There are three reasons to be concerned with nuclear North Korea:  1) They will use the weapons against the U.S. or our allies; 2) they will start a proliferation chain (e.g. Japan); and 3) they will provide the material, know-how or bombs to terrorists or other countries.

The implications of a nuclear North Korea are profound.  The United States has wrestled with this problem since 1991 and no administration has found a good solution.  Each has preferred to kick the can down the road and hope that the regime collapses.

That policy has not worked.  North Korea has only grown its nuclear capabilities.  There is every reason to believe this will continue.  The administration seems to adopt the action of its predecessor, watching North Korea closely to ensure no bombs or components leave.  That is an imperfect solution because North Korea gets stronger, with more fissile material to sell.  It also places a huge burden on the U.S. intelligence community.  But it is the only practical solution and so is good enough for the present circumstances.

So how will history judge President Bush.  The Left will write the history, so the answer is “not well.”  Iraq will be figured prominently, as indeed it should.  But the positive and negative aspects of Iraq deserve attention, although the former will not receive their due.  The calculus will be Bush=Iraq, unless Iraq is a stable, good ally.

Conservatives should be upset with the Bush presidency.  For most of it, Republicans held the Hill.  Yet, no progress was made stemming the tide of illegal immigration, eliminating affirmative action, or any of the other measures that would please the Republican base.  Just the reverse, Republicans in power govern like moderate Democrats on domestic and social issues.

After 9/11, Bush had a chance to make progress in domestic policy.   For example, to illustrate the absurdity and perniciousness of multiculturalism and to restore sanity on immigration policy.  His great failing as a president was that he did not act when he had the opportunity.

The time is now to change the Republican leadership and restore conservative principles to the Party.

What was the Bush presidency?  A very good one in foreign and defense policy.  Leaving the ABM Treaty was a positive step.  One that allows America to be partially protected from ballistic missiles.  That work continues in Europe, with the construction of the European site for missile defense in the Czech Republic and Poland.  The list continues:  Forging the 9/11 coalition of states; de-escalating the tension between India and Pakistan; expanding NATO; forcing Libya to surrender its WMD and rolling up the A.Q. Khan network; calling attention to North Korea’s uranium enrichment facilities (started under Clinton); and readily assisting after natural disasters.

On domestic policy:  He was a failure–marked by lost opportunities to make progress.

What was the Bush presidency?  A Bush presidency.  You knew how he would govern in 2000.

Let us hope that he is not the last Republican president.

This campaign is notable principally because of the participants. The fact that one candidate is black and the other a woman overwhelms Old Media coverage, and so it is the responsibility of New Media to uncover the facts and provide analysis of the candidates’ policies.

What is clear is the lack of attention to foreign and defense policy this election cycle. We know McCain’s excellent record on these issues, but we do not know Obama’s. His campaign will only cast foreign and defense policy in a general light, as one would expect. In the past, the Old Media would have labored to tell us. Not so anymore. The cheerleaders for Obamessiah would not be caught dead investigating his policies. The American people suffer for their lack of professionalism.

Were he elected, Obama will face key foreign and defense policy challenges. How will he address the growth in Chinese military power? What are his policies on Taiwan? Will Obama protect Taiwan from Chinese coercion? Or will his election embolden the PRC’s leadership?

How will he respond to Russia’s increasing aggressiveness? What about the commitment to Europe? How will stop North Korean proliferation? Will the next president reverse the decline in America’s strategic forces?  This is only the beginning of the list of important policy decisions that will have to be made.

We know that each new president is tested by America’s foes. I feel comfortable with McCain’s ability to respond. I do not with Obama’s. Nor should other Americans. He has some excellent advisors, but the bench is not deep. If he is elected, it is certain that his inexperienced advisors will make many mistakes as they come up to speed and as reality forces them to abandon their policies.

In the meantime, America’s foes China, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela will test the inexperienced president. It did not have to come to this. And may not, if Americans make the right choice on November 4^th.

The Good. Much good has come out of this for the United States. There clearly is a winner in the conflict, and it is the United States. Poland has signed a missile accord with the United States. Ukraine has offered to create a joint missile defense network with NATO, and clearly its prospects for NATO membership have increased. It was a mistake not to admit Georgia to NATO as the Bush administration wanted at the Bucharest Summit in April 2008. But German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the French resisted, won the day. Now, four months later, the world has changed and the Germans and French have come around on this issue. Let’s hope that Georgia is admitted to NATO.

The Bad. Wars always inflict great suffering and this one is no exception. Their military has been defeated, although—importantly—not destroyed, and the objective of securing South Ossetia is dashed. No doubt, Georgia will be re-armed after the conflict subsides with even better conventional weaponry. For the population caught in the conflict, the suffering is far greater than in Kosovo in 1999 (anyone remember that war?). There are reports that the Russians are using Chechen mercenaries and troops serving in the notorious Vostok Battalion. One can only hope that when the dust settles Georgia’s new found friends in Berlin and Paris, and Washington, D.C., stay with Tbilisi.

And The Ugly. Russia is trying to re-assert its dominance in the Caucasus at the expense of the United States and NATO. Russian military performance has been awful according to the Russians themselves. They have criticized the air force’s performance, specifically the suppression of gun emplacements and other close air support missions. Other criticisms involve the lack of jointness which resulted in absence of coordination in the attack. This all the more surprising if, as some Russian military analysts think, that the invasion was planned months, or even as much as years ago, under the guise of the “Kavkazksiy Rubezh” exercises.

Meanwhile, the Russians are doing their best to begin Cold War Redux. The crude threat to arm its Baltic fleet with tactical nuclear weapons only serves to push Europeans into the arms of the United States. No doubt there will be further demands and threats from Moscow in the days and months ahead.