Warning: Undefined array key "rbname" in /data/rantburg.com/www/rantburg/pgrecentorg.php on line 14
Hello !
Recent Appearances... Rantburg

Home Front: Politix
McCain Steps Up Criticism of Obama
2008-02-29
Senator John McCain stepped up his critique of Senator Barack Obama on Thursday by accusing him for the second consecutive day of a willingness to hand over Iraq to Al Qaeda, as the Democratic contenders released record-breaking fund-raising figures.

At a news conference at Hobby Airport in Houston, where Mr. McCain was endorsed by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, Mr. McCain opened with a formulation of why he contended Mr. Obama is not ready to be commander in chief.

“On the issue of my differences with Senator Obama on Iraq, I want to make it very clear: This is not about decisions that were made in the past,” Mr. McCain said. “This is about decisions that a president will have to make about the future in Iraq. And a decision to unilaterally withdraw from Iraq will lead to chaos.”

Mr. McCain, the likely Republican nominee for president, was reacting to Mr. Obama’s response to a hypothetical question in a debate in Cleveland on Tuesday night, when Mr. Obama said that although he intended to withdraw American forces as quickly as possible, he reserved the right to send troops back if Al Qaeda were forming a base in Iraq. “Al Qaeda is there now,” Mr. McCain said in Houston, with a tone of belittlement in his voice. “So to state that somehow if Al Qaeda were there that he would consider going back militarily is really a remarkable comment, and I don’t think displays an understanding of the size of the threat and what’s at stake in Iraq.”
Link


Iraq
Ignatius: Congress and the White House are on a collision course
2007-04-05
We return to Lee Hamilton, co-chair of the Iraq Study Group, and his partner on the other side of the bipartisan hyphen, former Secretary of State James A. Baker. Four months after its release, the Baker-Hamilton report still looks like the best way to unite Democrats and Republicans before there is a dangerous collision over funding for the war. The report has something for everyone: It shares the Democrats' goal of withdrawing most US troops by March 2008, and stresses the need for milestones in Iraq. But it endorses the Bush administration's view that milestones should be jointly negotiated with the Iraqi government, rather than imposed by Washington. And it recognizes that troop withdrawals must be contingent on political and military conditions on the ground.

The Baker-Hamilton report focused on the need for a sustainable policy - one that would make Iraq an American project rather than President George W. Bush's war. That requires a shift in military strategy from US combat operations to a counterinsurgency approach centered on training and advising the Iraqi military. But the study group, composed of five Democrats and five Republicans, also said it could "support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping mission.''

The most controversial aspect of the Baker-Hamilton report was its call for greater American diplomatic engagement in the region, including talks with Iran and Syria and a new push on the Israeli-Palestinian problem. Four months later, Bush administration officials have sat around a table in Baghdad with Syrians and Iranians, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is beginning a serious effort to midwife the birth of a Palestinian state, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is visiting Damascus this week. We're all Baker-Hamiltonians, now.
Link


Home Front: Politix
Member of "bipartisan ISG" delivers Democrat Radio Response
2006-12-17
HT to Drudge
Former Clinton Defense Secretary William Perry, a member of the Iraq Study Group, said Saturday that Iraq could turn into a "quagmire" if the Bush administration fails to change strategy.

Perry, who led the Pentagon under President Clinton, delivered the Democratic Party's weekly radio address.

Referring to the Vietnam War, Perry said: "The term 'quagmire' recalls one of the saddest periods in American history, which we do not want to relive. But I believe that is likely to happen if we 'stay the course' in Iraq."
unlike Somalia, or the Balkans or....
Perry reiterated the recommendations of last week's report from the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan commission led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Rep. Lee Hamilton.
Baker's group is a sellout. Ignore them
"We need to accelerate the training of Iraqi army and police forces," Perry said. "We need to begin to pull out U.S. combat brigades, with the goal of having all except rapid-reaction forces out by first quarter of 2008. ... We need to push friendly regional powers to assist. We need to put pressure on unfriendly regional powers to stop arming militias and fomenting violence. And finally, we need to invigorate the Israeli-Palestinian peace process."

President Bush has been meeting over the last week with current and former military leaders -- as well as advisers from other parts of the government -- to assess possible new strategies for the Iraq war. But he has made it clear he will not map out a new war strategy until his new defense secretary, Robert Gates, has taken over and offered his counsel.

The Iraq Study Group report was critical of just about every aspect of the administration's war policies. Bush welcomed some of its recommendations but dismissed others, particularly the call for withdrawing a substantial number of U.S. troops over the next year.

Perry said he believed the report "will frame the debate in our country this coming year. And it will demonstrate that it is possible, even in the poisonous political climate that now exists, to address important national problems in a truly bipartisan manner."
"as long as you do everything we say"
Link


Home Front: Politix
Senators Question Iraq Panel's Blueprint
2006-12-08
Senators sharply questioned an Iraq commission's call for a new U.S. war strategy Thursday, saying the Bush administration and Congress must work urgently together to find a more effective approach.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a 2008 presidential hopeful, took strong issue with the commission's call for phasing out the U.S. combat role in Iraq by 2008 and focusing instead more on training and advising the Iraqi army. He rejected the idea that the Army and Marines cannot spare more combat forces for Iraq duty.

"There's only one thing worse than an over-stressed Army and Marine Corps, and that's a defeated Army and Marine Corps," said McCain, a Vietnam veteran who will become the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee when the Democrats take control of both houses of Congress in January. "I believe this is a recipe that will lead to our defeat sooner or later in Iraq," McCain added.

One of the commission's co-chairmen, former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., underscored the urgency of changing course in Iraq, where conditions were described as grave and deteriorating. He was asked at what point the situation there, if not corrected, would be hopeless.

"Well, there certainly is that point, and we're perilously close to that point," he replied.

Hamilton and his co-chairman, former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, testified before the Senate committee one day after delivering their report. Hamilton said that a new, more realistic and practical approach is needed.

"That's a very tough policy problem, and in order for this to happen, it can't be pie in the sky, it can't be idealistic, it has to be pragmatic," he said. Later, he added, "We reject the idea that the situation is hopeless."

Most senators broadly endorsed the commission's report, which made 79 recommendations for policy changes. Their skepticism focused mainly on two of the recommendations: a diplomatic approach to Iran and Syria, and an acceleration of the U.S. military's work to train and advise Iraqi forces.
Link


Home Front: Politix
Panel reaches deal on U.S. Iraq policy
2006-11-30
AP. They left out "recommendations". Neither they nor AP make the call on US Foreign Policy. Asstards.
A bipartisan commission, under pressure to offer a U.S. exit strategy for the increasingly unpopular war in Iraq, has reached a consensus and will announce its recommendations next week, the group's co-chairman said Wednesday.

Former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., declined to disclose any specifics about the Iraq Study Group's decisions. The report, much anticipated by the Bush administration and members of Congress, is coming out next Wednesday amid the spiraling violence in Iraq that has raised questions about the viability of the Iraqi government. "This afternoon, we reached a consensus ... and we will announce that on December 6," Hamilton told a forum on national security at the Center for American Progress, a liberal group. "We're making recommendations," said Hamilton, who led the group with former Secretary of State James A. Baker III.
Hamilton gets it. Sorta.
Link


Syria-Lebanon-Iran
US challenges Assad's "negative attitudes"
2006-11-30
Showing no sign of warming to Syria, the Bush administration on Wednesday sharply rejected a charge of US colonialism by President Bashar Assad and demanded Syria cease its support for terror groups.

Even as the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Rep. Lee H. Hamilton, weighs recommending a more conciliatory US foreign policy, the State Department struck back hard at Damascus. Among possible changes the panel is believed to be considering is a renewal of diplomatic dialogue with Syria, as well as Iran.
Link


Iraq
U.S. Considers Raising Troop Levels in Iraq
2006-11-21
WASHINGTON, Nov. 20 — Pentagon officials conducting a review of Iraq strategy are considering a substantial but temporary increase in American troop levels and the addition of several thousand more trainers to work with Iraqi forces, a senior Defense Department official said Monday.

The idea, dubbed the “surge option” by some officials, would involve increasing American forces by 20,000 troops or more for several months in the hope of improving security, especially in Baghdad. That would mark a sharp rise over the current baseline of 144,000 troops.

But some officials and senior military officers are arguing against the idea, saying that it could undercut a sense of urgency for Iraqi units to take on a greater role in fighting the insurgency and preventing sectarian attacks. Gen. John P. Abizaid, the head of the United States Central Command, told Congress last week that the military was stretched so thin that such an increase could not be sustained over the long term.

“There are people who believe that a short-term surge would have a beneficial impact, but there isn’t universal agreement on that yet,” said the senior official, who said that President Bush was scheduled to be briefed in the next several weeks on the developing options, which were first reported Monday in The Washington Post.

There is far more consensus within the Pentagon on the need to increase the number of American trainers, more than 3,000 of whom are working with Iraqi Army, police and border units. General Abizaid endorsed that idea in general terms in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week.

A Pentagon strategy review, ordered by Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is backing the idea, as is a separate panel studying Iraq options, led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, the senior official said.

The number of American advisers, who generally work in 11- to 13-member teams attached to Iraqi units, is likely to end up being doubled, the officials said.

To do that, officials are considering whether they could convert American soldiers in combat units already in Iraq into advisers, working alongside Iraqi security forces, the senior official said. That would reduce the number of Americans exclusively available for combat, but it would enable the advisers’ ranks to be increased rapidly, instead of the months it would take to train additional advisers in the United States.

In addition, placing more experienced troops with Iraqi soldiers would augment the Iraqi units’ combat power, the official said.

The Pentagon review is being conducted by more than a dozen officers who have served in Iraq and are regarded as some of the military’s most experienced thinkers about the problems there. The group appears to have rejected other more radical options, including a rapid withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and a major long-term increase in troop levels, the senior official said.

Some Pentagon officials took issue Monday with the idea that the relatively low-ranking group composed largely of colonels would be drafting options for switching course in Iraq. A Pentagon spokesman, Bryan Whitman, said the group was not charged with developing formal recommendations but rather with giving its views to other members of the Joint Staff.

His comments appeared aimed, at least in part, at reasserting in public the role of the Joint Chiefs, who have been criticized by retired military officers for deferring too much in developing Iraq strategy to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who has announced his resignation.

“They’re not working on any specific product or report,” Mr. Whitman said of the group. “They’re providing unfettered views and fresh views.” He added that recommendations for shifting strategy would be made by General Pace, “whose job is to advise the president.”

The senior Pentagon official said that increasing the number of American combat troops for an indefinite period “is not on the table.” Nor is there active discussion of a rapid troop drawdown advocated by some Democrats, the official said, an approach the official called “turning off the lights and going home.”

Though a temporary increase of about 20,000 American troops is under consideration, the plan envisions the additional troops staying only until security conditions improve. After that, troop levels could come down, as better-trained and equipped Iraqi units took on a larger security role.

But even that option would not be easy to accomplish without putting more strain on already-strapped Army and Marine combat units. Officials said it could be done by extending the tours of some units already in Iraq, speeding up the deployment of other units scheduled to go, and activating more reserve units.

“The fact of the matter is that the United States military does have the ability to put more troops on the ground if we need to have more forces on the ground,” Mr. Whitman said.

Temporary spikes in troop levels have succeeded in tamping down insurgent violence in Iraq in the past. But several Pentagon officials say they are not sure that the Army can achieve the same results against attacks fueled increasingly by sectarian tension. An increase in American forces this year to more than 140,000 from 128,000 has failed to stem the spike in sectarian attacks, they noted.

Representative Duncan Hunter, a California Republican who is losing the chairmanship of the Armed Services Committee at the end of the year, said at a news conference that rather than sending more American troops, he favored redeploying Iraqi units from largely calm areas to Baghdad and other violence-ridden sections of the country.

“The idea of having the Iraqi battalions that we’ve stood up and trained 50 to 100 miles away, in areas that are peaceful, simply staying in their barracks while we put together new rotations of Americans to take their place, simply doesn’t make sense,” he said.

Link


India-Pakistan
Shaukat Aziz asks US to think about exit strategy from Afghanistan
2006-11-14
Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz on Monday politely asked the United States to think about an exit strategy from Afghanistan.
Thereby leaving Afghanistan in the care of Pakland...
In an interview with the Washington Times, Aziz gave an implicit reminder that the US must leave Afghanistan eventually, in consultation with the Afghans, their neighbours and myriad stakeholders. "History is full of examples where we didn't focus too much on exit strategy," Aziz said. "A good exit strategy is one which leaves that country, that area, peaceful, economically and politically empowered. ... We are the most important stakeholder, and we are there for life. We cannot take off; countries cannot change their neighbours."
Withdrawal from Iraq's on the table, so the Paks are looking forward to what comes next.
The Times quoted the PM saying Pakistan, a key ally in the war on terror, welcomes an expected reappraisal of US policy in Iran and Afghanistan, and thinks military action alone is "not the answer" to the threat posed by extremists in the two countries."
"We can handle things here. Y'all can go home and ummmm... do whatever it is you do."
Shaukat Aziz told the newspaper that he would like to see a more nuanced approach to battling extremism, which includes massive investment and economic assistance to the two countries in order to build a sense of well-being for the poor and disenfranchised.
Not only "get out and let us play the Great Game in Afghanistan," but "give us the money to do it."
In New York for meetings at the United Nations, Aziz also said the world needs to focus more seriously on Afghanistan's narcotics trade, which is becoming an increasingly important source of terrorist financing. By some estimates, the trade accounts for half of Afghanistan's gross domestic product. An American commission headed by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Rep. Lee H. Hamilton is expected to recommend strategies for the Iraq war before year's end, a development that Mr. Aziz welcomed.
... since he expects them to be weak as water...
"We believe that conflicts like Iraq, Afghanistan and so on need to be carefully reviewed because military action is not the answer or the solution to such a crisis," he said. "We must work on winning the hearts and minds of the people.
Whenever they bring up the "hearts and minds" approach they don't want to do anything. "Hearts and minds" don't involve imposing your will on people.
"We have to involve the people, to give them the sense that the world cares and their future tomorrow will be better than yesterday."
Link


Syria-Lebanon-Iran
White House Sees Evidence of Plot in Lebanon
2006-11-02
The White House said today that there was “mounting evidence” that Iran and Syria are involved in a plot to overthrow the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora of Lebanon, but senior officials refused to describe in any detail the intelligence they said they had collected. In an unusual statement, the White House said it was “increasingly concerned by mounting evidence that the Syrian and Iranian governments, Hezbollah and their Lebanese allies are preparing plans to topple Lebanon’s democratically elected government.”

American officials who were pressed today about the assertion on Lebanon said they had evidence that Syria and Iran were trying to engineer the creation of a new “unity” government that they could control, partly through the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah. One senior American official, who did not want to be identified because he was discussing an intelligence issue, said there were also indications of “planning for a more violent” attack on the government, but he gave no details.

In the White House statement, issued by President Bush’s press secretary, Tony Snow, the administration said there were “indications” that Syria was trying to block passage of a statute by the Lebanese Parliament that would cooperate with an international tribunal being put together to try those accused of involvement in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. In a warning to Syria, the statement said the tribunal would be established “no matter what happens in Lebanon.”

Syrian intelligence officials, including close family members of President Bashar al-Assad, have been implicated in the attack. Syria has denied being involved in the attack in February 2005, which ultimately led to protests that forced Syria to withdraw its troops from Lebanon after nearly three decades.

“Talking isn’t a strategy,” the president’s national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, said in an interview late last week.
In interviews in recent days, senior American officials have alluded less directly to concerns about Syrian and Iranian interference in Lebanon’s affairs. They have suggested that the concerns are one reason that the United States could not engage in negotiations with Syria or Iran, as several leading Republicans, including former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, have urged. “Talking isn’t a strategy,” the president’s national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, said in an interview late last week, before he headed to Iraq. “The issue is how can we condition the environment that that Iran and Syria will make a 180-degree turn,” he said.
Link


Iraq
In Iraq, Sadr Looms Over Maliki
2006-10-25
You can spot them by their black outfits and black balaclavas. Members of the Mahdi Army, the 10,000-strong militia formed by Muqtada al-Sadr shortly after the April 2003 invasion of Iraq, are now deemed responsible for many of the sectarian killings in recent months. The army’s loyalists primarily consist of unemployed Shiites from Sadr City, a Baghdad slum. Several have infiltrated the ranks of the interior and defense ministries. Like Hamas or Hezbollah, the Mahdi Army fills a security void. It is increasingly drawing support from local Iraqis fed up with the government’s—not to mention outside powers like the United States’—inability to police their streets (WashPost) and provide basic services.

Yet Sadr’s army is not just a gang of thugs, experts say. Sadr controls a large voting bloc in parliament. His loyalists mounted a formidable offensive last week and briefly took control of the southern city of Amara (Reuters). As this new Backgrounder explains, the government has been unable—or rather unwilling—to disband the militia because Nuri al-Maliki, the embattled prime minister, relies on Sadr for political support. Balancing Sadr’s bitter feud with Abdul Aziz al-Hakim (al-Jazeera), another prominent Shiite leader whose Badr Brigade has often clashed with the Mahdi Army, has been the key to holding his combustible government together. Maliki can ill afford to alienate conservative Shiites like Sadr or Hakim, yet Washington has pressed the prime minister to disband and disarm these leaders’ militias.

The violence in Iraq reached a crescendo in recent weeks, particularly in Baghdad, which now verges on “war-torn Beirut” (NYT). An effort by the U.S. military to clear the capital of insurgents has proven largely unsuccessful, as suicide attacks and drive-by shootings have spiked since July, when the sweeps began. A controversial study by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health found that more than 600,000 Iraqi civilians had died since the start of the war (though many statisticians question the study’s inconsistent use of cluster metrics). Meanwhile, U.S.-led efforts to rebuild Iraqi schools and hospitals remain hobbled by corruption, poor security, and, some say, incompetence. Small surprise, then, that a growing number of Iraqis say Iraq is now heading in the wrong direction, according to a recent poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes.

Despite all the bad news, Gen. George W. Casey Jr. and U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad told reporters "success is possible and can be achieved on a realistic timetable (IHT)." Back home, however, U.S. officials on both sides of the political aisle are calling for a change of course. October was the deadliest month this year for U.S. forces (WashPost). Even President Bush concedes the situation in Iraq warrants comparisons to the Vietnam War’s Tet Offensive (VOA), though Don Oberdorfer, author of the book Tet!, tells Bernard Gwertzman the comparison does not stand up. "It was nothing like what has happened so far in Iraq," he says. "It was as if the Iraqi Shiites took over the Green Zone." Meanwhile, a much-awaited bipartisan commission, led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker, III, will be released after the November midterm elections and is expected to advocate a phased pullout of coalition forces and a plan to include Iraq ’s neighbors in security negotiations. There are reports surfacing that the White House is losing confidence in Maliki: U.S. officials were irked by his decision to release a top aide of Sadr’s linked to death-squad-style killings. Others speculate a coup could be in the offing (Democracy Now).

Yet the Bush administration says it does not plan to overhaul its “clear, hold, and build” strategy and denies a New York Times report claiming a timetable was set to disarm Iraqi militias. Top White House officials (Bloomberg), along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, have called on the Iraqis to step up and take more responsibility for providing security. In an Online Debate, Lawrence J. Korb of the Center for American Progress says “we have already given [the Iraqis] more than ample time to begin doing that and unless we put pressure on them by setting a date certain, they will continue to use us as a crutch to avoid making the hard choices.” Steven Metz of the U.S. Army War College disagrees, claiming the conditions are not ready to establish a timetable to withdraw by the end of 2007.

Link


China-Japan-Koreas
US planning to pressure Kim
2005-02-14
In the months before North Korea announced that it possessed nuclear weapons, the Bush administration began developing new strategies to choke off its few remaining sources of income, based on techniques in use against Al Qaeda, intelligence officials and policy makers involved in the planning say.

The initial steps are contained in a classified "tool kit" of techniques to pressure North Korea that has been refined in recent weeks by the National Security Council. The new strategies would intensify and coordinate efforts to track and freeze financial transactions that officials say enable the government of Kim Jong Il to profit from counterfeiting, drug trafficking and the sale of missile and other weapons technology.

Some officials describe the steps as building blocks for what could turn into a broader quarantine if American allies in Asia - particularly China and South Korea - can be convinced that Mr. Kim's declaration on nuclear weapons last week means he must finally be forced to choose between disarmament and even deeper isolation. China and South Korea have been reluctant to impose penalties on the North.

To some degree the effort arises from Washington's lack of leverage over North Korea, and the absence of good military options, and it is far from clear that the administration's development of what one official calls "new instruments of pressure" will work. More than four decades of economic embargos of Cuba, tried by nine presidents, have failed, largely because European, Canadian and Latin American allies have not joined in. Nor have they succeeded against the Burmese, also a major source of drugs. The Secret Service has tried for years to halt North Korean counterfeiting dollars, and Australia and Japan have tried to end its sales of amphetamines and heroin.

In interviews over the past three weeks, administration officials have denied that the renewed effort is part of an unstated initiative to topple Mr. Kim. But several officials say North Korea has stepped up its illicit trafficking and counterfeiting in part to make up for lost missile sales and a crackdown on cash transfers from North Koreans living in Japan, some of which are illegal.

"We think they are desperate to put more money into the nuclear program and we're trying to cut that off," said one senior official.

Some officials acknowledge that undermining Mr. Kim's hold on power could be a side effect of the program, if it was successful. "That wasn't the intent in drafting it," said one senior official involved in the process. "Whether it could be one of the results is anyone's guess."

Several officials cautioned, however, that the new "tool kit" did not yet constitute a plan of action because the United States was only slowly trying to engage other nations in the strategy. They said some of the new techniques had already been carried out, but would not say which ones.

Details were described by officials in one intelligence agency and two other government agencies. One official of a foreign government who has been briefed on parts of it confirmed some of the elements. On Sunday evening, Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, cast the effort as "complementary to our continued diplomatic efforts," but insisted that some of the techniques had been used for some time.

"We have been working with our allies and partners for some time now to stop North Korea's illegal activities, especially in counterfeiting and narcotics," he said. "We have a responsibility to protect our citizens, our allies and our economies. North Korea cannot continue its involvement in illegal activities. It must make a strategic decision and eliminate its nuclear weapons program."

Other officials said that while different agencies had been pursuing the North, the new effort represented the first time the White House was coordinating and expanding the tactics to put more pressure on Mr. Kim.

Several officials confirmed that the most recent proposal was drafted by Robert Joseph, the counter-proliferation chief at the National Security Council, before he left the administration in November.

Mr. Joseph is widely expected to be nominated for the post of under secretary of state for arms control and international security.

Two American officials cited, as an example of new pressure tactics, a Japanese law that goes into effect on March 1 that requires all ships to carry liability insurance against spills and other accidents. Almost no North Korean vessel meets the requirement, so it could halt most shipping traffic with North Korea.

Although the nuts and bolts of the proposed measures are not clear, officials appear to be working from lists they have been collecting of banks and companies that the North Koreans have been using. Tracking North Korean financial transactions has long been difficult; it often deals in cash, and through shell companies and unregulated banking centers.

White House officials have declined to say what role President Bush has played in the new strategy. But his dislike for Mr. Kim is well known, and his involvement in strategies to deal with him was described by one former official as "a lot more intense than you might think."

Advisers, military officials and American and foreign diplomats who deal with Mr. Bush on North Korean issues say he frequently criticizes Mr. Kim's human rights abuses, referring to him as "immoral" and "a tyrant," according to one official who sat in on a recent meeting. In a meeting in December with President Roh Moo Hyun of South Korea, Mr. Bush spoke about how Mr. Kim lets his people starve.

"Roh said to him, 'Yeah, he's a bad guy, but we don't have to say it in public,' " said one official who has reviewed notes of the session. Mr. Roh's point was that turning the nuclear dispute into a personal confrontation, the way the Bush administration did with Saddam Hussein, could undercut any chance of diplomatic success in disarming North Korea.

Mr. Bush, the official recounted, responded, " 'Alright, I won't say it publicly,' or words to that effect, and so far he hasn't."

Officially, the Bush administration has never declared that "regime change" is its objective in North Korea, and Mr. Bush has expressed a willingness to offer a "security assurance" to North Korea pledging that the United States will not invade. Such an attack is considered nearly impossible, given North Korea's ability to destroy Seoul, South Korea's capital, about 40 miles from the border, and the fact that American intelligence does not know where the North's nuclear arms or all of its nuclear facilities are.

But Mr. Bush has never made any such assurances about attacking North Korea's economic lifelines. On Sunday, former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, who served under Mr. Bush's father when North Korea was making what the C.I.A. later concluded were its first two nuclear bombs, raised the possibility of a broad economic crackdown.

Appearing on the ABC News program "This Week," Mr. Baker told the host, George Stephanopoulos, that "there's a big gap" between abandoning the six-nation negotiations that had been sporadically under way for the past 18 months "and going to military force."

"There are many things we can do," Mr. Baker added.

"Quarantine?" Mr. Stephanopoulos asked.

"Quarantine is one," Mr. Baker said. "And perhaps the best one, of course, is sanctions by the United Nations Security Council for North Korea's violation of her promises to the International Atomic Energy Agency and the global community."
Link



Warning: Undefined property: stdClass::$T in /data/rantburg.com/www/rantburg/pgrecentorg.php on line 132
-11 More