Tags: Rex Tillerson Kim Jong II Strategic patience Donald Trump Bill Clinton Madeleine Albright Condi Rice Dick Cheney
REX, WITH NORTH KOREA, STRATEGIC SAVVY, NOT STRATEGIC PATIENCE!
We are Crazy, so Waltz Me Around Again Willy!
Jiri Valenta with Leni Friedman Valenta
Updated April 30, 2017
A few weeks ago, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson proclaimed the ending of the doctrine of strategic patience with rogue regimes like nuclear North Korea. At the U.N., however, he seemed to be suggesting we can seek a resolution of the crisis through economic pressure and diplomacy. In response, the North Korean regime fired a ballistic missile. It exploded but the response tells all about the North Korean willingness to find any meaningful compromise. We’ve tried such solutions for a few decades. They have not worked.
The basic theme of North Korean response can be posited as “We are crazy, so, Waltz me around again Willie.” The dictators, father and son, only used our diplomacy as a respite to advance their nuclear and ballistic missiles programs. In our view, more negotiation will be interpreted by both North Korea and Iran as more of Obama’s strategic patience.
Yes, this time China is more helpful. Donald, Secretary of Defense Mattis and NSA H.R. McMaster deserve credit for using the attack on the Syrian airport in the midst of dinner with the Chinese president to change Chinese perceptions. They do have economic clout with North Korea. Although we are not convinced Beijing wants to replace the friendly communist regime on its borders with another South Korean-type one, they are already convinced them that freezing North Korea’s testing of nuclear weapons is in their interests.
Don´t we know the steps of this U.S. - North Korean waltz by now? Menacing threats against democratic U.S. allies, South Korea and/or Japan, while testing WMD or its delivery system. “We are crazy,” is the implicit message, “and you better send a high level person to mollify us and give our starving country (above all its nomenclature and military) economic aid.”
President Clinton fell into the trap after sending special envoy Jimmy Carter to Pyongyang in 1994. In October 2000, he sent Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Her successor, Condi Rice, described Albright’s mission rather unkindly as her “… somewhat infamous visit…” complete with a stadium presentation of more than 100,000 North Koreans in a “cultural performance…” intended to invoke a presidential visit. But the intended goal of verifying U.N. inspections of nuclear development and turning over spent fuel rods was not achieved.
In October 2008, before the presidential election, the North Korean dictator tried to lure another high envoy into his hermit kingdom. President Bush initially rejected that option. “No! That would really legitimize him!”
But Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, nevertheless dittoed Madeleine’s mistake. She drew criticism from Vice President Dick Cheney on how she tried to reach a nuclear weapons agreement with North Korea. He recorded Rice saying to Bush, ‘“Mr. President, this is just the way diplomacy works sometimes. You don´t always get a written agreement.”’
Calling Rice´s advice on this issue “utterly misleading,” Cheney further complained that she made "... concession after concession to North Korea and turned a blind eye to their misdeeds.”
Sadly, some of her proposals were approved by Bush. North Korea was removed by Rice from the State Department´s list of terrorist-sponsoring states! “It was a sad moment,” commented Cheney, reversal of so much of what we had accomplished in the area of non-proliferation in the first term.”. Recalled Bush’s defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, “Rice and Ambassador Christopher Hill, [the diplomat who convinced Condi to appease North Korea and is now pontificating on American TV], seemed to believe they could obtain North Korea’s agreement to end its WMD programs.”
In 2014, President Obama sent DNI James Clapper on a secret, mission to North Korea, ostensibly to secure the release of two hostages, which he did. But we still don´t know all the details of the presidential message. What was he negotiating about? Was it once again waltz me around again Willy?
Rex Tillerson must not repeat the mistake of the other two secretaries of state. Rather than giving in to their usual pattern of blackmail, hostage-taking, promises, withdrawal from negotiations, U.S. high level visits, resumption of negotiations, more lies and more threats. Trump and his top team are surely looking at options, while they sit out this dance. We hope they are drafting other options -- something similar to what Bill Clinton seriously considered before he sent Madeleine Albright to waltz with Willy.
Our chosen option must be framed by strategic savvy, rather than going back to strategic patience. Besides strong economic measures in combination with China, we have only three options. One is to dismantle the North Korean nuclear program in a single, massive surprise strike. . However this option is extremely dangerous and very costly.
A second one is to freeze North Korea’s nuclear testing by preventive cyber warfare or other very limited, military means such as a strike on the launching pad and hope they get the message. This is unlikely to provoke an attack on Seoul. The young dictator likes his power, big parades, his wife, the food that his skinny people never get, and killing an occasional relative now and then. He doesn’t want to die and he knows if he attacks Seoul, he will.
The third option is bankrupt --strategic patience.If we simply engage in in negotiation with North Korea before showing we mean business, they will cheat, and will also continue aiding Iran in their own development of nuclear weapons and deliveries systems. The decision to negotiate will be surely interpreted by foes and friends as continuation of Obama ‘s strategic patience. Strategic savvy dictates we must not allow North Korea to continue their nuclear testing.
NO MORE WALTZES PLEASE, WILLY!
Las Vegas music fans fleeing Las Vegas Shooter Stephen Paddock
JVLV: TWENTY QUESTIONS ABOUT LAS VEGAS SHOOTER, STEPHEN PADDOCK THE FBI MUST ANSWER!
Jiri Valenta and Leni Friedman Valenta
October 5, 2017
We don’t have an answer to the key question, who really is Stephen Paddock,the shooter of the Las Vegas massacre. ISIS claims he is their follower. The FBI, however, denies that he had any connection with ISIS. They might well be right; however, this early on, it would have been more prudent to say they were “investigating.” While we greatly admire this organization, we hope they can answer the following questions as soon as possible:
1. Why is ISIS claiming that Mr. Paddock was one of their own, with the Arabic name, Abdul Barr al-Ameriki, How reliable is their claim?
2. Reports are that Paddock was gone for several months. Where did he go? Did he travel abroad?
3. Why and how did Stephen Paddock accumulate dozens of semi-automatic weapons and explosives and keep them in his home?
4. How did he manage to transport 23 weapons to his room at the Mandalay Bay Resort . Did anyone help him?
5. Where did Paddock learn how to modify AR-15’s into fully automatic weapons if he had no military training as alleged?
6. Why did he also possess explosives like tannerite and amonium nitrate which can be used to make bombs? ]
7. Where did he acquire the sophistication, noted by newscasters, to utilize the most effective logistics, including the best vantage point, for his deadly mission?
8. Why did it take so long for us to learn that the police reportedly discovered two computers in his hotel room and what have the police learned from them?
9. Why did it take many hours before we were told that the Swat team had to open his door by force and one of the officers was injured trying to open it?
10. Did police discover other computers or any material evidence including publications that would enlighten us more about the shooter?
11. Mr. Paddock spent four days preparing the attack in the hotel. What did the FBI learn if anything from his telephone calls and e-mails or encounters with other hotel guests if any?
12. When did his live-in girlfriend, Marilou Danley, travel abroad, presumably to the Philippines. Was her departure timed to the planned attack? Wasn’t she aware of the many household weapons?
13. Why do police disclaim Danley’s involvement, since he used her ID to book his hotel room? Is she American or a Philippino, coming from a country with a Muslim minority as has been reported?
14. Was Mr. Paddock’s brother, who has appeared many times on television, and made some unusual comments about his brother, questioned by the FBI? Did he ever visit his brother’s home?
15. How accurate are reports about Mr. Paddock’s being a retired millionaire and hi-roller gambler? Is his gambling a factor in the case?
16. Has the brother explained why Paddock had so many guns for “hunting?”
17. Is Breitbart right for ripping into Trump that the White House now tends to report very cautiously about Islamist terrorism and even, like Obama previously, now avoids using the term?”
18. If there has been a policy change on the term, who is behind it?
19. Why is ISIS vehemently contradicting the FBI’s claims of Paddock’s non-involvement with them. What about their claim that he converted to Islam some months ago? What about the map ISIS distributed linking attacks in Canada, Marseilles and Las Vegas?
20. If Paddock is not allied with ISIS, what was his motive? People who snap don’t usually undertake long preparation. What does the careful pre-planning of the attack and the certain knowledge of it being a suicide mission, tell us about Paddock?
We hope the answers are forthcoming soon. America is waiting!
Unafraid, Bipartisan, Uphold U.S. and Freedom
Mourner attending memorial service after Las Vegas shooting October 1, 2017
Tags: Bashar al Assad Donald Trump and Syria Richard Lloyd Report Seymour Hersh Whose Sarin? Putin