Noisy neighbors to the north acting up again. o,0

[Blondie]

The US is not having quite the difficulty that Britain and the Soviets had. The Soviets ADMITTED they lost 15,000 men KIA/MIA - The US led coalition has lost about 2,000 during almost the same amount of time.

Most of the US and coalition casualties have occurred in the last two years, though. Given the rapidly accelerating casualty rate, it seems like it just took us a bit longer to get into difficulty.

And, just as importantly, nothing in the current situation suggests progress in the forseeable future to a stable situation where coalition forces could leave, and the Taliban would not quickly overrun a corrupt and inept Afghani government and military...

CES is spewing elephant shit with his cock up a donkey's ass as usual.

The Afghanistan war is unwinnable. There is no possible exit strategy that won't have the result you describe.

[Blondie]

Why are you all bunged up and telling me to go fuck a donkey?

I don't like you. Simple. I think you're a know nothing loud mouth. Satisfied? Is the donkey?

[Ian]

The US is not having quite the difficulty that Britain and the Soviets had. The Soviets ADMITTED they lost 15,000 men KIA/MIA - The US led coalition has lost about 2,000 during almost the same amount of time.

Most of the US and coalition casualties have occurred in the last two years, though. Given the rapidly accelerating casualty rate, it seems like it just took us a bit longer to get into difficulty.

And, just as importantly, nothing in the current situation suggests progress in the forseeable future to a stable situation where coalition forces could leave, and the Taliban would not quickly overrun a corrupt and inept Afghani government and military...

CES is spewing elephant shit with his cock up a donkey's ass as usual.

The Afghanistan war is unwinnable. There is no possible exit strategy that won't have the result you describe.

Depends on your definition of winning. Strategically, I'd say the war there has been won for nine years already.

[FBM]

If I might drag the discussion, kicking and screaming, back to Korea?



http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/ ... id=2929518

Lee says ‘change’ coming to North

Analysts say president is rejecting dialogue, promoting regime change
December 11, 2010
An unstoppable change is taking place among the North Korean people, and the time has come for South Korea to prepare for unification, President Lee Myung-bak said Thursday, an indication of a harsher policy toward Pyongyang in retribution for the communist regime’s shelling of Yeonpyeong Island.

“I can feel that unification is drawing nearer,” Lee said during a meeting with Korean residents in Malaysia on Thursday night. “We must prepare for unification with a stronger economic capability.”

Lee said the North Korean people had been blocked to world affairs in the past, but now they understand how the world is changing. “They’ve begun to understand now that South Korea is prosperous,” he said. “This is an important change, and no one can stop this. Unification is drawing nearer.”

This was the second time in a week that Lee spoke about changes taking place among the North Korean people. “What we must pay attention to is the North Korean people’s change, not the change of the North Korean leadership,” Lee said on Dec. 3. “There is no power in history that can go against the people’s change.”

More of Lee’s views on North Korea was published by a Malaysian newspaper yesterday. In an interview with The Star, Lee urged the North to change by saying, “Pyongyang should open its doors for economic growth as Beijing has done. I hope China will actively encourage the North to choose the same route that it has taken.”

Lee also said economic cooperation between the two Koreas will become more active when Pyongyang clearly states its intention to give up its nuclear weapons programs.

Blue House officials said Lee’s remarks on change among the North Korean people had not been discussed with them in advance. People in the presidential office and the ruling party interpreted Lee’s remarks as a message to North Korean leader Kim Jong-il as a kind of psychological warfare.

“The president doesn’t really have a good card to use against the North,” said a North Korea specialist in the ruling circle. “In such a circumstance, what Lee can do is shake up the North Korean leadership with harsh words.”

A presidential aide said yesterday that Lee’s remarks were not based on any new information about the North Korean people. “It should be understood as a warning to the North Korean regime,” he said.

Others went even further. They said Lee has decided not to treat the North Korean leadership as a dialogue partner after the shelling of Yeonpyeong Island, and his remarks are a de facto declaration of his desire for a regime change in Pyongyang.

“That’s why Lee did not demand an apology from the North for the latest attack,” said a senior ruling circle official close to the president. “Lee’s recent remarks mean that he will now try to change the North Korean regime.”

Another ruling circle official also said Lee is contemplating a major change in his North Korea policy. “He is mulling over changing the focus of the inter-Korean relationship from dialogue to security,” he said. “And his thoughts are reflected in his remarks.”

It is, however, unlikely that Lee’s remarks will have a profound effect, a North Korea expert said. “Lee’s remarks won’t likely shake up the North Korean leadership or stir up North Korean residents,” he said. “It will probably work as a stress-releaser for the South Korean people over the North’s repeated provocations.”


By Ser Myo-ja, Namkoong Wook [myoja@joongang.co.kr]

[Ian]

Probably a lot of lip service there - the South can't do much to force the issue and the US won't either - but there's more to it I think. Peacefully or not, I think Korea is closer to seeing the division end than anytime since 1950.

Nobody wants to see a 3rd generation of Kims in Pyongyang, including China. But even for Beijing, the only foreign government with any real clout in North Korea, they can't force the issue much while Kim Jong-Il is still alive and cemented in power, both among the political elite and in the minds of his people. Eradicating a cult of personality while the person himself is still around won't go very well.

[FBM]

Yeah, that makes sense. The WikiLeaks thing did say that at least one Chinese diplomat had said that China was tired of NK's behavior (like a spoiled child, IIRC), and that the economic ties with SK, Japan and the US outweighed the importance of NK as a buffer zone for their border.

KJI can't live forever, and it sounds like he fell down on the job of setting up his son with a propaganda-fueled personality cult of his own. Once KJI is gone, seems that it'll be just a matter of time before the wheels fall off the wagon. Outside pressure probably won't be required, but it could speed the process up, seems.

[Warren Dew]

A bit of a train of thought: strategically, the US won the Afghanistan war back in November 2001. The US wins so long as the Taliban and especially al Qaeda loses. And al Qaeda's strategic objective is not retaining political control over Afghanistan (something they'd have a hard time re-achieving even if the US up and left overnight right now), but to incite populist, widespread uprising across the Islamic world with the end result of taking down regional governments and establishing a new Caliphate. They've utterly failed at that; muslim governments are assisting the US in targeting al Qaeda to various levels, and none of them are under immediate threat of populist theocratic insurrection. The ultimate goal of US foreign policy in the arab/Islamic world is not to stabilize it, but to essentially de-stabilize it. There are a couple dozen nations that are dominated by Arabic-speaking Sunni muslims - so long as they remain a couple dozen nations rather than a united Caliphate, American/western strategic interests are not much at risk. //End train-of-thought.//

There may be a couple dozen nations dominated by Arabic speaking Sunni muslims - but guess what, Afghanistan is not one of them. If we're worried about an Arabic caliphate, Afghanistan is three nations away from where the action would be. At least Iraq has some borders with Arabic states.

It's still not nearly the same situation. Our losses are light, our ownership of the skies 100%. It's no quagmire. We'd love for the "nation building" thing to go a little better - but we're not starting with Germans or Japanese here. We've got Afghans - and it's an entirely different culture. Unfortunately, it's going to take time.

Our losses were light through 2008, when we didn't have substantial ground troops stationed there, and when our mission was just to disrupt Al Qaeda enough to prevent their putting together major new attacks like 9/11. Now that we've decided on a new mission involving occupation, and committed far more ground troops, the losses are getting heavier - just as happened when we escalated in Vietnam.

One of the reasons we're there is almost always left unstated, and has little to do with making Afghanistan a garden of Eden. A huge reason the US maintains its presences in Iraq and Afghanistan is simple geography. Both places border Iran, and we're there so that we have a massive force at the ready to obliterate the command, control and communications of Iran in hours. Having these forward assault points available there makes things much easier than they were with Iraq - we had to fly around Turkish air space -- send shit up from Deigo Garcia, and have massive air refueling systems as our bombers started their runs 1/2 way around the world. Iran has to remain concerned that we are right there - were literally a few minutes flight to Tehran. So, you can bet it's worth it to the US to have a tussle or scuffle here and there with some jackalopes in Afghanistan to keep those valuable forward positions.

We invaded Iraq from neighboring Kuwait. The only reason some bombers had to go a long way is because those bombers don't fly out of forward bases.

Iran hasn't been under debilitating sanctions for a decade, as Iraq was when we invaded. Iran would be a far tougher nut to crack, even if both Iraq and Afghanistan were U.S. puppets, which they are not.

[Ian]

A bit of a train of thought: strategically, the US won the Afghanistan war back in November 2001. The US wins so long as the Taliban and especially al Qaeda loses. And al Qaeda's strategic objective is not retaining political control over Afghanistan (something they'd have a hard time re-achieving even if the US up and left overnight right now), but to incite populist, widespread uprising across the Islamic world with the end result of taking down regional governments and establishing a new Caliphate. They've utterly failed at that; muslim governments are assisting the US in targeting al Qaeda to various levels, and none of them are under immediate threat of populist theocratic insurrection. The ultimate goal of US foreign policy in the arab/Islamic world is not to stabilize it, but to essentially de-stabilize it. There are a couple dozen nations that are dominated by Arabic-speaking Sunni muslims - so long as they remain a couple dozen nations rather than a united Caliphate, American/western strategic interests are not much at risk. //End train-of-thought.//

There may be a couple dozen nations dominated by Arabic speaking Sunni muslims - but guess what, Afghanistan is not one of them. If we're worried about an Arabic caliphate, Afghanistan is three nations away from where the action would be. At least Iraq has some borders with Arabic states.

True, but Afghanistan's location and languages are not really relevant. Prior to the US invasion, al Qaeda was using it as a base of operations not to pressure the Islamic world from a geographic standpoint, but as a HQ from which they could foment insurrection among other states from within. It wasn't about borders. AlQaeda found one country that would let them operate from within its territory unmolested, that's why they moved there.

[Warren Dew]

KJI can't live forever, and it sounds like he fell down on the job of setting up his son with a propaganda-fueled personality cult of his own.

I thought the current attack was part of that process?

[Ian]

A little levity for our friends in South Korea:

Kim Jong-Un Privately Doubting He's Crazy Enough To Run North Korea

PYONGYANG, NORTH KOREA—In surprisingly candid remarks Thursday, Kim Jong-un, heir apparent to North Korea's highest government post, expressed doubt that he was sufficiently out of his mind to succeed his father, longtime dictator Kim Jong-il. Kim says the task of somehow becoming "as loony tunes as [his] dad" is a daunting one.

While emphasizing that he was definitely completely insane and would likely be even less stable by the time he assumed power, the younger Kim nevertheless wondered if he could ever be enough of a lunatic to replace the most unhinged leader on the planet.

"Obviously, I know I was handpicked because I'm super crazy," said Kim, the youngest of the 69-year-old dictator's four known children. "But my father's just so great at what he does. Did you know the people of North Korea have heard his voice exactly once, for like five seconds? How nuts is that? Honestly, I look at stuff like that and I think, 'Wow, there's just no way I can ever top Dad.'"

"We're talking about a world-class nutjob here," he added.

Kim told reporters that since emerging as the presumptive next-in-line to lead North Korea, he had spent countless hours trying to come up with his own brand of craziness that would honor the tradition set forth by his father and grandfather, Kim Il-sung, but would also set him apart. After discovering that many of his best ideas had already been taken by his father—including making citizens bow toward wall-sized portraits of himself or claiming to be a demigod whose moods directly influence the weather—Kim admitted he had grown frustrated.

Kim cites this massive and bizarre demonstration as evidence that his chances of ever being able to top his father in the "crazy department" are very slim.

"At this point, I'm not sure what's left for me to do, really," he said. "I mean, according to the Ministry of Information, Dad hit 11 holes-in-one the first time he ever played golf. I'm dead serious. Dad had never even picked up a golf club before, and he hit 38 under par. Where am I supposed to go from there? I guess I can say I ran a marathon in 20 minutes, but isn't that pretty much the same thing?"

"It is the same thing, isn't it?" Kim added. "Ugh."

Kim, who in his rare public appearances wears a plain dark suit, said he ultimately hoped to cultivate an eccentric, yet vaguely sinister look as iconic as his father's pompadour, drab parka, and sunglasses, perhaps something "even nuttier" involving canes, a large yellow raincoat, or possibly a motorized scooter.
Other ideas Kim has had for proving his insanity include placing anyone shorter than himself under permanent house arrest, issuing a new national currency every 90 days, normalizing relations with South Korea, and replacing all medicines with synthetic replications of his own saliva.

"Of course, I have to be careful not to come off as too crazy, because then it would just feel forced and no one would buy it," said Kim, noting that he was working on some slogans that North Korean schoolchildren would be forced to chant three times daily. "Then again, maybe having it come off as forced would make me seem even crazier, because what kind of a maniac would go to such lengths to outdo his father? Right? Or is that just a cop-out?"

Although Kim's birthday is already recognized as a national holiday and any criticism of him is punishable by indefinite sentences in re-education camps, Kim suggested that the stress of living up to his father's insanity had been taking a toll.

"I can't even enjoy the things I used to love, like forcing starving people to perform a five-hour dance routine in my honor, because I spend the whole time obsessing over whether I'm being wacko enough," Kim admitted. "That's what's so special about Dad, you know: He never worries about all that stuff, he just acts like himself. What can I say? The old man set the loony bar pretty high."

When asked if he planned to consult the elder Kim for advice, the future leader said that while his father would almost certainly have valuable insights, the man was far too crazy for even a lunatic like himself to speak to.

"But I've got to prove myself to him somehow," Kim said. "He'll kill me if I don't."

http://www.theonion.com/articles/kim-jo ... -to,18374/

[FBM]

KJI can't live forever, and it sounds like he fell down on the job of setting up his son with a propaganda-fueled personality cult of his own.

I thought the current attack was part of that process?

Yeah, it probably is. But it seems like too little, too late. He should've got cranking on this years ago. Too busy, I guess.


@Ian:

[FBM]

How Sunshine Policy Fueled N.Korea's Nuclear Development

North Korea's nuclear and missile capabilities grew substantially under the Sunshine Policy during the Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun administrations, and the North now reportedly has about a dozen nuclear weapons. Pyongyang is also operating hundreds or even thousands of uranium enrichment centrifuges, whose existence South Korean leftwingers denied.

"As a result of the former administrations' deliberate disregard under a decade of the Sunshine Policy, the crisis is now coming to a head," a Cheong Wa Dae staffer said Monday.

◆ No Halt to Nuclear Development

North Korea's nuclear development program was no threat in February 1998 when the Kim Dae-jung government was inaugurated. No nuclear test had taken place, nor was there a uranium enrichment program. The 1994 Geneva Framework Agreement, whereby the North agreed to freeze its nuclear facilities if it was given light-water reactors, seemed to be working. But now North Korea has "about 10" nuclear bombs, according to a Unification Ministry estimate.

The North long denied its uranium enrichment program. Suspicions were first raised in October 2002 by then U.S. Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly. The South Korean leftwingers, taking sides with the North, said the program was invented by the neocons in the U.S. to ratchet up tensions and block reconciliation in Northeast Asia. In February 2007, then Unification Minister Lee Jae-joung said there was "no intelligence" that the North has a uranium enrichment program.

But in early October this year, the North showed U.S. nuclear expert Siegfried Hecker a facility with hundreds of centrifuges for uranium enrichment. Uranium nuclear weapons can be developed covertly and do not require testing like plutonium-based weapons. "They are more dangerous than nuclear weapons made from plutonium extracted from reactors," said Cheon Seong-whun of the Korea Institute for National Unification. A uranium enrichment facility with 1,000 centrifuges requires a mere 900 sq. m area and can enrich 20 kg of uranium a year, sufficient to make one nuclear weapon.

North Korea started building enrichment facilities in the early 2000s, said a senior North Korean military scientist who defected to the South in 2000. That was when the first inter-Korean summit was in preparation. The joint statement agreed in the first summit did not mention the nuclear program at all, and the second summit communiqué only said "joint efforts" should be made to resolve the nuclear issue."

◆ Missile Development

When Kim Jong-un officially emerged as heir to Kim Jong-il on Oct. 10 in a military parade on the anniversary of the Workers Party, an intermediate-range ballistic missile was shown to the international press for the first time. Dubbed "Musudan" by the U.S. intelligence services, it has a range of 3,000 to 4,000 km, making it capable of reaching the strategic U.S. military base in Guam.

North Korea has simultaneously boosted nuclear and missile capabilities in the past decade, because "it can threaten the U.S. as well as the South only if it can load nuclear warheads on missiles," said Baek Seung-joo of the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses. The so-called Taepodong 1 missile the North test-fired in August 1998 flew some 1,600 km. The firing came four days prior to the opening of the 20th session of the Supreme People's Assembly, which marked the launch of the Kim Jong-il regime.

The Taepodong 2 missile, fired in July 2006, failed, but a long-range missile launched in April 2009 flew 3,200-odd km. The North is now bent on developing missiles with a range of 6,700 km, capable of attacking Alaska and Guam. It has over 600 Scud missiles with a range of 300 to 500 km and 200-plus Rodong missiles with a range of 1,300 km.
englishnews@chosun.com / Dec. 11, 2010 08:33 KST

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/htm ... 00268.html

Further reading about the 1994 Geneva Agreed Framework, as well as when and how the wheel fell off the wagon: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world ... mework.htm

[Coito ergo sum]

Why are you all bunged up and telling me to go fuck a donkey?

I don't like you. Simple. I think you're a know nothing loud mouth. Satisfied? Is the donkey?

[Tigger]

Anthroban, this post you made http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 66#p694866 and the one following it http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 66#p694868 are clearly personal attacks on another member. Please address the argument and not the person according to the forum rules which are linked here as a reminder: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 9#playnice

[FBM]

Wondering if this is a sign of an impending arms race in NEAsia. How long before Japan decides it's necessary to have nukes in order to counter NK's nuclear program? SK is already considering it.

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/htm ... 00836.html

Japan Shifts Defense Strategy to Meet New Threats

Japan has decided to shift its defense strategy for the first time in 40 years as it sees the main threat shifting from the former Soviet Union to China and North Korea. Tokyo is going to reorganize its military into mobile units capable of engaging in operations in the Pacific Ocean and countering North Korean missile threats.

The Diet is expected to pass the revisions this week.

The most notable change is the transformation of the Self-Defense Forces from a static to a more mobile military. The current defense strategy was put in place when Japan revised defense guidelines in 1976 based on the threat of a Soviet invasion. This stance was gradually revised following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the latest changes make the shift complete.

Now troops can be deployed in concentrated formations anywhere there is a threat against Japan. Japan has defined China's rising naval strength and North Korea's intercontinental ballistic missiles as its main threats.

The ramifications are expected to be huge. Ground forces will be downsized while naval power will be enhanced. The 600 tanks in service will be reduced to 390; 600 artillery pieces will shrink to around 400; and 1,000 troops will also be cut. The remaining ground forces will be deployed on an island in southern Japan. At present, they are equally distributed throughout the country.

But capabilities will be bolstered to deal with potential threats from China and North Korea. Forces will be concentrated on defending Japan's southwestern island chains stretching from southern tip of Kyushu Island to Taiwan, as well as the country's Pacific flank. The number of operable submarines will rise from 18 to 22. The SDF will no longer retire one sub a year and replace it with a new one, but retain more subs as new ones are commissioned into service.

Around 2,000 troops will be deployed on the islands to the southwest. Japan will also speed up the deployment of its next-generation FX fighter jets and boost its three Patriot (PAC3) missile bases to six. It will equip all six of its Aegis destroyers with SM-3 missiles. At present, only four have the anti-ballistic missiles.

The shift is worrying Japan's regional neighbors. The Chinese government has already voiced its concerns, and South Korea has reacted with surprise at a comment from Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan last week suggesting the possible dispatch of forces to the Korean Peninsula to rescue Japanese citizens in case of an emergency.

Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshito Sengoku denied the comments on Monday, saying Seoul and Tokyo have never considered a role for the SDF, but the fallout from Kan's comments is expected to linger for some time.
englishnews@chosun.com / Dec. 14, 2010 11:59 KST