|
Volume CXXXII, Number 12 |
 |
Why Iraq, but not North Korea?
PAT ROCKEFELLER
COLUMNIST
As U.S. forces mass on the borders of Iraq, the tirade of anti-war sloganeering continues, questioning the legitimacy of action, particularly concerning inconsistencies in policy between Iraq and North Korea.
The argument goes something like, "Well, if we are going to invade Iraq for trying to get nukes, why not North Korea, since it already has them, and is planning on making more?" This pathetic jab from the anti-war crowd is just far too weak to be repeated as often as it is, in many cases by otherwise intelligent people.
At the most basic level the answer is "because North Korea already has nuclear weapons." The most fundamental reason behind the invasion of Iraq is to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It is important to act now, before the Butcher of Baghdad has the chance to build one, because once he does, the stakes of invasion are dramatically increased. The world faces very narrow options with North Korea precisely because it is a nuclear state, and no serious person actually thinks we should invade.
A nuclear armed opponent limits the options of the U.S., U.N., and the rest of the world. Were Saddam Hussein in control of nukes, he could run rampant around the Middle East with impunity. Some claim deterrence would work for Iraq as it did for the Soviet Union. This is shortsighted. First off, a new cold war is hardly an appealing thought. Secondly, Hussein is a gambler, and he would be right to gamble. If he had nukes, and re-invaded Kuwait or Iran, what would the U.S. do? Nothing. We would not be willing to risk a nuclear exchange. In fact, we could use ours in response, but it would be nice to have a solution to the problem that wasn't dependent upon our turning Baghdad into a glow in the dark tomb.
There are of course other factors to consider as well. North Korea has other strong states surrounding it that can put pressure on it to act responsibly-China, its closest proximity to an ally, is a good example. There are no similar states in the Middle East to keep a nuclear Iraq in check, and the United Nations has proven itself quite incapable or unwilling to play the role it set out for itself at the end of the Gulf War.
So, is the President's foreign policy inconsistent? Of course. Just as it should be. Whoever said foreign policy had to be consistent was a fool. The idea of always using force or never using force, regardless of the situation is absurd. Indeed, after the President's much maligned "Axis of Evil" statement most pundits worried that the President was coloring three very different countries exactly the same. They said that they each needed to be treated differently in accordance with the particular problems each country posed and faced.
Now that the President has done just that-treating each case individually-many of the same are shouting that it's unfair to invade Iraq, but not Korea, or for that matter China, Pakistan, Israel, etc. Unfair indeed. This is a child's argument. Bobby gets to stay up later, why not me? North Korea gets to develop nuclear weapons, why not Iraq?
The idea that the President may actually understand these complexities never seems to occur to his critics. Either he does not know he has to treat different countries differently, or he is treating them differently for selfish reasons (oil and dad). In reality, he has handled the Axis of Evil regimes in the most appropriate manner possible. Iraq will be confronted with the military, North Korea with diplomacy, and the people of Iran will be encouraged to revolt against their leaders.
Of course most people who use the "inconsistency" argument are not actually calling for an invasion of North Korea. On the contrary, they are trying to cast doubt on the validity of action in Iraq. Fine. But one must wonder what audience they are appealing to with this miserable argument, and in what low esteem they must consider this audience if they count on them not being able to reason a difference between the two scenarios.
|
FastCounter by bCentral |