The North Koreans are sending another loud reminder that they are crazy and unpredictable. They just finished showing off another nuclear facility, which means they want more appeasement money to sorta-kinda monitor it under “international” auspices. This shake-down gambit seems to be the paradigm of the future, an easy way to gain cash, attention, and influence otherwise not accorded such a miserable state. Note that in such cases (cf. Iran), the Chinese are usually in the vicinity.
Nonetheless, the more sinister regions of the world are watching the U.S. response to the shelling, for either a yellow or a green light for their own agendas. More enlightened states are watching, too, for indications of the American reaction should the trouble spread to their corners of the world.
But after 22 months of apologizing, bowing, and contextualizing supposed American sins from the trivial (lamenting the Arizona law in a meeting with the Chinese) to the profound (the mythical Cairo speech, unilaterally pressing Israel right out of the starting gate), the Obama administration has sent the message that it may not be so comfortable with America’s past unilateral responsibilities to its allies, and may even sympathize with some of the grievances of our purported enemies. Whether this assessment is fair or not, that’s the message they’ve sent.
Dismissing the idea that past global problems might transcend George W. Bush, this administration operated as if a charismatic world citizen, with reset magic, could win over the globe to a U.N.-sponsored utopia. These false assumptions intrigued the curious abroad — why would Obama seek to advance such absurd notions about global problems having originated with U.S. belligerence circa 2001–2009 and being resolved by U.S. empathy in 2009–2010? Apparently, as we are now learning, North Korea wants to find out the answer.
In general, listlessness and misdirection in Washington always ripple out to the world abroad within a year or two. Sanctimonious Carterism had confirmed the image of a paralytic America by 1979, which may be why that year saw the Chinese in Vietnam, the Russians in Afghanistan, Communists on the rise in Central America, hostages in Tehran, the end of the Shah, and the rise of an emboldened radical Islam. When Nixon and his congressional opponents wrecked U.S. foreign policy in the long dark days of Watergate, by 1973-4 the world became a very unstable place, with the Yom Kippur War, oil embargoes, an imploding Southeast Asia, and the Turkish invasion of Cyprus.
The tragedy of all this is that, once a sense of American self-confidence is lost, the result is usually a lot of post facto, herky-jerky catch-up efforts to restore credibility. E.g., a once-sermonizing Carter suddenly boycotting the Olympics and establishing the Carter doctrine in the Middle East, or the U.S. 1973 global alert during the Yom Kippur War, or Gerald Ford and the 1975 Mayaguez incident.
To deter North Korea, we should now express and follow through on the sort of solidarity that is unquestioned, a kind of solidarity that has been sorely lacking in the last two years with Israel, Britain, Poland, and the Czech Republic.
And, in a larger sense, the commander-in-chief needs to stop his contextualizing and apologizing, especially this pernicious messianic notion that, as an empathetic and post-national president, his mission is to redeem a previously culpable America. Otherwise, in the next two years that nonsense is going to get people killed.
This is a lesson already well known in military discipline: if you're not going to do anything (viz., take punitive action), the next best thing is not to hear about it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen he makes a "strong statement" (what else, a UN resolution?), it will be seen, correctly, as a momentary contrivance offered for effect only.
NK will then call his bluff, and we'll be even worse off.
I'm really sorry about this, but interfering, again, in Korean politics is not to be considered. We (and SK) can lose - haven't we lost enough blood and treasure defending other people yet? We cannot win - because China isn't going to passively watch as their pupil is publicly caned by the Great Satan.
You wrote, "...Otherwise, in the next two years that (Obama's) nonsense is going to get people killed..." It already has gotten people killed. The sinking of the South Korean destroyer by the North with over 50 dead, the 2 South Korean Marines killed in this latest shelling, no doubt many dead in Afghanistan due to his wishy washy policies, and many more. The man should have remained a community organizer.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt’s very hypocritical of so called conservatives to preach small government, but want to extend our empirical foreign policy of deadly intervention all over the world. You can’t ask for tax cuts and support spending 7 billion dollars a month in Afghanistan. Now North Korea, as America plunges into another unconstitutional war, the debt will continue to grow, the dollar will continue to de-value and it will be the same old story. True republicans must overcome their addiction to war. Too many lives have been lost in unnecessary military intervention, including soldiers and civilians. The first casualty of any American war is the truth! “I'm going to repeat our predictions of what Americans should expect should the U.S. government continue its pro-empire, pro-interventionist foreign policy in the Middle East and Afghanistan: Americans should prepare themselves to reap the full bounty of what their government's foreign policy is sowing”. Now we can most likely add N. Korea to that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@ panic:
We have no choice. South Korea is a free-market republic with a significant economic presence. America must be ready to defend South Korea. It is my hope that the South Koreans are in a much better position to defend themselves now than in 1950--and I believe they are--but the United States must be willing and ready to defend them, not only for the sake of freedom, but for the sake of the potential damage to an already-fragile world economy. And--to Dr. Hanson's point--for the sake of deterring other would-be pot-stirrers around the world, who have the potential to plunge the world into major conflict if not met "squarely," to use the words of Harry Truman.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@ Eritt:
Hmmm. You sound so much like the isolationist--or more appropriately unilateralist--crowd that fought tooth and nail to keep us from intervening in World War One and World War Two. At some point, you people have to realize that our security as a nation is not protected adequately simply because we have two vast oceans on both sides. We must do what we have to do to protect our vital interests. While you may debate that South Korea falls outside the parameters of legitimate American foreign policy interests, I argue that it is smack dab in the middle of our interests. If the North Koreans start a war in Korea, be advised that there will be serious consequences for the world economy, not to mention that there would be a significant risk of Japanese involvement, which would further put the world economy at risk. This is not 1901; we are, whether you and your ilk like it or not, the most powerful nation on the planet, and if two world wars taught us anything at all, it is that it is incumbent on us to do what have to do, to "bear any burden" to ensure that our vital interests, and our freedom--both economic and cultural--are maintained, or else the alternative is that we will again be intervening when our back is against the wall and our enemies have already knocked off hundreds of thousands.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe sooner we get rid of this evil communist regime in North Korea the better we and the world are.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDr. Hanson is a smart guy who I always enjoy reading. He, like the rest of us, has spent his life in a historically unique 60 year period where a strangely benevolent hegemon (America) has spent enormous amounts of its own money and blood maintaining a relatively peaceful world for the last 60 years, all without extracting the usual tribute or taxes from its allied nations. However, I strongly suspect the party's over. We all need to get used to idea that America's days of maintaining world peace are now drawing to a close. We just can't afford to be the world's policeman any more. America is 13 trillion dollars in debt, has 60 or 70 more trillion in unfunded Social Security and Medicare liabilities, a shrinking economy only 11% of which is manufacturing, and a huge baby boom population starting to retire and with very little savings. This isn't a good foundation for continuing our post World War II job of being the most benevolent hegemon in history.
A few years from now Congress is going to have decide between continuing to mail out Social Security checks to retiring baby boomers who vote in American elections and spending billions to keep American military bases open in South Korea, Japan, Germany, Iraq, Afghanistan and so on which are mostly protecting countries whose people don't vote in American elections. I suspect those bases are going to be closed. The rest of the world is going to start making its own mutual defense treaties and adjusting to the idea that the American taxpayer can't pay for their defense any longer.
Lewis Forro
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseVirginia Beach, VA
Dr. Hanson is a smart guy who I always enjoy reading. He, like the rest of us, has spent his life in a historically unique 60 year period where a strangely benevolent hegemon (America) has spent enormous amounts of its own money and blood maintaining a relatively peaceful world for the last 60 years, all without extracting the usual tribute or taxes from its allied nations. However, I strongly suspect the party's over. We all need to get used to idea that America's days of maintaining world peace are now drawing to a close. We just can't afford to be the world's policeman any more. America is 13 trillion dollars in debt, has 60 or 70 more trillion in unfunded Social Security and Medicare liabilities, a shrinking economy only 11% of which is manufacturing, and a huge baby boom population starting to retire and with very little savings. This isn't a good foundation for continuing our post World War II job of being the most benevolent hegemon in history.
A few years from now Congress is going to have decide between continuing to mail out Social Security checks to retiring baby boomers who vote in American elections and spending billions to keep American military bases open in South Korea, Japan, Germany, Iraq, Afghanistan and so on which are mostly protecting countries whose people don't vote in American elections. I suspect those bases are going to be closed. The rest of the world is going to start making its own mutual defense treaties and adjusting to the idea that the American taxpayer can't pay for their defense any longer.
Lewis Forro
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseVirginia Beach, VA
People that keep bringing up the price of our military endeavors as some bridge too far need to maybe consider cracking open a history book or two. America has long sat on it's hands as Europe has had complete meltdowns not once, but twice. That generation remembers what happens when they follow their isolationist instincts and let things boil over into full blow global conflicts before finally getting up to move the pot off the fire. We have taken far more provocative measures to nipping in the bud any potential aggressor that threatens global stability. As I recall we haven't had a world war since we've adopted that strategy. The Cold War remained cold precisely because of our overwhelmingly superior military power and preeminent capability to strike harder and farther than anyone else on the globe. With that great responsibility we've remained good stewards to the world using our power to promote peace, prosperity, and freedom. But go right ahead, keep sticking your head's in the sand and pretend that it's someone else's turn to take the reigns so we can spend more time and money at the movies. Or, you can grow up and realize that the World is a cold cruel place that takes an ever diligent presence to keep the spaceship Earth steered down a path of prosperity.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@ColdWarrior
I could tell by your creative name that you support the mighty state and all its excuses to intervene into (not our business) foreign affairs. Actually, we are secure due to both oceans surrounding us. When was the last time we were attacked? Hawaii…..FDR provoked that, it ended up more extreme then he planned, he was itching for an excuse to enter the war and desperately needed something provocative to happen. The Cold war, probably your specialty, would have been a disaster if Kennedy had not of defied his advisors and chose peace…..he paid with his life on that! I see your quoting ole Truman. Every administration uses the “national security” bugaboo to increase its power, and Truman outdid even FDR. My point is you can’t support freedom and limited government and support us waging unconstitutional wars all across the planet. History proves that’s how all empires eventually fall. In times of economic crisis, we cannot afford to disregard costly foreign policy mistakes. The founders knew that heads of state are far too eager to engage in military conflicts, so they implemented a system to declare war…and is ignored. War should efficient and rare. Ron Paul says it best, “We absolutely should not be paying off leaders of a country while killing their civilians without expecting to create a lot of new problems. This is not what America is supposed to be about.” If the war is justified, others will voluntarily join with them in order to protect their families and their country, but if it is not, the warmongers will be on their own. It's time to change America from the welfare/warfare state to the free country that is was intended to be.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis stuff has been going on for over 50 years and to suggest that the shelling occurred because Obama gave a few speeches is ludicrous.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNotably missing from the article was Dr. Hanson's suggestion of what to do regarding this latest skirmish.
Any idiot knows we don't have the blood & treasure to expend on yet another war.
Dr. Hanson, how did Nixon wreck foreign policy? The democrat congress in 1974 cut off aid to south vietnam leading to the april 1975 victory by north vietnam, and then the killing fields in cambodia.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseyou did not describe clinton's record towards north korea, and treating the terrorism (1993 world tower,embassies attacked, khobar, uss cole, etc). what is your opinion of clinton's foreign policy?
"This stuff has been going on for over 50 years and to suggest that the shelling occurred because Obama gave a few speeches is ludicrous."
Quite. W's far stronger rhetoric didn't stop North Korea from continuing to harass its neighbors and develop nuclear weapons. I'm sure that Hanson's claims will go down easy with the sort of people who are already inclined to believe what he's saying, but the actual evidence doesn't support his argument at all.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"This stuff has been going on for over 50 years and to suggest that the shelling occurred because Obama gave a few speeches is ludicrous."
Quite. W's far stronger rhetoric didn't stop North Korea from continuing to harass its neighbors and develop nuclear weapons. I'm sure that Hanson's claims will go down easy with the sort of people who are already inclined to believe what he's saying, but the actual evidence doesn't support his argument at all.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is terrifying. To have a boy in office during these times. Absolutely terrifying.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"...the commander-in-chief needs to stop his contextualizing and apologizing, especially this pernicious messianic notion that, as an empathetic and post-national president, his mission is to redeem a previously culpable America."
So Obama is supposed to abandon or at least disavow his core beliefs? Lotsa luck! Since these beliefs are shared by his most ardent supporters, this becomes even less likely.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@ Eritt:
Sorry. You're deductive reasoning prowess is not nearly as honed as you might think. The moniker ColdWarrior is derived from my years of national service during which I kept extremely close tabs on the movements and activities of the Soviet military, oftentimes with MiG-29s and Su-27s on my wingtips. You probably think those efforts were unconstitutional as well.
You should know--if you're worth your salt in history--that true republicans have never demonstrated an addiction to war, since most wars during the so-called American Century were waged during the administrations of Democratic presidents. One thing you're right about though: wars "should be efficient and rare." Although I would even go further and say that wars should be non-existent. But then, I am reminded that there is this bothersome little thing called reality. And in that reality there have been and remain despots and totalitarians and thugs who become kings, and who would would like nothing more than to enslave and murder those who remain free and those who disagree with them.
We haven't been militarily attacked since Pearl Harbor precisely because of the Trumans, the Eisenhowers, the Kennedys, the Reagans. Had we not maintained our vast military strength, the Cold War would certainly have been an extremely hot war--of that you can be certain.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYawn, in the real world, Dr. Hanson's proclamations are ridiculed. Dr. Hanson should stick to what he know's best, homoerotic Greek history and Gladiator Movies.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf I am reading the good Doctor correctly he is not blaming President Obama for North Korea's attack but rather stating that given the situation, as it has existed since 1953, his actions have not helped to give North Korea's leaders pause.
Other Presidents may have failed to impress the North's leaders but they never gave them reason to believe we would abandon South Korea. President Obama's actions have, even if unintentionally, caused many tyrants to believe the U.S. will no longer act to help defend its allies when they are attacked. That is not in the national interest of the United States.
As a self styled "Nationalist Libertarian" I want a small government focused on defending the Nation by defending its interests. "No greater friend, no worse enemy" should be our nation's mission statement.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Cold warrior
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThanks for your service, I also served for 5 years. My time of service opened my eyes to a lot of waste spent on National defense. Your right about true republicans never were addicted to wars, because they were true republicans. I'm talking about our modern day "neo-cons" that race to war every second they get, while profiting off it. I just think our foreign policy has gotten out of hand and unsustainable, as we are now witnessing. I think a lot of times we get nationalism confused with patriotism.But America’s civilian economy isn’t just something to be taxed to pay for war, and America’s civilian population is not just a collection of potential recruits and sources of revenue for the military. The military is supposed to be here to serve America in self defense, not the other way around.