Iran, Syria, North Korea, Sudan

[preemptingyou03]

Just a few questions for everybody here. What should we do regarding the threats and problems in each country? Please don't respond "flat out invade," because that is unrealistic and we will not do that. But what will we do? I wanna give President Bush a serious thank you for doing what he has done in Afghanistan and Iraq and the serious change we see in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and throughout the rest of the Middle East.

As we work hard to reconstruct Afghanistan and Iraq and as we work hard to makre sure the Pakistanis and Saudis are hunting down al-Qaeda and Libya is dismantling its WMDs, what do we do with each one of these countries listed above?

Iran I would demand that the Iranian mullahs do the following:
1) Stop supporting the insurgency in Iraq
2) Stop their nuclear activities - let the IAEA walk around freely in Iran
3) Stop funding terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and hand over all senior al-Qaeda leaders to their countries, (Saif al-Adel, Saad bin Laden)

If Iran does this, they'll show serious cooperation ang the won't be on my radar any longer. But I highly doubt they do this. So what I would do is, I would change American policy fowards Iran from "containment" to "regime change." I wouldn't invade (at first) rather, I would fund uprisings so they Iranian people overthrow the terrorist Iranian regime. I would continue to fund this uprising until the regime is no more.

Syria
Syria is a different story. It is surrounded by water and enemies. I would offer Syria a temporary truce, if they start to reign in on Hezbollah and if they hand over any WMDs that Saddam might have given them before the war.

I'm cautious about an invasion of Syria for several reasons. Yes, it is true that the military campaign against the Syrian regime would last about one week... shorter than that of Iraq. But... the Syrian postwar period would be hell. One, the Syrian people don't oppose their regime as much as the Iraqi people did or as much as the Iranian people do. And two, Syria is much closer to the Palestinian territory... Hamas and Hezbollah would have a field day on postwar Syria. It would be terrorist warfare as its finest.

I am not sure how I would deal with Syria in the case they do not cooperate. But I think they will.

North Korea
If the North Koreans are successful in their quest for nuclear weapons, which it seems as if they are, we are then past the point of no return. I believe in a nuclear free Korea... that is, unless, North Korea already has nukes. For this reason, I would supply Japan and South Korea with nuclear weapons. I would call it "nuclear ambiguity." It would not officially announce the new nuclear powers of Japan and South Korea, but the North would be aware. After this, I would blockade North Korea... which is the closest thing to war than an act of war itself. It would remain this way until Kim Jong-Il let inspectors into his country and fully disarmed.

Sudan

There's no waiting here. Sudan funds terrorists. They are terrorists. They are killing hundreds of thousands. It would take about 3-4 weeks, and about 25,000 troops to do the job in Sudan and take down that regime. Images if American soldiers feeding 35 pound 18 year old Africans... if that caused anti-Americanism... f*ck 'em.

Anybody?

 

[5stringJeff]

Very complex issues.

Iran: there is already a democratic underground in Iran (and I don't mean the hate-mongering hard-core Leftists on the DU website; I mean a generation that wants real freedom). We should support them monetarily to allow them to do what they can. I agree that our policy should be regime change. If they get nukes or show any signs of agression towards either Afghanistan or Iraq, I think that's pretext to invade.

Syria: I would love to roll them over, but you are correct, the terrorist countersurgency there would be worse than Iraq. I think Syria should replace Iraq on the Axis of Evil, our position should be regime change, and we should demand that Syria stop supporting terrorism - or else. And leave it at that. I think everyone in the world knows what "or else" means.

NK - the toughest nut to crack. If they ever launched a nuke, they would be history. That said, I don't even think Kim-Jong Il is that crazy. Again, make regime change the official policy, provide humanitarian aid when possible, and deal with them like the dictatorship they are - no coddling or bribing like the Clinton administration did.

Sudan - I say that if the UN or the AU (African Union) doesn't care enough about the Sudan to stop genocide, we should strongly consider going there, for both the terrorist ties and to stop the genocide. I can't see how the Left would oppose that one.

 

[Annie]

I basically agree with Jeff. Small differences though on NK and Iran-

I think that he possibly IS that crazy and it will be the end of NK, not to mention a substantial number of South Koreans. Time will tell, but I think the threat is growing too fast. Kim seems to think the ME is his 'opening.'

Iran, my take there is that time is our enemy. However, in fairness to both of your analysis-Looks like Rumsfeld agrees with all of the possibilities, From Friday's Chicago Council on Foreign Relations/Commercial Club of Chicago-(read: bunch of political science profs and business leaders):

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040806-secdef1121.html

The subject of Iran is -- I don't think our heads are in the sand. Iran is obviously on the terrorist list. It is clearly, by the testimony of the International Atomic Energy committee, involved with the development of nuclear capabilities. It works with Hezbollah and Syria to send terrorists and terrorist materials down through Damascus, into Lebanon and into Israel. They are unhelpful with respect to what we're doing in Afghanistan. They're unhelpful with respect to what we're doing in Iraq.

And the future there is unclear to me. They've got a handful of clerics that are running that country. The people are intelligent. The people have an interesting, important history. The people have a visibility into what's happening in the world. They know that the rest of the world is going on.

And I suspect that that is a nation where we -- I mean, I must say all of us were surprised when it moved from the shah to the ayatollah in five minutes, it seemed like, and I think one day we may find that we'll be surprised, happily, to see it move from where it is to where it might ought to be one day. I think the people are aware of the situation, and I think that the degree of support for the clerics is probably relatively modest in that country.

 

[preemptingyou03]

Do you support arming Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea with nukes if Kim Jong Il has them?

Also, a postwar Syria... we'd deal with Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad... instead of just Zarqawi. How would we deal with a postwar Syria? It'd probably be a lot like what Israel deals with.

 

[Annie]

Do you support arming Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea with nukes if Kim Jong Il has them?

Also, a postwar Syria... we'd deal with Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad... instead of just Zarqawi. How would we deal with a postwar Syria? It'd probably be a lot like what Israel deals with.

No, the reasons we are a heavy presence in the Pacific is to add the nuclear deterent for these countries. Syria eventually is going to cool it or we'll have to deal with it.