John Bolton defends a possible preventive war against North Korea.
Bolton, an American lawyer and served as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in 2005-2006.
He was an appointee from the administration of President George W. Bush.
Called a warmonger in some diplomatic circles, he always denied such allegations.
In Bolton’s view pre-emption opponents are not justified saying Pyongyang does not constitute an “imminent threat.”
“They are wrong. The threat is imminent,” he says.
According to Bolton, the case against preemption rests on the misinterpretation of a standard that derives from prenuclear, pre-ballistic-missile times.
For one thing, the Iraq war in 2003 is an example U.S. preemption.
The U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003. It was on the basis of a lie.
The U.S. was saying the country had a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.
In other words, they are now using the same argument in the case of North Korea.
But by the same token, they are saying Pyongyang will imminently attack the U.S.
However, North Korea is not preparing any such attacks, says Josh Rogin.
Daniel Larison a senior editor at The American Conservative, believes there is no such threat.
Equally important is to believe if there is an imminent it means the Koreans are bent on self-destruction.
Not to mention that Rogin says Bolton supports a massive strike against North Korea.
This in the event the sanctions fail.
Nevertheless, U.S. attack would be a violation of international laws.
But in the present world, the international laws have become meaningless.
Furthermore, this reinforces the U.S. and Bolton’s views that a strike by Washington would be unopposed.
Or that any opposition would be on paper.
An attack will not materialise into any sort of retribution against the U.S.
For one thing, Larison says there should be no doubt that Bolton is calling for a preventive war.
“And we should not be fooled by his attempts to confuse the issue by abusing the English language.”