slap in the face

Home » slap in the face

The United States and North Korea — part two (the Bush years)

A few years ago, I wrote this post on North Korea. I was trying to understand what was going on in North Korea and how our response was causing a negative or positive feedback. Because North Korea has strategically jumped back into the limelight, I thought was worth reviewing what I knew or at least what I thought I knew about North Korea. It looks like I hit the nail on the head.

north koreans marching

North Korea

I highly recommend that you read yesterday’s post on North Korea. I looked at North Korea’s history of nuclear interest dating back to late 1950s and early 1960s.

To use a football metaphor, I’m not going to tell you that the Clinton administration had taken a football (North Korea’s nuclear issues) down to the two-yard line and all the Bush administration had to do was to carry the ball over the goal line. President George Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary Colin Powell needed to do much more than that. In retrospect, Bush was ill-prepared for North Korea. I have no idea how much he was briefed. I have no idea if alternative viewpoints (outside of the neoconservative line of thinking) were presented to the president. (Here’s a North Korean timeline.)

In my opinion, foreign policy is like three-dimensional chess. There are lots of moving pieces. You need to be very smart and very prepared in order to anticipate your opponent’s move. In foreign policy you are playing multiple opponents at the same time.

As far as I know, there were no high-level discussions about how to approach the North Koreans when President Bush announced to the South Korean president that he was unclear if North Korea was holding up their end of the bargain (the Agreed Framework). He basically stated that North Koreans were liars and cheats and could not be trusted. “We’re not certain as to whether or not they’re keeping all the terms of all agreements.” (NYT) While such a provocative statement would not get a second look in downtown Baltimore, in the world of diplomacy it was a slap in the face. The big question is, if the United States were to break off discussions with North Korea, which was a basic tenet of the “Agreed Framework,” then what? What leverage did we have against a country that is already isolated? Was it possible that we could squeeze China or Russia in order to use their leverage against North Korea? None of this had been discussed prior to Bush’s statement. At least, not to the best of my knowledge. This all happened in early March of 2001. By September of 2001, we were focused on Afghanistan and some in the Bush administration had already begun to focus on Iraq. (more…)

By |2013-04-04T19:01:08-04:00April 3rd, 2013|North Korea, Pakistan|Comments Off on The United States and North Korea — part two (the Bush years)

Leon Panetta

There’s been a lot of handwringing and consternation over Barack Obama’s choice of Leon Panetta to lead the Central Intelligence Agency. Dianne Feinstein (Democrat-California) issued a terse statement on Monday afternoon letting everyone know that she wasn’t consulted and she did not approve. Remember that I was reserved in my comments. Now that the dust has settled, I think it is clearer that Barack Obama has probably made the right decision. Leon Panetta will not be someone easily pushed around and isolated from the White House by any of the senators on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Instead, known as an excellent manager, Leon Panetta should be able to organize that agency.

I don’t think that this was a slap in the face. Instead, I think that it was an announcement that things are really going to be different. This will not be business as usual. After renditions, torture, illegal wiretaps and the like, I think that this strong signal that things are going to be different and different is a very good thing. Finally, I would add that the Obama team didn’t leak Panetta’s name. It was leaked by someone on the Hill who wasn’t happy. (Feinstein or Rockerfeller’s offices..? I’m just guessing but I bet that I’m close.)

From WaPo:

President-elect Barack Obama said yesterday that he has selected a “top-notch intelligence team” that would provide the “unvarnished” information his administration needs, rather than “what they think the president wants to hear.”

But current and former intelligence officials expressed sharp resentment over Obama’s choice of Leon E. Panetta as CIA director and suggested that the agency suffers from incompetent leadership and low morale. “People who suggest morale is low don’t have a clue about what’s going on now,” said CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield, citing recent personnel reforms under Director Michael V. Hayden.

On Capitol Hill, Democrats on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence were still stewing over Obama not consulting them on the choice before it was leaked Monday and continued to question Panetta’s intelligence experience. Vice President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. acknowledged that the transition team had made a “mistake” in not consulting or even notifying congressional leaders, and Obama telephoned committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and her predecessor, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), yesterday to apologize. (more… )

By |2009-01-07T06:29:05-04:00January 7th, 2009|National Intelligence, Obama administration|Comments Off on Leon Panetta
Go to Top