Simplistic Hawk or Blinded by Ideology?

Mary McGrory is apparently upset that we will not invade North Korea. She is upset that our president hasn’t blasted North Korea with the same rhetoric he uses against Iraq. If she wasn’t opposed to that rhetoric against Iraq I might think she is sincere. But we all know she doesn’t raise this difference to argue for war against both; she wants nothing done about both.

She raises irrelevant points about our ability to find the DC shooter as if Iraq should be put off until every crime is solved and prevented (but won’t that trigger an Ashcroft hysteria alert?). She amazingly seems to blame Bush because an "eyewitness" turns out to have fabricated his statements. And she makes a ridiculous comparison to Alexander the Great, arguing Bush wants to conquer the known world.

What is her deal?

Aside from her silly attacks, she rattles off a number of questions over why we are treating North Korea more gently than Iraq. She asks, "Is it because North Korea has a million men under arms? Is it because Kim Jong Il never threatened to kill Bush's father, or because he has no oil, or is not a Muslim? Maybe we should ask the advocates who dreamed for 10 years of invading Iraq. Do Richard Perle, Richard Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz believe in equal opportunity for tyrants?"

Does North Korea’s army shape our caution? You’re darned right it does. And after opponents of war have spent so much time accusing Bush of simplicity for lumping Iran, Iraq, and North Korea into an Axis of Evil, you’d think they’d welcome a foreign policy that recognizes the differences. The million-man North Korean army is relevant because South Koreans would die in huge numbers in a war and because we do not have a military large enough to even consider regime change against Iraq and North Korea at the same time. Is McGrory really prepared to say we should go to war against both, at once? When that would ensure failure or at least costly success? Is she even willing to support war against North Korea first, since she says they are more of a threat? Right now, we have more than enough to do taking out Iraq. Maybe later, we can decide on a more forceful response if circumstances warrant it. I say it makes more sense to hit the dictator who doesn’t have the bomb—yet, rather than hit a state that does and allow the one that doesn’t time to get one. Is it really an inferior strategy to go after one nuclear-armed thug than two?

As for the assassination attempt against Bush 41, is she saying that a murder attempt against any president is not cause for war? Even President Clinton lobbed some cruise missiles at Iraq even though Clinton was unrelated to Bush. This is typical bull, claiming this is all personal. Iraq is a threat and Bush is acting on it. Trying to assassinate a former president is an act of war, and President Clinton is to be criticized for letting it pass with only a pro forma cruise missile strike. Why did President Clinton attack in 1998, arguing that Iraq’s pursuit of nuclear weapons was unacceptable to our security? Or is it acceptable for McGrory to launch only ineffective attacks in defense of our interests?

The oil argument is stale and ridiculous. If oil was our motive, maybe we’d invade Venezuela. We get little of our oil from the Middle East. Shoot, the Japanese and Europeans should be leading the charge for war if that was the reason. Indeed, McGrory makes this charge with no shame in light of the French and Russian opposition to war precisely because of their oil interests? Why not raise the charge, "No Tyranny for Oil!" That has far more credibility.

And the Moslem charge? Good grief, I earlier ran through all the Moslem countries we’ve helped over the years. Her charge is hogwash. Given the implicit charge of racism she is making, you’d think North Korea was colonized by blonde, Christian Swedes. I’m at least glad she thinks Bush is only racist versus Moslems and not against Asians too.

So McGrory wants equal opportunity for tyrants. Give the President time, Ms. McGrory. We can’t conquer the known world all at once. I look forward to her support for regime change if that is what we need to do.

But first, on to Baghdad.