Jeremi Suri calls for war

By Frank Moreas 

Jeremi Suri wrote a remarkable op-ed in The New York Times on Friday, "Bomb North Korea, Before It's Too Late." What I find so interesting is that Suri is not some Fox News shouter. He seems to be more or less a liberal, or at least what passes for one in modern America. He is also a history professor at University of Texas, Austin -- despite what many people seem to think, one of the best schools in the world.

Let me see if I can break down his argument: (1) North Korea is going to launch a missile; (2) we should bomb it first; (3) Obama should state that this attack on a sovereign country is defensive; and (4) we will never have trouble with North Korea again! He also "knows" lots of stuff: "precise satellite reconnaissance" tells us where the missile is; "civilians face serious danger" from North Korea; the strike would "preserve regional stability"; it is "unlikely that Mr. Kim would retaliate by attacking South Korea"; and most shockingly of all, "the Chinese government would do everything it could to prevent" a counter attack from North Korea.

Suri goes on to admit that, well, maybe North Korea would counter attack, just to save face. But then he write -- and this is important -- "Under these unfortunate circumstances, the United States and its allies would still be better off fighting a war with North Korea today, when the conflict could still be confined largely to the Korean Peninsula." You got that? He's offering Bush's great Iraq War justification, "We're fighting them there, so we don't have to fight them here." I am shocked that an otherwise reasonable person would make this argument today.

Read more »

North Korea agonistes

By Carl

A true test of a nation's mettle comes not in how it deals with "existential threats" (i.e., a force equal to or greater than its own) but with the niggling trouble-makers.

Thus enters North Korea:

SEOUL, South Korea — South Korea's defense chief said on Thursday that North Korea had moved to its east coast a missile with a "considerable" range, but that it was not capable of reaching the United States. The disclosure came as the Communist North's military warned that it was ready to strike American military forces with "cutting-edge smaller, lighter and diversified nuclear strike means."

That last likely should be taken with a grain of salt, but clearly not discounted completely. We know they've been working on a nuclear capability for some time now, they have a reactor that is not hooked up to the power grid (so we know it’s not for energy), and they had been in touch with our old fiend, Abdul Qadeer "A.Q." Khan, who likely advanced their ambitions by several decades.

Too, North Korea has been gearing up for some time to "battle" the United States and South Korea.

I put "battle" in quotes for a reason: there's significant cause to believe that Kim Jong-Un is saber-rattling not for international purposes but in order to clamp down dissent domestically. Precious little news of the North ever really gets out, so we have to infer a lot, but here's my thinking in support of this notion.

Read more »

One of these is wrong

By Carl 

Either North Korea successfully placed a "weather satellite" in pole-to-pole orbit around the earth or it's spinning wildly out of control and could crash at any moment.

We report, you duck and cover.

This story is less important for the content -- nearly every nation on the planet, including Russia but not China, have forcefully condemned the launch -- and more important for the interesting spin (pardon the pun) the US is putting on it.

Let's assume for a moment that, indeed, the satellite is wildly out of control. So the U.S. is warning the world to keep an eye out. If this was confirmed by anyone else (South Korea is closely tracking the launch, and even picked up the first stage as it splashed down for further examination,) then the US is prudently advising the world of a potential hazard, much like the US warned about SpaceLab back in the '70s, and Russia about its satellite in 2009.

But there's been no independent confirmation. Which makes the U.S. statement curious, to say the least.

So now let's assume it's all smoke. What is the process for making such a statement in the first place?

Read more »