HorizonForumsone horizon
Log inSign up

[ms] · Est. May 2002

Music madethis place,we just kept itgoing...

One durable person. One social graph. Many communities—and every way people speak, share, listen, write, gather and remember.

Forums / Politics

Eye off the ball...

2 durable postsStarted 2004-10-12Latest 2004-10-12
#5397Post 1 of 2

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

[quote] 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. [/quote]

[quote] 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. [/quote]

[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1324259,00.html[/url]

#279439Post 2 of 2

Re: Eye off the ball...

[quote=mixu";p="64637]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

[quote] 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. [/quote] [/quote]

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.

Log in to reply