How to Combat Terrorism

For the best and most enduring protection from every form of evil terrorism, the US should take these five steps.

In every Presidency there are times when a President must invest personal time, energy, and political capital in diplomacy.

This President for 6 long years has refused to make any personal "diplomacy" investments. Why?

My Hypothesis: He is lazy, scared, and lacks the basic listening skills.  Let me explore each reason. Lazy. Diplomacy must be a 24/7 operation at times to succeed. This President considers his personal comforts to be more important than an all night negotiating session.  Scared.  If he tries and fails he will be crushed, so he does not try.  Lacks Basic Listening Skills.  Successful diplomacy requires a keen understanding of both sides.  A nuanced listening for the little details that makes for openings later in the process.  A sustained commitment for success. He does not possess any of the listening skills.

Who suffers for his unwillingness to represent America in Diplomacy?  Soldiers die, War Costs Increase, The Likelihood of Success diminishes, just about everyone in the world but him.

I'm no diplomat (although I honestly think I could do a better job of it than the asses we have now) but to me, the only effective way to fight much of the terrorism we see in this world is to work to eradicate poverty in this world without the injection of political pretense.

[[This is "Part II". Be sure to read "Part I" first and please consolidate any comments in Part I as well. Thanks.]]

We continue with Step 63...

Step 63) - 08/30/2003

North Korea announces that the Beijing talks convinced it of the need for nuclear weapons.

"North Korea angrily dismissed last week's six-nation talks in Beijing, saying it was now even more convinced of the need to strengthen its nuclear arsenal... The gathering was 'not only useless but harmful in every aspect,' a North Korean foreign ministry spokesman said... 'We are now more convinced than before that we have no other alternatives but to continue strengthening our nuclear deterrence as a self-defensive measure to protect our sovereignty'... North Korea repeated during the talks its long-standing demand for a non-aggression pact with the United States, which it accuses of wanting to invade. It also demanded the normalization of diplomatic relations with Washington before it would abandon its nuclear ambitions."

Much more over the bump...

(Warning: This post is long. Damn long! That's because there are heaps of evidence that show Bush, not Clinton, is reponsible for the nuclear debacle we face today with North Korea. Pace yourself, but please be sure to take in every word. The truth is always worth it.)

"Why should I care about North Korea?"

 -- President George W. Bush

Blame Clinton?

Yeah right!

Clearly, the Bush Administration is, by far, the causal factor in Kim Jong Il's entry into Earth's 'Nukular' Club. They can blame Clinton all they want. At least he did something about this rising calamity. In 1994, the Clinton Administration reached an agreement with the DPRK that successfully froze North Korea's nuclear production for the next eight years.

Bush, on the other hand has offered NOTHING except provocation and motivation for the DPRK to invest in nuclear weapons. Although many factors led to this devastating milestone, the buck unambiguously stops with the Bush administration.

To begin, after Secretary of State Colin Powell said the administration will "pick up where President Clinton left off," Bush took less than 24 hours to declare that the Bush Administration negotiations will take a different tone.

Enter the Axis of Evil!  -- a clever 'new direction' to effective diplomacy, no doubt.

That moniker has served as a powerful icon for the times -- but not quite the way Bush and Co. had planned. Instead, it has come to represent this administration's bold contempt for meaningful diplomacy and staunch dedication to asserting military force in a world that can narry afford the elevated state of militaristic provocation.

Remember the last time North Korea was dominating the headlines?

It was December of 2005. The DPRK was decrying as a 'Declarations of war' the latest comments of the US ambassador to South Korea, labeling him the 'worst ambassador in history'.

Not surprisingly, that wasn't the first time Pyongyang had accused the US of implicit declarations of war. But to understand the motivation for such extreme actions, the full saga must unfold before us.

Enter Kim Jong Il and George W. Bush... diplomacy departs... chaos ensues.

"...The danger of war is snowballing, owing to the extreme US moves to isolate and stifle the [North Korean Government], and threats of pre-emptive strikes"

So where do we stand right now and how did we come to this unfortunate place in history?

Behind the recent Declarations of war and accusations that the US ambassador to South Korea is the 'worst ambassador in history', lies a foreboding past rife with distrust, threats, and provocation.

Not surprisingly, this isn't the first time Pyongyang has accused the US of implicit declarations of war. But to understand the motivation for such extreme actions, the full saga must unfold before us.

Enter Kim Jong Il and George W. Bush... diplomacy departs... chaos ensues.

"...The danger of war is snowballing, owing to the extreme US moves to isolate and stifle the [North Korean Government], and threats of pre-emptive strikes"

North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Choe Su Hon
To the UN General Assembly
Monday September 27, 2004

Over past years, as the Bush administration has focused America's resources on the Iraq strawman, a shadow has been growing in the east. The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (aka: North Korea) has been fueling it's potential response to what Kim Jong Il feels is an increasing threat to the survival of their Republic. It's now believed that Pyongyang possesses at least two nuclear weapons and the capability to deliver them to targets ranging from South Korea and Japan to the western coast of the continental US.

The time is long past for this issue to take center stage. So let's do our part by establishing the record between the Bush administration and North Korea.

Where do we stand right now?

This is "Part II". Be sure to read "Part I" first and please consolidate any comments in Part I as well. Thanks.

We continue with Step 64...

Step 64) - 09/03/2003

Bush's credibility was further eroded when it was revealed that he signed an Iraq war plan on August 29, 2002 showing clear premeditation and proving that 9/11 had zero influence on the administration's plans to invade a sovereign nation that in no way threatened the safety of the United States.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq, Bush insisted that war could be avoided if only Saddam would disarm. But according to a secret report from the Pentagon, on Aug. 29, 2002:

Mr. Bush "approves Iraq goals, objectives and strategy... That was eight months before the first bomb was dropped and six months before he asked the U.N. Security Council for a war mandate that he never received."

Three months earlier (late May), the Pentagon began a series of war exercises called "Prominent Hammer" to judge whether the force could win in Iraq and still maintain a deterrent in other theaters, such as South Korea. (now we know that we cannot as thousands of troops are slated to be extracted from the peninsula)

Much more over the bump...

At least according to the North Korean government. Yeah, those guys. The ones with nukes. The ones with whom in a sane world of complex and subtle diplomacy, we should be trying to keep lines of communication open. That North Korea, who just labeled a remark of the U.S. ambassador to South Korea "a declaration of war."

From Reuters:

SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea said the U.S. ambassador to Seoul, who labeled Pyongyang "a criminal regime," was the worst ambassador in history and should be recalled, its official media reported on Wednesday.

Alexander Vershbow, the U.S. ambassador to South Korea, said at a forum on December 7 that Pyongyang was engaged in the sale of weapons and illicit narcotics and Washington would not lift sanctions against it as long as those activities continue.

"This is a criminal regime," he said.

North Korea blasted the comments on Sunday, saying the remark was a declaration of war that had killed the spirit of six-party talks aimed at ending Pyongyang's nuclear weapons programs.

Of course, this is only one country and the first nomination. Over the next few days, who knows how many other nations will weigh in with their candidates for "worst ambassador ever." But I doubt any will top this quirky description:

"Ambassador Vershbow is the most bitchy and malignant ambassador in history," said a commentary in the state-run Minju Joson newspaper.