HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Oct. 12, 2006 George W. Bush’s foreign policy is an abject failure. His forays into Afghanistan and Iraq have resulted in loss of American lives, hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties and all without accomplishing the major objectives of those wars: Thwarting Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, capturing Osama bin-Laden and democratizing Iraq. The U.S. is now facing more belligerent blather from 2/3 of the so-called axis of evil, in the form of Iran and North Korea, both which have nuclear ambitions. The latest move by Republicans is to divert attention from their failed PNAC-influenced policies and lay the blame at the feet of former President Clinton. The former President’s inability to capture or kill bin-Laden, and his “failed” agreement with North Korea are cited by GOP stalwarts John McCain and Condi Rice as the reasons for this more aggressive anti-American tenor taken by the Iranis and North Koreans.. The Clinton administration entered into one-to-one negotiations with North Korea after first contemplating an attack on that country’s Yongbyon nuclear reactor. Kim Jong Il’s regime later reneged on the ensuing agreement to shut down the reactor and cease the processing of plutonium. When Bush took office, the one-to-one negotiations ceased, and North Korea was labeled as a part of a triumvirate of evil. According to Maurice Strong, special adviser to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, “(Now) there is such a complete breakdown of trust and confidence between these two countries that they are now unable to read the intentions of the other so there is real potential now for this to escalate into conflict.” In 1997 PNAC advised there be a “gradual shift in the focus of American strategic concerns toward East Asia, a majority of the US fleet, including two thirds of all carrier battle groups, should be concentrated in the Pacific. A new, permanent forward base should be established in Southeast Asia." (p.39) Furthermore, with the proposal of harsher sanctions, North Korean leader Kim Jong Il has taken a bolder stance, calling the Bush Administration’s foreign policy strategy “a declaration of war.” If Clinton, as reported, never offered the Bush administration a viable framework by which to work, then why after eight years hasn’t the Bush administration developed a more coherent policy of its own? Now we hear the ambiguous proclamation, “We will probably not invade North Korea, at least not in the foreseeable future.” Diplomacy has been replaced by bombast, such as Richard Perle’s assertion that Republican foreign policy “is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq... this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war... our children will sing great songs about us years from now." (Stockbauer). Such a hard-line stance has resulted in North Koreans withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and asserting its right to build nuclear weapons as a deterrent against U.S. aggression. Military conflict with Iran and North Korea present two entirely different scenarios. In war games conducted during 2004, the conclusion drawn was that the U.S. could decimate Irani nuclear facilities with a quick military strike. North Korea is already assumed to have some quantity of nuclear arsenal, perhaps with the capability of striking the west coast of the U.S. Furthermore, “North Korea is believed to have large stockpiles of chemical weapons (mustard gas, sarin, VX nerve agent) and biological weapons (anthrax, botulism, cholera, hemorrhagic fever, plague, smallpox, typhoid, yellow fever). An actual war on the Korean peninsula would almost certainly be the bloodiest America has fought since Vietnam—possibly since World War II.” (Stossel). One of the options the U.S. will likely consider is the use of tactical nuclear weapons. This refers to a new breed of smaller atomic explosives, “the yields of such weapons range from being relatively low (0.1 KT) to being higher than those of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The type of tactical nuclear weapon that has been recommended for optional use as part of the response to the September 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States…” (Millar). In September 2002, on “This Week,” Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld did not rule on the possibility of tactical nukes being used. Earlier that year, the Department of Defense stated quite clearly, “This administration is fashioning a more diverse set of options for deterring the threat of WMD. That is why the Administration is pursuing missile defense, advanced conventional forces, and improved intelligence capabilities. A combination of offensive and defensive, and nuclear and non-nuclear capabilities, is essential to meet the deterrence requirements of the 21st century." That same year, the Bush administration proposed lifting the moratorium on underground nuclear testing, which had been in effect since 1992. Then in 2005, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman suggested that nuclear test sites in southern Nevada should be resumed. Former Assistant Secretary of Defense and current CEO of the right-wing think the National Institute for Public Policy (NIPP), Keith Payne believes “nuclear power is to support U.S. foreign policy objectives, the United States must possess the ability to wage nuclear war rationally. This requirement is inherent in the geography of East-West relations.” According to Dr. Robert Nelson, professor of theoretical science at Princeton University, use of nuclear “bunker busters” have serious consequences for civilians. "No earth-burrowing missile can penetrate deep enough in the earth to contain an explosion with a nuclear yield even as small as 1 percent of the 15-kiloton Hiroshima weapon. The explosion simply blows out a crater of radioactive dirt, which rains down on the local region with an especially intense and deadly fallout." The President and his staff has bitten off more than it can chew. Afghanistan is a war far from being “won,” and the possibility of civil war in Iraq is a distinct possibility, assuming this isn’t already the case. Simply put, the Bush administrations hurry to enact proposals for world domination have the potential to trigger a third World War. This also means the loss of more American lives, as America reinstitutes a military draft. One of PNACs goals is to is to maintain the troop levels necessary to deploy rapidly anywhere in the world in order to wage simultaneous battles. It is difficult to fathom the enactment of this policy without reinstituting the draft. Sources: Tracy McVeigh, “North Korea and the US 'on a slide towards conflict',” The Observer, April 6, 2003 Bette Stockbauer, “’Rebuilding America’s Defenses’ and the Project for the New American Century,” June 18, 2003, www.antiwar.com Scott Stossel, “North Korea: The War Game,” Atlantic Monthly, July/August 2005 Alistair Millar, “Mini-Nukes, Other Devices Not Options,” South Bend Tribune, November 28, 2001 Olivia Ward, “Armageddon Back On the Table,” Toronto Star, November 16, 2003 Robert W. Nelson, “Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons,” Federation of American Scientists, January/February 2001, Volume 54, Number 1 Christopher Smith, “Energy Secretary Pushes to Ramp Up U.S. Ability to Test Nuke Bombs,” Salt Lake Tribune, February 16, 2005 Department of Defense News Release, No. 113-02, "Statement on Nuclear Posture Review," March 9, 2002. Colin S. Gray and Keith Payne, "Victory Is Possible," Foreign Policy, Summer 1980 ------------ About the author: Timothy N. Stelly, Sr. is a 46-year old poet, novelist and aspiring screenwriter who resides in northern California with his three youngest children--Lawrence, Kimberly and Dante. He is a member of various writer's groups and has three novels in print, his most recent, "Like A Straight-Up Sucka," is available at www.lulu.com. website: http://stellbreadO@tripod.com Email: stellbread@yahoo.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
