are you clear on the fact that Barnett favors a military takedown of Korea akin to our takedown of Saddam? he wants it to be in cooperation with the other 'six parties', especially China, and this is where we cooperate with China and get out of bed with Taiwan. the only way he wants us to 'defuse' the Korean crisis is by 'defusing' Kim Jong Il and his son.
O'Hanlon's entitled to his opinion. like you, i'm sticking with Tom on Iran and China. we really need to get together with these nations. we need a solid player in the Middle East, and China's going to become the next great power. preemption with either of these nations is not an option we even want to have to consider. many of us are squeamish about working closely with 'non-democracies', but the practical needs and emerging future realities demand it. besides, connectivity does amazing things, as we have already seen with Russia and China. if we can play a little ball with some of these 'non-democracies', some kind of both democracy and free-market capitalism will almost certainly break out.
i'm obviously in favor of Tom's version of preemption, which would say you only preempt in the case of politically bankrupt Gap nations, with the approval/endorsement of the UN Security Council and the G20, and with a coalition of partners (especially for the reconstruction).
need any more of my opinion? ;-)
Friday, May 20
Eric's got a post on Preemption that I left a long comment on, so I thought I'd reproduce it over here:
Posted by Sean Meade on Friday, May 20, 2005