Rumsfeld's at it again!

[dsm]

Well, now that Iraq's military has been "pacified", attention can turn to North Korea:

US draws up plan to bomb North Korea's nuclear plant

It seems that Rumsfeld thinks that the only good military is a military that's in use:

The second plan, contained in a classified memo reportedly circulated by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, argues that Washington's goal should be the collapse of Kim Jong-il's regime.

And we still have almost two years until we can vote them out of office...

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Sounds good to me...

Downer told ABC radio on Tuesday that the Pentagon undoubtedly had "contingency plans for all sorts of things they could do in North Korea, militarily."That's the military's job, to draw up contingency plans, but the American administration strategy, as the President explained to me three weeks ago, is to ensure that there is a successful diplomatic solution here," he added.

How do you think it works?

We just tell a B-52 crew to " ....saddle up, we'll give you the details when you are at 40,000 feet"...

 

[Supercharts]

"Citing "well-informed sources close to US thinking", The Australian newspaper said the plan also included a US strike against North Korean heavy artillery in the hills above the border with South Korea "

A_U_P works for the Australian media?

 

[dsm]

How do you think it works?

Contingency plans from the military planners in the Pentagon is one thing. Political goals from the President's cabinet is another thing entirely. Publicly, they've been saying that they have no plans to attack North Korea, but, obviously emboldened by military success in Iraq, Rumsfeld is considering different ideas.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Political goals from the President's cabinet ...

You mean politicians and administrations, have political policies and goals the wish to see implemented?

Is this anything like an agenda?

You mean nobody else has one?

 

[dsm]

You mean nobody else has one?

The missing word is "coherent".

Just as they should've asked it in the case of Saddam, if they overthrow Kim Jong-Il, then what?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Publicly, they've been saying that they have no plans to attack North Korea....

Are you really that naive?

There are plans and there are Plans..

Can you imagine that there might be plans (blueprints) to build a house, but no one with actual ' plans ' to build that house. No money, changed their minds, etc...


That aside, politicians lie. Surprised?

 

[Michael Redman]

It would be foolish for the Depertment of Defense to not even consider plans to attack all possible threats that may arise in the forseable future. This sounds like contingency planning to me, not the intended course of the administration.

I hope.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The missing word is "coherent".

Just as they should've asked it in the case of Saddam, if they overthrow Kim Jong-Il, then what?

The only sure thing.. No more Kim Jong-Il.. It's a start.

But he has nothing to worry about, unless he decides to camp out at a certain nuclear power plant...

 

[dsm]

There are plans and there are Plans..

Don't be naive -- of course that's understood.

That aside, politicians lie. Surprised?

No. It's the naivete of the Administration that showed itself in the handling of Iraq that is rearing it's head again in the handling of North Korea. It's obvious that Rumsfeld (and possibly Cheney) believes in "gunboat diplomacy" and has signficant access to Bush (I'm still not sure of his beliefs). Last time, we were lucky that Iraq didn't have a credible WMD infrastructure to employ. This time, we know that North Korea has the WMDs and are already nervous about a US invasion. Most likely the US military would be able to handle North Korea, but what would the "fallout" be and what happens after that?

 

[Nately]

Stories like this come out every once and awhile, and they miss the point every time.

The US has been preparing for a second North Korean invasion of the South for the last 50 years. There are "plans" to bomb all kinds of targets in North Korea. It's not a surprise that the US military has thought about how they would go about striking Yongbyon. And during times of crisis, it's also not surprising that plans for military responses are made. If things go sour in a hurry and the President asks about his military options, you don't want to be the guy that has to say "Uh, we hadn't really thought about that."

There are plans in existence for all kinds of operations, both likely and unlikely. Sometimes plans are drawn up just for the practice. In fact, I think the US Army drew up a detailed plan for invading Canada back in the 20's or 30's. There was obviously no intention to do so, but it provided a scenario in which to work.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Last time, we were lucky that Iraq didn't have a credible WMD infrastructure to employ.

Really?

Tell this to everyone who is all in a twist because we haven't found a credible WMD infrastructure..


You can't please anyone..

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Stories like this come out every once and awhile, and they miss the point every time. snip...

Thanks for taking the time to put this together..

I know sometimes it's hard to tell, but some of us actually understand some of this...

 

[LTC8K6]

We have plans to attack all sorts of countries in all sorts of ways.

Even our present allies.

We have plans to take out all manner of targets all over the world.

Hopefully, the vast majority of these plans will never have to be brought out, dusted off, and freshened up.

It would be incredibly naive not to have them, imo.

The world scene is ever changing, and you can never tell what will happen next with your enemies or your allies.

 

[dsm]

There are plans in existence for all kinds of operations, both likely and unlikely.

The existence of "plans" is not the point. The question is the "goals" of the Administration and are they well thought out. They may have won the war in Iraq, but they stand a good chance of loosing the peace. Are they going to try for a repeat in North Korea?

 

[dsm]

Really?

Tell this to everyone who is all in a twist because we haven't found a credible WMD infrastructure..

You can't please anyone..

Ummm. Your point?

Iraq said that it didn't have WMD. The US never knew for sure that they did, but the US assumed Iraq did and attacked with that in mind. So far, no credible "smoking gun" has been found, so the US has been lucky in that the consequences of fighting a country that has and will use WMDs has not happened.

Would we be so lucky with North Korea where everyone already knows they have WMDs?

 

[Skeptic]

So? It's a CONTINGENCY plan. That's part of the pentagon's job. No doubt, during the cold war, there were many plans drawn up on how exactly to bomb Russian nuclear plants in case of war, too--in fact, it would have been a serious blunder if they didn't exist. This doesn't mean the contingency of such a war was hoped for.

As George Carlin said, "if Easter Island gives the US some s--t tomorrow, there's a plan in the pentagon somewhere how to take out Easter Island". Probably true. That hardly means, however, that that's what the US WANTS to do.

 

[dsm]

So? It's a CONTINGENCY plan.

Read the quote again. Rumsfeld is saying that "Washington's goal should be the collapse of Kim Jong-il's regime". That's not a contingency plan -- that's a step in establishing political policy!

 

[DrBenway]

Contingency plans from the military planners in the Pentagon is one thing. Political goals from the President's cabinet is another thing entirely. Publicly, they've been saying that they have no plans to attack North Korea, but, obviously emboldened by military success in Iraq, Rumsfeld is considering different ideas.

The goal is removal of North Korea's regime. That's been a goal for a very long time. Who doesn't want that crazy bastard gone?

This does not mean that bombing or some other form of military attack is the best means to reach that goal. Bombing is merely one of many options. The most ideal option might be gradual economic reform within NK.

You're wrong to claim that military action in North Korea is, itself, a goal of the US.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

So? It's a CONTINGENCY plan. That's part of the pentagon's job. No doubt, during the cold war, there were many plans drawn up on how exactly to bomb Russian nuclear plants in case of war, too--in fact, it would have been a serious blunder if they didn't exist. This doesn't mean the contingency of such a war was hoped for.

As George Carlin said, "if Easter Island gives the US some s--t tomorrow, there's a plan in the pentagon somewhere how to take out Easter Island". Probably true. That hardly means, however, that that's what the US WANTS to do.

Sounds like my ' plans ' vs 'Plans' theory.. Nice to have it presented in a bit more eloquent manner.. I need all the help I can get.