RELEASE: Georgia: Abkhaz Separatists Say They Shot Down More Drones (New York Times)…C. J. Chivers, May 13, 2008
The de facto government of Abkhazia, a separatist region receiving Russian support, claimed to have shot down two of Georgia’s remotely piloted aerial reconnaissance planes in a day.
Just keeping track of this story to see how it develops.
ARTICLE: U.S. To Send Food To N. Korea Under New Deal (Financial Times)…Demetri Sevastopulo, May 13, 2008
The US has agreed to give North Korea 500,000 tonnes of food aid under a new deal that would allow monitors unprecedented access to oversee distribution in the Stalinist state.
The food aid deal comes as the US holds separate negotiations with Pyongyang towards completing the second phase of the six-party talks aimed at denuclearising the Korean peninsula. Officials rejected suggestions that there was any link between the issues.
The US official said North Korea had agreed to the more intrusive inspection regime because there was a higher level of trust between the governments because of the six-party talks. He added that North Korea was also feeling pressure because of the global food crisis, and the fact that South Korea and China had curtailed aid. A second official said the food deal had been closely coordinated with the South Korean government.
Almost need a scoreboard. Does NK win if they get more than they give up?
ARTICLE: The Right Path With N. Korea
(Washington Post)…Siegfried S. Hecker and William J. Perry, May 13, 2008, Pg. 15
The Bush administration’s North Korea strategy is being criticized from the right and the left for letting Pyongyang off the hook. Some advocate scuttling the six-party talks. Others suggest slowing our own compliance with the agreement to get North Korea to make a full declaration of its nuclear program first. We disagree with both positions. Our mantra should be: It’s the plutonium, stupid.
Aim is creating the conditions that will prevent nuclear export and lead to the peaceful elimination of nuclear weapons. Authors recognize a transformation in the U.S. relationship with NK is needed starting with building trust.
COMMENTARY: U.S. Forces In Korea Not Just Looking North
Honolulu Advertiser, Richard Halloran, May 11, 2008
…Like U.S. forces in Okinawa, which operate as far away as the Indian Ocean, Iraq and East Africa, American troops in South Korea could be sent anywhere and might not be available for the defense of South Korea. That includes forces earmarked for Korea in reserve in the U.S.
Summary of significant changes in U.S. policy.U.S. and South Korean forces are in the early stages of a 10-year transition plan intended to turn over most defensive duties to South Koreans. In August, the two forces will conduct their first large-scale drill in which the Koreans for the first time will exercise command and control of forces throughout South Korea
Summary of changes in U.S. and South Korean policy.
ARTICLE: Rethinking The Iraq Critics
(U.S. News & World Report)…Michael Barone, May 19, 2008
Pg. 25
…There’s still much to be learned about our decisions, good and bad, in Iraq. But Feith’s book is a step forward, as were those of Sherwood and Churchill 60 years ago.
Today we’re only beginning to learn about what went on behind the scenes on Iraq. One important new source is the recently published War and Decision by Douglas Feith, the No. 3 civilian at the Pentagon from 2001 to 2005.
ARTICLE: A Plea To Quiet Drums On Iran, And Try Talk
(Chicago Tribune)…Stephen Kinzer, May 11, 2008
…Hardly a day goes by without new and more vivid threats against America’s newest supposed enemy, Iran. It seems almost unbelievable that the United States, so bloodied and weakened by its adventure in Iraq, would contemplate an attack on another Middle Eastern country. Yet some American leaders seem bent on it.
There are three possible ways for the U.S. to deal with growing threats from Iran. One is to do nothing, which will allow Iran to intensify its nuclear program in ways that could profoundly threaten the region and global stability. The second is to launch a military attack, which would have devastating “blowback” consequences for the U.S., Israel and the Western world. The third is negotiation. This option is so low-cost that it seems folly not to try.
Kinzer makes a case for negotiations.
NEWS RELEASE: Famine Predicted; Food Crisis Worsens
(Atlanta Journal-Constitution)…Unattributed
North Koreans are dying because of food shortages in rural areas, and a massive famine is just a matter of time, a South Korean aid group said Friday.
ARTICLE: Tempting Targets
(International Herald Tribune)…Bennett Ramberg, May 10, 2008.
…With a number of Middle East countries planning to build similar nuclear power plants in the decade ahead, discouraging military assaults – at least against active reactors – should be a priority for all.
Bennett Ramberg, who served in the State Department in the George H. W. Bush administration, is the author of “Nuclear Power Plants as Weapons for the Enemy.”
Interesting story regarding the effects of a potential retaliatory strike by Syria on Israel’s nuclear weapons reactor at Dimona.
ARTICLE: A Lack Of Patience. Containment worked before. Why not again? By Steve Chapman Chicago Tribune, May 8, 2008.
Examples on the use of Smart Power: Excerpts:
The centerpiece of the U.S. approach to the Soviet Union was vigilant containment
… containment worked against Stalin and Mao—both unbalanced dictators with nuclear weapons.
For that matter, containment had worked against Saddam Hussein. In the 12 years after the first Gulf War, we kept him in a box, where he was no threat to us or his neighbors.
Reagan took a different approach. In response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, he continued President Jimmy Carter’s covert aid to the rebels, but didn’t send American troops.
One common trait of governments and their leaders is an overriding desire to survive. If Iranian nukes are ever used for aggression, the regime can be sure Iran will be, as Hillary Clinton so vividly put it, “obliterated.”
One member of the “axis of evil,” North Korea, has acquired a nuclear arsenal. Instead of launching a preemptive strike, the Bush administration has chosen to 1) live with it if we have to, 2) negotiate with Pyongyang to give it up, and 3) maintain strong defenses in South Korea.
BLOG POSTING: Alarmist on Iran, except ….
Comments by Tom Barnett regarding his article in Esquire magazine, The Man Between War and Peace (http://www.esquire.com/features/fox-fallon), in context with the article in the Washington Post: U.S. Weighing Readiness for Military Action Against Iran, By Ann Scott Tyson, , April 26, 2008; Page A07
So, yes, I guess my piece in Esquire was as alarmist as some claimed, except:
-> I said Fallon could be fired and he was.
-> I said someone more pliable would be found, and he was.
-> I said Fallon’s firing could signal the ramp up on Iran and we get both Petraeus and Crocker saying that enemy #1 in Iraq is Iran.
-> And as soon as Petraeus is named, we get the obviously released story about the preparations for military strikes.
We are told by Gates and others that “this is all passed” and that the only ones who argue it isn’t are people who unduly alarm the public.
But the more open this latest ramp-up becomes, the harder it gets to deny. Those who simply mouth the Bush line will tell us again that this is all silly.
But the underlying truths remain: Bush has made his promises to friends in the region and Cheney believes it must be done on his watch.
As I mentioned in the Mission Accomplished posting, three options plus the choice of using soft or hard (smart) power:
1. Maintain/sustain the current situation?
2. Incremental change?¼br /> 3. Radical/Transformation Change?
