The question that has to be asked, therefore, is whether the pre-emptive strategy has made the situation worse, not better.That may in fact be the question, but the answer may not be the 'yes' that the Irish Times assumes it to be. "Classical deterrence and containment" that the Times endorses was what was used in the 1990s. Unfortunately, North Korea continued developing its nuclear program in violation of the agreements it had with the US. So, the N. Koreans were neither contained nor deterred from developing their program. And, as last year's intercepted shipment of arms from N. Korea to Yemen illustrated, it's not beyond reason that a N. Korean developed nuclear weapon could end up in the hands of those same people who used commercial airliners with such devestating effect 2 years ago.
The Times says that the US is in no position to threaten intervention due to its difficulties in Iraq. That may be partially true, but it's equally true that the US Navy and Air Force are virtually standing idle now as their missions are essentially complete in that region. The primary reason for not intervening now is that there is no way that the US could prevent the total destruction of Seoul, which is only 50 miles from the border. America's 37,000 troops are only a token when compared with the 1 million N. Koreans on the other side.
However, it's equally true that the US cannot allow N. Korea to develop nuclear weapons that would put Japan, which is now discussing developing their own nuclear program, and, ultimately, the west coast of the US at risk. It seems to me that any faltering in these negotiations will lead to war, but probably not until the spring. Say, just after Colin Powell's 6 months deadline for handing Iraq over to the Iraqis.
