On National Review, Charles Krauthammer indulges in a spotty view of history while analyzing the North Korean situation:
Nukes assure regime survival. That’s why the Kims have so single-mindedly pursued them. The lessons are clear. Saddam Hussein, no nukes: hanged. Moammar Qaddafi, gave up his nuclear program: killed by his own people. The Kim dynasty, possessing an arsenal of ten to 16 bombs: untouched, soon untouchable.
Here’s the problem: The Soviet Union. In one of the most awesome empire dissolutions of the last 500 years, perhaps rivaled only by the destruction of the Ottoman Empire, the nuclear armed and ready Soviet Union fell peacefully apart. Mostly.
Why does this matter? After all, Charles himself doesn’t really have any recommendations. For me, though, it indicates, first, intellectual laziness, and all that implies.
Second, it suggests a possible misunderstanding of the Kim’s (I’ll specify them as a family or clan, since this is a multi-generational project) motivations. After all, I see no mention of the East Asian practice known as saving face, or more generally the idea of gaining and keeping respect.
And, third, his failure to mention the Soviet Union – and the resultant gap in the knowledge of the trusting reader – deprives both Krauthammer and that reader of the lessons learned from the Soviet Union experience, whatever they may be.
Charles, time to retract that column. It could have been so much more.
