horsemen ride

July 15, 2003 1:06 AM

Drifiting towards war - "I have held off public criticism to this point because I had hoped that the administration was going to act on this problem, and that public criticism might be counterproductive. But time is running out, and each month the problem gets more dangerous." - Fmr Defense Secretary William Perry
posted by jdaura (20 comments total)

"Within the past two months, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has ordered U.S. military commanders to devise a new war plan for a possible conflict with North Korea. Elements of the draft, known as Operations Plan 5030, are so aggressive that they could provoke a war, some senior Bush administration officials tell U.S. News."

More links in this WarFilter thead.
posted by homunculus at 1:25 AM on July 15, 2003

Oh goody, another war just in time for the election! Let's kill all those slitty-eyed bastards before they get us. It will be even easier to sell than the War on Towelheads, as we don't even need to fabricate any evidence this time!

</troll>
posted by cbrody at 2:16 AM on July 15, 2003

Since there are whole departments of people who do nothing but dream up war scenarios and plans to deal with them, I have no doubt we have plans for invading Switzerland and Denmark. And these plans get updated as a matter of course whenever a particular spot in the world acquires heightened current interest. I'll bet our most recent plan for invading France doesn't have sixty years worth of dust on it If Rumsfeld did tell somebody to make a new plan for North Korea, I bet a buck the answer was "We're already doing that, sir. Would you like to see a draft copy?". Of course, he might well have looked at the draft and said "This isn't reckless enough, do it over."
posted by jfuller at 7:23 AM on July 15, 2003

What jfuller and cbrody said.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 7:27 AM on July 15, 2003

I doubt we'd have plans for invading either Switzerland or Denmark. We didn't even have plans for invading Granada when we did it in the 1980's. Hell we didn't even have a map of the island when we tried to invade. I would think that the department would of at least said, hey, since we're planning lets get a map of every country, just in case.
posted by jmauro at 8:15 AM on July 15, 2003

They eat dogs in North Korea!!!

Bombs away!!!
posted by xmutex at 8:38 AM on July 15, 2003

Actually, students at certain war colleges in the US spend at least some of their time coming up with invasion plans for random countries. After a while the military ends up with plans, written by students, for pretty much every country and city in the world. Then, just in case the US has to invade somebody, and there's not an official plan for it, they can always dust off one of these student plans and put it into action.

Additionally, students from the militaries of various allies are often invited to study at the US war colleges as a kind of student exchange program.

Well, it turns out that a student from certain country to the north came to the Army war college and decided to see what sort of invasion plan the US military had for his country.

This ended up causing a minor diplomatic row. Not because there was an invasion plan, but because the invasion plan only involved the use of one division (~15,000 soldiers).
posted by bshort at 8:49 AM on July 15, 2003

As President Bill Clinton's defense secretary, he oversaw preparation for airstrikes on North Korean nuclear facilities in 1994, an attack that was never carried out.

What a different world we would live in if anyone in that Admin was more concerned with US security instead of Legacy.

Former Defense Secretary William Perry and his boss deserve a huge amount of the blame for the current North Korean situation...actually the whole world situation.

I think the world's despots saw 8 years of pin-prick rebukes and appeasement from the Clinton Admin and decided it was time to take their chances while the consequences were small.

Now the stakes have been raised and the consequences more severe on both sides.
posted by Mick at 9:17 AM on July 15, 2003

As President Bill Clinton's defense secretary, he oversaw preparation for airstrikes on North Korean nuclear facilities in 1994, an attack that was never carried out.

What a different world we would live in if anyone in that Admin was more concerned with US security instead of Legacy.

That's a very shortsighted view. Do YOU remember how China's foreign policy has evolved over the last ten years? Want to speculate on how they would have reacted?
posted by norm at 9:40 AM on July 15, 2003

Carleton Meyer, of g2mil, on the--warheads, plutonium and chemical-biological WMDS--aside--mythical North Korean threat.

Kim Jong Il and associates wave the nuclear and chemical-biological WMD stick is because that's all they have to wave--not that much else need be waved, it must be noted. Perhaps the hard ass chickenhawks are betting North Korea will blink on the nuclear option and collapse like a house of cards. And perhaps it will--a scenario that has China and South Korea terrified, given that they will be picking up the pieces. Then again, perhaps the North will go ballistic, so to speak. Won't that be fun.

RAND Scholars Discuss the Future of the US-ROK Alliance

A RAND op-ed: N. Korea's threat to S. Korea

From the Monterey Institute For International Sudies Cneter For Nonproliferation: Military Options for Dealing with North Korea's Nuclear Program

Three key issues would be involved in successful military strikes against North Korean nuclear facilities:

1) locating all facilities and fissile material stocks that could be used in a nuclear weapons program;
2) possessing the capability to destroy these targets; and
3) preventing North Korea from retaliating with artillery fire, missile strikes, chemical or biological weapons use, escalation to a full-scale conventional war, or nuclear weapons.

Each of these issues presents considerable difficulties in the North Korea context, but the problem of preventing or limiting North Korean retaliation is the hardest. In addition to the tactical issues addressed here, the potential political consequences in terms of U.S. relations with South Korea, Japan, Russia, and China make military strikes a very unattractive option compared to a diplomatic resolution of the crisis.

(Upon review: above, hydrophobic Clinton hater Col. Mick, of the 82nd Couchborne, demonstrates wishful thinking otherwise, past and current.)

and

The DPRK Nuclear Crisis: Key Issues and Analyses
posted by y2karl at 10:04 AM on July 15, 2003

It is laughable for any member of the Clinton Administration to criticism the Bush Administration on Foreign Policy, especially the North Korean issue.

on preview: what Mick said
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:40 AM on July 15, 2003

It is laughable for any member of the Clinton Administration to criticism the Bush Administration on Foreign Policy, especially the North Korean issue.


Well, I wasn't a member of the Clinton administration. Is it ok for me to criticize the Bush administration?

And, besides, why shouldn't members of the Clinton whitehouse call a spade a spade? Notice that the rest of the world didn't hate us when Bill was in office.
posted by bshort at 11:29 AM on July 15, 2003

Is it ok for me to criticize the Bush administration?

Yes. You didn't give in to North Korean blackmail.

Notice that the rest of the world didn't hate us when Bill was in office.

I seem to remember qutie a bit of the world hating us between 1993-2001.

• February 26, 1993 (World Trade Center Bombing)
• June 25, 1996 (Khobar Towers)
• August 7, 1998 (U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania)
• October 12, 2000 (USS Cole)

So while Left-Wing Europeans may not have been throwing a hissy fit, the people who matter were not any less hostile when a Democrat was in the White House.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:09 PM on July 15, 2003

N Korean warns Australia could face nuclear strike
posted by homunculus at 12:25 PM on July 15, 2003

It is laughable for any member of the Clinton Administration to criticism the Bush Administration on Foreign Policy, especially the North Korean issue.

So, are you saying that we're not drifting towards war? If so, I really hope you're right.
posted by homunculus at 12:29 PM on July 15, 2003

Omar Bin Laden is a North Korean? Al Qaeda is the whole wide world?

Man, I missed those memos...

US warns of 200 N Korean missiles pointing at Japan

High stakes on the high seas in Korean blockade

Fearful Symmetry: Washington and Pyongyang
posted by y2karl at 1:55 PM on July 15, 2003

From y2karls link:
The Pentagon's 2002 Nuclear Posture Review reportedly recommends studying ways to adapt existing nuclear weapons or developing new earth-penetrating nuclear weapons to attack these targets.[5]

Anyone else think that the best way to curb nuclear proliferation does not include pre-emptive nuclear strikes?
posted by Mitheral at 2:27 PM on July 15, 2003

I seem to remember qutie a bit of the world hating us between 1993-2001.

And then the other 95% came on board when President Terminator went off the deep end
posted by ElvisJesus at 2:30 PM on July 15, 2003

> Omar Bin Laden is a North Korean?

A Persian. Oh wait, that was Osama Khayyam. The poetic Mr. Rumsfeld is translating him right now: a loaf of bread, a jug of sarin, and thou...
posted by jfuller at 2:32 PM on July 15, 2003

Bush Administration Risks Second Korean War, Historian Warns

Problems with Bush's North Korea Policy

In the book, he [David Frum] writes that when drafting duties for last year's State of the Union Message were being doled out, his assignment was "to provide a justification for a war," specifically a war with Iraq. After much cogitation, he hit upon the idea of likening what the United States has been up against since September 11, 2001, to the villains of the Second World War. The phrase he came up with was "axis of hatred." Higher-ups changed this to "axis of evil," to make it sound more "theological." Although Frum initially intended his "strong language" to apply only to Iraq, Iran was quickly added. (You can't have a single-pointed axis.)

North Korea was an afterthought. It got stuck in at the last minute, but Frum doesn't quite explain how or why. Perhaps it was meant to echo the global span of the original (Baghdad-Tehran-Pyongyang equals Berlin-Rome-Tokyo). Perhaps it was an application of the rhetorical Rule of Three (our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor; of the people, by the people, for the people; blood, sweat, and tears). Perhaps it was the product of intoxication brought on by an excess of moral clarity. Most likely, it was simply oratorical affirmative action, bused in to lend diversity to what would otherwise have been an all-Muslim list. One thing it was not was the product of careful policy deliberation. It had not been, as they say, staffed out. As the Wall Street Journal reported last week, the State Department's East Asia hands learned about it only hours before the speech, and they were not happy. Secretary of State Powell, who almost certainly agreed with them but is ever the good soldier, told them to suck it up

Nautilus Institute's DPRK Briefing Book
posted by y2karl at 3:18 PM on July 15, 2003