North Korea in the News
by Richardson ~ March 11th, 2008. Filed under: News Links. Kyodo: U.S. still believes N. Korea had uranium-based nuke weapons program
Reuters: North Korea must stand on its own feet: Lee
AFP: S Korea President: Ready For Shuttle Diplomacy With North
AP: South Korea to initiate projects in north after nuclear progress
AP: US and North Korea To Talk Nukes
Joongang Ilbo: Vershbow: “Impatience building up” on North
Japan Times: The North’s smaller missiles
LA Times: North Korea keeps up appearances
CBS News: North Korea, From The Inside
Bloomberg: North Korea Admits to Sending Engineers to Syria, Kyodo Reports
Chosun Ilbo: From N.Korea to Siberia: One Man’s 15-Year Odyssey
Cellular News: North Korea and China Discuss Radio Frequency Management
Yonhap: N. Korea to join Olympic torch relay
Joongang Ilbo: Ex-President George Bush visits Korea
March 16th, 2008 at 2:56 am
Imagine Bush Senior was the President on 9/11. No Iraq war. In to Afghanistan, capture Bin Laden, then out again, with the world behind the USA.
March 16th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
I’ll play Devil’s Advocate; No Iraq War, Saddam eventually does re-start his nuclear program, which was his plan, and is this time successful – but we don’t know about it until [pick your target city] is nuked. What follows likely would involve Israel and perhaps more nukes, being used as opposed to tested.
I’m still of the opinion that going into Iraq was the right thing to do, but obviously the intel on WMD should have included caveats (though all other major intel services did agree with it). The move into Iraq was nearly flawless; the occupation was incompetently executed. Hindsight is wonderful.
March 16th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Hell, any person with a passing knowledge of Iraq and its ethnic, tribal and religious conflicts that simmered under Saddam’s iron-fisted rule could have predicted the messy, violent insurgency that has made Iraq such a dangerous and unlivable place. And oh, yeah, one didn’t exactly need a crystal ball to foresee that Al-Qaeda and other foreign terrorist organizations would move in. Jeez, Richardson, if the folks at the White House, in the Pengagon, and at the CIA didn’t expect sectarian violence supported by international groups, then they are even more stupid than I have given them credit for. January 2009 cannot come soon enough!
March 16th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Some sectarian violence was of course always expected, key word being some. But if you’ll recall, the naysayers before the war were afraid of our armed forces facing Saddam’s WMD, suggesting we (U.S.) would be slaughtered when Saddam’s troops fought back, calling for “broad international support,” etc. - not concern with the aftermath. Again, fabulous hindsight, but what were you saying in February 2003?
March 16th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
I did a Google news search from June 1, 2002 - April 1, 2003 using the key words “Iraq invasion sunnis shiites kurds” and literally got pages of results on stories discussing the possibility of post-invasion sectarian violence. Media sources ranged from the NYT to the USA Today. There was concern about Saddam using biochemical weapons and the like on troops, but there was also concern about post-invasion scenarios. Foresight, not hindsight.
March 16th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
I’m not sure how many links will trigger the spam trap, but here is probably the best pre-invasion prediction of exactly what has come to pass:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0213/p06s01-woiq.html
March 16th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Richardson,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I
‘Nuff said.
March 16th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Sonagi, we both know that that was not the focus before the war. You’re still using hindsight to judge. BTW, post as many links as you want; I check the spam daily and will approve all your comments.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9400E0DE163BF93AA25752C1A9659C8B63
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.the.issues.tm/index.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/10/who10.xml
March 16th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Matt,
Again, that was not a significant part of the discussion before the war in 2003. And what of Piro’s testimony of Saddam’s intentions? Also again, I freely admit that, “the occupation was incompetently executed,” which can implicate Cheney, but it was still the right thing to do.
March 16th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Richardson, there was plenty of discussion but most of it was verboten on the MSM that was cheerleading for the war.
As for the invasion being the right thing to do, it wasn’t. It is the greatest red herring in the war on terror, and the effective abandonment of the war on terror by President Bush.
March 17th, 2008 at 4:42 am
Everyone has an opinion…
Nothing on Piro?
March 17th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Link #1: post-invasion, written by self-described “hawkish idealist.”
Link #2: lists post-invasion effects in points 4 & 5 It makes sense to list invasion concerns first because we had invade first and conquer before we could occupy.
Link #3: a hodge podge of international predictions from politicians, media commentators, and others
I deliberately avoided international news sources when I googled because most Americans do not pay much attention to media outside the US, and most government officials probably don’t either.
Sonagi, we both know that that was not the focus before the war. You’re still using hindsight to judge.”
Richardson, friend, don’t speak for me. I’m not even sure what you mean by “the focus.” Do you mean a successful invasion? Yes, that was the first concern, but there was enough talk about post-invasion scenarios. It’s that people weren’t paying attention.
I am not using hindsight to judge. The articles below are all from US MSM sources and predate the invasion. They discuss the cost, potential for long-term occupation, sectarian violence, and terror attacks on US forces:
Iraq Without Saddam
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02E1D8133FF932A3575AC0A9649C8B63
US Must Help Iraq If It Topples Saddam
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002-08-01-iraq_x.htm
CIA Warns of Terrorist Attacks
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/03/09/MN219496.DTL
Real Worry Over War in Iraq is Aftermath
http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/all-analysis0915,0,3356301.story
Iraq Without Saddam
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02E1D8133FF932A3575AC0A9649C8B63
A Time for Candor on Iraq
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9801EEDA163AF930A3575BC0A9649C8B63
Unfortunately, most archived news stories are not free. Otherwise, I’d eat up your bandwidth with a slew of links. I’ve found enough free stuff to prove my point that the US MSM was talking not only about the invasion itself but the aftermath. The administration, State Dept., military, and CIA certainly knew of the post-invasion challenges and threats to stability but top decision-makers went ahead anyway, probably figuring “well, we’ll solve those problems when they arise.”
March 17th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Sonagi,
If you’re recall, I did not say or imply the aftermath we see now was not part of the pre-war discussion. I said, “[s]ome sectarian violence was of course always expected, key word being some. . .” and that it, “. . . was not a significant part of the discussion before the war in 2003.” (emphasis added) That is accurate. Obviously it was not a significant enough part of the pre-war discussion, or “the focus,” if you will.
In fact, the articles you offer generally support my above assertions. They seem to float the question of a possible insurgency, but not posit dire warnings or alarm. Reading them, it’s clear that the tone is nothing close to the nearly hysterical predictions of U.S. forces being slaughtered by Iraqi troops, Saddam using WMD on U.S. troops, it taking six plus months to take Bagdad, etc.
The SF Gate article is especially interesting, as it’s CIA assessing that;
CIA (and all other Western intel services) got the WMD wrong, and the apparently got half of the above assessment wrong (the part about al Qaeda being tolerated by Saddam). Again, some terrorists attacks were expected, and there was (some rather melodramatic) talk of fighting al Qaeda over there rather than in America. I guess if you predict that every bad thing that can happen will, when one does then you’re right?
I didn’t know you had a point to prove about the MSM. I am much more interested in this statement:
If that’s so, then why do even the articles you present not say so forcefully? Or perhaps you exaggerate just a bit with, “any person with passing knowledge”?
Again, what were you saying in February 2003? Assuming you had at that time just “passing knowledge” of the issue, you were predicting the current situation??? If not then we are discussing is indeed hindsight.
This is what comes of allowing off topic comments!
March 17th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
I wasn’t commenting on blogs back in 2003, so I can’t link to anything, but I was against the whole idea - the invasion and the occupation. I thought that ousting Saddam would be easier than establishing a new government that was stable and friendly to the US.
If that’s so, then why do even the articles you present not say so forcefully?
from the USA Today:
“Marr said the Iraqi nation is unlikely to dissolve upon Saddam’s fall, despite divisions among the three main ethnic groups: Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.
But she said serious problems could occur if a new leadership isn’t in place immediately after Saddam is removed. She warned of possible “retribution, score-settling and bloodletting” in the immediate aftermath. Ultimately, she said, groups could struggle for power or control of oil fields, possibly leading to intervention by Turkey or Iran.”
from the NYT:
“So once Saddam is gone, there will be a power vacuum, revenge killings and ethnic pulling and tugging between Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites.
A splintered Iraq would tempt Iran, frighten Turkey and perhaps lead to regional war. Remaking Iraq through prolonged American military occupation, on the model of postwar Germany, seems unrealistic. Yet too rapid an American pullout could allow a new strongman to emerge, rearm and seek revenge. “
“This is what comes of allowing off topic comments!”
You not only allowed Matt’s and my comments. You have responded to them. I don’t want to drag this out, so I respectfully remain in disagreement with you.
March 17th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
I don’t necessarily look for something you wrote as your word is good, but have been getting at whether or not you had “predicted the messy, violent insurgency” that you say “any person with a passing knowledge of Iraq and its ethnic, tribal and religious conflicts” should have been able to. I think you overstate that a good bit. If it was as glaringly obvious as you say, then you ought to have done so. This goes to the foresight/hindsight argument.
Yes, that’s what I was referring to; I should not have let the first off-topic comment pass, or responded to it.
That’s where we have to leave it since neither of us are likely to change our position.
To me the WMD intel failure was bad, but the reasons to go to Iraq were still more than enough, and Piro’s information only reinforces this. The greater failure was of course the one concerning foresight, i.e. the aftermath. Not the first intel failure by a long shot (e.g., Pearl Harbor, Bay of Pigs, The Tet Offensive, Vietnam in general, Iran 1979, the fall of the Berlin War and Soviet Union, and of course 9/11), nor will it be the last.