Why Not North Korea?

Countdown to Invasion: 2 days late.

I really get a little frustrated when I hear pundits who have wanted to avoid fighting Iraq to prevent Saddam from getting nukes, suddenly advocate taking on North Korea. Of course, they say, focusing on North Korea means we must drop all talk of war with Iraq. Until Iraq gets nukes, too; then Iraq is a threat in that view.

Yep, dealing with two nuclear armed thugs is far better.

It is far better to deal with the Iraqi threat, now; before the North Korean threat gets worse. Why?

First, we can stop a country from getting nukes rather than turning back the clock on two. That is easier.

Second, Iraq is sitting on oil and poised to threaten weak countries with lots of oil. No, this war is not primarily about oil but it is silly to pretend it is not a factor. If we had wanted the oil, we would have taken Baghdad in 1991.

Third, Iraq's military is vastly superior to the Gulf states. North Korea's neighbors can all stop the North's military without our help. The balance continues to develop in favor of South Korea (aside from nukes). In the Gulf, if we are busy elsewhere or caught unaware, Iraq can strike.
Fourth, the US military can, with little allied military assistance, destroy Iraq's military. North Korea's military strength requires us to get full enthusiastic South Korean assistance to invade the north.

Fifth, even if we eliminated the North's nuclear capability; the North could inflict tens of thousands of civilian casualties using artillery and rocket delivered chemicals on Seoul.

Sixth, Iraq has the financial resources based on oil and European collaboration to outlast containment and avoid isolation. North Korea is impoversished, starving, and its only export--cheap missiles--will likely be throttled by us (notwithstanding our letting the Yemen-bound shipment of missiles through).

All in all, plenty of reasons for an "Iraq-first" strategy. Face it, many advocating "North Korea" first really are aiming for "nobody at all."

On to Baghdad.