From "Threatening Storm" to "Who me?"

[chet]

http://discover.npr.org/rundowns/seg...l?wfId=1274223

[Jack]

You have to remember, America is now being run like a gigantic, sloppy corporation. We were being "proactive" and eliminating the threat of the third-world country before they actually become a threat.

If you don't like that explanation, the Republicans have a checklist that will provide a good reason to kick Middle-eastern booty:

1- Saddam is Hitler. He must be stopped.
2- In Iraq, weapons of mass destruction are more common than sand.
3- The people of Iraq secretly want us to invade
4- Saddam is in league with terrorists
5- It would really piss off the French
6- Saddam is in league with Satan
7- Saddam is Satan
8- It would really piss off the liberal peaceniks
9- Who do those towel-heads think they are?

Of course, as we move down the progression, it becomes vitriol... only because vitriol needs no evidence.

[Joe O'Malley]

I'm still wondering if we're hedging ourselves into a Pax Americana situation. We've already threatened both the Syrians and Iranians since occupying Iraq.

It doesn't make me any more confident that we are planning to remove our troops from South Korea. That would almost seem to indicate a stance of consolidation, with the Middle East becoming a new (and very threatened) potential "protectorate."

I know, there's probablt a gozillion reasons why this would never happen, but given the right provocation, I'm not convinced that it couldn't.

[DrCrypt]

When did we announce our intention of pulling out of South Korea? Last I heard we were just pulling back from the demilitarized zone near the North/South Korea border. In other words, we don't want to make the totally crazy North Koreans antsy and do something stupid in their desperation. But we're still only 37 miles away.

I just can not believe that America would respond to North Korea's threats by pulling their entire force out of the region. And, in fact, I can't find anything on CNN.com to support this assertion... even articles dated today about Korea only mention the pull back from the demilitarized zone. Are you usually so cavalier about supporting the likelihood of a neo-Pax-Americana with completely fabricated facts?

As for the Pollack thing, anyone have a transcript? For some reason, it keeps on giving me an error when I try to listen to it.

[Jason Lutes]

I didn't buy the pro-war line of everyone who was holding his book up as justification, but I have respect for that guy. Especially for agreeing to do that interview.

That this and the lack of a substantiated link between Hussein and Al Qaeda are all over the mainstream media right now is more than a little disturbing, but at least it's getting coverage. Right up there with the woman who killed her boyfriend with a high-heeled shoe and speculation about the final season of Sex and the City.

Although I relish watching the Shrub fumble his way through a response to these issues, it sickens me to think of how many people I talked to, in the service and out, who thought of the war as "payback for September 11th." The way the administration and the media fostered that fiction and its Cleveist implications that dark-skinned people the world over are plotting the downfall of the Holy American Empire was both deeply depressing and utterly enraging.

[Jason McCullough]

Crypt, a bunch of Bush guys have been trial-ballooning a partial or full troops pullout from Korea.

[DrCrypt]

Yeah, whatever. I mean, I find the leap from "pulling troops out of South Korea" to "Pax Americana" pretty ridiculous to begin with even if it was substantiated, as opposed to just one more wavelength of contradictory chatter people always hear in the static of idunnowhatfucksgoinon. The CNN article I cited mentions that Rumsfield is talking about global redeployment to emphasize smaller, more efficient teams of armed forces working at greater distances. That's interesting, but I'll believe any of this talking head brainstorming when I see it start to happen and officially announced by the Pentagon.

[Sean Tudor]

Did the U.S. ever need a reason to oust Saddam ? I don't think so. Personally I think the U.S. was fully justified invading Iraq without the need to make up stories about WMD's, Al Qaeda, etc. etc.

Saddam already proved he was a monster after Gulf War I and subsequent years of brutal rule against his own population.

[ydejin]

I'm wondering if the proposed pull-out/pullback in South Korea is actually a move to confront North Korea. With our troops in artillery range of the border, we can't perform a limited military strike on North Korea, since they will almost certainly retaliate by shelling our bases on the South Korean border. If our troops are out of artillery range, we can perform bombing or special forces operations on North Korean nuclear sites and the North Koreans will have much more limited options for response. They can strike back at the South Koreans including artillery bombardment of civilians in Seoul, but they won't be able to strike directly at the US, without triggering a full-scale war.

I view the proposed move as (1) Bush payback to the South Koreans because they have not given the administration the support it wants and (2) yet another opportunity for the administration to try to get another country to behave by overt threats as with Iran and Syria (I assume we'll start making military threats to the North Koreans as soon as our troops are out of North Korea's range).

[DavidCPA]

Did the U.S. ever need a reason to oust Saddam ? I don't think so. Personally I think the U.S. was fully justified invading Iraq without the need to make up stories about WMD's, Al Qaeda, etc. etc.

Saddam already proved he was a monster after Gulf War I and subsequent years of brutal rule against his own population.

Good for you Sean. I agree that mass murderers should pay for their crimes. The only problem is that there is a long list of worthy candidates and murky issues about getting involved in other country's internal affairs. The Bush administration knew this and sold us the al Quada and WMD bill of goods to go to war. If they wanted to invade Iraq for humanitarian reasons, they had many opportunities to say so, but did not. When you lie about things that put American, British and Austrailian soldiers in harm's way, there is a price to pay. Bush is finding that out now. It may not prevent him from being re-elected but it does cast some shadows over his presidency to date.

-DavidCPA

[Jason McCullough]

Here:

Showing a readiness to readjust one of the cornerstones of U.S. military policy in South Korea, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told Congress yesterday that he might consider withdrawing some of the 37,000 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea.

Here:

The United States is contemplating the withdrawal of its forces from South Korea amid growing resentment at American troops there, the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said yesterday.

Mr Rumsfeld said the changes were being discussed at Seoul's request, as part of a review of America's global network of Cold War garrisons.

"I suspect we'll end up making some adjustments there," Mr Rumsfeld said. "Whether the forces would come home or move farther south on the peninsula, or move to some neighbouring area are the kinds of things that are being sorted out."

Rumsfeld's lie that it was at SK's request is pretty funny.

Here:

Alliances exist to serve a purpose. Yet in Korea the means has become an end. America pays the bill but gains no benefit from doing so. Indeed, it is finding ingratitude replacing appreciation.

Washington's military presence is no longer necessary to protect the South. The troops play no role in constraining China, since no administration is likely to be foolish enough to embark upon a ground war with Beijing, or, even less plausibly, Japan, which is about as likely as the Philippines to again run amok throughout East Asia.

Google's full of 'em.

What's driving this is that SK doesn't want to be aggressive with NK, and that's pissed off the Bushies so much they're threatening to completely withdraw. An unflattering analogy would be if Reagan had threatened to pull out of NATO if he didn't get Pershings deployed in Europe.

[Bub, Andrew]

I didn't buy the pro-war line of everyone who was holding his book up as justification, but I have respect for that guy. Especially for agreeing to do that interview.

Really the Threatening Storm is about the options. A large portion of the book concerns the history of the region, Saddam's history and analysis of his (frightening) behavior, and discussion of human rights abuses. He discusses WMD in length but, as he notes in the interview, he wasn't claiming an imminent threat. The bulk of his argument, and to me the most convincing, was when he described in detail why deterrence wouldn't work, why Containment was breaking down, how countries were actively subverting the sanctions, how Saddam was making millions from smuggling, and how war was really the only way to end this 12 year problem once and for all. The stuff about how this was something Clinton had on the table for 8 years helped convince me this wasn't a Republican war at all. He convinced me we couldn't go on letting the status quo be exploited by nations like Iran, Syria, France, Germany, Russia, and Jordan. We couldn't afford to keep a deterring army in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia just in case Saddam decides to make a power grab again. And that it was time to lance the boil. Along the way he convinced me Iraq had WMD and that Saddam was bent on acquiring more power and eventually a nuclear program.

Out of all that, only one thing has been put into question. It looks like Saddam didn't have WMD.

Here's my belief: We do know Saddam had WMD after the Gulf War because Inspectors found evidence of it in 1992. This is why the sanctions weren't lifted on schedule. I now think Saddam destroyed them in secret, probably recently, because he was hoping to thwart the inspectors and he feared Bush's agenda. This is out of Saddam's character, he seems more likely to want to keep and use them, but I think he really believed his best hope was to lie low and hope the US would be thwarted by the UN. And then later, he could rebuild them. So, why didn't Saddam disclose he had actually complied and finally rid Iraq of WMD? Pollack describes in detail Saddam's internal weaknesses and rampant paranoia. One of them is appearing weak before his enemies within Iraq and outside. Bio/Chem WMD was his best deterrant against Iran because, no matter how much Jason McCullough believes that they're harmless, the Iranian's are scared to death of them. So are the Kurds and the Shi'a. Saddam was caught in a Catch-22. Can't keep WMD for fear of the US, can't disclose they're gone because of internal and neighboring threats.

But yeah, Bush clearly ignored warnings about the veracity of his WMD info. Pollack got fooled it seems, but he didn't have all the info and his error was in good faith. Bush's was not, apparently.

[XPav]

USFK is scheduled for a major round of upgrades. Longbow Apaches, JDAMs, PAC-3s and UAVs are all in the cards. This makes the forces in South Korea more deadly. This will of course, cause the North Koreans to publish more "agressive running-dog imperialist" news in their 'newspaper'.

USFK will rotate the new Stryker Brigades through Korea, and preposition a heavy armored brigade in ships off the coast. Together with the pull back of forces from the DMZ, this makes the US forces more mobile, rather than tying them into static positions. This also has the side-effect of making USFK much easier to deploy outside of Korea should the need arise.

So, in short:

1) US forces in Korea to become more deadly, not less
2) North Koreans should be more worried, not less, because now its even easier to invade North Korea
3) Any sort of impliciation that Bush is 'punishing' the South Koreans doesn't really make any sense.

[Jason McCullough]

Pollack's entire argument turned on the inevitability of WMD with Saddam. If that was wrong, what else is?

[Bub, Andrew]

Pollack's entire argument turned on the inevitability of WMD with Saddam. If that was wrong, what else is?

Well, I don't think you're opening sentence is true Jason. Bush's argument turned on it, Pollack's didn't. Did you read the book?

[Jason McCullough]

It was the direct justification Bush used for invading now; Pollack used it as the direct justification for getting rid of Saddam eventually.

I'd summarize the interview as "that fuckhead Rumsfeld used my argument and then kicked it to the curb like a $2 whore."

Edited direct object problems for benefit of picky writers.

[Bub, Andrew]

You lost me. Starting with "Is it?"
Is what? How does that apply to my post? Your summary makes me think you not only failed to to read the book Jason (making your argument about as solid as Brian Koontz riffing on Adaptation), but you didn't listen to the interview either.

It was the direct justification Bush used for invading now; Pollack used it as the direct justification for getting rid of Saddam eventually.

Bush = Yes. Pollack used that and a hell of a lot more as justification for eventual invasion.

[Tom Chick]

Brian Koontz saw Adaptation.

Also, I have to ask: is it?

-Tom

[Bub, Andrew]

Brian Koontz saw Adaptation.

Given that it's Brian Koontz, the analogy still works.

[Dirt]

I think Texas should secede from the Union and take Bush with them.

[Jonathan Blow]

Rumsfeld's lie that it was at SK's request is pretty funny.

Having lived in South Korea for a total of 6 weeks last year, I can tell you they are extremely unhappy about American troop presence in the country. They are constantly asking the US to reduce their involvement in SK. They reason they are "asking" is because in turn for the USA's involvement in the Korean War, they signed a "bend me over and fuck me in the ass for all eternity" agreement with this country.

[Rywill]

Rumsfeld's lie that it was at SK's request is pretty funny.

Having lived in South Korea for a total of 6 weeks last year, I can tell you they are extremely unhappy about American troop presence in the country. They are constantly asking the US to reduce their involvement in SK. They reason they are "asking" is because in turn for the USA's involvement in the Korean War, they signed a "bend me over and fuck me in the ass for all eternity" agreement with this country.

In other words:

Rumsfeld's lie that it was at SK's request is pretty funny.

Is it?

[Jason McCullough]

I want to see documentation that Korea requested us to leave. I know the public is unhappy, but this is the first I've heard of the government saying it.

[Brad Grenz]

I think I remember it going this way. Public hated America's continued presense. Administration say, "fine, we'll look at pulling out". SK government freaks and begs US to stay cause they'd prefer spooning with the US to anal rape at the hands of the NK.

[XPav]

I want to see documentation that Korea requested us to leave. I know the public is unhappy, but this is the first I've heard of the government saying it.

Its a love-hate relationship. Also, I think that some politicians like having the US around to kick around for domestic PR.

Not to say that there aren't things about the US-Korean relationship that are slightly aggravating. I mean, during war, the US gets to command the whole shebang. Sure, in the late 50s that made a lot of sense, but South Korea has come a long way since then.

[ydejin]

I think I remember it going this way. Public hated America's continued presense. Administration say, "fine, we'll look at pulling out". SK government freaks and begs US to stay cause they'd prefer spooning with the US to anal rape at the hands of the NK.

Yeah, that's pretty much how I remember it going too, although Brad put a bit more colorfully than I probably would have. :)

[Supertanker]

There were news stories a few days ago explaining that the US was shifting troops out of bases on the DMZ and in Seoul to new bases farther south. The troops are still staying in Korea, though.

[Joe O'Malley]

edited. I'm having trouble with the quotation whirlagig today.

[Joe O'Malley]

Crypt wrote:
"And, in fact, I can't find anything on CNN.com to support this assertion... even articles dated today about Korea only mention the pull back from the demilitarized zone. Are you usually so cavalier about supporting the likelihood of a neo-Pax-Americana with completely fabricated facts?"

Don't be an ass, Crypt. Just because you haven't heard a thing does not mean it is fabricated or fantasy. There is considerable talk about moving US forces out of several countries that have displayed what DoD reps have called "an ungrateful attitude" towards the presence of US troops. South Korea was mentioned because of recent escalating tensions there against US troops.

If you aren't going to be fully informed at least have the sense not to bray about it.[/quote]

[Jason McCullough]

For reference, part of the reason the Koreans are pissed is that by "being aggressive with NK" the US means "start another war up there rather than negotiate." There was a scary amount of airstrike talk coming out of Washington last year.