This, from David Warren, is a must read:
The reality is that the Bush administration now finds itself in the position of the one adult in a room full of unhappy children. The adult carries responsibilities that none of the children fully understand. A mortal threat presents itself to adult and children alike, but only the adult appreciates this. He must find a way to proceed in spite of the children’s very active non-cooperation.
I realize this is not a flattering account of the spectacle of the “United Nations” at work, but it is unfortunately true. And it is the most useful analogy I have found to guess how the Bush administration must proceed, given the nature of its actual problem — an enemy vowed to the destruction of the West, which will stop at nothing, and must soon be armed with unimaginably lethal weapons and nearly undetectable methods for delivering them.
My impression from speaking with several administration, especially Pentagon, insiders, and by observing what one can discover of the extension of U.S. operations overseas (through the securing of basing and landing rights and other joint agreements), is that we should expect the field struggle against international terrorism to disappear off our television screens. The media have been discovered to be an enemy, pure and simple, and no attempt to brief or include them in operations makes any sense. Indeed, shaking off media attention is now intrinsic to the strategy.
Interesting theory.
Kimmitt
Totally. As a matter of fact, we should dispense with the entire concept of citizen oversight of our government; criticism of Bush’s environmental, economic, or military policies just serves to jog his elbow during this critical moment.
John Cole
I’m not sure he is serious, Kimmitt- I think he was merely pointig out that the media seems to be unconcerned with the reality on the ground.
If you wanted a good example of how to do a report- you should have watched 60 Minutes II. Excellent and, for once, fair and balanced.
Sean
what’s so “unimaginably lethal and nearly undetectable” about guerillas and terrorists with ak-47s, truck bombs, box cutters, or explosive boats? or dog-killing poison gas..
a little paranoid overstatement perhaps? just a tad bit?
oh thats right, you were really talking about North Korea’s unimaginably lethal nuclear weapons. it’s too bad our government isn’t real worried about that. where’s the media to spotlight that when you need em…
JPS
Sean, it doesn’t matter how much they “care” about NK’s nukes, there’s no easy solution guaranteed not to result in millions of deaths. Do nothing? Go to war now? Keep walking some fine line in between? An awful catastrophe results in the worst-case scenario for each option.
Where do we go from here with NK? We shouldn’t be starting from here. Which is why we chose not to let Iraq get into the same position.
Dean
Oh for God’s sake, Sean and the rest of you, just because this Administration doesn’t put EVERY step on the 6PM news does not mean that nobody cares.
If you do more than read the sports page of your local paper, do a search or two online for the travels of Jim Kelly, the State Department guy who’s tracking East Asia. Check out what PACOM (Pacific Command) is doing regarding keeping up readiness in the region.
If you think that the 37,000 troops on the Korean peninsula aren’t keeping an eye on things, if you think that the Administration (not Dubya per se, but those at the operational level) aren’t watching North Korea very closely, then you might want to avoid driving, because your s*** is interfering with your common sense.
Anybody remember a little summit meeting a few weeks ago? One where the NKs announced they had nukes? You might recall that that meeting occurred DESPITE y’all’s yammerings (because, after all, we should go UNILATERAL, rather than MULTILATERAL, imagine that).
But the NKs certainly miscalculated, b/c the Chinese have gotten quite pissed (losing face is a HUGE deal in Asia, and when the Chinese had only a coupla days previously said that North Korea would not develop nukes, the NKs cost them big-time face). And THAT was the point of having a multilateral summit—to see what the NKs would do to undercut their own position.
But because YOU don’t see Maddie Albright being feted in a stadium w/ the Dear Leader, you’re convinced we’re not doing the right thing?
Puh-leeze.
Andrew Lazarus
George Bush and Colin Powell went before the UN and told them many things that turned out not to be true. They initimated that the UN Inspectors were inept dupes who weren’t up to finding the WMD (that we can’t find either) and made it impossible for them to remain in Iraq.
If this is the one adult in a roomful of children, I’d say it’s clearly a case of child abuse.
Dean
Gee, Andrew, but the IAEA has done so well elsewhere, is that it?
How well are they doing in Iran? And what did the IAEA find out in North Korea?
You make it sound like the IAEA has done well, and we’ve done by comparison, when the reality is, we’ve done NO WORSE than they.
But, hey, in both North Korea and Iran, we get a chance to see what your side of the coin has to offer. EU can try to solve the Iran problem (we’re a little stretched, as you no doubt know).
And North Korea? Last time I checked, the Admin has pushed a MULTILATERAL solution, so beloved by your side of the aisle. Let’s see how well that works, shall we?
Andrew Lazarus
Dean, we seem to be talking at cross-purposes.
Even adopting (or perhaps adopting for reductio ad absurdum purposes) the Bush-as-adult metaphor, adults who tell cognizable fibs to children soon lose all respect.
How this relates to when the DPRK resumed its nuclear program escapes me.
Dean
Your comment implies that the Administration was lying about the efficacy of the IAEA inspectors. You would seem to be saying that such comments are unworthy of “adults.” That would, in turn, imply that you believe that the IAEA was, in fact, doing a fine job with nuclear inspections.
My point about Iran and North Korea is that the track record of the IAEA is, in fact, sadly deficient, that they have NOT done their jobs. More importantly, that they have a TRACK RECORD of not doing their jobs, which dates back to before this Administration (and arguably to ’89, in the case of North Korea).
If you want to argue that this ADministration is not comprised of adults, that’s your choice, but basing it on the argument that somehow the Admin has misrepresented the effectiveness of the IAEA inspectors is silly.
Ellen
The analogy here reads Bush as adult, other world leaders at the UN as children? Puh-lease. I’m really trying to keep an open mind here, you know, maintain my independence and all, but sometimes the doublethink gets so thick in here a person can’t breathe.
I’ve been trying to have faith for a long time that Bush just doesn’t comes across as intelligent, and he isn’t actually a dolt. Well, practically the whole damn world told him he was making a mistake invading Iraq, for many good reasons, including Iraq’s lack of threat to other countries. And he’s the adult?? NK could shoot of a nuke in the near future, as much out of spite as anything else, while Bush and the boys stare out over the fence and say how evil they are. Great.
The suggestion that NK having nukes is the fault of the IAEA inspectors sounds hollow. I could be convinced that they missed the boat re Pakistan’s proliferation to Iran and NK, but that still doesn’t make Bush the only adult at the UN. Considering his checkered past dealing with the international community, I think the author got the analogy completely wrong. Bush is the infant at the table, and he needs to grow up, pronto.