Losing another one

"Diplomacy by another means", the definition of war attributed to Carl Philipp Gottfried von Clausewitz, is a bit too subtle for The Regime which has seemingly abandoned talk for sabres (rattled, drawn, and used).

As WallDon has pointed out today, the war in Iraq has been a net loss in the so-called "War on Terror".

And at Slate, Michael Levi has now pointed out that the recent US decision to activate the (also so-called) missile defense system in response to North Korea's apparent fueling of an ICBM for launch has painted this nation into a losing corner:

There are four ways this crisis can end. If North Korea launches a missile, the United States can shoot it down, hold fire, or try to shoot it down and miss. Pyongyang can also back down and not test its missile. The first outcome would be a mixed blessing; the second would be embarrassing; the third would be a disaster. Whatever happens now, though, given the lack of an immediate threat to American cities, Washington's decision to activate the ground-based missile defense was probably a mistake.

Of course, this comes in the context of The Regime's general refusal to talk to North Korea ("diplomacy by any other means than diplomacy"). Given that NK apparently does not yet have an actual nuclear payload, there is no genuine threat for the missile defense system to face. And in the unlikely event that it should succeed (Levi also rehearses the well-known unreliability of the system and its inconclusive testing), the result will be a net loss:

But [a succesful interception] will not come without costs. If North Korea sticks to past form, it will launch a satellite, not a warhead, allowing it to claim that its test was for "peaceful purposes." It will also show the world that it is capable of launching a real warhead, since any missile that can launch a satellite can also fire a warhead thousands of miles. When it works, the missile-defense system destroys the missile's payload—either a warhead or a satellite—after the missile itself has done its job.

So, the best defense is therefore the diplomatic ability to prevent the launch. (Maybe we could use John Bolton as a payload, and launch a him in a cruise missile?) But no, the warrior class that runs our government has all but precluded this. Instead:

The United States has backed itself into a no-win situation. For now, the United States would do best to stick to research and development on missile defense and save activation for genuinely dangerous situations. By wielding its missile defense now, it has increased the stakes for itself while leaving them unchanged for North Korea. Ironically, American military moves have made a diplomatic solution all the more urgent.

All the more urgent-- and all the more unlikely. The best thing for American national security would be to send the Occupant of the White House and his cronies to Guantanamo: they are truly dangerous.