As you know, the North Koreans launched their deadly ICBM this week — the one our entire political office-holding class has been obsessing about for weeks on end. Turns out the missile that was supposed to be capable of reaching the U.S. couldn’t even make it to North Korea. Essentially the same thing happened back in the 1990s – dud missile makes world headlines and puts NORAD on high alert for a fortnight. Why is this treated like a credible threat to our very survival? Yes, North Korea may have nuclear weapons, but what the hell are they going to do with them? 
Even if that long-range missile worked, they couldn’t put their nukes on it… and even if they could, firing one at us or our allies would be like firing a pistol at a machine gun nest — a “suicide weapon” in the truest sense of the phrase. It is strange that we tend to behave as though we are threatened by these impoverished societies when, in fact, it is we who pose an existential threat to them. And we’ve demonstrated our willingness to attack without provocation.
Unfortunately, this tendency towards jingoistic alarmism is unlikely to change should Congress flip back to the Democrats this year, or if a Dem is elected to the presidency in 2008. There is a bipartisan consensus on this idiocy such that the party that’s out of power is always pushing the ruling party towards more extreme measures. Just as Kerry criticized Bush in 2004 for not hitting Fallujah hard enough, mainstream Democrats regularly chastise the administration for being too soft on Iran, North Korea, Syria, etc. Everybody wants to go for the “tough” guy routine – it’s a no-brainer in an election year (quite literally). Some of the stuff I hear Hillary Clinton saying is enough to make me want to picket her office and burn her publicity photo. You’d think a Senator would feel it less necessary to hew to a reactionary line in a state that’s one of the nation’s most liberal. 
Trouble is, she really believes that trash she’s talking, aging Goldwater girl that she is.
When you’ve got support for the Iraq war at well below 50%, you have to wonder why so many Democrats are avoiding the issue like a new strain of the SARS virus. Why is a conservative Dem like John Murtha among the only ones saying anything substantive about this conflict? My guess is that they’re looking around the next electoral corner. They, in essence, are still trying to inoculate themselves against being on the wrong side of a victorious campaign, just as they tried to do during the 2002 election. Many, I’m sure, still believe in this war in as much as they think it is a worthy cause that’s being ineptly handled, rather than a bankrupt enterprise that is bad for Iraq and bad for us. About the only ones who still love this war are Dubya’s crew and Osama.
Hey – both need recruits, right?
