where are all the Republican politicians lobbying for an invasion of North Korea?
We are told over and over that Iraq was the right move. We got rid of a dangerous dictator, we freed a population that was oppressed, and we made sure that the Middle East was well on its way to democracy. Right?
So what gives with North Korea? All those conditions exist, and more! They have a terrible dictator. Their population is oppressed with reports of thousands dying a year as a direct result of government policy. And we know they have WMDs.
If Iraq was the right decision then this seems like a no-brainer.
Right?
I don’t expect Democrats to want us to invade North Korea, as we think Iraq was stupid. But for the staunch supporters, why is no one seriously putting NK invasion on the table? Or am I just missing the calls?
April 7th, 2009 16:47
there needs to be a clear and present danger that places the national security of the U.S. in grave danger. that arguably existed in Iraq, but perhaps up until that ridiculous rocket launch, did not exist in NK.
April 7th, 2009 16:47
not to mention, comparing N. Korean capabilities with Iraq’s is sorta like apples and oranges, no?
April 7th, 2009 17:06
Not that I agreed with Bush and the Bush Doctrine (I didn’t and don’t), but the rationale in support of the Iraq invasion doesn’t fit in NK. The idea was that a free and democratic Iraq would have some sort of cascade effect throughout the middle east. NK has a free and democratic Japan and S.Korea as it’s direct neighbors, along with an unfree China that will not be in the least persuaded to change it’s ways by a democratic NK and may well take very unkindly to the onset of hostilities directly to it’s East, never mind the attitude of Russia. Those realities are entirely different from the ME, regardless of the motivation and I would shy away from calling my conservative friends hyprocites for supporting military intervention in one circumstance, but not the other.
April 7th, 2009 18:43
But certainly the main motivation for Iraq was not the spreading of democracy bt rather rendering Iraq inert with respect to their supposed WMDs. The Bush Doctrine was initially constructed around the notion of security, not democracy. Democracy came later, once they needed a better justification for the war once it became illegitimate due to not finding WMDs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_doctrine#National_Security_Strategy_of_the_United_States
April 7th, 2009 21:10
That doesn’t negate the very different realities involved in the respective regions. NK has a natural counterbalance in SK and Japan and two very large powers as neighbors. It’s a very different neighborhood and I would expect even the most ardent hawks to be much more reserved in that milieu than the wild and woolly middle east.
April 7th, 2009 21:15
That doesn’t make much sense to me, Paul. Iraq had very real counterbalance in Israel. That didn’t stop us from going in.
In many ways NK is much more threatening than Iraq ever was. It is surprising that other than some lofty language (axis of evil), no one is seriously suggesting we do anything about the threat to us and our allies (SK and Japan).
April 8th, 2009 06:48
Really, it doesn’t make sense to you that the immediate and interested presence of China and Russia in the immediate region should have any impact on the tactical decision making? It doesn’t make any sense to you that already having a demilitarized zone on the border with the neighboring country should impact the process? How about that NK has not invaded a neighboring country in the last 10 years?
NK is belligerent and oppressive, but, to my knowledge, it hasn’t used chemical weapons on its own minorities in the past 10 years or so or engaged in a lengthy war killing hundreds of thousands on both sides while using chemical weapons in the past 20 years. In fact, I don’t recall any allegation that NK has WMDs, as commonly defined. I’m certain they have pursued nuclear weapons and delivery devices, but there is no indication that they have nukes. Likewise, it would come as no surprise to me if they had prohibitted chemical weapons, but I can’t recall seeing any stories reporting that they actually do have such weapons. WMD is a term of art and does not merely refer to large weapons capable of broad scale damage, it specifically refers to deadly chemical, biological, or radiological weapons capable of use over a defuse geographic area.
April 8th, 2009 07:00
There are a number of other reason as well. Political reasons include the fact that we have a democratic administration and near filibuster proof legislative majority, a population clearly tired of oversea adventures, and a large contingent of military already deployed and otherwise spread thin, that makes it awful imprudent to lobby for military action. Furthermore, there is no 9/11 pretext around which to gather some consensus.
I’ve got to say that this is a rather weird conversation. First, I’d imagine that we largely agree with regards to the use of US military might. Secondly, I don’t think that you are so obtuse as to not be able to see the massive difference between the circumstances. Thirdly, I think you are overstating how quiet the most hawkish elements on the right are being on this topic. While I’ll grant we’re not seeing many op-eds advocating a military solution and that I have not scoured the hawkish journals, I am fairly confident that a review of the most hawkish journals would find articles promoting a military approach to NK.
April 8th, 2009 07:57
The presence of Russia in the region didn’t deter us from invading Iraq. China wasn’t enamored with our decision either, but it didn’t bother us.
Further the China bit is way overblown. It’s not clear to me that they would get involved at all in a surgical strike against NK’s nuclear and weapon-making facilities. They arguably have just as much to gain by ridding NK of its nuclear arsenal. They’re not all that happy to be within accidental striking distance. We all know how great the engineering in NK is, after all.
In addition, claims about NK invading SK once we attack are overblown as well. NK has a military budget in the realm of $6 billion a year. SK alone has a budget of $28 billion. It would not be close and NK knows it.
April 8th, 2009 08:24
I really don’t understand your point. All I am pointing out is that our political opposites here in the US have any number of rational reasons for choosing not to become belligerent toward NK at this time. The gist of your post is to suggest that hawkish conservatives (and liberals for that matter) are either hyprocrites or idiots. I don’t think that is a very useful paradigm for understanding our political opponents, particularly when they tend to have a cogent philosophical foundation for their positions. Perhaps, just perhaps, most of those you anticipate to call for military action see that NK is greatly succeptible containment for geographic, political, and ideological reasons that, in their view, were not applicable to the ME, or, that to the extent that military action is feasible, or even preferable, that this is not the ideal timing to address that issue. Frankly, I can’t understand why you are arguing this point so aggressively. Perhaps it would be more useful to search through some hawkish journals on this topic and read what they have to say about the appropriate strategy in this circumstance is and then report back with that information rather than setting up some kind of strawman.
April 8th, 2009 08:28
My point is that it seems to me that Republicans in power have become less hawkish than they were before Iraq. Consider the following Fox News poll. Almost 40% of Americans think that we should attack NK: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/omni-pr/940838-foxnews-com-question-day.html
But do you see one serious Republican politician lobbying for such an attack? I don’t.
We have a disconnect between what the polity wants and what their representatives are doing. That’s *always* worth investigating.
My question to you is why you’re defending conservatives. Perhaps you really are one?
April 8th, 2009 08:48
I’m sorry, but that’s absurd and I have the voting record, and arrests, to prove it.
To boil this down, you are essentially complaining that those with whom you generally disagree with are not doing something that you would disagree with. That seems awful ungrateful, if not disingenuous. Moreover, rather than viewing that as a point of commonality upon which to build, you accuse them of ideological fecklessness.
It’s a little sad to me that ascribing a level of intellectual seriousness and rationality to my political opponents would be described as defending them or grounds for calling me one of them. Rather, I feel like I am attempting to defend the concept of rational discourse and fair play, not any particular political ideology.
You state that your point is that Republicans in Congress appear less hawkish then they once were. True enough, but you suggest that is the result of some form of hyprocisy rather than reasoned consideration. After all, the Democrats have become far less hawkish as well. Let’s not forget that the vast majority of Democrats supported the Patriot Act (not me) and signed off on the invasion of Iraq (not me). Moreover, it was the Democratic party that supported military intervention in Somalia and Yugoslavia. We, that is the Democrats, could also be accused of fecklessness for our failure to call for military action in the Sudan, Congo, and Ethiopia (or worse than that, racism).
The fact is that political reality and the very specific circumstances of any particular conflict should be considered by all parties before formulating a policy and castigating our opponents for reaching the same decision we would, regardless of the rationale, hardly seems an effective way to bridge divisions within our own polity.
April 8th, 2009 08:51
“To boil this down, you are essentially complaining that those with whom you generally disagree with are not doing something that you would disagree with. That seems awful ungrateful, if not disingenuous.”
How is that disingenuous? The disingenuous part, it seems to me, is supporting invasion in one part of the world but not in the other. I’m trying to disaggregate why it is that so many conservatives (and liberals) were jumping to invade Iraq on evidence of WMD yet the same folks are incredibly silent about invading NK on evidence of nukes. This strikes me as absurd.
“True enough, but you suggest that is the result of some form of hyprocisy rather than reasoned consideration.”
I’m not necessarily suggesting it is hypocrisy. There might be a very good reason why we invaded Iraq but not NK (oil? revenge? Israel lobby?), but so far I haven’t heard a reason articulated either by you, or others, that holds up to scrutiny. The business about China and Russia is a non-starter.. those two deterrence items were present in Iraq as well.
April 8th, 2009 09:06
Your not going to get an argument from me for the invasion of Iraq. I opposed it. I gave my best suggestion of the real rationale in my first response. I tend to think it was part of some broad vision to democratize the middle east and a belief that it was possible to do so in Iraq. I don’t fully rule out economic explanations, but they don’t carry a lot of weight with me. The Israel Lobby is a ludicrous explanation.
China and Russia’s relationship with and proximity to NK is different and their interests are different there, so I don’t think its a non-starter, but I have offered a number of other explanations and I can imagine hundreds more. You seem to think that military action is commenced solely on the broad scale information that is readily available to the public. In reality, our policy makers work with far more granular data that is not always readily available to the public. Nevertheless, the publically available data gives ample reason. As stated, with the Democrats in power and the Republicans attempting to consolidate their base and look to expand support, it may not be politically expedient insofar as it could alienate from the middle and detract from other policy positions they feel they are better positions to exploit. Republicans may believe that as much as military action would be justified or appropriate, our military is currently spread too thin to take on another task of this size, while spending a lot of political capital to find support for the idea. Republicans may feel that a Democratic administration or the military as currently constituted is not currently capable of executiing the most desirable plan to accomplish the desired ends. Republicans may feel that, while the oppression of their own people is horrendous, it is insufficient justification in light of the very minimal threat they pose as a destabilizing influence throughout the world, on the whole. Or how about the simplest of all answers, they learned from their mistake, ie. “we thought invading Iraq would go grandly, and clearly, it hasn’t, so maybe we should be just a little more circumspect, particularly in this economy, about suggesting that this country should invest billions of dollars into further military adventures.”
It seems to me that the difference between you and me is that I am a liberal and you are an anti-Conservative. Read your post again and ask yourself if it stands for something or only against something.
April 8th, 2009 09:10
BTW, it is disingenous in the same sense as the old, “have you stopped beating your wife?” question, insofar as it does not allow for meaningful discourse. Either those with different viewpoints than your own are belligerent warmongerers or feckless, amoral, opportunistic idiots. There is no right answer you will accept as you have repeatedly proven above by refusing to accept any of the proffered rationales or even conceding there may be a rational reason. Moreover, you have ascribed the above theories to me as if they were my own, rather than those of someone who, on the whole, agrees with you, but is prepared to make some effort to understand those who disagree with him.
April 8th, 2009 09:12
Paul, you really are bringing hostility to the table that need not be brought. I’m not anti-anything. I’m asking a very simple question about conservatives in this country who are usually quite hawkish and why they are silent w/r/t the NK question. I think what’s going on is that Iraq fundamentally changed a lot of political ideologies.
April 8th, 2009 09:22
And I think your premise is faulty. It’s only in relatively recent history that Republicans have been viewed as hawkish. Traditionally, Democrats have been more hawkish. It seems that Bush was more of the exception and that he played on a misplaced sense of patriotism to press his (or Cheney’s) agenda and, now that he is out of office and they are largely out of power, they are shrinking back to their more traditional, isolationist roots.
April 8th, 2009 09:24
Maybe. But there is still the data point from the Fox News poll that needs to be explained. 40% think we should attack.. that seems pretty hawkish. And while I doubt Fox News asked about political affiliation, I’m quite sure both of us could guess where the loyalties of the respondents lay, right?
April 8th, 2009 09:32
Not really. Moreover, was it in fact a real poll or a call in poll. If it was a call in poll, then there are serious issues with selection bias (especially with Fox).
My understanding of the current Republican leadership is that they feel they can score points on the economy (perhaps, but not because they are right, but because the mess they caused will take some time to work itself out), while waiting for foreing policy blunders from Obama. I don’t think they feel they have the political capital to lobby from the minority seat for a policy they would have no power to implement, assuming they supported it. Better from the minority’s standpoint to sit back and wait for an error to capitalize than to risk putting foot in mouth.
Really, I think it is an equally fair question to ask of the Democrats why they are not supporting military intervention in the Sudan or, for that matter, NK, based on their past support for military action in Afghanistan, Somalia, and Kosovo. And, again, I think the answer would be similar, we are a little gun shy right now, perhaps for good reason, and wish to be very careful that we have full support of the public (that is likely to be lasting), top notch intelligence, and excellent strategic planning, before embarking on any more military intervention.
April 8th, 2009 09:37
I checked, it was not a poll, it was a question of the day. I’m fairly certain that their is already research in place to suggest that such on-line polls tend to end up with a largely self-selecting audience and, since it is Fox, we can fairly safely conclude that the respondents were largely republican and on the conservative branch. I don’t think any Republican representative would look at a poll of only his most conservative constituents and, of those, only 40% in support of a particular policy, and conclude that his support of said policy would be strongly backed in his own district.
In short, any statistician worth his or her salt will tell you that this poll has no validity and should not be relied upon.
April 8th, 2009 09:40
Paul, the selection bias in this case supports *my* assertion, not yours. We should expect a population that is overly Republican-weighted to give us a sense of feelings among Republicans, should we not? That 40% of them think going into NK is worthwhile is interesting.
We’re not creating academic research here Paul. We’re having a discussion.
April 8th, 2009 09:54
No, it doesn’t support your assertion. The fact of the matter is that it is meaningless in any statistical sense. Leaving that aside, however, and assuming that it represents an accurate depiction of the most hawkish part of your party, why would you, as a Republican representative, support a policy that does not even have the support of half of the most hawkish members of your constituency?
Restated. Assume I am a hawk and a political pragmatist. Also assume that my district is in central Texas and voted, overwhelmingly (say 80%) in support of McCain, Bush, et. al. As a pragmatist, I wish to keep my job, so I am unlikely to publically support positions that are not popular amongst my constituency. As a hawk, I am inclined to look for military solutions to international problems. Naturally, as a pragmatist, I will wish to poll my extremely conservative and hawkish constituency before coming out publically on the most pressing issues. Such an issue arises and I am inclined to support a military strike on Korea, but I am concerned that my constituency might disagree, so I conduct a blind poll with all appropriate safeguards and it comes back that 40% support military action and 60% oppose it. Now further suppose that I wish to run for the Senate next time and I will require state wide support which is less hawkish than my current constituency, so I poll the rest of the state, which is still conservative and it runs 30% in support of military action and 70% opposed. Lastly, assume that I have been told that I am a black horse candidate for the next presidency and that, if I can keep on the straight and narrow, I am likely to get some broad support, while national polls are running 15% in favor of military action and 85% opposed. In those cirucmstances, I would be an idiot to come out for military action, particularly if I can manage to sound hawkish while deferring on the military option. After all, if public opinion shifts, I’ll be the first to jump in.
So, again, the little on-line poll is essentially worthless as a statistical matter and, to the extent you can extrapolate anything from it, the only rational conclusion is that any pragmatic republican should shy away from the military option with NK, at least until they have far more information.
April 8th, 2009 09:58
But in truth it turns out that 60% want some type of military action taken, it’s just that 20 percent of those folks think it should be China that takes it, not us. This doesn’t paint a portrait of peacenik conservatives, Paul.
I agree with you that the poll is meaningless from a statistical perspective. I raise it as a discussion piece and nothing else. Indeed my hunch is that if one were to conduct a national poll with proper scientific polling methods, we would see something like 25-30% support for attacking NK. What do you think?
April 8th, 2009 10:04
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/poll_attack_north_korea/
According to the cited Rasmussen poll above, 57% of all Americans support a military strike on North Korea. Based on the demographics of the poll, it would be safe to conclude that Democrats support a military solution at or above the 40% level of the Fox survey.
I’m not quite sure what to make of this. Perhaps the days of liberal hawkishness are on the ebb, or, as stated in the article, perhaps its just a really bad idea to base foreign policy on polling. I know the Brookings Institute has come down in favor of diplomatic action in the form of UN sanctions and a temporary withdrawal from 6 way talks until a serious change in NKorean behavior. Moreover, based on the more granular data available to Brooking as compared to the general populace, they are convinced that the rocket launch constituted a failure. Moreover, Brookings indicates that NKorea used the last of its fissible material for the last test and current lack sufficient plutonium for a bomb and the means to produce it in short order. Moreover, NKorea does not have an adequate delivery system or the ability to adequately miniaturize its explosives such that they could be delivered in the event enough bomb grade plutonium were produced.
April 8th, 2009 10:07
Wow! That really is a high number.
Rasmussen isn’t great on polling methodology, but it is better than Fox news.
So now back to your original “story” about the Republican in Texas. He sees this poll on this blog and thinks what? I want to get re-elected so I *won’t* support what 60% of the country wants?
April 8th, 2009 10:07
I was posting the above, while you were posting yours. I am hesitant to put a guess on it, but it appears that the Rasmussen poll conducted immediately before the launch was properly conducted with a reasonable error rate and, as I note above, seems to suggest as much support amongst Democrats as Republicans for military action. I would like to see a poll with all the underlying data stratified out, but I’m not sure I can find it. The Rasmussen poll may suggest that you (and I) may be disappointed in our fellow Democrats.
April 8th, 2009 10:10
Umm, yeah, if Rasmussen is right, then I would expect our Republican to support such action, but party considerations, and risk may caution in favor of letting the ruling party set policy on this matter, nonetheless. In other words, even if there were only a 10% chance of military action going terribly badly, it may not be worthwhile or expedient to campaign on that topic, particularly if your constituency, though in support of such action, is far more interested in other topics.
April 8th, 2009 10:10
Right, so if there is high level of Democratic support for this too, don’t you find it at least a little puzzling that no serious politicians are lobbying for a NK attack? I mean I can’t find one serious Senator that is suggesting it. If they are it isn’t making news..
April 8th, 2009 10:13
And it seems to me that this 10% error calculation is there because of Iraq, no? Certainly few people were talking about the possibility of failure when it came to invading Iraq.
April 8th, 2009 10:17
From the poll:
“Support for a military response comes from 66% of Republicans, 52% of Democrats and 54% of those not affiliated with either major political party. There is no gender gap on the issue as a military response is favored by 57% of men and 57% of women.”
So Republicans are somewhat more hawkish than Democrats and Independents though overall support is across the spectrum and ignores gender.
If I have to guess, which I do, the reason it is not being proposed is mulifold. First, most politicians, I think, agree that this is primarily an issue for the administration and that, tactically, it doesn’t make sense to telegraph such a move. In other words, let the administration take a shot at doing it their way, determine whether to support that approach or not, and then give it a little time to succeed or fail. More importantly, I think most politicians wish to focus on the economy and rightly conclude that while the population may support military action, it is not pressing or exigent at this time.
April 8th, 2009 10:25
Those who didn’t contemplate problems in Iraq were idiots with no awareness of statistical principals and the uncertainty principal. The 10% I used was merely demonstrative, but the degree of potential error in any prediction is fixed by the circumstances and has nothing to do with Iraq. Moreover, merely because there is a possibility of error, does not mean it will be spoken about. The last thing a populace wants to hear before entering into a war is, “As your president, I hereby declare today, in full support of our brave young and women deployed this morning to that deathtrap in warland, that we have every confidence they have an 85.6% chance of being successfull insofar as success is measured by a particular outcome on the ground within x amount of days, and acceptable casualty rates of less than or equal to 3 per 1000.”