This morning on NPR's morning edition they had a report on Secretary Rumsfeld testifying before congress on war with Iraq. Of course, everyone in the administration is insisting that the President is considering all his options and that even non-violent means of disarmament are not off the table. Well, a democratice senator asked Mr. Rumsfeld for an example of a non-violent option that is being considered. Guess what? Rumsfeld was momentarily stumped, he had no ready answer and then came up with the line that Saddam Hussein could step down and that could be the non-violent scenario. I wonder why they are all so war thirsty?

The other thing that struck me was the fact that Mr. Rumsfeld said something like, while the war with Iraq would be our problem, however, the political aftermath in Iraq would be an issue for the Iraqi people and not our primary problem, after all, we can't tell them how to constitute themselves.

This is ultimately scary, obviously he hasn't put as much thought and concern into the aftermath as he has into the war. The war pales in level of difficulty when compared to the aftermath of the war. That's where we really need to roll up our sleeves. If we are not willing to commit major dollars and 10-15 years in the rebuilding of Iraq, then we have no biz goingt to war on such a major scale. I think they could do what Israel has done in the past, use intelligence ON THE GROUND, nto that silly satellite stuff, to determine targets and use precision bombing to take them out. Also they could increase the no-fly zone. On the other hand, I would support an easing of sanctions for the sake of the Iraqi people, but increase sanctions on technological trade. Of course the problem is China, Russia, North Korea, Pakistan and possibly Iran, who have precision missle technology and could eventually leak this knowledge to Iraq.

After this whole Iraq thing is over, if ever, the administration will also have to decide what to do about Iran and North Korea and I submit, invasion and regime change talk is not an option especially in N. Korea. For this reason they need to tread lightly here so that there is consistency in foreign policy going forward. Why invade Iraq but not Iran and North Korea. If we cite repeated violation of UN security council resolutions on Iraq's part, and a lack of such violations on the part of Iran and N. Korea, then we are then bound by the UN's decision because we are claiming to take action for the sake of violations against the UN. If we say that the US is threatened, valid concern, then we need to articulate why this threat differs from that which Iran and N. Korea pose. I think that such an articulation can be done, but it is delicate and I think such considerations should guide their foreign policy going forward.