval Office with Kim at his side.

"Part of the problem in dealing with North Korea is there’s not very much transparency. We’re not certain as to whether or not they’re keeping all terms of all agreements," Bush added.

Since the decision in 2001 by the Bush Administration to suspend negotiations with North Korea, many experts have urged the United States to reconsider such a head in the sand approach to foreign policy. However, this Administration has always considered diplomacy to be tantamount to appeasement. The Bush Administration did not then, nor does it now, understand that diplomacy and discussions have many purposes. Discussion is not a sign of weakness nor is it appeasement. One major benefit of discussion with your adversary is that it gives you insight into your adversary’s motivations. That insight is essential to a successful foreign policy. Without such insight, Mr. Bush today is confronting a major international crisis without any sense of what North Korea’s motivations are.

In place of diplomacy, the Bush Administration has engaged in a war of words with North Korea that has led to the crisis we face today. Under Mr. Bush’s watch we have seen North Korea withdraw from the NPT, build nuclear weapons, and test fire nuclear capable missiles. Without any coherent policy, the Bush Administration pays lip service to the Six-Party Talks while insisting that the other parties to the talks share the same interests as the United States. Nothing could be further from the truth. The only country which has similar interests as the United States vis-à-vis North Korea is Japan. The other 3 countries, China, Russia and South Korea, have in some cases contrary goals to those of the United States. North Korea’s July 4th missile gambit exposed some of these deep divisions. One rather clear example of the divisions that exist was South Korea’s reaction to Japan’s threat of a pre-emptive strike on North Korea:

South Korea "will strongly react to the Japanese political leaders’ arrogance and outrageous rhetoric that further intensifies the crisis on the Korean Peninsula with dangerous and provocative rhetoric such as ‘pre-emptive strike,"’ Jung said.

The spokesman also accused the Japanese of using the missile tests as "a pretext for becoming a military power."

Jung said the Japanese remarks expose Tokyo’s tendency for aggression, noting Japan used the protection of its nationals on the Korean Peninsula as an excuse for past invasions. The Korean Peninsula was ruled by Japan as a colony from 1910 to 1945.

While the Bush Administration does its best to do nothing, North Korea continues on its march to becoming a regional nuclear power.

Mr. Bush has famously said that he does not do nuance. Diplomacy however is all about nuance. Instead, Mr. Bush has relied on his Doctrine of Preemption to counter threats to the security of the United States. However, as Iraq has rather amply demonstrated, Mr. Bush’s doctrine has been a spectacular failure. The consequence of this grand failure has emboldened adversaries such as North Korea. American diplomacy is at its weakest since World War II and the whole world has taken notice. Mr. Bush has no policy and very few options with regard to North Korea. A toothless UN Security Council resolution is the best American diplomacy can buy these days.

So, while Mr. Bush wonders what the Dear Leader is thinking, North Korea continues to gate crash the Nuclear Club.

 [Crossposted at Taylor Marsh]

The only saving grace of this moronic pissing contest in the Middle East for me is that at least they had the decency to wait until the World Cup ended. The rest of this nasty business is an exercise in stupidity. Israel has now declared that they will no longer be satisfied by the return of their soldiers. Their goal now is to destroy Hezbollah, they say. Well, good luck with that. Seeing how successful Israel was in destroying Hezbollah during the 22 years it spent occupying Lebanon, I won’t exactly hold my breath.

History and common sense have never been barriers to rash action in the Middle East. This time is proving to be no different. In response to the taking of 2 of its soldiers, Israel felt compelled, like it did in Gaza, to exact revenge on the people of Lebanon. The logic appears to be that somehow Hezbollah will cry uncle if Israel bombs enough bridges, destroys every inch of Beirut’s International Airport, blows up a random civilian or a dozen. The hope appears to be that somehow Hezbollah will buckle after seeing the suffering of the Lebanese people - a feat that 22 years of Israeli attacks on Lebanon failed to achieve. So in that vain hope Israel is methodically sending Lebanon back in time one 500-pound bomb at a time. Apparently, Hezbollah did not get the memo. They have responded by declaring "Open War" against Israel and have blown up an Israeli warship using a poor man’s Tomahawk missile.

Almost exactly a decade after the last massive Israeli-Hezbollah spat, the same game plan is playing out. On April 11, 1996, CNN reported the following:

Israeli aircraft launched an intense military assault against the militant Islamic group Hezbollah Thursday, striking targets in Beirut as well as in eastern and southern Lebanon.

It is the first time since 1982 that Israel forces have attacked Beirut.

At least one civilian was killed and at least five were wounded in Thursday’s raid as Israeli helicopter gunships blasted Hezbollah areas in Beirut’s southern suburbs.

The Beirut raids came hours after Israeli aircraft pounded Hezbollah headquarters near the Lebanese cities of Tyre and Baalbek.

Israel officials said all aircraft have returned safely.

The attacks follow weeks of growing tensions between both sides. On Tuesday, about 30 Israelis were injured when Hezbollah rocketed villages in northern Israel.

The situation had deteriorated significantly by April 14, 1996:

BEIRUT, Lebanon (CNN) — Artillery and rocket attacks continued to pound both sides of the Lebanon border Sunday as Israel and Hezbollah militants bombarded targets in south Lebanon and north Israel.

In the United States, the White House called on Hezbollah to cease its "provocative" actions, but the militants vowed to turn northern Israel into "fiery hell" and launched more rockets.

One Hezbollah rocket hit an empty lot at the United Nations peacekeeping force headquarters in Naquora, Lebanon. The Katyusha rocket, believed to have fallen short of its target, caused no casualties.

Israeli forces, attacking areas in Beirut and surrounding suburbs for the fourth day, knocked out a power station, and at least three Lebanese civilians were killed in the air raids on south Lebanon. Some 400,000 people in the area have been forced to flee.

Hezbollah’s rockets, falling at a rate of one every 20 minutes on Sunday, also struck a school, but no casualties were reported.

Hezbollah also announced an expansion of its bombing efforts. Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s leader, said that squads of suicide bombers from a "brigade of martyrdom-lovers" will attack Israeli targets to retaliate against the bombings.

That particular spat came to an end after the United States stepped in to mediate a cease-fire. Years later, Israel unilaterally withdrew from Lebanon and subsequently swapped prisoners with Hezbollah.

Some in Israel and the United States viewed the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon as a humiliating defeat and as an act of betrayal. It is a defeat that Ehud Olmert has now set about to rectify, much to the glee of the neo-conservatives in the United States.

During the escalation of 1996, there were grown ups at the White House who delicately talked Israel and Hezbollah (through proxies) off the ledge. There were moderating forces who were able to put the brakes on an all out conflagration. No such forces exist in Washington today. Instead of trying to cool the rhetoric the Bush Administration has been adding fuel to the fire with pronouncements emanating from the White House and from the anti-diplomat John Bolton at the UN Security Council. President Bush blamed Syria for instigating Hezbollah:

And having said that, Israel has a right to defend herself. Every nation must defend herself against terrorist attacks and the killing of innocent life. It’s a necessary part of the 21st century.

Secondly, we — whatever Israel does, though, should not weaken the Siniora government in Lebanon. We’re concerned about the fragile democracy in Lebanon. We’ve been working very hard through the United Nations and with partners to strengthen the democracy in Lebanon. The Lebanese people have democratic aspirations, which is being undermined by the actions and activities of Hezbollah.

Thirdly, Syria needs to be held to account. Syria is housing the militant wing of Hamas. Hezbollah ha