Last night I highlighted this op-ed by Asia wonks Ashton Carter and William J. Perry. My first reading was pretty breathless, I admit. But then I sat down and re-read it. So many of the assumptions they make in the op-ed seem so wildly off base to me that I don't know where to begin. The first one they made that I laughed at was how "North Korean engineers," after they'd fired off this missile and we shot it down (stifling laughter, I know), as Perry and Carter write,

would already have obtained much of the precious flight test data they are seeking, which they could use to make a whole arsenal of missiles, hiding and protecting them from more U.S. strikes in the maze of tunnels they have dug throughout their mountainous country.

Look, I know the Norks are tunnel builders. I've been in one near the DMZ. But have you ever seen how big a Taepodong missile is? Fooking huge! This one just doesn't pass the laugh test.

You know, we build silos in the soft earth of the Plains States to protect our missiles (which is still wildly expensive) what makes you think the Norks have the money to build, in essence, huge hangars inside mountains? Please.

More after the jump.

The next one to cringe at (too serious to laugh at) is this:

The United States should accordingly make clear to the North that the South will play no role in the attack, which can be carried out entirely with U.S. forces and without use of South Korean territory.

Sure, yeah, whatever. Do you seriously think the Norks will overlook the fact that we have 30k troops in South Korea? That's what I thought.

Finally, the one that really angered me was this almost flip certainty that the US would prevail should the Norks invade South Korea. They write:

An invasion of South Korea would bring about the certain end of Kim Jong Il's regime within a few bloody weeks of war, as surely he knows.

A few bloody weeks of war? Makes it sound so nice and tidy, right? Well, what did General Gary Luck tell Clinton in 1994 when we came very close to war with the Norks?

The U.S. commander in Korea, Gary Luck, told Clinton . . . [h]is forces could win a new war--but not right away. It would take a few months and cost a lot. How much would it cost? Perhaps as many as 80,000-100,000 American soldiers, and the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of South Koreans.

And that was well before Rumsfeld began his global realignment, which includes US troops being redeployed well south of the DMZ. Diabolical strategery, I tell you!

Laura emailed Chris Nelson, asking him what he thought of the op-ed? He wrote: "The only plausible explanation I have seen so far is that Perry thinks this will get the Norks' attention that everyone is seriously pissed of, so they better back down."

I reckon Chris might be right, but that isn't stopping Washington, the Pentagon, the CIA, the NSA and the FBI from using this and other boogeymen (and perhaps women) to scare us off of asking hard questions and to better mutilate the Constitution, as William Arkin writes today. Adding:

The necessity for war against Saddam Hussein, a U.S. first strike on North Korea, a suspension of U.S. law to fight the Universal Adversary -- pretty soon just about anything can be justified to keep those mushroom clouds away.

No real leadership and a scaremongering-driven power grab by the government? Sounds about right to me.

More here and here and here and here and here.