So why Iraq and not North Korea (or Syria or Saudi Arabia, etc.)?

Actually, it’s easier to answer Syria and SA first, so I will. Iraq and Saddam were very clearly the “biggest black hat” in the region. They were easily recognizable, not only by the West, but also by the Arab world as the strongest leader, who was most defiant to the US. The theory is that by taking out Saddam and establishing a democracy in Iraq, the Middle East’s bastion of fascist totalitarianism, it makes a dramatic statement to the rest of the Arab world. It inspires the student protestors in Iran and the West Bank to stand up for the themselves and provides a democratic paradigm for the government they want to establish.

The Palestinians are the ultimate key here. Once they set up a democratic government, the Israelis will virtually throw land at them in order to peacefully establish a Palestinian state. As soon as there is peace between Israel and the Palestinians, the dominoes will begin to fall quickly because the other Arab states will lose their scapegoat. If Iran has not gone democratic by then, it will happen soon thereafter. If I were to predict an order, Jordan and Egypt would probably come next. Syria (and Lebanon, which is under Syria’s grip) might be last and we might actually have to bring in troops to do it (I don’t think they will be necessary in the other states – they’ll only need our cash.) As for the Saudis, once we have an option for other allies (with oil reserves) in the region, our use for them is decreased dramatically. With their leverage against us gone, I don’t think they will be able to survive for long as the only dictatorship in the area.

I would guess the whole thing takes 40 – 50 years (but my crystal ball is obviously not perfectly clear, so it could be more or less).

So what about North Korea? They already have nukes, are already a threat and have a crazy man as dictator. Shouldn’t we therefore try to take Kim Jong-Il out first? Of course not, for those very reasons (and one more very big one). Let me explain:

1. The nukes – Since NoKo already has them, we need to tread much more carefully than with Iraq which was only trying to develop them. It’s much easier to attack someone who is a threat before they have taken out their weapon. The presence of their nukes means a much greater penalty for making a wrong move, especially because…

2. …they have a crazy man as a dictator. Saddam may have been psychopathic, but he was intelligent and sensible. Saddam fought this war (while he could) from a PR standpoint because he knew that was the only way he could win. That’s why he had his own soldiers dress up in US uniforms and randomly shoot his own people and why he hid the WMD (in Syria or elsewhere) before the war started. Those things were done to turn the US population against the war, which he knew was his only hope for survival. In contrast, Kim is really “Looney Tunes”. He is highly unstable and you cannot treat a crazy man with a gun the same way you treat a schoolyard bully. Again, we must tread very carefully.

3. There is a huge difference between Iraq and NoKo. That difference sits to NoKo’s north and west. For the geographically challenged (i.e., most new Yorkers), the difference’s name is China. China is currently trying to build up its economy and to do that, it needs to maintain open trade with the US and will not do anything to jeopardize that status. While I think China currently takes a great deal of amusement from the fact that North Korea is making us squirm, they ultimately will never let NoKo do anything that could lead the US to cutting off trade and/or landing troops in Asia. They also don’t want us dropping bombs anywhere near them. I think China provides a tremendous buffer that allows us to not have to go in there at this time. If NoKo starts getting too frisky, I am sure that China will find a way to make Kim stop. While I do not know if China is trustworthy in all international endeavors, I think we can trust them to act in their best economic interests.