This never happens.

I must take issue with a National Review editorial.

The editorial states: "It has to be made plain that the North Korea regime will be wiped from the face of the earth, should it, or anyone else, ever use its nukes".

What is my problem with this?

Who would believe us?

We have promised severe actions should any of various things occur.  Those things have occurred: missile test; continued nuclear programs in North Korea and Iran; nuclear missile test; and et cetera.  Our response has been to begin talking about imposing severe sanctions, but self-limiting the effectiveness of such sanctions by incorporating nations such as Russia and the PRC, who have interests at odds with ours. 

Russia has an interest in seeing the West humbled.  Why do we insist on co-operating with this?  Russia has imperial ambitions.  Russia has been at war with Chechnya.  Russia is rattling sabres over Georgia.  Russia is attempting to bring the Caucus countries into Russia's line of thinking.  Russia is using energy blackmail--consider Russia's cutting off of natural gas to the Ukraine last year--and seeks to become again a world power.  If the West is humbled, and loses its faith in its ability impose its will (wavering in Iraq), then would the West be able to respond to Russian aggression?

The PRC does not have the same interest in non-war on the Korean peninsula, as we do.  The PRC is concerned about refugees who would pour over the border should war break out on the peninsula.  The PRC wants to have the rabid dog on a chain.  The PRC has an interest in having an irresponsible North Korea.  The more irrational North Korea is, the more influence the PRC is given over its neighbors.  This is because the PRC is thought to be the only factor capable of restraining North Korea.  The PRC also has imperial ambitions, and North Korea distracts the rest of the world from the PRC's imperial ambitions, should the PRC take action to further it ambitions.

It is time to stop pretending that our interests coincide with those of the PRC and Russia.  These nations are invested in either our defeat, or our humbling.  Either way, the West's inaction in the face of provocations serves those Russian and Communist Chinese interests.

I ask again: Why do we co-operate?

Cross-posted at Rolling Thunder.

I've never been an enthusiastic Republican voter.  Perhaps this is because I'm not a Republican.  Maybe.

Granted, the only Independent I've ever voted for was myself, so that's likely not the best way to describe my politics, either. 

I'm a Club for Growth kind of guy, so neither major party is going to make me happy.  Both parties spend the people's money like drunken sailors.  Both parties behave like prostitutes--well, that's an insult to prostitutes--in the pursuit of money.  Both parties treat their voters as prostitutes, whose votes can be bought with baubles and other people's money.

So, on the domestic issues that most influence my perspective are a push (ignoring tax cuts for those who pay taxes--also known as the rich to some). 

That leaves foreign policy.

Most Dems seem unable, or unwilling, to define what is America's interest.  This makes it rather difficult to actually take solid foreign policy positions, of any merit.  Most Reps, on the other hand, seem to favor a view of America's interests that they are unwilling to pursue.  They've gone the extra millimeter (sorry about the metric) to take a position and they ought to be commended for that (t.i.c.).

If it is in America's interest that irresponsible regimes not have nuclear weapons, then America ought to be willing to do something so as to effect that interest.  Reps have taken the step to say that irresponsible regimes should not have nuclear weapons, but seem unwilling to do anything about it. 

They've been scared into inaction by the War in Iraq.  If there is a negative outcome from the War in Iraq, it is this: domestic politicians have taken the wrong lessons from the war.  Domestic politicians have learned that absolute certainty is the requirement for action.  This is not the lesson.  The lesson is that wars must be fought to be won, not to be not lost. 

Domestic politicians are intent on saving face.  Their saved face, however, results in an entirely different lesson being learned by irresponsible regimes.  Those regimes learn that America does not have the fortitude to pursue what America defines as America's national interests.  This will result in yet more proliferation.  This will also result in lost confidence in the U.S., among U.S. allies.  With Japan, Taiwan, and the RoK all within range of North Korean missiles, and Taiwan (with the double whammy) being viewed by the PRC as its rightful possession, this is not the time to go, or be seen as, "wobbly".  Other allies, such as Australia and Israel, also ought to be able to count on America.

Yes, I'm showing up and holding my nose on the first Tuesday in November.  The reason is each party's foreign policy.  One party seems intent on surrendering to threats that have not even manifested themselves yet, while the other party at least identifies threats, before scolding and issuing empty threats.  I've said many times that it is better to do nothing than to start and give up, or to merely issue empty threats.  I exaggerate.  Empty threats, with proper leadership, may one day grow to become actions in America's interests.

Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael A. Monsoor, a 25-year-old Navy SEAL, saved the lives of three comrades by throwing himself on a grenade in the Iraqi town of Ramadi. The grenade had hit Monsoor’s chest and fallen to the floor of the sniper hideout the SEALs occupied. “He never took his eye off the grenade,” said one of the survivors, “his only movement was down toward it. . . . We owe him.” As do we all. R.I.P.
 
From NRO's Window on the Week.

North Korea promises no second test

"North Korea has denied the allegations and has made the lifting of the freeze a precondition for its return to the nuclear talks. Washington says the financial restrictions are unrelated to the six-party negotiations."

Sorry, Mr. Kim, you are in no position to make demands.  Yours is the country in danger of annihilation (in a world where the U.S. had a spine).

"Kyodo also said Kim told China the North will adhere to a 1992 treaty signed by South and North Korea to keep the Korean Peninsula free of nuclear weapons, according to the wishes of his late father, Kim Il Sung".

I'm sorry, Mr. Kim, you've already shot that one to Hades.

"Pyongyang has long insisted its nuclear program is necessary to deter a possible US invasion, and that having atomic weapons enhances regional stability by putting it on equal terms with Washington".

Uh, sorry Mr. Kim.  A half-dozen nukes isn't going to put you on equal terms with the U.S. 

Iran: West's approach to Iranian nukes doomed to fail. Yes, and they're such a reliable source.

British children as ignorant as U.S. children.

Well, this is pathetic.

Warrant Officer Gordon Traill had retired from the Army, but when 9/11 occurred, he returned to service. W.O. Traill knew that if it could happen in the U.S., it could happen in Australia as well.

…He left the army in 1989 but, finding civilian life empty, re-enlisted in 1992. His second stint ended in 1999, when he resigned after a cumulative 20 years' service.

Then came September 11, 2001.
…
"You could work out the rotations and who was the next to go, and I went to my commanding officer and said, 'I want to go, to have operational service'. Everyone wants to go." Once he knew he was going, he became aloof and disengaged from his family. "I was there in body only. My focus was on Iraq."
…
Any regrets? He pauses and repeats the question three times while he forms his answer. "No. Because that's what we trained for. And hopefully people after me will go and defend Australia and our children and our children's children will have a safe environment to live.

"My view was, for 30 years or so, the Iraqis had been led by a person who was willing to kill his own people, at any cost. As soldiers, we sympathised with the locals over there. How would we feel if that had occurred to us? And if I can help in any way, I will.

"My thoughts are, it was definitely justified. We got rid of Saddam and for the first time in how many decades, Iraq was able to have its first democratic vote."...

Another soldier, named Will, left the Army and returned to Iraq as a member of a private security firm.

…But he couldn't settle, and in March 2004, with the support of his wife, he returned to Iraq with a private security firm. It wasn't just the money - he wanted to be involved in Iraq's "one big chance".

And this is it. This is Iraq’s one chance. The people of Iraq have suffered under the boots of assorted dictators for years; this is their opportunity to build a country for themselves.

The U.S. is not alone in Iraq. We have allies from the U.K., Australia, Poland, the RoK, Japan, Denmark, and elsewhere, serving in Iraq to give the Iraqis that chance.

What will happen if we leave before the task is complete?

The murderous Jihadists would be handed a victory that they could not achieve on their own. Those butchers would be granted a physical and a propaganda victory.

The militias and murderers now prevalent in Iraq would become ubiquitous. There would be no chance of a civil society in Iraq.

The Kurds would retreat to Kurdistan, and face the ire of Turkey, Iran, and Syria. The lower two-thirds of Iraq would be a ‘90s Afghanistan or a modern day Somalia: a broken region torn between rival warlords and gangsters. The non-existent economy would provide no jobs and youths would join militias just to eat. It would be the stuff of Hobbes’ worst imaginings for the “state of nature”.

Regional powers would fight over the region, leading to further bloodshed and destruction. The mullahs of Iran would attempt to co-opt the Shi’a. They would sponsor al-Sadr and friends more so than now. Saudi Wahabbism would spread throughout the Sunni regions like wildfire. The Assyrian Christians and other religious and ethnic minorities—oppressed and mistrusted under the dictators, butchered mercilessly under the present conditions—would be forced to die or flee. The humanitarian crisis predicted prior to the Iraq war would find its fulfillment in the aftermath of the Iraq war.

Jihadist thugs would be emboldened. They would receive yet another sign of their imminent and eventual victory over the weak West.

Sometimes to struggle against insurmountable odds is the only thing that can be done, when one is in the right. For, to submit to murder, rape, oppression, and pillage is an anathema to persons interested in Justice and Right. This fight, however, is not an insurmountable fight. We do not have to be defeated. We can only be defeated if we allow it.

Mr Kim has apologized and says he will not conduct another nuclear test.

Let's consider that a moment.  The KFR, in 1994, claimed it would give up its nuclear program, in exchange for concessions.  How well did that work again?

Has the West shown significantly more spine in recent days, in re the KFR?  No.  Supposedly, the PRC has put pressure on the KFR.  What brought about this change of view in the PRC?  Sanctions?  Threats of Western disapproval?

Unless the PRC has suddenly decided that a nuclear Korean peninsula is not in their interests, there is no reason for the PRC to reverse course like this.  Have the circumstances changed recently?  The Security Council imposed sanctions, which the PRC initially refused to enforce.

The PRC is now freezing KFR assets.

The KFR subsists on foreign aid and criminal activity.

My take: the PRC has decided to appear responsible.  A nuclear Korean peninsula is still in the short-term interests of the PRC, but a nuclear Japan is not.  The PRC will impose sanctions only so long as somebody is watching.  Once the heat shifts to Iran and Ahmadinejad, the KFR will be able to resume its nuclear activities. 

I'd like to see the phone and electronic communications between Pyongyang and Tehran.  It'd make for some interesting reading.

Mr Kim and Mr Ahmadinejad continue to play off each other, as they pursue their nuclear ambitions.

In an article discussing a Pakistani court freeing a leader of an AQ affiliated terrorist group, fell this nugget:

“In a separate development yesterday, it was announced that India and Pakistan would resume bilateral talks about terrorism on November 14.”

The confinement of Hafeez Muhammad Saeed was held to be unconstitutional. The judge also expressed concern that the confinement of Saeed would appear to be bowing to foreign pressure.

Lashkar-e-Toiba is one of several Pakistani-sponsored terrorist organizations that target India. This is yet another illustration of the duality of Pakistan. Pakistan’s President (and dictator) Musharaff tries to hold the line on terrorism, while the ISI cuts deals with the Taliban and continues to support terrorism.

To return to the discussion of the talks between the two nuclear powers, India and Pakistan, it must be admitted that this is a potentially explosive situation. India and Pakistan have faced off three times previously, and very nearly came to blows in the winter of 2001. Both nations are nuclear powers.

Pakistan has proven itself to be irresponsible with its nuclear technology: consider the AQ Khan network. Granted, this is not the fault of Pakistan, per se, but it could not have occurred, to the extent that it did, if Pakistan were not a nation rife with tension and corruption. India, on the other hand, has shown itself to be a responsible holder of nuclear weapons. India, under a plan negotiated by the Bush Administration this summer, has opened some of its nuclear reactors to international inspection, despite the fact that India is not required to, as India is not a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty.

One can only hope that India and Pakistan are able to make progress on the topic of terrorism. One cannot be hopeful, however. Pakistan is two nations. At this time, the nation led by the intelligence community appears to be leading the struggle. The ISI ceded Waziristan to the Taliban earlier this year. The North West Frontier Province is effectively controlled by the Taliban. The ISI continues to support groups such as LeT, despite the fact that Pakistani law has banned the group. Shari’a is taking hold in many parts of Pakistan, over Pakistani law.

If this is the Pakistan that the people of Pakistan want, then they ought to have it. They ought not be surprised, however, if such a turn of events leads to unintended consequences: a destroyed economy; even greater unemployment; international ostracize-ation (if only because they have nothing to trade); and likely, another defeat at the hands of the superior Indian military.

Scatbug introduced a new phrase into the lexicon of Western weakness: moral subservience.

This is an ideal term to describe the current political and cultural climate. Elite opinion holds that the West is incapable of doing anything right, while non-West cultures are above reproach, regardless of what is done. Elite opinion holds that the West is not worth defending because of its evils.

Elite opinion holds that non-western nations are not held accountable for their actions because those actions are a justified response to Western actions. Non-western nations are only responding; they are never pro-active.

Moral equivalence, as I’d described it previously, is not a sufficient means to describe the dynamic that equates Israel’s controlled responses to Hezb’Allah’s and HAMAS’s indiscriminate acts of terror. Israel does not target civilians: deaths of civilians are unfortunate byproducts. Israel takes responsibility when it inadvertently kills civilians. Hezb’Allah, et al. intentionally target civilians. The same is true in the rest of the West. Danish politicians is pressed to apologize for the actions of their citizens; actions that were not harmful. The U.S. is criticized for invading Iraq, when sanctions imposed on Iraq were contributing to the deaths of hundred of thousands, and Saddam was a brutal dictator who was daily committing acts of war against the U.S. and U.K. and could only be constrained from murdering his citizens by the use of no-fly zones.

This is not moral equivalence because the actions of the non-West are excused, while the actions of the West are condemned. There is nothing that the West can do that is Right or Just, according to elite opinion, while whatever the non-West does is justified or righteous. This is denigrating responsible action and the elevating irresponsible action. This essentially is a claim that the non-West is not capable of the standards that the West is held to.

To add to a previous post, rationalizations are those things which allow us to circumvent our consciences. I could go look up the list of rationalizations, but I’m not in the mood. Rationalizations may be an appeal to authority (think Nazi war crimes trials); or denial of a victim, either by denying anyone was hurt, or by claiming that the “victim” deserved whatever happened; or any of several other backdoors around our consciences.

Jihadist terrorists in Israel claim that because all Israelis serve in the military (an exaggeration, there are exceptions), all Israelis are all legitimate military targets. This is logically counterintuitive. Infants are not, even if they will grow up to be soldiers, legitimate military targets. At the very least, someone incapable of defending oneself is not a legitimate military target. According to the U.S. State Department, even military members, where there is no declared state of hostilities, are not legitimate military targets. This is to say that non-state actors are not even capable of targeting legitimate military targets because they do not act explicitly, on behalf of a legitimate government. U.S. policy harks back to Just war doctrine: only legitimate authorities can wage war.

Jihadist terrorists in other parts of the world deny Jews and other infidels humanity. This enables them to slaughter such people indiscriminately. Of course, in the West, we don’t even slaughter animals indiscriminately. You “bag” a deer; you tag it and process it (or have it processed) and you’ve got venison and jerky. Poultry may be raised in foul (pun intended) conditions, but they are killed for food, not mere sport. This does not apply to the Jihadists, however. Because infidels are sub-human, but in appearance are human, they ought to be killed, so as to stop them from infecting “believers”.

Jihadists also claim the Israel, or the West, has earned the terrorism by their acts of imperialism. This is a red herring. Even assuming the West is guilty of imperialism (in many case benign), imperialism does not justify the murder of non-combatants—unless they are subhuman (see how these justifications work in concert?).

By denying the victim, the crime is likewise denied, but without being addressed. The crime is merely an act. No one was harmed. Or at least no one deemed important or indispensable.

North Korea's neighbors don't want to actually enforce the resolution. They’d much rather whine about the big, mean U.S. pushing people around and the imperialist Japan being mean. The KFR regime would collapse in a matter of weeks, if South Korea and China weren’t willing to support this brutal dictatorship.

The PRC likes having a mad dog on a leash. South Korea is blinded by its own version of moral relativism.

Why is the West incapable of deterring its mortal enemies?

It is a topic that has been beaten to death, and far be it from me to deviate from the standard answer. The West lacks the cultural confidence that would allow it to say, “We are right, and you are wrong”. The West is on the verge of being beaten by its moral relativism.

Some basic facts (as far as I'm concerned, they're facts):
Flawed democracy is always better than perfect dictatorship. No matter how flawed a democracy is, it is not the nature of democracy that creates the flaws. A dictatorship is not so. The nature of a dictatorship is that, no matter how perfect—even Plato’s Republic—a dictatorship will always oppress its citizens. Democracy may be the worst form of government, but it is the best devised by man, and the only form worth living under.

A society that does not believe itself capable of being correct is doomed. If a society lacks confidence in its own customs, it is a society without anchor. A society without anchor “will fall for anything”. Such a society is susceptible to all manner of cultural invasion. Armies don’t win wars; nations do. If, however, a nation does not believe that it deserves to win, or worse, deserves to lose, then that nation will never be able to summon the spine necessary to be victorious.

Moral equivalence arguments are not only immoral, but also logically incoherent. It cannot be wrong to judge another act wrong if all acts are morally equivalent, for the judging of the initial judging implies that there are universal moral values that can be appealed to, which is contrary to the initial argument. Secondly, moral equivalence arguments not only treat all actions as morally equivalent, but all motives as morally equivalent. This is violently counter-intuitive. The human mind rebels at the idea that killing someone to defend another is the same as killing someone in order to take the victim’s sneakers.

If something is barbaric, it is barbaric. The mere fact that it is an ingrained part of the culture does not make the act less barbaric. Suttee, when explained to the British, presented a minor problem. The British replied that burning the wife of a deceased man may be customary in the presiding culture, but the British have a custom of their own: when someone burns a woman to death, that someone will be hanged. The rule of law and civilization trump local customs.

What decides “civilization”? The winner’s version of civilization, to some extent, determines what is “civilized”. That is not to say, however, that, if victory of the Taliban, over the Northern Alliance, made the pushing of walls on accused homosexuals less barbaric.

At this point, I always stumble. The elucidation of universals, in regards to civilization, is a difficult proposition, as I cannot begin to address the question with anything approaching an unbiased eye. I cannot believe, however, that might makes right. Ergo, there must be universal values that determine what is “civilized”.

I would posit that the respect of others must be a cornerstone of that which is civilized. The problem here often lies in defining what is a person, and therefore worthy of respect. Ahmadinejad, Nasrallah, and many others hold that Jews are pigs and dogs, and therefore not worthy of respect[*].

I will have to work on the origin of universal values, if they exist (and I believe that they do, so I go in biased) at another time. I’m starting to go off the rails here.

Main point: the West cannot hope to deter aggression, if the West does not believe itself to be in the right. The belief in rightness, even in a society that is admittedly flawed, is imperative for that society to be willing to defend itself. If the West does not believe itself worth saving, or preserving, then there is no reason for the West to defend itself.

Iran sees this. North Korea sees this. Chavez sees this.

We do not.

[*] This is part of a process of rationalizing, wherein one’s crimes are no longer crimes because the “victim” either deserves what was done to him/her, or the “victim” is not capable of being a “victim” as a result of being sub-human.

An article in the current issue of The National Review asks, "Will deterrence work"?

In short, no.

Why won't deterrence work?

There are a couple reasons.  The first, and most important, is that deterrence requires a nation be willing to retaliate against the nation to be deterred.  I am not convinced that the West maintains the fortitude to respond.  Or, rather, the West may still have the fortitude necessary to respond, but the West no longer has the ability to convey this truth to those who would kill us. 

The West, in modern history, has always had problems with this.  Nazi Germany did not believe that the "decadent" Britain could rouse itself to defend itself, let alone Poland, or the Low Countries.  Britain demonstrated to Nazi Germany, that she was unwilling to use force, to enforce commonly understood "international laws" (Grotius, not the UN), by permitting Nazi Germany to seize the Sudetenland.  It was easy for many appeasers to grant the Nazis that part of Czechoslovakia; after all, they didn't live there, what did they care about the Czech border or Czech people?

The Soviet Union was only convinced of the West's resolve by Truman's use of the "bomb".  Prior to this, Stalin was too busy murdering his citizens to worry too much about empire.  After the War, however, the Soviet Union was granted the status of "world power".  The Soviet Union was given Eastern Europe; after all, the appeasers didn't live there, what did they care?  Truman and Eisenhower's willingness to commit troops to the Korean Peninsula, to defend strangers from communism, demonstrated to the Soviet Union that there remained steel in the West, after the War.  Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon committed troops to defend yet more strangers from communism.

And then came Ford and Carter.  If Reagan had not reversed the trend of Western impotence, the Soviet Union could have held out for decades more.

The present situation with Iran is fundamentally different.  The Islamic Republic was born on the backs of the West.  The West abandoned the Shah.  The West did not respond to the forcible nationalization of Western developed industry.  The U.S., under Carter, did nothing in the face of an overt act of war against the American people.  The Islamic Republic has never been under the impression that the West has any steel in its spine.

Events since 1979 have only served to verify that diagnosis for the mullahs of Tehran: Beruit, Somalia, and East Africa.  The West will not respond to provocation.  The mullahs need look no farther than the Korean peninsula--teaching a fundamentally different lesson these days.

In sum, the Islamic Republic has no rational reason to believe that the West is capable of the force necessary to provide a deterrent.

Secondly, Ahmadinejad holds an apocalyptic worldview, wherein he believes that he can usher in the triumphant return of the 12th Imam, who has been hidden from view for hundreds of years.  This return will precede the ultimate victory of Dar al-Islam over Dar al-Harb.  Ahmadinejad cannot be deterred because he does not view reality through the same prism that the West views reality through.  Ahmadinejad views apocalyptic warfare as necessary, rather than as an evil to be avoided. 

I am not sufficiently familiar with "Twelver Shi'ism" to state whether or not Ahmadinejad's views are widely held.  There does not, however, seem to be much in the way of institutional opposition to Ahmadinejad.  Khatami travels the world to assure the world that Ahmadinejad is an aberration, but no one in the Iranian leadership does anything against Ahmadinejad, leading reasonable people to conclude that Ahmadinejad's views are not that far out of the mainstream of thought in the leadership of the mullahcracy.