On occasion, I will succumb to a rather dangerous logical trap: to conflate an argument with the person who is making it — or, more often, opposing it. If I don’t grasp an issue, I’ll sometimes look at who is on which side, and see which I tend to find more repugnant. “It has the right people pissed off” has been a factor more than once in my decision-making.
But most of the time, I really try to look beyond the arguers and arguments over an issue, and decide it strictly on its own merits. I believe I do that with the war in Iraq, and my continuing belief that it was the right and necessary decision.
I don’t give a faded fart about the “official” arguments and statements. To me, they are all extraneous to the core issue: was it the right decision? Does it remain the right decision?
I think it was, and I think it is.
John Weidner, apparently, feels much as I do, because he’s assembled a rather remarkable list of reasons why he believes as he does. He hits pretty much all the same points I have made, and several I haven’t, and puts them together in a single compact, concise, clear package. 13 items, each captured in a single paragraph.
Go. Read. Comment there, or here, or both. But John presents one hell of a case.
Excellent list.
#3 and #5 were enough for me to support it.
You are right John presents a good case..But with the caveat he doesn’t ask the bigger question.. Can we win? or could we win led? by an Administration that wanted an ’empire lite’ on the cheap, in Baghdad and was intoxicated with the idea that they would be treated as liberators rather than occupiers. It is one thing to intend to succeed, but with so many myriad reasons why you need to succeed, next time seriously plan to succeed as well.
“Can we win?”
Yes, as long as the liberals are not in control.
Steve,
The Iraq war proceeded much better than WWII given that we have the liberal left in this country fully allied with terrorists with the purpose of defeating Bush. In WWII, at least the Reps were decent enough to stand behind FDR in fighting the fascists. The US suffered heavy losses in the first several years of the war. The liberals would have surrendered after the few thousand American troops were killed in an exercise (not battle yet) off the coast of England.
We can win. The question is why the liberals don’t want to win in Iraq and simply wishing for defeat? Imagine the Dem party and the liberal left in this country stand united in strong condemnation of the terrorists and their allies. Why can’t they do it? North Korea is a recent example of the intellectual corruption of the left. At the first provocation, the liberals advocated surrender to N. Korea by going to bilateral talk as they demanded. Bush stuck to his gun and now N. Korea came back to 6 nation talk. I wonder why the MSM and liberal left is so silent about it. It speaks volume about their intellectual vanity and dishonesty.
“Can we win?”
Yes, as long as the liberals are not in control.
Posted by: steak111111
Yes, conservatives have done such a wonderful job.
It’s SO nice to see you agree that Conservatives are doing a “wonderful job” as the US lost FAR FEWER men in Iraq than in ANY previous war….
Yes, conservatives have done such a wonderful job.
————————————————–
Definitely much better than the liberal record so far: hundreds of millions of people freed from the yoke of communists, which the liberal supported during the cold war. Now 50 million people were freed from the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. WHen the liberals had their way, 1/3 of the Cambodian population (2 million) were killed with a strange silence from the liberals. The conservatives still trying to fight the terrorists despite the liberals’ effort to aid these enemies of America.
When we look at the historical record, the intellectual and moral corruption of the liberals is clear. Conservatives are not perfect but they are miles ahead of the liberals. That ‘s why no one with an ounce of brain and decency would want to support the liberal left at this point.
It’s SO nice to see you agree that Conservatives are doing a “wonderful job” as the US lost FAR FEWER men in Iraq than in ANY previous war….
Posted by: steak111111 at November 2, 2006 12:26 PM
I’m sure the families of the 105 dead service men in the month of Oct will find comfort in you rationalization.
Liberals support genocide. Plain and simple. History has proven it and it will repeat itself if they win next week.
US lost FAR FEWER men in Iraq than in ANY previous war….
Posted by: steak111111
What is the death rate of soldiers in ANY PREVIOUS war after we declared “Mission Accomplished”?
Barney, I don’t have to embarress you because you are doing a great job all on your own…
The mission of removing Saddam WAS accomplished. NOW we’re back to mopping up the terrorists – and it involves other countries too – NOT JUST IRAQ.
To expand on this..
was it the right decision given what was known at the time ?
Nearly every decision is made with incomplete information. Wait a little longer and you may get a little more information, but it comes at a cost (time and opportunity).
Whether a decision was right or wrong does not depend on the outcome, it depends purely on what is known at the point in time when the decision was made.
@ BarneyG2000
What is the death rate of soldiers in ANY PREVIOUS war after we declared “Mission Accomplished”?
Well, those unwashed uneducated U.S. soldiers don’t really matter, according to Kerry, because they missed the boat back here anyway.
“I’m sure the families of the 105 dead service men in the month of Oct will find comfort in you rationalization.”
The cost of freedom is not free. If you want the terrorists to blow up more buildings, then DO NOTHING.
Well, those unwashed uneducated U.S. soldiers don’t really matter, according to Kerry, because they missed the boat back here anyway.
Posted by: Red Fog
Fog, this is not true. The Air Force just requested an additional $50-billion in 2007 funding to fly the dead bodies of our soldiers back home so they can be “stuck” in the ground. Look it up.
Barney, let me spell it out for you:
1) the terrorists want us ALL dead (300,123,575) – NOT just those they killed on 9/11
2) the terrorists want you dead.
3) the terrorists want to die.
4) the terrorists will not stop EVEN IF WE DO.
5) the terrorists are invigorated when we say “we can’t win” or “Bush lied”.
Is there something here that you still don’t understand? Vote Republican for victory against terrorists because the liberals want to cut, run and hide.
“imagine the Dem party and the liberal left in this country stand united in strong condemnation of the terrorists and their allies. Why can’t they do it?”
You know why, Immigrant. Everybody here knows why.
Because they hate George Bush more than they will ever hate any terrorist.
It’s as simple as that. Don’t believe me? Go find a lefty. Ask them, “who’s (more dangerous / a worse man / more bloodthirsty / more evil) – Bush or Saddam?”
Watch them squirm. They know they should say “Saddam,” but they can’t. Because in their minds, he’s not evil. He’s a freedom fighter. He’s justified in his anger. We armed him, anyway. And who are we to meddle in the affairs of another country. And besides, all those women in the rape rooms? Hell, we all know women love being slapped around, anyway. And those dumb camel jockeys can’t handle freedom. Things were better off under Saddam. And what are you, anyway, some goddamn chickenhawk Rethuglican?
Democrats – the party of Hiss, the Rosenbergs, the Lackawanna Six, Aldrich Ames, the Walkers and John Walker Lindh – are the party of treason and sedition. Always have been, always will be.
My question to Barney is why any decent American in their right mind would want to support the intellectual and moral sewage of the liberal left?
Before we compare the Reps and conservatives to perfection, can we have the intellectual honesty to agree that the liberal left is in the intellectual and moral sewage given the historical record?
just a hint for our liberal posters: the dishonest left has been talking about the root cause of terrorism and how to deal with it. Building democracy in Iraq is a rational way to deal with the root cause of terrorism. Why do liberals oppose it with all their might? Unless they simply spout meaningless rhetoric and don’t understand what it means (in which case their intelligence is questionable)
In our state, the motto for the lottery is…
“You have to play, to win”. This is my philosophy for voting concerning the war issue as it stands today–Which side is willing to at least BE IN THE GAME?
I believe the Democrats could have easily pulled a huge majority of votes in both houses if they had run on a way to “win” in Iraq by offering a real plan of doing something differently: whether more troops, bombs, better equipment, etc. But they are “stuck” as Kerry would say in a “qaugmire” of body counts, both military & civilian. Because of this the Dems. make it very hard for any leadership/USA to take tough measures to ever win a battle again.
Pulling out of Iraq will help our soldiers come home & not die; & yes, we won’t spend as much money on the war (it will go elsewhere to something just as non-productive in the USA). But leaving Iraq will be devastating to the US as a whole, to the Iraqi citizens & to the future gov’t/economy of Iraq & surrounding ME. The world will continue to pay.
Will the Dems be in the game? I certainly don’t think so, because you have to believe the leadership rhetoric, which is “cut & run”, no matter how you disguise it. Thus, I can not vote Democrat.
What is the death rate of soldiers in ANY PREVIOUS war after we declared “Mission Accomplished”?
————————————————
Regime change in Iraq was accomplished. Thanks for reminding us of another example of the dishonesty of the liberal left/MSM in spinning. ANd now they have the audicity to spin that the Reps are distorting Kerry ‘s words. This is truly a case of projection. So for your own good, Barney, please stop spouting these well known dishonest spin from the left. It makes you look bad and I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here.
I will say upfront that I am a conservative who saw merit in deposing Saddam Hussein. I am no less a conservative now but my disappointment is profound. Reasons #2 (remove the culture of despotism and backwardness) and #5 (humanitarian reasons)are noble ones indeed but they require the sanction of the Iraqi population. I realize I am setting myself up for significant criticism here but it is becoming clear to me that finally being free of years of despotism under Saddam has not resulted in a significant interest in Iraq toward working hard together for a free society. It is apparent that the fear of living under a dictator provided at least a level of predictability that you could live your life in fear under a known entity. Arab society does not value a government of the people. If it were not for the concerns that the Turks express, I would be happy to thank the Kurds for their help and support the formation of a homeland for them. Then I’d let the Shiites and Sunnis beat the crap out of each other after saying look we’ve tried our best but you’ve got to show some ecumenical effort here. I have no problem with helping Iraq to the extent needed, but it is no longer clear to me what they want.
To DAve:
Your concerns are very legitimate—Iraq/ME is a totally different culture, and it seems like the people would just want most of what we want & would fight like heck to get it. They don’t have our knowledge or experiences, & certainly not the freedom.
It is a huge job/dream to change their way of thought. But it has only been 3 years—we in the USA can’t even get Dems & Repubs to speak effectively to each other & we’ve been “civilized” for decades. Realistically it will take a full generation to create real change in Iraq.
The real question: Is it worth it to the world & specifically the USA to help this country achieve some westernization which may take years; or is it better to pull out & let that world return to another form of chaos, maybe worse than ever before? (Maybe the USA has made it worse for now—but will it be worse 15 years down the road if we stay or if we go—that’s the trillion dollar question—I vote stay.)
“I have no problem with helping Iraq to the extent needed, but it is no longer clear to me what they want.”
70% of Iraqi’s risked their lives and voted. They wanted something. It doesn’t have to be clear to you or me ‘what’ they want – only that they have the right to vote for ‘what’ they want.
Nice post though.
(in case the liberals question me on the 70%)”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_legislative_election,_December_2005
Here’s yet another spin from the leftist lunatics advocating the destruction of all that is right and good about our most holy and noble calling in the Middle East. They are clearly mentally ill and don’t have any facts! The grab a bit here, a bit there, and twist it into some damned distortion of what it used to be. If I weren’t such an informed member of society and paid obeisance to the law, I would strangle or stab one of these liberals every time one of them crossed my path. It just sickens me!
To Diane annd Steak, I think too we should stay. I tend to ignore the Democratic message because they are so predictably pessimistic about every aspect of US policy that it borders on parody. But I sometimes wonder whether my optimism is over-riding a sense of reality. At times I think they should move the capital from Baghdad to get get some distance from al-Sadr as well the Sunni sympathizers entrenched there since the Sadddam era.
DaveD,
Here is what the bad guys ( the terrorists, the former Baathists, the thugs supported by Syria and Iran) want to cause a civil war and to derail democracy in Iraq. They are in the minority and try to intimdate people by brutal tactics of blowing up women/children. We don’t want to join the liberal left in giving in to those despicable thugs. The Iraq democracy proceeds much better compared to Germany and Japan given that we had total control of these countries after WWII and we don’t have a liberal left/MSM fully in bed with the enemy of AMerica during WWII.
We need to build up the Iraqui gov and let them handle these bad guys in their own way (I know the left would cry torture as soon as some tough tactics will be employed by the Iraqui gov. At the same time, they are saying that Iraq was better under Saddam. In other words, cutting off hands and rape rooms are good tactics to pacify Iraq! Go figure).
Dave D. that is what Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said today ” (Iraq)It’s not just car bombs”Never mind Baghdad.
DaveD…
I understand your worry over being too optimistic, that you might be not seeing the war situation clearly–I consider myself an optimistic-realist, too.
Sorry for being so wordy, but what I was trying to say before, is that it is way too soon to decide if we are effective being there or not. Reality is…three years is a blink when trying to change a society. i.e, look at slavery/racism in America…we’re not perfect but it took over 100 years (1865-1960’s) to even really get serious about this in USA, and then another 25 to make great strides. The media has very much played into this as being a long time, too many bodies, etc.—this perspective is way off.
Love America said:
Building democracy in Iraq is a rational way to deal with the root cause of terrorism.
I’m always fascinated with this concept most of you seem to have that the lack of democracy is a root cause of terrorism. This seems to completely ignore the fact that the Western democracies churn out just as many terrorists as the Middle East dictatorships do. Just look at what’s going on in France. Look at the London subway bombers. Look at the terrorists who were plotting to blow up the airliners in England. Most of these terrorists were either born in or raised in democracies.
Iraq is nothing more than a failed exercise in nationbuilding (something candidate Bush promised he wouldn’t do and the main reason I voted for him in 2000). It’s amazing to see how right-wingers have come to embrace nationbuilding after criticizing it so bitterly over the years.
Iraq has never made sense ever since the British drew its borders. We need to stop spilling American blood to make up for the mistakes of the British imperial rulers who came up with the idea of Iraq. The country is a failed and broken state and there’s no amount of blood shed by our heroes that is going to change that.
It’s time to make some hard choices and partition the country into three. Trying to force the Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis to live together in the same country is pure madness We allowed Yugoslavia to break up and now that area is peaceful.
Why is it that we resist the obvious? The answer is that we have political leaders who are paralyzed by indecision and incapable of altering their strategy in this war. After all, Bush just said today he’s “happy” with the “progress” in Iraq.
It’s been the Democrats who are increasingly embracing partition. They are the only ones with any ideas about how to fix this thing.
Diane:
I don’t know if it was a Freudian slip or your part or not. But here’s the crux of one of the principle differenced between the left and the right. Your statement: “……the USA to help this country achieve westernization….”
Where do we get off being so arrogant and so presumptuous as to believe that the people of the ME want “westernization?” Boy if that doesn’t say it all. What authority to you have to support such a position? That’s the arrogance of the right, the arrogance of this administration. Unfortunately, that’s the arrogance which feeds the perceptions of others about this country. That’s the arrogance which supports the terrorists. That’s the arrogance which feeds their desire to attack us.
That’s why the right wing is losing power. That’s why the people in this country are turning to the democrats.
We don’t know the ME wants “westernization”, in fact they seem to NOT want westernization; but like the great song…”sometimes you don’t get what you want, you get what you need”–and as we are all so global, the world needs more “civilization”. Surely you think westernization is more “civilized” than the state of the ME for the past decades & currently? It’s about preservation for me–I have no other excuse.
And Kaz’s description of terrorists in western democracies–let’s get real & call these “youth” what they are–extreme Muslims..ho have much more loyalty to MECCA/ME than to any “democratic” gov’t in Europe.
Kaz,
Japan had been a monarchy for a long time. Democracy helped Europe to avoid another world wars after ww2. Democracy has helped many countried in the far east, most notably South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Japan etc… It has been working well across several cultures already.
THe dems are simply lying and talking both sides of their mouth. At the beginning, they were criticizing Bush if Iraq had to break up. Kerry is simply a perfect example of the intellectual and moral sewage of the Dems. They have no plan but to cut and run. North Korea is the most recent example: at the first provocation, give in to the demands of bilateral talk by N. Korea. Bush stuck to his gun and N. Korea came back to the 6 nation talk. This is a huge win.
Iraq is progressing much better compared to WW2 as I pointed out above. Partitioning Iraq is an option that was talked about long before. The dems are late to the table. Given their dishonesty, we have to treat them as simply cheap rhetoric at this point since they don’t show any actions, but to provide cover for the terrorists/Baathists. What is the problem with keeping Iraq together by encouraging the Sunnis to root out the Baathists, the terrorists and the thugs. Are we willing to let the Iraqui gov to employ “tough” measures to pacify Iraq?
Yugoslavia is peaceful? Last time I heard that Kosovo has become a haven for the terrorists and reverse genocide against the Serbs have been committed. This is another example of the failure of liberal policy via the UN. That ‘s why we don’t hear much about it any more.
Liberal so arrogant and corrupt that they think other people want to live under communist oppression or want to wear burqua etc… Liberals are so arrogant that they think only western people want democracy and freedom. THe historical record shows a shameful and despicable record of the Dems on behalf of the communists and now the terrorists. Given this record, no one in their right mind would want to support the dems.
Dianne,
Hugh is simply trying to nitpick to score a cheap point. That ‘s all he is trying to do. If he is honest, he had to address the historical record of the liberal left wrt the communists and now the terrorists. It is a shameful record and i have to use the strongest word to describe it: intellectual and moral sewage.
Anyway, Hugh has a point that the liberal policies of “westernization” like pornography, pervert sexual freedom, ACLU and NAMBLA … is certainly repugnant to many people. ANd they try to claim that we want to impose these liberal garbage on other people. Hollywood left has given AMerica a bad name with their liberal trashy/anti-American movies. Our military is trying to undo a lot of that bad PR from the liberal left, but it is really tough work out there.
On the other hand, I wonder why these people keep trying to go to America if they hate “westerniazation” so much. Muirego wouldn’t move to his communist utopia to avoid all the big evil corporation he hates. ANother example of liberal rhetoric doesn’t match reality.
LoveAmerica Immigrant.. You are pleading your case gamely, but as you know, Bush has now abandoned his ‘stay the course’ policy in Iraq. You can feel free to adapt and change too. And it is not only liberals, but well known conservative columinists such William Buckley Jr. George Will, and today in the USA Today Bush follower and MY Post writer, Ralph Peters, felt the last gasps in Iraq. Even the Central Command of the Army believes Iraq is descending into chaos and civil war according to a classified breifing report published in the New York Times, yesterday.
Dianne:
I’m addressing my reply to you rather than LoveAmerica as I don’t debate the fringes of the right on this site. Nice to have him stand up for you though. I imagine his view is that a little woman needs help from a big tough nut case.
My response to you was as clear as a bell. A fundamental difference between the left and the right is the arrogance of the view that we should westernize a region of the world. God forbid that a civilization many thousands of years older than our country should not want to be “westernized.” That’s the problem with Mr Bush and his messianic idea that he was chosen to democratize countries that either don’t want to be or are internally fighting to make that decision.
What arrogance. As I asked you in my 1st comment what is your authority for that position, i.e. these countries want to be “westernized.” So far the only authority I’m aware of is the messianic self-appointed mission of Mr. Bush.
Ralph Peter advocates a stronger and tougher measures which the liberals strongly oppose. Ralph is saying exactly the opposite of what the liberals would advocate. I think we can win if we don’t give in to the liberals’ cut and run policy. North Korea is the most recent example. But we know that liberals don’t care about historical record/lessons in any case. That ‘s why they could support the communists during the cold war and now the terrorists/Baathist insurgents. BTW, Ralph was no Bush follower: he always criticized Bush for not using stronger measures (the very opposite of liberal policies). Ralph knows that liberal policies are sure losers. You should adapt and acknowledge the intellectual/moral morass of the left.
Hey hughie did anyone ever tell you that you are one dumb asshole? If not,I just did.
Diane and LoveAmerica….
Nice posts.
And yes, innocent people are being killed because of the Hollyweird left and their disgusting filth. Free speech yes, but like the right to bear arms, you MUST have responsiblity to go along with it. Hollyweird and the liberal press have not been….
Hugh,
I never said the ME wanted to be westernized. Preservation of the USA will always be foremost for me.
When you speak of the differences of the “left” & the “right”, do you mean the “current left”? Because FDR was about as “left” as one can get & he presumed Germany & Europe did not want to be under Hitler. Kennedy jumped in on Vietnam (because they did not want to be communists?) & even Clinton “helped” in Bosnia to overthrow Milosevac. Did you know under Truman, McArthur took thousands of US purchased Bibles to Japan/Korea following the war? Were values being imposed by the USA on others?
Why would I be arrogant enough to want other countries to have American values? I was taught by many great Democratic & Republican presidents to do so.
Diane:
I stand corrected about the ME. You were referring to Iraq of course. But again where is the evidence they want to be “westernized.” If you are only referring to a form of government that is one thing. Perhaps I misunderstood you. I took it to mean in the broad general sense. Could you clarify for me?
I also think there is considerable evidence that Iraq is split if you are referring to westernization of their government. I hope I’m wrong but I really believe most want a government like Iran’s. The country is so fractured ethnically and religiously and I don’t believe westernization is viewed by them as the solution.
Hugh
Because FDR was about as “left” as one can get & he presumed Germany & Europe did not want to be under Hitler. Kennedy jumped in on Vietnam
————————————————–
FDR and Kennedy would be considered “conservative Dems” these days. Zel Miller is an FDR and Kennedy type Dem. And he is conservative, far more conservative than many republicans even. Kennedy advocated tax cuts and strong defense.
The liberal left since the 1960s has become an intellectual and moral sewage given their shameful record during the cold war and now during the GWOT.
Dianne,
Liberal version of westernization has given America a bad name around the world. The Hollywood left trashy/violent/anti-American movies give people very wrong impression of America. That ‘s why I said liberal policies are really bad for AMerica and the world.
Again today no decent American should support the liberal left and the dems. That ‘s my conclusion based on facts and I stand by it.
I’m addressing my reply to you rather than LoveAmerica as I don’t debate the fringes of the right on this site. Nice to have him stand up for you though. I imagine his view is that a little
woman needs help from a big tough nut case.
———————————————–
THanks for admitting that you cannot answer the facts that show the intelletual and moral sewage of the left. I assume that this is a fact that even liberals cannot deny.
So you are free to pick on peripheral issue to avoid the facts in front of you.
Shhhhh….I think I heard loon somewhere!!!
Hugh
Step out of the echo chamber and it’ll go away.
I hear constantly from people on the left that Iraq is an illegal war. We Attacked a sovereign country and had no right to, etc. Let’s just assume for a secound that I and everyone else agree with this statement. The only clear thing to do then would to immediately withdraw our troops and put Saddam back into power, right? Since this is an illegal war and should not have been started to begin with, wouldn’t this be the obvious solution? One of the only things I ever agreed about with Bill Clinton was regime change in Iraq. We have done that, and now we owe the people of Iraq at least a chance at ruling there own destinies, something I believe people worldwide dream of no matter what their religious beliefs are.
Hugh,
Once again I agree Iraq (certainly under Saddam) never asked for our help to be “westernized”; nor stated they ever wanted to be westernized. Unfortunately “westernization” does include some cultural values that many of us here in USA don’t even want…but that’s not really what I’m talking about. But I’m not talking only about the government–democracy, either. Because just having fair elections does not make a country great or peaceful.I’m talking about other western values (not imposing them on them, but at least letting them see them firsthand & be educated about them, so they can make a true choice (which IS starting to happen all over Iraq)i.e., dealing with the economy, including women in decision making, etc., better education systems, job skills, etc.
Would I want them to give up Sharia law (like Iran wants)—you betcha! Even if we have to do it by force. Have you ever read Sharia law? It is no democracy. There will not be peace in the world, until there is peace (western definition of peace) in the ME (including IRAQ).
I agree with you, Hugh, that some in Iraq want democracy, some want to be with Iran, etc. Sometimes it’s easier to live with the devil you know. If the people had lived “freely” & realively safely with a good economy like we have here & then chose to be with Iran/Sharia law, then so be it. But these people have no clue what it is like to be “free”.
Therefore, I’ll follow the lead of Lincoln, Wilson (Dem.–WWI), FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan, George Bush, Clinton & now W Bush, and feel justified in saying our way is a better way.
LoveAmerica said: “Bush stuck to his gun and N. Korea came back to the 6 nation talk. This is a huge win.”
Why you feel such a need to have the Chinese, Russians, and Japanese involved in this is beyond my comprehension.
Our primary goal with North Korea should be to pull it out of China’s orbit and make it an ally of ours. That is China’s greatest fear and that’s why it continues to play games with us over North Korea.
I believe the North Koreans would jump at the chance to sever their reliance on the Chinese. After all, the Chinese and the Koreans have hated each other for centuries.
If we had a President who was able to think strategically on a grand scale he would jump at the chance to cut the Chinese out of our talks with North Korea. Richard Nixon’s opening to China was the singlemost brilliant strategic move of the Cold War and helped to lay the foundation for Ronald Reagan’s triumph over the Soviet Union decades later. At the time he was bitterly criticized by the far right as an appeaser.
But we are stuck with a President who simply cannot think “outside the box” when it comes to geopolitical strategy. Requiring the Chinese to hold our hands while we talk to North Korea make us look like we haven’t got the guts to sit down with them one-on-one.