And then, right on cue, I catch a few minutes of Howard Dean, an unstable conspiracist, clucking and moaning right along with Chris Matthews, a partisan blowhard, about the "mistake" of withdrawing troops from South Korea. Just what in the fuck are they talking about?
One of the "arguments" advanced by the Bush-hating Left in the months leading up to the War for Iraq was that North Korea presented a bigger threat to us than did Saddam. Therefore, they seemed to say, if Bush was going to go to war, why wasn't he doing so against Kim?
That would be because there is no conventional response to the danger of a nuclearized North Korea. How many different ways can that be emphasized to these fucking morons on the Left? Do they actually think that the approximately 37,000 troops we have in South Korea have ever been considered as part of our response to a potential nuclear missile attack? How would that even work? Yes, when Kim didn't have nuclear capabilities (that is, before the Clinton-Albright crowd gave away the store to this fucking misshapen troll), there was a logic to maintaining our conventional forces there because they could provide a defense against a North Korean onslaught on the ground.
But now? Our men and women in and around the DMZ are little more than cannon fodder. Did the fools on the anti-Bush Left ever stop to consider that our troops would be defenseless against a nuclear attack? Why do they have to be told such an obvious thing? Their counter-proposal of dealing with the North Korean problem instead of Saddam was never any such thing. It was an ignorant objection thrown out for the sake of appearing "serious" about the military threats facing us. The Left could say, "We're the ones who are serious about dealing with real threats, not made-up ones in Iraq that only serve the interests of Halliburton or the Neocon cabal or the Illuminati or blah, blah, blah...."
There are only two possible solutions to the threat of a nuclearized North Korea: diplomacy (which really means bribery on a scale far greater than anything even Clinton and Albright imagined) or a devastating and simultaneous pre-emptive strike against every one of Kim's installations. Neither of these solutions can make any use of our ground forces there.
Why is that not understood? How can our withdrawal of troops from a literally untenable situation be anything but right?