I think part of the reason for the difficulty in US dealings with NK and Iran is the resulting enganglement for US policy.
As I argue elsewhere, the Agreed Framework was engangling for both NK and the US. Its one of the reasons we are so limited now-- we painted ourselves into a particular corner where engagement was and remains the only good option.
The Bush folks hate this, as can be seen with their abandonment of not only the AF, but the entire Clinton policy toward NK. But, of course they have not come up with anything better, nor have they been willing to engage in the effort to construct a new alternative.
I think that Kang and Cha make valuable contributions to this debate-- Cha with his arguments for engagements and Kang for his on North Korea's ability to respond to rational deterence.
But, what is at stake here, I think, is a question of US identity politics. Are we the type of country that negotiates with "terrorists" and "illigitimate governments?" Realism (which is quite out of favor now) would say, sure, deal with the world you are in. Or, are we the type of country that stands on principle, is willing to break a few eggs to make a better omlette, and won't give in? Such is the neo-con way.
But, of course, that's much harder to make work when you're not willing to just invade each and every country that won't go along with the master plan.
Hence a real crisis in Korea....
Commenting by HaloScan.com
