Timothy Birdnow

The new buzzword floating around among liberals is containment. As the situation in North Korea ratchets up, the Left is saying our only option is a "policy of containment" and that war is not an option. Take, for example,this work calling for the implementation of such a policy.
"In your newest book, Outlier States, you assert that the best way to deal with North Korea and Iran is a "retooled, updated version of Kennan’s strategy of containment that would decouple the nuclear issue from the question of regime change and rely on internal forces as the agent of societal change." Let’s start with North Korea: Aren’t we already following such a policy?

Our current policy toward North Korea would fall under the containment rubric. But let me provide context. The Obama administration has referred to North Korea and Iran as "outliers," a departure from the George W. Bush moniker of "rogue state." "Rogue" connoted a state that was beyond appeal, essentially irredeemable, and fed into the argumentation that led to the Iraq war. By contrast, the Obama administration moved toward the term "outlier" as a calculated departure, communicating to Iran and North Korea that there was a pathway for them to rejoin the community of nations if they came into compliance with international norms. The dilemma in dealing with both North Korea and Iran is that the nuclear and societal evolution timelines are not in sync. So I advanced a retooled policy of containment as a way of managing this tension, especially since North Korea has now tested nuclear weapons and an early rollback is unlikely. And in the case of Iran, which has demonstrated its mastery of the nuclear fuel cycle that opens the door potentially to nuclear weapons production, a full rollback of its nascent nuclear capabilities is also unlikely. So, this prescription is really making the best of a bad set of options"

End excerpt.

Once again, the Left shows it's complete blubbering stupidity here.

First, George Kennan's concept was problematic at best and led to decades of Cold war. While there are those who claim it worked - the Soviet Union did eventually fall - the fact is the fall occured not because of Containment but rather because the United States decided to compete directly with the Soviets, driving them into bankruptcy. That was all Ronald Reagan; he ignored the advice from the professional diplomat class and started a military buildup that the Soviets simply could not match. His was not a novel approach; there were many people arguing all along that we should do that rather than follow the Kennan policy of "containment" but the foggy brains at Foggy Bottom and inside the State Department did not want to actually rid the world of the Soviet menace.

That said, what exactly was the Kennan policy?

Kennan argued that the Soviet Union was essentially the old Russia overlaid with a Communist veneer, and that, like any expansionistic state, it needed foreign boogeymenh to blame for the suffering of the public at home. If the Communist system failed to produce the goods and services the public needed, someone had to take the blame. The idea was, foreign devils would be at fault - particularly America, who threatened the kindly, peace-loving Soviets. People will suffer a lot to protect their homeland. So the key to Soviet power was to maintain an ever-expanding sphere of influence and thus salve the wounds of the populace with national pride.

Kennan argued that what was needed was an iron ring around the USSR; keep them surrounded, isolated, enclosed and, without an outlet, the contradictions in their system would implode the country. Containment meant exactly that; contain the nation within it's own boundaries.

If this actually did work, it did so because the Soviet Union was the leader of the Warsaw Pact and could not afford to appear weak, and because, as one of the largest countries on Earth with a newly industrialized economy, they needed foregn trade and commerce and diplomatic relations.

Containment was a policy designed specifically for the USSR.

And it was an extremely dangerous policy, as we almost had a nuclear war on several occasions, most notably the Cubam Missile Crisis but on several lesser-known occasions as well. Of course, the policy presupposed a fully armed Russia with a first class military and a nuclear arsenal comparable to our own.

Nothing is analagous with North Korea. North Korea has virtually no foreign trade, little in the way of foreign relations, and is a tiny country with few allies. It needs nothing from us (unlike the Soviets, who bought all manner of goods and even fed it's people with American grain when the collective farms failed, as they did regularly). We don't gain any leverage by containing N. Korea. And North Korea doesn't stay afloat on foreign adventurism so much as childish saber-rattling. There isn't anything to contain EXCEPT the nuclear arsenal, which can only be held in check with missile defense, a defense that may or may not work.

The Soviets had bigger fish to fry, too, and were not willing to go to the mat, risk their country's destruction. Kim Jong Un very likely is. Containment assumed a rational Soviet leadership, which was perfectly sensible as the Soviets always were great believers in logic over all else, including mercy or compassion or familyl. Kim Jong Un, on the other hand, has to be the crazy one, lest he be overthrown.

Question; how do you contain North Korea? We do not have allies in the region, except S. Korea and Japan. The Chinese are not allies and more than likely tacitly approve of Un's behavior as it hurts the U.S., the nation they believe is it's primary competitor. The Russians will oppose us, too, or at least not give us a lot of help.

Meanwhile N. Korea will be giving their technology to Iran, who will distribute it among terrorists, or will be selling it to whosoever has the cash to pay - and they will be more eager than ever, since we'll be tightening the screws via our "containment".

This is one of the worst ideas in a long string of bad ideas coming from the Left. But of course they think it brililant.

Dithering by Presidents who listened to these very liberals has led us to a situation where war may be our only option. These are the guys who got us into this mess. Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., Obama, all were devotees of the policy wonbkism of the Left and listened to the internationalists who promoted these crackpot theories. Now we face a determined enemy willing to die to kill innocent Americans, and all they have to offer is a warmed over failed theory from the Cold War.

Thank GOD Donald Trump is the man in office and not Hillary.

By the way, the Soviet Union was my subject in college, so I am at least somewhat qualified to discuss the concepts here.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 12:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1177 words, total size 7 kb.