03 January 2009
Bolton’s Bad News
What upsets John Bolton in his in the January 2, 2009 Wall Street Journal OpEd essay, only puts me more at ease. The bluster of the North Koreans and Iranians on their nuclear weapons capabilities is really irrelevant. Even if they did agree to muster down, the U.S. and the West would still have to enforce disarmament and be ready to intervene in the case of their deception.
It is not America’s mission to create Western freedom for North Koreans or Iranians. Our government’s duty is first and foremost to protect our security. Letting the Boltons of the world continue to bluster in their own way, on the other hand, does in fact serve our best interests, if only because the constant threat that someone in power might listen to them hangs like Damocles’ Sword over “rogue” states.
In the meantime, who cares whether Pyongyang and Tehran play for legitimacy on the world stage? It is really worthless compared to strong vigilance by the West. If “rogue” states achieve this objective through diplomacy, so what? For example, that success is better than the consequences of our relying on a surrogate, Israel, to strike Iran’s infrastructure and alienate the liberal but historically hesitant and patient Persian upper class. In the end, we will never escape the specter of nuclear (or terrorist) proliferation—reasonable men must always lead us to manage it, and to keep dogs of war like John Bolton barking behind locked gates.
What upsets John Bolton in his in the January 2, 2009 Wall Street Journal OpEd essay, only puts me more at ease. The bluster of the North Koreans and Iranians on their nuclear weapons capabilities is really irrelevant. Even if they did agree to muster down, the U.S. and the West would still have to enforce disarmament and be ready to intervene in the case of their deception.
It is not America’s mission to create Western freedom for North Koreans or Iranians. Our government’s duty is first and foremost to protect our security. Letting the Boltons of the world continue to bluster in their own way, on the other hand, does in fact serve our best interests, if only because the constant threat that someone in power might listen to them hangs like Damocles’ Sword over “rogue” states.
In the meantime, who cares whether Pyongyang and Tehran play for legitimacy on the world stage? It is really worthless compared to strong vigilance by the West. If “rogue” states achieve this objective through diplomacy, so what? For example, that success is better than the consequences of our relying on a surrogate, Israel, to strike Iran’s infrastructure and alienate the liberal but historically hesitant and patient Persian upper class. In the end, we will never escape the specter of nuclear (or terrorist) proliferation—reasonable men must always lead us to manage it, and to keep dogs of war like John Bolton barking behind locked gates.
Comments:
Post a Comment
