Tragic End of Bush's North Korea Policy
John Bolton laments in the Wall Street Journal that the recent deal between the Bush Administration and North Korea is a sad state of affairs. He criticizes the declarations made by North Korea and points out that the documents turned over are themselves contaminated with trace amounts of uranium.
Bolton ends by saying:
"The only good news is that there is little opportunity for the Bush administration to make any further concessions in its waning days in office. But for many erstwhile administration supporters, this is a moment of genuine political poignancy. Nothing can erase the ineffable sadness of an American presidency, like this one, in total intellectual collapse."
Coming from a former high ranking State Department official who served as the Administration's UN Ambassador, this is striking in tone.
I usually agree more with Mr. Bolton than I disagree, however, I do not see good choices at the moment. Absent regime change (which would open a gigantic can of worms on the Korean peninsula), I don't know that we can do too much. Yes, this agreement is probably more about saving face than anything that has the real likelihood of being tangible long-term, but, absent the military option, we can't do much more squeezing than we already did.
A military strike on North Korea may, in time, prove to be the only policy we can use to be certain their capacities are destroyed. I think this is likely the only "permanent" solution. However, until no options remain on the table and the threat itself moves from latent to actual, this is not the solution we can afford.
We do not have flexibility at the moment and it is that lack of flexibility that is putting us in a policy straitjacket.
Bolton ends by saying:
"The only good news is that there is little opportunity for the Bush administration to make any further concessions in its waning days in office. But for many erstwhile administration supporters, this is a moment of genuine political poignancy. Nothing can erase the ineffable sadness of an American presidency, like this one, in total intellectual collapse."
Coming from a former high ranking State Department official who served as the Administration's UN Ambassador, this is striking in tone.
I usually agree more with Mr. Bolton than I disagree, however, I do not see good choices at the moment. Absent regime change (which would open a gigantic can of worms on the Korean peninsula), I don't know that we can do too much. Yes, this agreement is probably more about saving face than anything that has the real likelihood of being tangible long-term, but, absent the military option, we can't do much more squeezing than we already did.
A military strike on North Korea may, in time, prove to be the only policy we can use to be certain their capacities are destroyed. I think this is likely the only "permanent" solution. However, until no options remain on the table and the threat itself moves from latent to actual, this is not the solution we can afford.
We do not have flexibility at the moment and it is that lack of flexibility that is putting us in a policy straitjacket.
Comments