So little of value to say... but feel obligated to point out, viz the current reiteration of unending North Korea crisis, that I guess it was three or four years ago, when Lil' Kim test fired a multi-stage ballistic missile provocatively out over the Sea of Japan and there was much discussion concerning whether or not the US should shoot it down - believe it was I who said that although it may seem like a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario, it probably really isn't, and for two very good, palpable reasons: one, it's imperative, when it's in our power to stop them from testing nuclear components and thereby perfecting those components and thereby moving closer to the feared end state, that we do so - otherwise you will end up leaving yourself ultimately with only two rather unpleasant options - military intervention or capitulation [although capitulation likely eventually leads to military intervention so the choice is in a way a false one]; and two, failure to call Lil' Kim's bluff will lead to escalating provocations which in turn will lead to increased chances of a serious miscalculation on someone's part which will in turn lead to perception that military intervention is necessary - and that is exactly what has happened - the North miscalculated [China too I guess we can say] and the South now feels compelled to openly talk of 'war'. Both sides are now perched in positions that make backing down hard to contemplate [this danger reflected in China's rhetoric now hardening rather than softening - realization that their credibility as a regional power is between rock and hard place - give in to US pressure and they look weak and diminished - maintain a hard line and they look unreliable and threatening]
Not that if we had shot down that missile all this could have without a doubt been avoided - but it reminds me that we often choose the riskier option thinking it the less risky only because the negative consequences of not choosing it are more easily imagined. It's the same mistake we're making with Iran - it's easy to imagine the serious fallout of a military intervention and therefore people assume that the military option must be the worst choice - whereas in reality an effort made in imagining alternate scenarios reveals that the military option, although quite obviously fraught with significant dangers, could easily prove the least bad of the few credible options out there.
Of course one wants and needs to be circumspect - rushing to war is truly a hazardous game - but by the same token I think it's important to acknowledge or at least remind ourselves of the unappealing reality the world tends to throw at us and admit that rushing away from war also carries with it the threat of significant and terrible consequences.
