WHEN YOU WISH UPON A WAR

With the holidays and, frankly, a lack of motivation to continue blogging lately, I haven't written much in the past week or so. But this editorial from The Japan Times has brought me out of my undisclosed location for a brief fisking. It is one of the most wishful editorials I've come across regarding Libya's decision to disarm.

First, some background. The Japan Times is an English-language daily from Tokyo, aimed primarily at Western (mostly American) expats and businessmen either living in or on extended stays in Japan. It's generally a decent newspaper, if a little weak in its selection of columnists. You'll never see a Charles Krauthammer or Ramesh Ponnuru piece in TJT, but you're also not likely to see any of the big liberal heavyweights either. It runs mostly d-list talent, and nearly always from a leftish point of view. I think that selection effect is mostly the result of the Times' own editorial staff, which since Japanese politics tend to run to the left of ours, and because journalists are generally left of center in most of the West and westernized countries (and Japan is the most westernized country outside the actual West), you get mostly leftish political opinions.

That said, The Times' take on Gadaffi's decision to divest his WMDs, allow in inspectors to prove that he's come clean and then to share intel with the US and Britian concerning terrorism and WMD traffic generally, is laughable. That sentence was a mouthful, so let me restate it this way: The Times' editorial writers have mental blinders on. And they can't write.

Mercurial Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi has pulled off another coup.

What sort of coup does one pull off by capitulating in the face of a serious enemy, as Gadaffi did? Or is this opening sentence a reference to the way Gadaffi seized power in Libya? Either way, it makes no sense. He didn't "pull off another coup," he said "uncle." Big difference.

Last week's announcement that Libya would give up all its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD) has turned the former pariah into an international statesman.

Huh? "International statesman" and Gadaffi have no place in the same sentence. The man is a recently repentant killer, deserving of some space for giving up his WMDs and terrorist past, but no statesman in any sense. Next will they tell us that Kim Jong-Il is an internation statesman because he stopped kidnapping Japanese schoolgirls?

Surprising though the move may have seemed, it was the result of a long process -- and a victory for diplomatic engagement even with so-called rogue states.

A "victory for diplomatic engagement?" Perhaps, depending on your definition of "engagement." Nevertheless, "so-called rogue states" is an interesting phrase. What would the Times' editors call a state that bankrolled the destruction of an airplane full of innocents, then denied responsibility for more than a decade, all the while bankrolling terrorists across the MidEast and Europe, some of which killed American GIs in a German disco back in the 80s. That particular act generated a certain type of "engagement": President Reagan bombed the daylights out of Gadaffi's capitol city, killing one of his sons. Said "engagement" pretty much ended Libya's star turn as the #1 terrorist state on the planet.

And we're within a sentence of completing the first paragraph. This could be a long fisking.

Libya has long topped the list of "rogue states." The country has been accused of supporting terrorists. In addition, the government has been suspected of trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Despite the charges, Libya always denied having a WMD program.

A real editor would re-write that paragraph as follows:

Libya has long topped the list of rogue states. The country has a history of supporting terrorists. In addition, the government has recently admitted trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction. That admission came about after a US-led blockade of fellow terrorist state North Korea turned up undeniable proof of a Libyan WMD program. Until confronted with that proof, Libya always denied having a WMD program.

I think I've summed up the history a little more accurately, don't you? Pity the Times' editors didn't do their homework. If they had, their version would have been closer to the truth. If its editorial were a history exam, it is so riddled with errors in fact that it would garner an automatic F.

That changed last week, when the Libyan government not only admitted it had such a program, but announced that it was ready to give it up. Libya then invited a team from the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect its facilities and verify that it was abandoning its WMD ambitions. Libyan officials said they were ready to sign the additional protocol of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which allows special inspections of nuclear facilities. If Libya follows through, it will be only the second country, after South Africa, to voluntarily disarm.

Why did Libya turn a 180? Why did it allow the inspectors in? Why will Libya sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty? Why will it disarm?

Engagement, that's why. Just not the kind of engagement that the Times prefers. You'll see what I mean shortly.

If the world was surprised by the revelations, the key interlocutors -- the United States and Britain -- were not. They have been engaged in negotiations with the Libyan government for several years as Tripoli has tried to end its international isolation.

The first indications of a change of heart in Libya came with the decision to turn over the two men accused of planting the bombs in Pan Am flight 109, which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, claiming 270 lives. After the trial was complete, Tripoli then entered into five years of negotiations to settle the claims of the victims and their families, finally agreeing to offer about $2.7 billion in total in return for the lifting of United Nations sanctions. The U.S. and Britain said that they would maintain their own sanctions until Libya came clean on its WMD programs.

All true, but note that most pundits wanted the US and UK to drop their sanctions before Libya's decision to disarm. Just saying "hey, sorry we killed so many people, here's some money" was good enough for them. But the US and UK kept up the pressure. And note as well that the Libyan turn on Pan Am 103 was for the most part driven by the US-led campaign of relentless pressure, both within and without the UN, to make Gadaffi own up. That pressure dates back several years, through all administrations from Reagan forward. But it wasn't decisive; Libya continued a brisk weapons trade with its senior Axis of Evil partners until very recently. Something, some event, triggered the final Libyan decision to disarm. What was that?

Nine months ago, Tripoli indicated that it was ready to do just that. After making overtures to Washington and London, the Libyan government revealed that it had a clandestine nuclear-weapons program that was trying to develop a uranium enrichment capability, which included, among other things, a pilot-scale centrifuge facility. The Libyans reportedly denied that any enriched uranium had been produced.

"Nine months ago..." Fascinating sentence, that. What happened nine months ago, which would have been March of 2003? Checking the calendar, it seems there was a little dustup to Libya's east. The US tried, unsuccessfully it turns out, to kill Iraq's Saddam Hussein with a missile strike, a strike which was a prelude to a quick war to remove him from power because he led a terror-sponsoring state with designs on WMDs. You don't suppose Gadaffi could've seen in Saddam's predicament a bit of handwriting on his own walls, do you? Perhaps he suspected a few Tomahawks had his palace's coordinates dialed up?

The Japan Times certainly doesn't think so. Its editors see no connection with the Iraq war and Gadaffi's surrender. In fact, according to The Japan Times, the central event of 2003--the war in Iraq--played no role in Gadaffi's choice:

What prompted Mr. Gadhafi's change of heart? Hardliners will credit the war against Iraq and the message it sent to governments nurturing WMD ambitions. The problem with that theory is that it does not match the time line.

Yes it does. Nine months--to the day--prior to Libya's announcement, the US-led war in Iraq began. What part of that timeline does the Times not find relevant?

While the overtures regarding the WMD program began about the same time as the invasion of Iraq, the diplomatic rapprochement began years ago. More to the point, Libyan officials have explicitly denied the linkage.

No, they haven't. In fact, Gadaffi himself has admitted that the Iraq war scared him, and it seems now that it scared him straight. According to the Italians:

A spokesman for Mr Berlusconi said the prime minister had been telephoned recently by Col Gaddafi of Libya, who said: "I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid."

Surely a paper with the Times' resources could have made sure its editors were aware of this quote, which refutes the entire thrust of its lead editorial on the Libyan decision to disarm? Surely the Times' editors would attempt to incorporate it into its view of the events in Libya?

Evidently either the Times was unaware of Gadaffi's own opinion of his own decision (inexcusable if true, given the fact that a quick Google search could have turned it up) or the Times' editors don't believe the quote is legit. If that's the case, the editors still should have mentioned it if only to knock it down. By omitting it, the editors have opened themselves up to charges that they selectively ignore facts that don't line up with their apparently theological view of world events--theological, in the sense that they're formed more by blind faith than by the facts.

Anyhow, the Times then goes on to offer up a single sentence that effectively refutes its own editorial:

More convincing is that Mr. Gadhafi recognized that being a revolutionary firebrand, whose key purpose was standing up to the U.S., was a dangerous strategy.

Any why, praytell, would Gadaffi recognize that standing up to the US was a dangerous strategy? Could it be the "engagement" offered first by Reagan, then by George W. Bush?

As a result, Libya's economy has been undermined and his regime -- and his heir apparent, his son Mr. Saif al-Islam Gadhafi -- might not survive him.

And why would Gadaffi worry whether his regime and son would survive him? Perhaps the events begun in March 2003, events ending in the death of a Baathist regime, the capture of its head and the death of its intended dynastic heirs--the odious Uday and Qusay Hussein--influenced his thinking. I'd say the evidence for that point of view is strong, but the Times believes otherwise:

Mr. Gadhafi's decision also provides a powerful boost for U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who are already celebrating the capture of Iraq's former President Saddam Hussein. But they would be advised to focus on the real lesson of this episode: Engagement, not brute force, brought about Libya's change of heart. A similar strategy might work on the Korean Peninsula.

Ah-ha! So that's what the Times editors were really driving at--they're afraid that that hairtriggered cowboy in Washington might just think everybody that gets uppity needs invadin', so they're hoping to head him off at the proverbial pass. Call it a pre-emptive war protest; they hope they can persuade, not President Bush, but Japan's Prime Minister Koizumi, that endlessly jawing with the likes of Kim Jong-Il, endlessly yapping like Pavlov's dog everytime Kim rings his nuclear bell, is the best way to deal with him. He leads a "rogue state" in the Times' view, and as such should be "diplomatically engaged." Any other path would be folly, argues the Times.

Funny thing is, both the Bush and Koizumi governments seem to agree, and have set out to build an alliance--the Proliferation Security Initiative (you knew that was coming)--to peacefully curb Kim's weapons trade while the US, Japan, South Korea and China can diplomatically engage Kim's North Korea. A second Korean war would be a last resort.

Diplomacy may not work. The status quo is not tenable in the long run, and Kim seems to respond to any softening of the US line with belligerence and hotheaded threats. If Kim gets his hands on nuclear weapons that he can sell, and if the world stands idly by, he will sell them to the highest bidder, and those weapons will turn up at the base of a mushroom cloud in a US, Japanese or western city. War may end up being the only way to deal with him. But it may not.

The US tried the diplomatic route, for nearly a year, before invading Iraq. And prior to that year, the US and UK led the various watches that enforced the Iraqi no-fly zones and kept the sanctions in place that kept Saddam in a sort of box. But post 9-11, that situation was not tenable. The soft line proffered by the French, Russians and Chinese led Saddam to believe he could escape one more time, and live to fight another day. Soft lines tend to encourage dictators; hard lines tend to cow them. War tends to defeat them. Those are the lessons we all should learn from the war in Iraq.

Libya's Gadaffi learned the correct lesson from recent history. He surrendered his weapons, fearing promotion to the A-team on the Axis of Evil after Saddam's capture. It's a pity that the editors at papers like The Japan Times, editors in a good position and with access to enough of the facts to make a sound judgement, consistently fail to learn what history has to teach them. If they did learn those lessons, they would favor a harder line toward North Korea, knowing that such a hard line just might prevent nuclear war.