The "Kang Nam" Confrontation
The North Korean freighter Kang Nam is steaming toward Myanmar (Burma), cargo unknown. America suspects that she's carrying missiles with which to arm Burma's renegade military regime. The destroyer USS John McCain is shadowing the Kang Nam, and could intercept and inspect her at any time. But ... the UN sanctions which the McCain would be enforcing only allow an inspection if the Power owning the ship chooses to allow the inspection.
Meanwhile, North Korea has declared herself "a proud nuclear power" and is threatening to "harm" the United States if provoked ("It would be a grave mistake for the U.S. to think it can remain unhurt if it ignites the fuse of war on the Korean peninsula," according to Rodung Sinmun, North Korea's main newspaper). The threat is almost certainly a bluff, as it's far from certain that North Korea has even one more nuclear weapon after having tested one such device, and in any case the North Koreans have no means yet of delivering atomic bombs. Their existing missiles, which probably can't carry their existing nuclear devices, can barely reach Alaska and Hawaii, and their accuracy and reliabilitgy at such ranges is highly dubious.
Obama says that he has fortified Hawaii, even as he proposes a budget which would reduce the funding for missile defense programs (he might want to rethink that, maybe). In an attempt to assure the American people on "The Early Show" last Friday for broadcast today (Monday), Obama said "I don't want to speculate on hypotheticals. But I want ... to give assurances to the American people that the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted in terms of what might happen."
Which confirms that, as a commander-in-chief, Obama is a pettifogging lawyer. What the hell does that statement mean anyway? Does he imagine that warfare is some sort of legal document that he has to make sure is properly filled out before he files it?
I see, roughly, five things that could happen:
(1) Obama does nothing. The Kang Nam puts in at Burma and unloads her cargo. The UN sanctions are revealed to be toothless. Obama claims that he's won a great victory by "keeping the peace." The mainstream media observes that he's Gandhi.
(2) Obama orders the Kang Nam intercepted. Kim Jong Il does nothing, because he was bluffing all along. Obama claims that he's won a great victory by "enforcing international law." The mainstream media observes that he's Alexander.
(3) Obama orders the Kang Nam intercepted. Kim Jong Il commits some atrocity against South Korea. Obama does little or does something token in reply. Obama claims that he's won a great victory by "containing the conflict." The mainstream media observes that he's Metternich. Or they would if they knew who the hell was Metternich.
(4) Obama orders the Kang Nam intercepted. Kim Jong Il attempts some attack against America, but his Rube Goldberg designed nuclear missiles fail miserably. Obama claims he's won a great victory by "defending the nation." The mainstream media observe that he's Churchill.
(5) Obama orders the Kang Nam intercepted. Kim Jong Il successfully detonates a nuclear weapon against an American city. Obama follows the mob screaming for North Korean blood in revenge. The mainstream media are too busy screaming along with the mob to claim that Obama's anything in particular, but they counsel complete obedience to the Leader in this terrible time of crisis.
I honestly think that "1" is the most likely possibility, followed by "2." Obama is a coward, and Kim Jong Il is a blowhard. If "1" happens then the sanctions are revealed to have been worthless, so why did we spend so much time negotiating and promulgating them? If "2" happens then Obama will utterly take the credit, but I'd stll rather see this than see us lose the standoff with North Korea.
One big question, though ...
... What will we do when North Korea really has a regiment or so of functional nuclear missiles? Is anyone considering maybe restoring that funding for missile defense? Or pre-emptively attacking North Korea?
You know, maybe we shouldn't just ignore this issue except when it comes to a head as a crisis? It's not going to go away, unless we do something pro-active?
Meanwhile, North Korea has declared herself "a proud nuclear power" and is threatening to "harm" the United States if provoked ("It would be a grave mistake for the U.S. to think it can remain unhurt if it ignites the fuse of war on the Korean peninsula," according to Rodung Sinmun, North Korea's main newspaper). The threat is almost certainly a bluff, as it's far from certain that North Korea has even one more nuclear weapon after having tested one such device, and in any case the North Koreans have no means yet of delivering atomic bombs. Their existing missiles, which probably can't carry their existing nuclear devices, can barely reach Alaska and Hawaii, and their accuracy and reliabilitgy at such ranges is highly dubious.
Obama says that he has fortified Hawaii, even as he proposes a budget which would reduce the funding for missile defense programs (he might want to rethink that, maybe). In an attempt to assure the American people on "The Early Show" last Friday for broadcast today (Monday), Obama said "I don't want to speculate on hypotheticals. But I want ... to give assurances to the American people that the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted in terms of what might happen."
Which confirms that, as a commander-in-chief, Obama is a pettifogging lawyer. What the hell does that statement mean anyway? Does he imagine that warfare is some sort of legal document that he has to make sure is properly filled out before he files it?
I see, roughly, five things that could happen:
(1) Obama does nothing. The Kang Nam puts in at Burma and unloads her cargo. The UN sanctions are revealed to be toothless. Obama claims that he's won a great victory by "keeping the peace." The mainstream media observes that he's Gandhi.
(2) Obama orders the Kang Nam intercepted. Kim Jong Il does nothing, because he was bluffing all along. Obama claims that he's won a great victory by "enforcing international law." The mainstream media observes that he's Alexander.
(3) Obama orders the Kang Nam intercepted. Kim Jong Il commits some atrocity against South Korea. Obama does little or does something token in reply. Obama claims that he's won a great victory by "containing the conflict." The mainstream media observes that he's Metternich. Or they would if they knew who the hell was Metternich.
(4) Obama orders the Kang Nam intercepted. Kim Jong Il attempts some attack against America, but his Rube Goldberg designed nuclear missiles fail miserably. Obama claims he's won a great victory by "defending the nation." The mainstream media observe that he's Churchill.
(5) Obama orders the Kang Nam intercepted. Kim Jong Il successfully detonates a nuclear weapon against an American city. Obama follows the mob screaming for North Korean blood in revenge. The mainstream media are too busy screaming along with the mob to claim that Obama's anything in particular, but they counsel complete obedience to the Leader in this terrible time of crisis.
I honestly think that "1" is the most likely possibility, followed by "2." Obama is a coward, and Kim Jong Il is a blowhard. If "1" happens then the sanctions are revealed to have been worthless, so why did we spend so much time negotiating and promulgating them? If "2" happens then Obama will utterly take the credit, but I'd stll rather see this than see us lose the standoff with North Korea.
One big question, though ...
... What will we do when North Korea really has a regiment or so of functional nuclear missiles? Is anyone considering maybe restoring that funding for missile defense? Or pre-emptively attacking North Korea?
You know, maybe we shouldn't just ignore this issue except when it comes to a head as a crisis? It's not going to go away, unless we do something pro-active?