Eye off the ball...

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • mixu
    Travel Guru Extraordinaire
    • Jun 2004
    • 1115

    Eye off the ball...

    According to Peter W Galbraith ? a former US ambassador to Croatia and now senior diplomatic fellow at the Centre for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington


    North Korea with nuclear weapons and Iran acquiring nuclear technology posed far greater threats in 2003 than an Iraq with some hidden chemical and biological weapons. The Clinton administration threatened war to get Pyongyang to freeze its nuclear programme in 1994. In 2002, the Bush administration noisily terminated the 1994 agreement because of North Korean cheating, and then did nothing when the country withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and began reprocessing previously safeguarded plutonium into nuclear weapons. All this took place before the start of the Iraq war, but the Bush administration never shifted its focus. North Korea is the world's leading exporter of missile technology to rogue states, and there is every reason to fear its nuclear weapons will be for sale.
    By not distinguishing between serious immediate threats and distant potential ones, Bush ducked the hard choice at the core of all sound national security strategy - how to ration scarce military and diplomatic assets. As a result, the US invaded Iraq to eliminate a threat posed by non-existent weapons. As for North Korea and Iran, the US is reduced to hoping that others - China in the case of Pyongyang and the Europeans in the case of Tehran - can solve the problem. Hope is not a strategy.

    Peter Galbraith: America doesn't have the troops to deal with North Korea and Iran.
    Ask me a question...
  • toasty
    Sir Toastiness
    • Jun 2004
    • 6585

    #2
    Re: Eye off the ball...

    Originally posted by mixu";p="
    According to Peter W Galbraith ? a former US ambassador to Croatia and now senior diplomatic fellow at the Centre for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington

    By not distinguishing between serious immediate threats and distant potential ones, Bush ducked the hard choice at the core of all sound national security strategy - how to ration scarce military and diplomatic assets.
    That's a darn good point. It would be one thing if we had unlimited military resources. We don't.

    This still doesn't answer the question of why Bush thought we could go into Iraq with so few troops, though, which reflects poor judgment, IMHO.

    Comment

    Working...