[Grovenet] Issues

[Ron D'Eau Claire]

There are a few issues that astound me with their seeming ill-logic.

1) "Nuclear proliferation" or "anti-proliferation" is spoken of as if the
issue is that non-nuclear states or organizations must get nuclear
technology from a state that has it to develop the capability. As long as we
don't publicly share it, nuclear capability won't spread.

How is it possible to demand that other nations not develop nuclear bombs
and still say we respect the rights of a sovereign nation? If we can demand
they not develop a bomb, then they must have the right to demand we stop
driving cars or building aircraft carriers. It makes no sense at all. 

Sure, if I were heading up a non-nuclear capable country and wanted nuclear
expertise, the first thing I'd do is to see what I can get from those who
have already figured it out. Only an idiot chooses to re-invent the wheel,
especially when the cost of doing so is very, very high. But how is it that
nuclear-capable states think that not spreading the technology around will
keep anyone who wants it from developing it on their own, even if they can't
beg, borrow or steal some of the information and resources from others? And
as long as we have crooks in the world, there will be those who are willing
to sell knowledge, equipment or resources to anyone who wants it.

Years ago we spoke of the "Nuclear Genie" being "out of the bottle". I think
that's true. We can slow, slightly, the spread of nuclear technology among
states or persons we fear, such as Iran, North Korea, or Bin Ladin, but the
best we can do is to slow it a little bit. As far as I can see, every one of
them will eventually have access to nuclear bombs to use as they see fit. 

The challenge before us is how to keep everyone from using them, including
the only nation who has used them against civilians: us. 


2) The fear of going to war with North Korea. 

We are already "at war" with North Korea and North Korea knows it. Indeed,
they've refused to change that status for half a century. Their agreement
with the United Nations forces, which the USA led in the Korean War, is that
they'll stop shooting for the time being. There was no armistice, not peace
agreement, no end to the war. In typical Asian patience, the cease fire has
lasted half a century, but there is no agreement from North Korea that they
will not reassert their rights to occupy South Korea, if necessary at the
point of a gun. Their problem has been that they didn't have a big enough
gun to overwhelm the south quickly at an acceptable cost to North Korea.
That's whey they agreed to stop shooting. In the 1950's it was a war of
attrition that we were winning. North Korea found itself dependent upon very
unreliable support from China and Russia to avoid losing the war, so they
bargained for time and we've given it to them. Is anyone surprised that they
are working hard on owning a big enough gun so they can *resume* the
shooting war at their leisure and win it? 

Worse than that, some Americans think we are at "peace" with them! 


3) Iraq.

When we stormed Iraq, it was because Iraq was, in the words of our
President, about to attack America and Americans with weapons of mass
destruction. That gave us the right to protect ourselves, just as we
protected ourselves against the Germans and Japanese no matter the cost to
the people of those countries. 

Of course the problem was that there were no WMD. That's always the danger
of a pro-active attack. First the President tried to pretend that might have
been WMD somewhere, then he tried to pretend the WMD weren't the issue. He
was the child trying to say it wasn't him that tracked mud onto the
neighbor's floor and that it was good that he did anyway because now the
floor will get cleaned. Only his solution has been to keep tracking mud on
the floor saying it's the neighbor's responsibility to clean it up; the
sloppy, incompetent neighbor is the reason it is still a mess. 

I don't see any resources in the USA who can go into Iraq and fix the
problem. It's not a military problem. Perhaps it needs a strong police force
to demand the shooting stop while the real issues are addressed, but our
military was never trained to be a police force and we dismantled the one
that held the country together under Saddam. 

But a police state like Saddam ran was exactly what the President said we
were there to change. We promised that we'd leave behind a peaceful
democratic society as our legacy. 

The USA has not to addressed those issues. We have, so far, said that no
matter what the problem, our military would fix it by blowing something up
or shooting someone. Are we really so naïve or "pig-headed" to think that
force is all it takes to have a peaceful society? Or is our military so
ill-staffed and ill-equipped that it takes all of our attention just to keep
the alive in the face of escalating attacks so we can't address the real
issues of a stable government? 

We're like the kid who comes into his neighbor's home uninvited with muddy
feet. He keeps stomping around with his muddy feet claiming that,
eventually, the neighbors will get their act together to clean it up. 

I know that if I were that neighbor, I'd have grabbed the kid and kicked his
tender butt right out of the door. It seems like that's what is happening to
us in Iraq too. Only we'll leave behind a lot more than dirty floors. We'll
leave behind a legacy of hatred that will continue to inflame Bin Ladin and
others like him. 

I agree with the President on one point: Bin Ladin is no longer our focus.
Oh, he's as much of a threat as before. The problem is that through our Iraq
policy we've created thousands and thousands just like him who will kill
Americans every chance they get. 

Ron D'Eau Claire