The current administration has created a foreign policy that has conveniently and subjectively delineated the world into good v. evil with asterisks. The asterisks are necessary for those times when the current administration discusses a probable war with Iraq for which it has yet to make a case in lieu of North Korea for which no case is necessary.
North Korea is overtly building up its nuclear capabilities while the administration remains fixated on a war with Iraq and Sadaam Hussein. The need for this war centers almost solely on the evil intents of Sadaam Hussein. Make no mistake, there is nothing that suggests Mr. Hussein will win a humanitarian award for lifetime achievement in the pursuit of human rights from Amnesty International.
Yet, the current attention given Sadaam Hussein is the direct result of the allusive nature of Mr. Bin-Laden. Whatever Mr. Hussein's U.N. violations they pale in comparison to the overt buildup that North Korea is currently engaged.
North Korea, which I recall was one on of the inaugural members of the famed "Axis of Evil" fraternity, is reopening its plutonium reprocessing plant, which, according to most experts puts it approximately six months from producing enough weapons-grade material to generate several nuclear bombs.
Furthermore, North Korea has expelled U.N. nuclear inspectors, which leaves its nuclear facilities unsupervised; according to the U.N. North Korea has violated the 1953 DMZ Agreement by bringing light machine guns into area; and recently North Korea has stated that it no longer wishes to adhere to the Nonproliferation Treaty. It seems to me that the actions of North Korea make a substantially stronger case than anything to date against Iraq. It certainly begs the question: What is it that requires regime change in Iraq but not in North Korea?
The possibility still exist that President Bush has information that he has yet to reveal to the American people as to the danger posed by Iraq. Now would certainly be the time to be forthcoming if such information exists.
And if it were the plan of this administration is to fight two wars simultaneously, as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has suggested, would it not also be good time to start preparing the public for that inevitability?
Such talk seems hardly prudent in a world that offers the potential for unprecedented destabilization. Beyond North Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan, there remain terrorist cells in Indonesia, Kenya, Jordan, Yemen, and the Philippines. Pakistan and India are not exactly on each other's Hallmark list, and the Palestinians and Israelis, are, well, the Palestinians and Israelis.
Strangely, the bravado that spews toward Baghdad does not carry the same force when it is launched toward the nuclear buildup in Pyongyang. With China looming a rather large shadow nearby, such talk could have a strange way of escalating matters beyond anyone's control.
Perhaps this president and his foreign policy team have its hand on the pulse of world events that is unparalleled. Short of that, which is more likely the case, he is offering very little in the way of authentic leadership.
What does the buildup in North Korea mean? What steps is this administration, along with the rest of the world taking to minimize this threat? Why is it that Iraq remains a larger threat to world security?
It would be nice hear answers to the aforementioned questions coming directly from the President of the United States. While Sadaam Hussein remains the face of evil, evidence suggests it is North Korea that has replaced him as the greatest threat for evil.