And no - It doesn't involve Iran.
The Japanese media has recently said that North Korea appears to be planning a long-range missile test for around the 4th of July. It would be aimed, so say the reports, in the general direction of Hawaii.
The American response leaves little doubt that the Pentagon and the defense industry see this as a unique opportunity to test our missile defense system. Defense Secretary Gates has announced that additional "assets," meaning naval ships, have been deployed to "shore up the defense of the islands."
These particular ships are carrying The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, missiles. Their normal mission is to shoot down incoming missiles shortly before they arrive at their target. They have only been tested against short range missiles, so far, so the North Korean shot, if taken, may provide an opportunity to see if they have greater capabilities.
This would only happen, however, if the land-based missiles in California and Alaska fail to do their job, which would probably be to shoot down the incoming missile in mid course.
The vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine General James Cartwright, said he was "90%-plus" sure that the U.S. could knock down the North Korean missile. In any event, the test - if conducted - seems to be developing into the mother of all July 4th fireworks displays, although our vigorous response may discourage it from taking place.
The U.S. recently said it intended to provide a nuclear defense of South Korea, a pledge that was roundly condemned by the North. We currently have 26,000 battle-ready troops in South Korea and another 33,000 standing by in Japan.
Meanwhile, a degree of normalcy seems to be developing in Iran. Calm has returned to the streets, President Ahmadinejad appears to have donned his "Mr. Hyde" personality, and the prospects for reigning in the nation's nuclear ambitions seem to be dwindling.
The Iranian leader scolded Obama for following in the footsteps of ex-President George W, Bush which "buried him in the dustbin of history." He criticized Obama's "meddlesome," "unconventional," "abnormal," and "discourteous" comments and said that, as a result, any further diplomatic negotiations would be unlikely.
If we have learned anything from history, however, it's that there is little resemblance between what is said in the Middle East and what actually happens.
In Iraq, the date for the removal of our combat troops from the cities is only three days away, and has likely already been accomplished. This seems to be causing the insurgency to increase its activities. A motorcycle bomb killed 72 people in a Shiite neighborhood on Wednesday, wounding more than 135, and another bomb attack, yesterday, killed 72 people in a busy Baghdad market catering to both Shiites and Sunnis.
Last week, the Department of Defense released the obituaries of four military personnel killed in Iraq, ranging in age from 22 to 43. All the deaths were classified by the Pentagon as non-combat-related.
According to the website icasualties.org, U.S. deaths in the Iraq theater now amount to 4,316.
As for the war in Afghanistan, now in its eighth year, the top U.S. commander, General Stanley McChrystal recently had this to say: "The situation is complicated, and success will not be quick or easy. But we will focus and learn - and learn quickly."
The Department of Defense, last week, released the obituaries of six soldiers killed in Afghanistan, ranging in age from 24 to 43.
U.S. deaths in that country now amount to 713, according to icasualties.org.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 18
I'm afraid the "police department" is bankrupt, at least morally, if not financially. We have now killed more military personnel in that trumped up pre-emptive war on civilians of another nation, than the number of US citizens were killed in the 9/11 terrorist attack. It is enough, we should stop now and try to rebuild our country. It will take years of suffering and hardship to work of the Karma we created in the past 8 years just in this incident, not counting all the other countries which we've walked over.
At least, our new administration had the decency to realize we need to apologize to the world for our leaders. It's very sad that while we encourage leaders of other nations who committ war crimes to be brought to trial, we can't even mildly repremand our own errant leaders. Something has gone badly wrong with this country while we appeared to be the world leader. We've become the leader of the corrupt.
Things must be bad in North Korea. Before the economic calamity, citizens were already used to famine and government foolishness. Kim or his son or both, are talking more shit than drunk street punks. Any real aggression aimed at S. Korea, Hawaii or Japan will be premeditated sovereign suicide. Of course civilians will pay most of the dues.
Makes me wonder why Bush didn't try to work with getting North Korea more agreeable while he was in office instead of going off on a trumped up war. And I don't see either why our leaders should not be held accountable for war crimes. They lied to an entire nation, made up scenarios that were enough to fan the flames of war for those who wanted revenge, and it worked. Personally, I don't feel a bit better by having been in Iraq.
Please Lynn, get over Bush. North Korea didn't pull this shit until they felt they could get way with it. Even Biden warned us this would happen with Obama who wants to play nice with manics. Blame Bush? You wimp.
I agree. Bush is gone. Obama gets to share the blame now.
Bush did just like the last couple of presidents before him, he ended up buying the N. Koreans off just like Obama will do.
They did not try this with Bush, because they saw the risks were not in their favor. Now we have a Democrat in Office, which means they can get a lot with a threat, so they are doing just that. Kim knows who to play, and Democrats are the ticket for free stuff, so he is playing that card again, just like Clinton.
I doubt Obama will do much even if Kim does actually attack. Like most Democrats, he likely will give in and give N. Korea what ever they want. And Pelosi will be telling Obama how much to give them too...
Obama isn't Clinton, for several reasons -- not the least of which is that Chicago isn't Little Rock.
I wonder if there will be a market for radio active glass imported from what used to be North Korea.
I think Gates put too many asset up to stop that missile. It remindes me of the farce in Afghanistan. Send in an army to capture one man. Send the whole ramada to shoot down one missile.
Interesting article, I don't have much to say yet about any of this?
Those who try to blame the North Korean situation on Bush or Obama are letting their domestic political preferences get in the way of their objectivity.
Kim Jong Il is a megalomaniac who wants to prove he can have as much influence on world affairs as much any leader of one of the super powers and he will use any means to draw attention to himself. He would have tried the same thing with Bush if he had had a missile he could test while Bush was still in office.
As for his choosing to challenge the United States, who else could he challenge? There were a couple of other choices, but they are closer to North Korea. China in particular could easily overrun North Korea with conventional weapons and China has reached a point it's own development where we wouldn't blink an eye if it did as long as it stopped at the DMZ which it probably would because China now has to much to lose to risk a major military confrontation with the U.S. China also has too much to lose to let the delusions of a pipsqueak like Kim Jong Il risk nuclear war so close to China's borders or let those delusions cost China the loss of Japan or the U.S. as a trading partner.
China is the sleeping giant that may well prove the solution to dealing with that pipsqueak and those who do not see it are as blind as Kim Jong Il if he does not see it will take more missiles than he can produce to really challenge the U.S. Making him or others high ranking members of the North Korea military see that is what I hope is the purpose behind deploying so much of our defensive ability to shoot down one missile. I'd rather not end up being beholden to China or any other superpower for dealing with him while not putting the rest of Asia at risk. A coup from within North Korea? Now that would be the best solution.
> China is the sleeping giant that may well prove the solution to dealing with [Kim Jumg Il]...
Indeed -- ultimately, they have a lot at stake here.
Interesting article Dave. The north really has no choice but to take this road. Their economy is a failure, there is a succession/transition of power taking place, and last but not the least, their army no longer resembles what it was about a decade+ ago.
The likely hood of an all out conventional war will guarantee that the Kim's dynasty will come to an end and like any monarchy who would want that. Furthermore, the NK military has no fuel and do not have the latest hardware to fight with. Granted, should they be stupid to launch an attack, the first 2 weeks or so would be one of the bloodiest fights in human history. It is estimated that in such an event, there would be about 1 million dead civilians in Seoul and 10,000 dead US troops in the first 24 hours. Eventually, we would win but the costs would be extremely prohibitive in terms of human lives and of course money. The Korean peninsula would also be devasted.
Regarding a possible nuclear strike, that too is unlikely as they have yet to minuiaturize the nuke to fit atop a delivery system. In years to come, they'll probably figure it out but as of today, no.
South Korea, Japan and Taiwan have been under the nuclear umbrella of the United States for decades now just as North Korea has been under the nuclear umbrella of both China and Russia. And this is an interesting point should we or the NK decide to launch first. If Nk did launch first then would we be obligated to retaliate. Conversley, if we launched first would China and Russia both retaliate and where would they target?
Right now its a lot of saber rattling from a mad man but being a mad man means that we should not take him lightly either.
There was a time during the waning days of the Clinton administration when there really was a chance for peace through Madelind Albrights diplomany. Then came Jr. who destroyed everything even when advised by Colin Powell that we should continue on the same track Albright had negotiated. Oh well.
> ...this is an interesting point should we... decide to launch first.
Not even Dr. Strangelove would preemptively toss a nuke in North Korea's direction. What NK target could not be taken out by less provocative means?
Very interesting, Patrick...Thanks for adding that assessment...
The U.S. should pay more attention to this region instead of the Middle East. But hey, there isn't very much oil there....go figure.
The prospect of wars are perpetrated by western political policy in conjunction with western corporate dynamics. Small states across the globe do not entertain suicidal thoughts but remaining free from the hegemony that is obvious is a true dilemma for all of them. Suicide isn't the choice of wealthy dictatorships. We only see the passions of other governments through our own paradigm.
Yup, no oil.