GINA COBB

"U.S. Should Help North Koreans Flee"

By DemocracyRules

Article by Claudia Rosett.  I love her work, very well researched, very clear, and a journalistic history going back to Vietnam.

I think she's right about this.

Pro Patria

North Koreans Reportedly Killed in Raid on Syrian Nuke Plant

By DemocracyRules
h/t Debkafile, Japanese NHK news

Ever since Israel bombed Syria's plutonium reactor on September 6, 2007, reports have circulated about  sightings of North Koreans near the reactor.  There is a town nearby, but the area is mainly  isolated, and people with Asian faces would stand out.

Last week when the US government revealed the purpose of the  Syrian facility they explicitly named the North Koreans has collaborators.  They said North Koreans also helped dismantle the facility after it was bombed.  They were still there by late fall  2007. 

Now Japan's NHK television news reports that North Korean officials were killed in the Israeli air strike on a Syrian nuclear facility last September.

"Experts in South Korea say that among the dead were officials of a military unit under North Korea's Workers' Party. Troops from another military unit that built nuclear facilities in North Korea are also said to have been killed. The sources say the remains were cremated in Syria and taken to North Korea the following month.

The party unit is said to deal exclusively with export of weapons and military technology, and takes its orders directly from North Korean leader Kim Jong Il. Its activities are believed to be an important source of much-needed foreign currency for North Korea.

A few North Korean officials survived the air raid but their whereabouts are unknown. South Korean authorities are continuing to collect and analyze information on the case."

Pro Patria

If Al Qaeda Is "Evolving," Why Can't America's Iraq Strategy Evolve Too?

Here's what passes for the conventional wisdom on Iraq:  The war was badly planned and therefore is failing miserably.  As a result, America's only option is to fold up the entire operation and slink away, leaving the Iraqis to whatever bloodbath awaits them.  We've reached the point of no return; the war is irretrievably lost; and no amount of rethinking or redoubling of effort will make any difference.

Meanwhile, Al Qaeda's early losses in the war on terror, including the deaths of major leaders such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and possibly Osama Bin Ladin himself, are completely irrelevant, since Al Qaeda is "evolving" constantly and is planning mass casualty attacks on the U.S.:

Al Qaeda terrorists are rebuilding their capabilities and continuing to plan mass-casualty attacks inside the United States, according to an intelligence assessment made public yesterday.

"We assess [al Qaeda] has protected or regenerated key elements of its homeland attack capability, including a safe haven in ... Pakistan [tribal areas], operational lieutenants and its top leadership," according to the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), a consensus analysis of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies.

"Although we have discovered only a handful of individuals in the United States with ties to al Qaeda senior leadership since 9/11, we judge that al Qaeda will intensify its efforts to put operatives here," the report stated.

Retired Vice Adm. Michael McConnell, the director of national intelligence whose office produced the NIE, said the United States will face a "persistent and evolving terrorist threat" in the next three years.

The seven-page public summary of the classified report said the United States is in a "heightened threat environment."

"They're working as hard as they can in positioning trained operatives here in the United States," Mr. McConnell said. "They have recruitment programs to bring recruits into [the tribal] region of Pakistan [who] could come to the United States, fit into the population and then use some of the training that they receive in the Pakistani area for explosives and so on."

Is the contrast between the defeatism of the media in viewing America's chances in the Iraq war and the endless optimism for Al Qaeda's chances stark enough for you?

Al Qaeda remains a threat because it is "continuing to plan" further attacks and "will intensify its efforts" and its members are "working as hard as they can."

But when it comes to the Iraq war, working harder, intensifying efforts, rethinking, and continuing to plan are off the table for the United States.  The only option we have is to rip our leaders from limb to limb, metaphorically speaking, for having started the war.  Since things look bleak now, they're going to stay that way no matter what America does, and its only option is to turn tail and run.

Don't tell me we've tried long enough and hard enough in Iraq and there's no point in continuing any longer.  Nonsense.  Al Qaeda's attacks on the U.S. predate the Iraq war, but nobody seems to be pulling out a stopwatch and insisting that Al Qaeda's chances of striking a mortal blow at the U.S. or the West are forever lost.

What a fitting metaphor is Harry Reid's surrender slumberthon in the Senate tonight.  Harry Reid knows how to lose a war he has already declared lost.  The solution is quite simple:  Lie down, accept defeat, and make no effort to prevail.

In the real world, the margin between victory and defeat is rarely great, but the outcome matters a great deal.  The margin of victory usually turns on one thing:  motivation.  If we are motivated to win; if we are determined; if we are constantly "rebuilding our capabilities" and "continuing to plan" and "intensifying our efforts  and "working as hard as we can," then there are very few forces on earth that can stand in our way.

By the same token, if we are frequently announcing that we've already lost and that our cause is hopeless, and holding slumberthons to protest our own nation's continued effort to prevail, then we certainly can bring about our own defeat.

Update:  Today brings a stunningly important speech from Senator John McCain (via Captain's Quarters):

Mr. President, we have nearly finished this little exhibition, which was staged, I assume, for the benefit of a briefly amused press corps and in deference to political activists opposed to the war who have come to expect from Congress such gestures, empty though they may be, as proof that the majority in the Senate has heard their demands for action to end the war in Iraq. The outcome of this debate, the vote we are about to take, has never been in doubt to a single member of this body. And to state the obvious, nothing we have done for the last twenty-four hours will have changed any facts on the ground in Iraq or made the outcome of the war any more or less important to the security of our country. The stakes in this war remain as high today as they were yesterday; the consequences of an American defeat are just as grave; the costs of success just as dear. No battle will have been won or lost, no enemy will have been captured or killed, no ground will have been taken or surrendered, no soldier will have survived or been wounded, died or come home because we spent an entire night delivering our poll-tested message points, spinning our soundbites, arguing with each other, and substituting our amateur theatrics for statesmanship. All we have achieved are remarkably similar newspaper accounts of our inflated sense of the drama of this display and our own temporary physical fatigue. Tomorrow the press will move on to other things and we will be better rested. But nothing else will have changed.

In Iraq, American soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen are still fighting bravely and tenaciously in battles that are as dangerous, difficult and consequential as the great battles of our armed forces’ storied past. Our enemies will still be intent on defeating us, and using our defeat to encourage their followers in the jihad they wage against us, a war which will become a greater threat to us should we quit the central battlefield in defeat. The Middle East will still be a tinderbox, which our defeat could ignite in a regional war that will imperil our vital interests at risk there and draw us into a longer and far more costly war. The prospect of genocide in Iraq, in which we will be morally complicit, is still as real a consequence of our withdrawal today as it was yesterday.

During our extended debate over the last few days, I have heard senators repeat certain arguments over and over again. My friends on the other side of this argument accuse those of us who oppose this amendment with advocating “staying the course,” which is intended to suggest that we are intent on continuing the mistakes that have put the outcome of the war in doubt. Yet we all know that with the arrival of General Petraeus we have changed course. We are now fighting a counterinsurgency strategy, which some of us have argued we should have been following from the beginning, and which makes the most effective use of our strength and does not strengthen the tactics of our enemy. This new battle plan is succeeding where our previous tactics have failed, although the outcome remains far from certain. The tactics proposed in the amendment offered by my friends, Senators Levin and Reed – a smaller force, confined to bases distant from the battlefield, from where they will launch occasional search and destroy missions and train the Iraqi military – are precisely the tactics employed for most of this war and which have, by anyone’s account, failed miserably. Now, that, Mr. President, is staying the course, and it is a course that inevitably leads to our defeat and the catastrophic consequences for Iraq, the region and the security of the United States our defeat would entail.

Yes, we have heard quite a lot about the folly of “staying the course,” though the real outcome should this amendment prevail and be signed into law, would be to deny our generals and the Americans they have the honor to command the ability to try, in this late hour, to address the calamity these tried and failed tactics produced, and salvage from the wreckage of our previous failures a measure of stability for Iraq and the Middle East, and a more secure future for the American people.

I have also listened to my colleagues on the other side repeatedly remind us that the American people have spoken in the last election. They have demanded we withdraw from Iraq, and it is our responsibility to do, as quickly as possible, what they have bid us to do. But is that our primary responsibility? Really, Mr. President, is that how we construe our role: to follow without question popular opinion even if we believe it to be in error, and likely to endanger the security of the country we have sworn to defend? Surely, we must be responsive to the people who have elected us to office, and who, if it is their wish, will remove us when they become unsatisfied with our failure to heed their demands. I understand that, of course. And I understand why so many Americans have become sick and tired of this war, given the many, many mistakes made by civilian and military leaders in its prosecution. I, too, have been made sick at heart by these mistakes and the terrible price we have paid for them. But I cannot react to these mistakes by embracing a course of action that I know will be an even greater mistake, a mistake of colossal historical proportions, which will -- and I am as sure of this as I am of anything – seriously endanger the people I represent and the country I have served all my adult life. I have many responsibilities to the people of Arizona, and to all Americans. I take them all seriously, Mr. President, or try to. But I have one responsibility that outweighs all the others – and that is to do everything in my power, to use whatever meager talents I posses, and every resource God has granted me to protect the security of this great and good nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. And that I intend to do, Mr. President, even if I must stand athwart popular opinion. I will explain my reasons to the American people. I will attempt to convince as many of my countrymen as I can that we must show even greater patience, though our patience is nearly exhausted, and that as long as there is a prospect for not losing this war, then we must not choose to lose it. That is how I construe my responsibility to my constituency and my country. That is how I construed it yesterday. It is how I construe it today. And it is how I will construe it tomorrow. I do not know how I could choose any other course.

I cannot be certain that I possess the skills to be persuasive. I cannot be certain that even if I could convince Americans to give General Petraeus the time he needs to determine whether we can prevail, that we will prevail in Iraq. All I am certain of is that our defeat there would be catastrophic, not just for Iraq, but for us, and that I cannot be complicit in it, but must do whatever I can, whether I am effective or not, to help us try to avert it. That, Mr. President, is all I can possibly offer my country at this time. It is not much compared to the sacrifices made by Americans who have volunteered to shoulder a rifle and fight this war for us. I know that, and am humbled by it, as we all are. But though my duty is neither dangerous nor onerous, it compels me nonetheless to say to my colleagues and to all Americans who disagree with me: that as long as we have a chance to succeed we must try to succeed.

I am privileged, as we all are, to be subject to the judgment of the American people and history. But, my friends, they are not always the same judgment. The verdict of the people will arrive long before history’s. I am unlikely to ever know how history has judged us in this hour. The public’s judgment of me I will know soon enough. I will accept it, as I must. But whether it is favorable or unforgiving, I will stand where I stand, and take comfort from my confidence that I took my responsibilities to my country seriously, and despite the mistakes I have made as a public servant and the flaws I have as an advocate, I tried as best I could to help the country we all love remain as safe as she could be in an hour of serious peril.

North Korea Nukes: Happy Days Are Here Again!

Hopeful days indeed when it comes to North Korean nukes: 

N. Korea Agrees to Agree to Previous Nuke Agreement

Iran and North Korea: Friends 4ever

Isn't that nice?  Iran and North Korea have agreed to "step up coooperation" with each other.

Good thing neither country poses a nuclear threat to the international community, or I'd be worried!

Condoleeza Rice Has Weight of the World on Her Shoulders

The Associated Press reports that U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is trying to prevent a nuclear arms race in the wake of North Korea's nuclear weapons test:

TOKYO - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is seeking to tamp down any desire on the part of South Korea or Japan to engage in a nuclear arms race with North Korea.

The United States is concerned that Japan and South Korea may want to develop their own nuclear weapons programs to counter the threat from North Korea. Part of Rice's assignment on this week's hastily arranged trip to China, Russia, Japan and South Korea is to lessen that temptation by reaffirming the U.S. intention to defend the two nations most at risk.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has ruled out developing nuclear weapons, but a ruling party policy director raised that possibility soon after the North's Oct. 9 test.

Shortly before Rice arrived Wednesday for meetings with Foreign Minister Taro Aso and other Japanese officials, Aso said Japan should openly discuss whether it wants to possess nuclear weapons.

He told a parliamentary committee the government has no plans to stray from its post-World War II policy of not allowing nuclear bombs on Japanese soil, "But I think it is important to discuss the issue."

Speaking to reporters Tuesday en route to Japan, Rice said North Korea's recent underground nuclear test "does carry with it the potential for instability in the relationships that now exist in the region."

"That's why it's extremely important to go out and to affirm, and affirm strongly, U.S. defense commitments to Japan and to South Korea," Rice said.

Halting nuclear proliferation is one of the most difficult, and most important, assignments that you could hand to any Secretary of State, or to any world leader for that matter. 

And yet, if the U.S. must play the role of trying to stuff the nuclear genie back into the bottle, then I am glad that Condoleeza Rice is helping to lead that effort.  Dr. Rice is intelligent; she is hard-working; she is determined; and she has more than a lick of common sense.  I can imagine many other people far less qualified for this nearly impossible job who might have been appointed by a different president.  Not only can I imagine them; I can remember some of them. 

We are fortunate to have a president who is not afraid to surround himself with highly qualified people.  Any leader can handle the good times, but in a crisis, it's nice to have some leaders with gravitas.

John Kerry's Pretzel-Shaped Logic on North Korea

Perpetual presidential wanna-be John Kerry has twisted himself into the shape of a pretzel with his latest remarks on North Korea's nuclear weapons.  AJ Strata explains.

The gist of Kerry's "logic" seems to be that if we had just looked the other way when North Korea started to develop nuclear weapons . . . North Korea wouldn't have developed nuclear weapons.

Huh?

Surrendering to Nuclear Proliferation

The U.N. and the international community have quietly surrendered -- in the war on nuclear proliferation.  The IAEA says that up to 30 countries, not just nine, could soon have nuclear weapons capability.

This is the same IAEA that urged patience, patience, patience, senseless, endless patience in dealing with Iran -- which is one of the countries that will likely soon demonstrate its nuclear weapons capability.  Remember, Iran's parliament shouted "Death to America!" on the day that it voted to resume uranium enrichment.

Gateway Pundit has more of the disturbing details.

Notice that the U.N. resolution specifically does not include taking any direct action to disarm North Korea.  A nuclear-weapons armed North Korea is "unacceptable" and "intolerable" -- and yet it is.

With the war to prevent nuclear proliferation soon to be lost, we need nuclear missile defense more than ever.  We need secure borders more than ever. 

Without missile defense, millions of innocent civilians can be annihilated from the sky on the whim of any nut or power-mad world leader. 

Without secure borders, nuclear death and misery can be delivered by suitcase bomb. 

This is the world in which we live, like it or not.  Not everyone on earth respects innocent life.  Not everyone on earth is civilized.  Not everyone is sane.

Relying on mutually assured destruction is just silly in this day and age.  Death can come from any one of 30 different directions, and may easily be delivered anonymously, just as the 9/11 attack was delivered anonymously, forcing the U.S. and other nations to sort it out bit by bit and leaving room for conspiracy nuts, anti-Americans, and Islamists to deny -- some to this day -- that Al Qaeda's Islamic terrorists committed that vile series of atrocities.

There is no such thing as mutually assured destruction anymore.  Nor is "give peace a chance" going to get you anywhere with Iran, or North Korea, or another 10 or 20 or more tyrannies, rogue states, and terrorist gangs.

Preventing nuclear proliferation has failed.  Therefore, we in America and the civilized world must defend ourselves against nuclear weapons attack, and it had better become a top national priority in a hurry -- if we want to have a nation in 20 years.

Bet your life on the sanity of madmen and you will soon have no life left to bet with.

U.N. Security Council Voted to Sanction North Korea -- Or Did It?

You've probably heard that the U.N. Security Council has voted to impose sanctions against North Korea.

Maybe the AP got the story wrong, though, because Scrappleface says the U.N. was poised to impose "positive" sanctions on Kim Jong-Il and "catch him doing something right."

North Korea Says it Detonated Nuclear Bomb

Thanks, U.N. Security Council.

Thanks, Clinton Administration.

All that Clinton-era appeasement of North Korea, followed by the U.N.'s toothless "diplomatic pressure" on North Korea to halt its nuclear weapons program, ignoring calls by the United States for more robust action, really paid off!

Or not.

Actually, it paid off about as well as diplomacy, unbacked by action, usually pays off.  North Korea says it has detonated its first nuclear bomb.

SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea said Monday it had performed its first-ever nuclear weapons test, setting off an underground blast in defiance of international warnings and intense diplomatic activity aimed at heading off such a move.

The North Korean statement said there was no radioactive leakage from the test site.

An official at South Korea's seismic monitoring center confirmed a magnitude-3.6 tremor felt at the time North Korea said it conducted the test was not a natural occurrence. The official spoke to The Associated Press on condition his name not be used, because he was not authorized to talk about the sensitive information to the media.

Australia also said there was seismic confirmation that North Korea conducted a nuclear test.

However, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said that information still needs to be collected and analyzed to determine whether North Korea truly conducted its first nuclear test.

Japan's top government spokesman said if confirmed, the North Korean test would post a serious threat to the stability in the region and a provocation.

China, the North's closest ally, said Beijing "resolutely opposes" the North Korean nuclear test and hopes Pyongyang will return to disarmament talks.

U.S. and South Korean officials could not immediately confirm the report.

South Korea's Defense Ministry said the alert level of the military had been raised in response to the claimed nuclear test.

The U.N. Security Council is expected to discuss the reported North Korean test on Monday, and the United States and Japan are likely to press for a resolution imposing additional sanctions on Pyongyang.

A resolution adopted in July after a series of North Korean missile launches imposed limited sanctions on North Korea and demanded that the reclusive communist nation suspend its ballistic missile program — a demand the North immediately rejected.

The resolution bans all U.N. member states from selling material or technology for missiles or weapons of mass destruction to North Korea — and it bans all countries from receiving missiles, banned weapons or technology from Pyongyang.

The North said last week it would conduct a test, sparking regional concern and frantic diplomatic efforts aimed at dissuading Pyongyang from such a move. North Korea has long claimed to have nuclear weapons, but had never before performed a known test to prove its arsenal.

I can't wait to see how the U.N. Security Council continues to talk after Iran's first nuclear test, which could arrive any day now.  The U.N. has quite a track record of talking about Iran's nuclear program.

Meanwhile, nuclear proliferation:  It's breaking out all over.

Now all that stands between Iran and a nuclear weapon is the ability to purchase one from North Korea.  Add to that the chilling fact that Iranian observers -- mainly scientists and engineers - were present when North Korea tested its intercontinental-range missiles on July 4th.

With only the ability of oil-rich Iran to buy nuclear weapons from cash-strapped North Korea now standing between Iran and the nuclear bomb, those who trumpeted the claim that Iran was at least 5 or even 10 years away from acquiring a nuclear weapon have now been proven wrong. 

Those who wrongly or misleadingly claimed that Iran was at least 10 years from being able to acquire a nuclear weapon include the New York Times; the Washington Post (based on -- guess what? -- a National Intelligence Estimate of 2005; I guess those National Intelligence Estimates aren't as reliable as some Democrats have portrayed them to be); the BBC; the leftist website AMERICAblog; and NPR.  There are others; but this list will do for starters.

Will you ever accept the advice of any of these sources on matters of national security again?  If so, why? 

This might be a good time to review my earlier post discussing Buster Foghorn's excellent indictment of the media for lacking a sense of urgency and importance.  While North Korea prepared for its nuclear weapons test, where did the mainstream media point your attention?  Which story was the subject of an astonishing 103 stories on ABC, CBS and NBC last week?  If there is such a thing as media malpractice, you've just witnessed it.

So where are we?

The international community has proven unwilling or unable to halt nuclear proliferation in our time.

As a result, the United States and other decent nations must become deadly serious about nuclear missile defense.  Such missile defense programs deserve substantial resources.  There is no trustworthy alternative. 

Great nations will fall if we get this one wrong.

Sadly, as Ace of Spades points out, Democrats have tried time and time again to delay, kill, and gut the U.S. missile defense program. 

Now that tyrants, terrorists, and madmen are arming themselves with nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them, there is no such thing as mutually assured destruction.

If we do not provide for nuclear missile defense, the only assured destruction will be our own.

____________________________________

More coverage of the news at Fox News and CNN

More commentary at Stop the ACLU, Gateway Pundit, Michelle Malkin, The Yelling Box, Mary Katharine Ham, Texas Rainmaker, Riehl World View, Blue Star Chronicles, RightWinged, Flopping Aces, The Political Pit Bull, Blogs for Bush, Pink Flamingo Bar, Wizbang

What if North Korea Just Sells Iran a Nuke? Or Already Has?

Investors Business Daily asks an important question:

What if North Korea just sells Iran a nuclear weapon?

If that question isn't chilling enough, try this one:

What if it North Korea already has?

Here's an excerpt from IBD:

Axis Of Evil: The West, distracted by current events and thinking there's still time, seems to have lost focus regarding Iran's nuclear and missile programs. But what if North Korea just sells Tehran a nuke?

Assistant Secretary of State Chris Hill has confirmed in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Iranian observers — mainly scientists and engineers — witnessed the July 4 North Korean missile barrage, including a test of the intercontinental-range Taepodong-2C.

Asked if Iranians were present, Hill, who is chief U.S. negotiator with Pyongyang, replied: "Yes, that is my understanding." Then, in one of the great understatements of all time, he noted: "Our understanding is that North Korea has had a number of commercial relations in the Middle East with respect to missiles." Really.

In November 2002, U.S. intelligence began to track the So Sang, a vessel of unknown registry that had paid a visit to North Korea. Its journey to Yemen was interrupted by Spanish commandos, operating in conjunction with American authorities, who found 15 Scud-B missiles hidden under sacks of concrete.

The missiles were secretly purchased by the Yemeni government, part of North Korean missile trade estimated to bring in $500 million a year. Egypt, Libya and, yes, Syria, have been major customers of North Korean missile and related technology.

Some analysts said the July 4 failure of the Taepodong proved North Korean missile technology was overrated. But perhaps that launch was just a smoke screen, with the real test, for the Iranians' benefit, being of the ability to rapidly deploy and launch the shorter-range Scuds and Nodongs in a tactical combat environment that Tehran would face in a confrontation with the West.

IBD is right.  Those who downplayed the threat from Iran by arguing that Iran could not possibly acquire nuclear weapons for another five or ten years are now demonstrably wrong, and those of us who argued in late 2005 that the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran was imminent, if not already realized, were right. 

It is well within Iran's capability to purchase nuclear weapons from North Korea.  In fact, Iran may already have done so.

U.N. Imposes "Limited" Sanctions; N. Korea Shrugs It Off

The U.N. has voted to impose "limited" sanctions on North Korea, consisting of a ban on U.N. member states from selling material or technology for missiles or weapons of mass destruction to North Korea, and from receiving missiles, banned weapons or technology from Pyongyang.

But in "record time" of 45 minutes from the announcement of U.N. sanctions, North Korea immediately rejected the resolution and vowed to launch more missiles.

Today's Top Reads (Updated)

Here are some top reads today:

The War Comes to Us
     Iran is deliberately drawing Israel and the West into war

Israel's Existence at Stake
     You don't have to be a historian to understand the intent of Israel's enemies

The Vatican Rag
     The Vatican blames Israel for defending itself

Knowing the Enemy
    When Israel withdrew from Gaza, the Palestinian movement should have dawned

Connecting the Dots on Islam
     Are Islam and jihad inseparable?

Rove Secretly Runs the New York Times
     This cries out for an investigation

Oliver North:  The Summer of Our Discontent
     Democracy is under assault

Kim Jong Il, Rocket Man
     Time to defuse him

Hezbollah "Ready For Open War" (Warning: mild strong language)
     Open war would be a nice change of pace for the cowards

Not a Happy Day in the Worldwide War on Terror

This is not a happy day in the worldwide war on terror.  First an overview, then the details.

Hundreds are dead or injured and thousands are suffering in the aftermath of coordinated rush-hour train attacks in India.  Hezbollah is continuing to wage a low-level war on Israel, and Israel is fighting back more aggressively this time after two additional soldiers have been abducted and others were killed.  The U.N. is slowly moving toward admitting the obvious about Iran -- that it is building nuclear weapons full-speed ahead and must be stopped.  And the speed of the U.N.'s learning curve on North Korea is perhaps slightly faster -- which still means that it is glacial.

~~~

Israel:  We seem to have all-out war now between Israel and its terrorist persecutors, including Hezbollah.  Details in the AP report; CNN has more.  Today Israeli fighter jets attacked the Beruit International Airport.  In the long run, all-out war may be the only path to lasting peace, assuming that Israel prevails.  Israel has largely stayed its hand militarily for many years.  We see where that extreme forbearance has gotten Israel -- its innocent men, women and children have been tormented, killed and maimed year after year.  Something had to give.

Iran:  AP reports that world powers have agreed to send Iran before the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.  In the meantime, Iran is of course continuing forward with its nuclear program, full speed ahead.  U.N.'s "action" today, while seeming more decisive than its recent months of total inaction, is still just talk in the final analysis.  The U.N. will likely continue to do nothing but talk, in one form or another, until after Iran has already detonated a nuclear weapon or two.  After that, the U.N. will not spring into action, either.  It will fall into stunned silence or mutual finger-pointing, or both.  Obviously, I hope that the U.N. will come to its senses before then, but I am not optimistic at this point.

North Korea:  China and Russia are reluctant to penalize North Korea for its missile tests and threats to world security.  They have submitted a watered down resolution to the U.N.  France wants a "very strict" statement denouncing the missile launches before further action is taken.  Japan and the U.S. are continuing to press for a resolution that includes sanctions.

India:  At least 185 are dead and more than 700 were hurt in the Mumbai (Bombay) train bombings.  Police are detaining hundreds of people for questioning.  The bombings occurred during rush hour in Tuesday evening, when trains were packed with commuters going home.

~~~

And that, my friends, is another day in the worldwide war on terror.

Who's winning in the war on terror, by the way?

Since it is action, not talk, that wins wars, only those nations that have the willingness to fight have any chance of winning in the war on terror.  I guess that means that, just for today, Israel is winning -- but Iran is also winning, North Korea is winning, and the terrorists who attacked India are winning.

The decent, civilized nations of the world need to move much more rapidly.

What the New York Times Didn't Tell You About North Korea

Did you know that the nuclear-weapons-arming, missile-launching rogue regime in North Korea also has been operating a grand-scale counterfeiting operation that may have put tens of millions of high-quality, phony $100 bills into circulation in an effort to destroy the value of American currency?

And did you know that the New York Times is using the White House's understandable problem with North Korea's little counterfeiting operation as an excuse to blame George Bush -- in a backhanded way, of course -- for having failing to "reanimate" the "diplomacy" with North Korea? 

Fortunately, Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters has the whole back story for you.  Read it.  It's fascinating and insightful.

If you relied solely on the New York Times for your understanding of world events, you'd be very poorly informed indeed. 

Once again, in covering the North Korean threat (without telling you the whole story) the New York Times refers to "diplomacy" as the magic wand that will supposedly solve the North Korean problem and presumably every other world problem without resort to war -- if only that diplomacy were practiced in a sufficiently "considered," sophisticated, skillful, and -- dare we say -- nuanced way.

Ah, diplomacy!  Sophisticated diplomacy.  If only!  One can almost hear the editors of the New York Times sighing.  If only!  If only a skillful, diplomatically nuanced Democratic president were in the White House!

And yet we saw just how much, and how little, the finest skills of leftist diplomacy accomplished when practiced in the real world by the two most recent Democratic presidents.

That "master persuader" Bill Clinton somehow failed to prevent the deadly attack on the U.S.S. Cole, the Khobar Towers attack, a series of embassy attacks, the first World Trade Center attack, and the planning of September 11th attack.  We know what an utter failure were Clinton's efforts to prevent North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. 

And as for Jimmy Carter -- don't get me started.  Remember "America Held Hostage," anyone?

If even supposedly skillful persuaders like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter were unable to prevent the advance of dangerous terrorist and rogue regimes through diplomacy, is it possible that diplomacy is not a magic wand, no matter how skillfully practiced?

Could it be that sometimes you have to use the carrot, the stick, or both?

But don't tell any of this to the editors of the New York Times.  It might interfere with their war effort.

The War on Bush, that is.

North Korea

North Korea is stirring things up with no less than seven missile launches, including a long-range missile.  Some believe it is no accident that North Korea and Iran are both saber-rattling at the same time.

Active U.S. development and deployment of a missile defense program is now mandatory.