Back of the Envelope

Okay, so I had to work a little to make this post title start with an A. So, I promised I would talk about the foreign policy agenda. Naturally, I don't have a clue what Bush will actually do, so this may be more of a wish-list than anything else. Take it for what it's worth.

1. Afghanistan and Iraq. Here, at least, we have a pretty good idea of what Bush plans. Afghanistan is well on its way to becoming a stable democracy, if not quite as liberal as we would like. Iraq is a bit more difficult, and expect Bush to press hard with the military option. Right now it's Fallujah, but we will continue to track down the terrorists wherever they go, destroying their safe havens whenever we get the opportunity. There will be elections in January, although there may be portions of the countries where elections will be difficult and violent. It will be difficult, and there will be setbacks, but we'll make progress
2. Iran. Iran needs to be dealt with, and there isn't a whole lot of time to do it. The military option may be possible in two years, once things settle down in Iraq, but right now it'd be a stretch. Oh sure, we could bomb the living daylights out of them, that's easy, but if we could get regime change from a bombing campaign Saddam would've been gone in '91. My personal preference is direct and indirect support for the democratic movement in Iran. We already know that Iran is supporting the Islamist movement in Iraq, so I think we need to return the favor. Overt moral support and covert monetary and military support would be my preference. I don't know whether Bush is planning on doing this. So far it seems to be let the UN and the EU-3 do its thing, but we've seen how effective that is, and I think Bush will take a more proactive role. At the least, expect him to talk up the democratic movement in Iran.
3. Syria. Syria's kind of the weak partner in the axis-of-evil, sort of a Iraq's understudy. It provides support for terrorism, but I suspect it will crack under sufficient pressure and pull a Lybia. I hope a lot of that will be taking place.
4. North Korea. North Korea's a big problem. It already has nuclear weapons, which makes it dangerous. It is working on developing ballistic capabilities, so that not just South Korea, but also Japan and the US (notably Alaska) could be targets. It's past the prevention point and into the containment point. That, I think, may be the best thing we can do. North Korea is dying slowly. It has no economy to speak of and it's people are starving. Attempts to provide aid have been stymied by the government--food earmarked for the needy is often diverted to the military and the elite. It's hard to see a good possibility. In a war, South Korea could defeat North Korea with US help, but it would be bloody, with a death toll in the tens if not hundreds of thousands. And if North Korea uses its nukes, it gets worse. We could cut off North Korea completely, sanctions and blockades and the whole works. But first we'd have to get China, Russia, and South Korea to go along with us, and then we'd have to be willing to consign millions to starvation. And if we did this, North Korea might very well lash out militarily. Finally, there's what I think we will do, which will be a form of containment. Sanctions, combined with inspections to prevent North Korea from exporting its nuclear technology, sweetened with food aid whose distribution is controlled by the contributors rather than the North Korean government. It's not really a solution, but it may keep North Korea from causing more trouble than it is already.
5. Palestine. Arafat's death brings troubles as well as opportunities. His successor is a relative unknown, and its mildly possible that he will prove interested in pursuing peace. Look for Bush to pursue opportunities presented while remaining skeptical of the Palestinians' intentions.

Well, those are the ones I feel up to commenting on at the moment. My greatest fear is that Bush will reach an impasse, and not make progress with any of these regimes in the coming years. Myself, I'd like to see regime changes in Iran, Syria, and North Korea. I just don't see how.

Yasser Arafat died last night in France. People had been speculating on whether he had already died for the past week, but we'll take the doctors' word on it. Arafat was an unrepetant terrorist, and it's hard to feel much sympathy for him. Jed Babbin has some thought in National Review Online:

On November 13, 1974, Yasser Arafat addressed the U.N. General Assembly for the first time. Clad in military fatigues, with a pistol on his hip, Arafat was welcomed and then acclaimed for his speech in which he enlarged on his theme that, "The difference between the revolutionary and the terrorist lies in the reason for which he fights." And so it has been in the U.N. ever since: The Minutemen of Lexington and Concord are no different from the men who hack off hostages' heads for the Al-Jazeera evening news. During a 2002 incursion into Arafat's Ramallah compound, the Israelis discovered a cache of documents and photographs showing that Saddam Hussein — through the Palestinian Authority — was funding suicide bombings against Israeli targets. Included in the cache were proofs that Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia were also funding PA terrorism.
...
With Arafat dead, there will be rippling effects across Israel, the Palestinian territories, Egypt, Syria, and Iran. Any successor to Arafat — be it sometime PA prime minister Ahmed Qurei (a.k.a. Abu Ala), or Marwan Barghouti, head of the Fatah Movement, or another — will inevitably be from among Arafat's inner circle, and cut from the same murderous cloth. (Barghouti is now in jail, convicted of involvement in the deaths of five Israelis in terror attacks. Qurei, another Fatah member, is often in disagreement with Arafat, and is often characterized as firmly believing in peace with Israel.) No matter who is chosen to succeed Arafat, the pressure on Israel to resume peace talks and cease construction of the anti-terror wall will be intense and instantaneous — and misplaced.

The Palestinians will insist — and the U.N. and the EU will be their amen chorus — that Israel must stop building the wall, stop killing terrorist leaders, and give the new leader a chance to negotiate peace. To say that is to place the entire burden of the peace on Israel. Now that President Bush has been reelected, he must reject the notion that Israel carries an unequal share of the burden of peace. In an interview last year, Ziad abu Ziad, a former Palestinian minister and close Arafat adviser, told me that the PA didn't stop terrorism because it failed to gain sufficient political ground the last time it stopped the attacks. His boast of stopping the attacks was false, but we must call their bluff. We must insist on a six-month period free of attacks, and refuse any EU or U.N. initiative to force the Israelis to the negotiating table before the time passes. If the six months of peace is achieved, then, and only then, will the new leader have bought his way into any new "peace process." Meanwhile, Israel should continue building its wall, and telling the U.N. to buzz off.
...
Arafat's death precipitates instability and violence. Israel's refusal to allow his burial in the Al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount — Arafat's wish, seeking to make it a holy place for Palestinians and thus a part of any Palestinian state — will be enough to ensure that. But in chaos there is opportunity, and we — and Israel — must seize it. The nations that use Palestinians as proxies to war on Israel have to be brought to the table and convinced that they can and must sign a peace with Israel that allows it to exist. Negotiating with the next Palestinian "president" will be as much a dead end as negotiating with Arafat unless Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia are parties to the talks. (There's no use in talking to Iran. Both the U.S. and Israel will have to deal with Iran on other terms.) Such a negotiation would be long and hard, but it would differ from all that went before in one material respect: There's at least a possibility it actually could lead to peace.

There may be some bitter infighting in Palestine, and the Israelis will do their best to stay out of that. It's hard to imagine something good coming out of that, aside from a respite for Israel as they let the Palestinians fight it out. I'm sure whether it's wise to intervene or not, but it may beat letting the worst elements rise to the top. Isn't there anyone in Palestine we can back?