Reply #11: But what's in it for them? [View All]

[Ivory_Tower]

How would this administration profit from a North Korean conflict? What resources does NK have that Cheney et al would covet?

Someone must be doing a cost-benefit analysis on this -- in Iraq, the "costs" of soldiers lives and American credibility was probably considered to be less than the "benefits" of the oil gained, the military contracts to cronies gained, and the geopolitical instability "gained" in the Middle East (a goal mentioned in of one of those position papers -- they felt an unstable ME allows the US more opportunity to influence events there or something).

So, in NK, the costs of a conflict would be: Additional loss of American credibility; loss of soldiers' lives (this administration has already stretched the military thin); possible loss of civilian lives of allies (South Korea, Japan -- which I think would be unacceptable to them); possible loss of American civilian lives.

There would have to be a HUGE benefit to offset those costs.

Could it be that there will just be a manufactured crisis to raise the fear level again, but with no actual conflict? If they can set it up so that there is a crisis that is ultimately resolved diplomatically, then Shrub can portrayed this season as the "Diplomatic Genius" and "Man of Peace", to go along with last season's "Warrior King" and "Conquering Hero". (Of course, a Diplomat action figure probably won't sell very well.)

That's a small benefit in that there isn't a short-term dollar gain (although it helps his chances in next year's election), but the cost is not too high, either.

But this assumes that they're powerful enough to control events once they've set said events into motion. That's a big assumption. Manufacturing a crisis that can be kept under control is a huge undertaking.

What about Iran? We're already at their doorstep (on two sides), plus they have oil.

(/speculation)