North Korea gave the world some good news this week - finally handing over a declaration about its nuclear program and promising to blow up the cooling tower at its Yongbyon nuclear facility. But don't break out the best bubbly just yet. These moves are only a first step in what is likely to be a drawn-out, slippery, pot-hole-filled road in a (possibly futile) attempt to roll back Kim Jong Il's membership in the nuclear-weapons club.
Yes, the White House got a bit light-headed over the Korean news: It's already started the process of lifting economic sanctions on the reclusive nation as a reward for good behavior. (That process could get controversial, especially in Congress: Do Kim & Co. really deserve to come off the Terrorism List, or to escape punishment under the Trading With the Enemy Act?) And it was good news, if measured: Tumbling the cooling tower puts the Yongbyon plant out of commission - and it would take a year to rebuild. Making the nuclear declaration this week is a welcome step, too.
But a welcome initial step. Pyongyang is six months late in handing over what's supposed to be a complete and correct accounting of its nuclear programs - and you can bet we're not going to get anything close to the Full Monty.
* It won't have anything about the regime's clandestine, uranium-based nuclear-weapons program. Washington insists Pyongyang has such a program, which parallels the plutonium program at Yongbyon. But the North Koreans have been evasive - at best - about its existence.
* The declaration also won't have any info on the regime's nuclear-proliferation activities, such as its work with Damascus on a nuclear reactor at al Kibar in northern Syria (the one targeted in last September's Israeli air raid). Proliferation-watchers also have a sinking sense that North Korea may be involved with Iran. After all, the two have robust ties on ballistic missiles - Iran's Shahab missile is based on North Korea's No Dong.
* Finally, it won't have the scoop on the size of the North Korean nuclear-weapons arsenal. Pyongyang sees its nukes as a critical ace-in-the-hole against American pressure or aggression. But getting a handle on the arsenal's size is key, if (and that's a big if) we're ever going to make progress on pulling Pyongyang's nuclear fangs.
Other challenges are ahead, too. In a speech at the Heritage Foundation just a week ago, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice insisted the United States would demand tough verification of Kim's declaration, including access to nuclear facilities and other data. That's the right approach - verification is a critical element of any current or future agreement. But good luck getting anywhere on that one.
The idea of a gaggle of US inspectors freely running around the ultra-secretive North Korean police state poking their noses into labs and the like boggles the mind. In fact, recent North Korean whispers suggest Pyongyang will reject out of hand any verification regime that would the pass the laugh test.
Rejecting verification outright would call into question Kim's willingness to disarm in the long run - after all, the regime has a solid record of breaking its word on nukes, most notably the 1994 Geneva Agreed Framework. Overall, a solid verification regime is probably the proverbial "long pole in the tent" - the toughest test in getting from this week's first steps to the final goal of disarmament. In the end, all US moves must support a verifiable process that ultimately uncovers all of Pyongyang's programs, neuters its nukes and puts an end to its problematic proliferation.
Obviously this is only one more step. But its a BIG STEP.
Credit should (but won't) go to the geeky nuke experts in the Bush Admin who kept at this. Also, to be honest, some credit goes to the Chicoms who refused to suppose continued delay by the Norks.
#3
The key to success here is like for the vaccuum cleaner salesman. Just get your foot in the door, any way you can. Previously, we've let the baby panda maintain his status as absolute doorkeeper. Bush's nuclear geeks seem to have opened the door a crack. That's better than anyone else has done. I agree that it's very early to start the high fives, but it's also too early to scoff it to death.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
06/27/2008 9:13 Comments ||
Top||
#4
#3 is prob correct but 2008-2012 is going to be a fickle time for all concerned [World].
Lest we fergit, NOKOR's NUCLEAR KIMCHEE/RICE BOWL ALSO POINTS AGZ CHINA + RUSSIA as the NOKOR's right now can be ascribed as "ASIA'S PALESTINIANS" LOOKING FOR THEIR WAY IN THE WORLD. THeir people and land stands to get wiped out no matter what what major war scenario occurs on andor around the Korean Peninsula.
*OTOH, see also TOPIX > NORTH KOREA'S NUCLEAR DECLARATION: THE MOTHER OF ALL SUCKER DEALS?
VARI NETTERS > worry that, as similar to UNIAEA = EL BARADEI's recent comments on IRAN only needing six months to dev a NucBomb + any POST-ISRAELI ATTACK RETALIATORY NUCDEV OPTIONS, IFF NEW DECLARATION PROCESS FAILS > NOKOR WILL HAVE AN EXCUSE TO FOCUS ON RAPID EXTENSIVE DEV OF POST-URANIUM NUCTECHS = ADVANCED WMDS???
H/T Allahpundit at Hot Air
I have nothing to say about this except to flag it as an early alert that the golden boys popularity back home might be in jeopardy. To my surprise, weve gotten half a dozen e-mails from Louisianans since the creationist posts advising me that the big issue back home has nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with a pay raise the state legislature just voted for itself something Jindal promised when he was running for governor last year that hed oppose. Its not just our readers either. Check Google News and youll find more coverage of the pay raise than the debate over intelligent design. Even the NYT is in on the action: Usual disclaimers apply re trusting the Fashionable Left's favorite fishwrapper...but the NYT's not the only source. Check out the comments at the original Hotair.com story...these folks are seriously pissed.
Conservative talk-radio show hosts and bloggers have denounced it, newspaper editorials have inveighed against it The Times-Picayune of New Orleans called the increase greedy and its main proponent shameless and the legislators themselves received floods of e-mail messages from angry constituents
This pay raise is devastating him, said Moon Griffon, a conservative talk-radio host with a wide following in northern Louisiana, the most Republican and evangelical part of the state. Ive gotten over 5,000 e-mails from people who say they voted for him, and who say they would never vote for him again.
Mr. Griffon added, People dont like hypocrisy, and they like somebody with guts.
The legislative session ended Monday, and Mr. Jindal now has two weeks to veto the pay increase, though he has given no indication that he will do so
No matter where I go, they certainly are disappointed, and they are using some very unkind words related to his spine, said Bernie Pinsonat, a pollster in Baton Rouge. Its pretty ferocious. He added, Im quite positive his base is very upset with him.
Something's happening here, and from the standpoint of those of us worried about the Republican Party's future, it ain't good. The comments from enraged Louisiana conservatives at Hotair DO NOT read like lefty college kids trying to spam a conservative site...they read like they came from genuine folks who are genuinely steamed.
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
06/27/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
I don't think it's a case of "somebody having something" on Bobby - more likely it's just a matter of him thinking he can make compromises with these kleptocrats in hope of advancing some of his agenda, and instead accomplishing nothing except pissing off the people who put him in the Governor's mansion.
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
06/27/2008 2:48 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I get real tired of the wanks who rage about pay raises in the same breath talk of their legislators as scum. You pay for scum now. How about paying for quality work to attract quality people? Gee, what a concept, works in most free enterprise and sport environments. How dearly we cling to our childhood beliefs no matter how dysfunctional they manifest themselves in the real world. It so lefty in nature.
#7
I am going to take a wait-and-see on this, to see if he actually gets something in return for this.
Posted by: Phil ||
06/27/2008 10:36 Comments ||
Top||
#8
The pay increase would more than double the salary of the part-time legislators effective July 8, to $37,500 from $16,800, with more payouts once expenses are included.
Some Louisiana voters are retarded. The deal was that all other forms of corruption previously legal would now be illegal - and the payoff is this tiny - relative to the perks given up - pay increase.
Legislators have not had a pay raise since 1980 and they complain they are working nearly full-time because Jindal frequently calls them into special sessions.
Google "Jindal" and "exorcism", my lefty acquaintences are squawking loudly about this disqualifying him for national office. It seems that the left has embarked on a jihad against Bobby Jindal, you can smell the fear already.
In East Baghdad, and Shia cities throughout the south, the Mahdi Army is no more. The Iran supported group was taken apart by government security forces during the last two months. All that's left of radical cleric Muqtada al Sadr's private army are a few hundred die hard members who are, for the moment, keeping their heads down. And for good reason.
While appreciated in 2006 -7 for keeping Sunni Arab terrorists out of Shia neighborhoods, the Mahdi Army quickly evolved into a collection of self-serving thugs. Once civilians realized that the army and police were stronger, and moving in to stay, the cell phones came out and the police were buried in tips about Mahdi Army safe houses and arms caches. Sadr has been hiding out in Iran through all this.
Sunni Arab terrorist diehards are undergoing the same experience up north, but with more violence. Around Mosul, U.S. Special Forces teams, which have been chasing al Qaeda leaders for years, are having enormous success. The surge offensive drove many al Qaeda, and Iraqi Sunni Arab terrorist leaders to the Mosul area, where a spectacular last stand was supposed to give the terrorists a badly needed victory.
Didn't work out that way, and now the terrorist leaders are either hunkering down, or running for the border. Either way, they are getting caught. The combination of wide spread cell phone availability, and anti-terrorist Iraqis, is giving the police and Special Forces the tips they need.
The downside of all this is that U.S. troops are now regularly travelling to areas, long been labeled "extremely hostile", they have never been in before. While those Sunni Arab towns are generally considered safe and well policed for Iraqis, there are still scattered groups of terrorists about, capable of pulling off an impromptu ambush or suicide bombing against foreigners.
The terrorists are also using more women as bombers, there having been an outbreak of Islamic feminism on the Internet, where the women demanded that they be allowed to participate and die for the cause. Since women suicide bombers have been, and still are, quite rare, their chances of evading security are better. The overall result of this new freedom-of-movement is a near doubling of American combat deaths (from the record low last month of 19).
Several terrorist groups are trying to negotiate some kind of amnesty deal, using kidnapping victims as trade bait. These hostages have, in some cases, been held for a long time. The most prominent of these, five British citizens, have been captives for a year (as terrorists demanded the release of nine pro-Iran killers).
This has put the government in a difficult position, as hundreds of Iraqis are being held (some may actually be dead, but even getting "proof-of-life" requires giving the kidnappers something.) While most Iraqis want the hostages released, they also do not want to reward the terrorists.
The defeat of the major terrorist organizations is bringing the spotlight back to Iraq (and the Arab worlds) primary problem; corruption. With reconstruction money and police pouring into Sunni Arab towns for the first time in seven years, there's been some culture shock.
The Sunni Arabs have long been accustomed to the old rules (which Saddam Hussein exploited artfully) whereby local strongmen were paid off, and then these tough guys did whatever it took (murder, kidnapping, mutilation, etc) to keep the locals quiet. The new Shia government is trying (with mixed success) to get away from the old ways. It isn't easy. Centuries of tradition don't willingly change overnight.
There will be more violence, as corrupt locals decide old school customs are worth killing for. Actually, they always have been, which is why most Arab nations are police states, where murder, or the threat of it, is the final arbiter of disputes with the government. Meanwhile, reconstruction efforts are delayed, or derailed, by rampant theft, lies and deception supplied by local officials.
U.S. troops are back to their pre-surge strength of 15 brigades, although troop strength is a little higher (142,000 versus 135,000) because some additional support units are still around.
The surge offensive that began in early 2007 has reduced Iraqi civilian casualties by 80 percent and lowered violence against U.S. troops to 2004 levels. But a lot of this security is held together by U.S. troops, who still advise and assist Iraqi troops and police.
American commanders believe that it's only a matter of time before all Iraqi units are capable of doing their jobs on their own, but for now only about ten percent of Iraqi police and military units are in that category. It may take 5-10 years to get everyone able to operate on their own.
Meanwhile, ten of Iraq's 18 provinces have their security provided by Iraqi security forces, with Iraqis in charge (and U.S. forces just on call.)
#1
The cure is inculcation of individualism, honesty, and a stubborn attachment to liberty (personal and economic) -- and the defeat of collectivism and tribalism.
Pretty tall order.
But its rpobably the best place to try it in the middle east: By having a multicultural society with decades of secularism behind it, and the potential for economic freedom via the oil (and an "Alaska" style revenue plan), its pretty fertile ground. And as a bonus, Iran and the failure of its theocracy next door show just how bad the alternatives are.
In hindsight, its probably the only place woudl woudl be able to do such a social-reengineering project.
And the biggest bonus is, if it works, Iraq is dead center culturally and geographically for the entire region. It can become a fulcrum for democratic republic movements to use as leverage throughout the region.
#3
There are layers of intentional deception here. The US Army has long played games with readiness reporting, downplaying it for interesting reasons.
I remember that entire US units in Germany were kept at a 'B' rating, because they didn't have some arcane commo equipment issued to them, and wouldn't have unless war was imminent.
Supposedly the equipment was back in the US, and it is unlikely it could ever make it to Europe in time. But had the mythical equipment been with these units, they would have had high 'A' ratings.
It was comic, because nobody in these units had ever seen it, and would have no idea how to use it. Something they would be a bit too busy to learn if war was imminent, in any event.
But had these units been 'A' rated, Soviet intel would have become quite excited, which they were prone to do anyway.
This being said, I imagine the real readiness of the Iraqi army is a very, very closely guarded secret. And one hell of a lot higher then they let on.
Liberals are more comfortable thinking about America that way: as a nation that must earn its citizens' devotion by making good on its ideals. For conservatives, the devotion must come first; politics is secondary. But for liberals, patriotic devotion without political struggle is often empty. Liberals think lapel pins are fine if they inspire Americans to struggle to realize the nation's promise. But they worry that those symbols can becomeespecially when wielded by people in powersubstitutes for that struggle and thus emblems of hypocrisy and complacency.
That paragraph is great, because it isolates a lot of the controversy surrounding the for the first time in my adult, life, Im proud of my country statement by Michelle Obama how conditional is your love of, or your pride in, your country?
To take one obvious contrast, Democrats won control of the House and Senate in 2006. You didnt hear many conservatives or Republicans pledging to move abroad because they found the leadership so unacceptable. The quadrennial (usually-empty) threats of emigration from the Hollywood set essentially declare, If my countrymen choose a leader I disagree with, Im leaving. My identity as an American and citizenship are contingent upon a president I like. Is your love of your country dependent upon the people choosing leadership you like? In your world view, are the American people allowed to make a choice you think is wrong and still be good people?
There are parts of this country and its national culture I dont like: the tripe Hollywood churns out year after year, the ugliness of some suburban sprawl, the reverberating cultural effects of those who see misfortune as a way to luxury by suing anyone who they think will capitulate; the thousand little ways that public life seems to grow coarser, less respectful, inconsiderate. But none of them rise to the point where I say, I dont love my country or Im not proud of my country. Reading about the U.S. bombing of a Serbian television station during our military intervention in Kosovo, and killing women whose sole connection to Milosevics regime was applying makeup to those who went before the cameras, I can relate to the liberal who recoils and says, I cant believe my country did that. But American misdeeds would have to go much further before I said, I dont love my country.
By contrast, check out Charles Pierces essay in Esquire that's allegedly a profile about Obama but that spends much time seething with rage not just against President Bush and the people who voted for him, but at the people of the United States who he contends have been accessorial in the murder of their country.
More than anything else, the presidential election ongoing is or, as a right, ought to be about ending an era of complicity. There is no point anymore in blaming George Bush or the men he hired or the party he represented or the conservative movement that energized that party for what has happened to this country in the past seven years. They were all merely the vehicles through whom the fear and the lassitude and the neglect and the dry rot that had been afflicting the democratic structures for decades came to a dramatic and disastrous crescendo. The Bill of Rights had been rendered a nullity by degrees long before a passel of apparatchik hired lawyers found in its text enough gray space to allow a fecklessly incompetent president to command that torture be carried out in the countrys name. The war powers of the Congress had been deeded wholesale to the executive long before Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz and a passel of think-tank cowboys found within them the right of a fecklessly incompetent president to make war unilaterally on anyone, anywhere, forever. The war in Iraq is the powerful bastard child of the Iran-Contra scandal, which went unpunished.
If all of your love is for "America the not-yet-realized ideal", sparing none for the country that is actually around you, then yes, I think it is okay to question your patriotism. If you loved your spouse, child, family member or friend for what they could be, as opposed to what they are, I think they would doubt whether you truly loved them at all.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/27/2008 12:09 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The war in Iraq is the powerful bastard child of the Iran-Contra scandal...
This part is almost true. It's actually the bastard child of Watergate.
The left was enraged that Nixon resigned before they could impeach him, so when Iran-Contra broke, they decided to make Reagan a substitute.
This so infuriated the right that they did impeach Bill Clinton.
This sent the left into an even greater frenzy, and may well be at the root of all BDS.
To allow our nation to heal, I propose a Constitutional Amendment which would require Congress to begin impeachment proceedings the Monday after each inauguration.
I think it's illuminating to compare Justice Breyer's dissent in DC v. Heller with his dissent in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 693 (2002), the Cleveland school voucher case from a few years ago. Like Heller, Zelman is a "culture wars" case. To many liberal elites, both school vouchers and guns seem foreign and suspicious. They both threaten the common enterprise of a civil and enlightened society, even if poor people and folks from the flyover states seem to like them. So the interesting queston is, how does Justice Breyer approach the constitutionality of these provisions permitting school vouchers in Zelman, and banning handguns in Heller?
In his Zelman dissent, Justice Breyer reasons that public school vouchers are unconstitutional because they "risk[]" creating "a form of religiously based conflict potentially harmful to the Nations social fabric." That is, they are unconstitutional because there is a possibility that they could lead to tension among religious groups. Justice Breyer speculates that such programs might lead different religious groups to feel that they are not getting a fair shake . . . As I read Breyer's Zelman dissent, his perception of a risk that the law could have a harmful result that touches on religious practice is enough to strike it down.
Contrast Breyer's Zelman dissent with his dissent in Heller. Here, the polarity of the culture wars has been reversed. And so has Justice Breyer's approach: Now he reasons that the possibility of a positive social impact of the law makes it constitutional. The political philosopher of Zelman is replaced with a careful and cautious social scientist who runs over pages and pages of statistics and scientific studies in Heller. So long as the legislature had a possible basis for thinking that restricting the constitutional right was a good idea, Breyer explains, the law should be upheld . . .
It's an interesting mirror image, I think. When the culture wars pointed one way, Justice Breyer thought that a "risk" of a "potentially harmful" adverse result was enough to strike the law down. When the culture wars pointed in the other direction, so did the burden of proof: now Justice Breyer must have his "confidence" in the reasonableness of the legislature "convincingly" "destroyed" before he would vote to strike down the law.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that Justice Breyer is alone in taking different approaches depending on which side of the culture wars the challenged law happens to fall. Plainly he is not. At the same time, I do think the contrast between these two dissents provides an unusually clear case of the difference.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/27/2008 10:44 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
North Korea gave the world some good news this week - finally handing over a declaration about its nuclear program and promising to blow up the cooling tower at its Yongbyon nuclear facility. But don't break out the best bubbly just yet. These moves are only a first step in what is likely to be a drawn-out, slippery, pot-hole-filled road in a (possibly futile) attempt to roll back Kim Jong Il's membership in the nuclear-weapons club. 
Several terrorist groups are trying to negotiate some kind of amnesty deal, using kidnapping victims as trade bait. These hostages have, in some cases, been held for a long time. The most prominent of these, five British citizens, have been captives for a year (as terrorists demanded the release of nine pro-Iran killers). 
There will be more violence, as corrupt locals decide old school customs are worth killing for. Actually, they always have been, which is why most Arab nations are police states, where murder, or the threat of it, is the final arbiter of disputes with the government. Meanwhile, reconstruction efforts are delayed, or derailed, by rampant theft, lies and deception supplied by local officials. 
