Failed US policy to stop the spread of WMD--and failed world efforts

An illuminating post by William Arkin of the Washington Post (via Spotlight on Military News and International Affairs).

...If all else fails, STRATCOM says, fear not: Part of the "new" capacity to "combat" weapons of mass destruction includes "consequence management," that is, cleaning up the mess after the enemy attacks.

What we are really witnessing is government at its worst, not just promising a capability on which it cannot deliver, but worse, communicating American resolve and toughness on the one hand while exposing weakness and impotence when it matters.

Tomorrow: The empty war plans to combat WMD.

And some absolutely accurate observations by Andrew Coyne:

... we -- the world, the West, the United States -- are simply unable to come to terms with the threat that now confronts us.

The world's worst dictators, it is now clear, may acquire the world's most destructive weapons with impunity -- even as a new breed of macro-terrorists advertise themselves as potential after-market customers. Either we do not recognize this for the existential threat that it is, or we cannot summon the nerve, collectively or individually, to take the steps required to save ourselves...

...Expect a lot of talk in coming days and weeks to the effect that this is a "vital test of the UN's credibility." That would be, by my count, the seventh such test the UN has undergone in recent years, all of which it has failed with flying colours: Kosovo, Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Iraq (17 times!) [what about Darfur? - MC], with Iran the next in line. Each time, the UN is warned it risks "going the way of the League of Nations" -- you know, after it failed to prevent Mussolini's annexation of Abyssinia. Huh? It's been one long League of Nations since the start, an endless series of Abyssinias...

We simply do not have the stomach for this fight. We will learn no lessons from this latest crisis, as we have learned none from those before. But be assured our adversaries will. In Iran, they are watching and learning from North Korea's example, as North Korea had learned from Iran's, each discovering in its turn that there are no checks on its ambitions, nor any world to stop it. And when, as the wisest heads advise, we abandon Afghanistan to the Taliban, and Iraq to al-Qaeda, the nuclear bazaar really will be open.

Still, I don't want to leave you with the impression that all is dark. It could be worse. Just imagine if Saddam Hussein was still in power.

David Frum makes the link with Iran.

Some critics of the Bush administration argue that North Korea seeks nuclear bombs not in order to wage nuclear war against the South, but as a way of pressing its case for more recognition and more aid. That's not a nuclear bomb — it's a call for help!

But even if this were true, the policy implications do not change. If North Korea and its Chinese patron do not soon find themselves strategically substantially worse off than they were before, then the US and the world will have flashed a green light to the mullahs on their drive to a bomb. And these mullahs are already racing through all the yellows ....

Steve Janke asks if the Canadian government should continue providing aid to North Korea. Good question.

Mark C.

Posted by markc at October 11, 2006 10:27 AM