Talk Loudly
Well, it’s a trifecta. The Democrat talking heads are in full chorus: Nancy Pelosi, Susan Rice and John McCain (Yes, John McCain, who I’m now listing as a Democrat. Although his positions over the years have often run hand in hand with the Democratic Party agenda, ever since his brain tumor they’ve become COMPLETELY in line, and, at this point, I feel, he should no longer be considered a Republican) appear unable to control themselves. What’s got them so worked up? It’s an American President reacting strongly to NUCLEAR threats from a North Korean crazy man, that does, in fact, have nuclear weapons at his disposal, as well as the means to deliver them.
As the reader will know, President Trump has clearly stated that nuclear threats from The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, under Kim Jong Un will be met with a fierce response, up to and including nuclear retaliation if necessary. Democrat cowards hate it, however, when America stands strong and bold. They prefer carefully worded milquetoast statements that will impress Chairman Kim about as much as the Sunday comics.
Nancy Pelosi proclaimed Mr. Trump’s remarks “recklessly belligerent” (“reckless” in the FACE of someone making a NUCLEAR THREAT???). Then Susan Rice explained that, verbatim: “We must TOLERATE nuclear weapons in North Korea” (in other words, we’re supposed to just “GET USED TO THEM???) And, John McCain, on cue, hoped that “The President will be careful about the language that he uses” (how, exactly does one carefully and politely phrase the statement “We will blow you and your regime to Kingdom Come???”) To his credit, however, McCain DID mention that we’ve come to this dangerous predicament because of eight years of feckless “leadership” under Barack Obama. But McCain doesn’t seem to realize that a wishy-washy stance NOW will enable yet another four years of further weapons development and increasing danger from the DPRK.
Of course, the vitriol of the Democrats reaction has more to do with their own agenda and visceral intolerance of Mr. Trump’s very existence than finding the most effective way to neutralize the threat from Pyongyan. Had Obama threatened Kim with annihilation, the pundits would be lauding his “bold” and “decisive” leadership.
However, regardless of what the press and pundits have to say, there is, at this very minute, a lunatic with a nuclear arsenal that’s capable of striking us (worst case scenario) or our allies (South Korea and Japan) (BEST case scenario). This raises, yet again, the perennial question as to what IS the best way for civilized nations to deal with an armed and aggressive rogue regime.
There are some who favor a policy of appeasement. Neville Chamberlain’s September 30, 1938 speech (“Peace for Our Time”) after giving large portions of Czechoslovakia to Hitler (WITHOUT, by-the-way, Czechoslovakia’s consent!), is a widely used cautionary example of the dangers inherent in this approach to foreign policy. This non confrontational meme sometimes morphs into a more palatable form exemplified by a very popular slogan from Teddy Rosevelt: “Walk softly, but carry a big stick.”
Although this aphorism sounds wise on the face of it, it might not always be the best strategy. This is especially so when the opponents are, at best, unrealistic or at worst completely unhinged. When faced with a malevolent and increasingly belligerent enemy who shows NO interest in negotiating, traditionally there are only two basic options other than appeasement: economic sanctions and war.
In the case of North Korea, strong economic sanctions do not appear to faze them, or at least their leaders. Famine among the peasants (roughly 72% of the nation) is of NO concern to the leaders. THREE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND North Koreans have died from starvation in the past 10 years, but the leaders know that THEY will not die of famine, nor will the army that protects them. So the nuclear program rolls on. It seems clear that economic sanctions have not and will not restrain Kim’s nuclear program.
Does that leave war as the only option? Well, maybe not. This is where the “scare the hell out of them” tactic may save the day. Sometimes you do not have to attack a foe, to prevail. Sometimes, all you have to do is make it clear that, if need be, you WILL do so. Ronald Reagan did this with Iran during the hostage crisis in 1979 and 80. Mr. Reagan’s threats of a major invasion were all that was necessary to free the American hostages that had been incarcerated by Iran for 444 days in the face of a spineless Jimmy Carter. President-elect Reagan made it known to Iran that, if our hostages were not released, a major invasion would take place just as soon as he became President. As a consequence, our hostages were IN THE AIR on their way back to the USA as Mr. Reagan’s hand was on the Bible as he recited the oath of office. He used a similar strategy with Muammar Gaddafi, resulting in Gaddafi abandoning his nuclear program. President George W. Bush used such a technique with Pakistan during our invasion of Afghanistan, reportedly having explained that, in the words of their Prime Minister, that we would “bomb them back to the Stone Age” if they didn’t cooperate. And cooperate with us they did.
It would appear that when dealing with malevolent rogue regimes, the most effective policy may well be: “Talk LOUDLY and carry a big stick.”