By EDWIN TANJI, City Editor
The Maui News
July 8, 2006

WAILUKU - Hawaii's senior senator, Daniel Inouye, says the United States responded appropriately to the actions of North Korea, which test fired a series of missiles into the Sea of Japan, in contrast to U.S. actions in the Middle East.

President George W. Bush expressed his concern but also made clear that the U.S. will work with other countries in responding to the belligerency of the North Korean government of Kim Jong Il, Inouye said.

The country is so tightly controlled it is difficult to comprehend what is going through the mind of Kim Jong Il, he said. But the missile firings clearly are a move to demand "respect and recognition" from other countries.

"President Bush's response was most appropriate, to be concerned but prudent, and to carry on as usual. If he had responded with threats or panic, it would send the wrong message, that the U.S. can be shaken up by this situation," Inouye said.

With North Korea, the U.S. policy is to seek diplomatic solutions, relying in large part on the few countries that may have some influence on Kim Jong Il, although even the country with the most influence apparently is stymied by the dictator's behavior.

"China is the best friend that North Korea has, but China is very much chagrined and concerned as to where this may lead," Inouye said.

During an interview Thursday with The Maui News, Inouye pointed to the sharp difference in the Bush administration's actions in Iraq, which was to forgo diplomatic efforts in favor of military action to counter a perceived threat - a threat that proved to be unsubstantiated.

"I was one of the 22, together with Senator (Daniel) Akaka, who voted against authorizing the president of the United States carrying out a pre-emptive strike on Iraq," he said.

Based on the reports from the United Nations' weapons inspection teams, many of whose members were American specialists, there were questions about whether Saddam Hussein still had weapons of mass destruction and specifically whether he had nuclear weapons, Inouye said.

The prewar campaign to justify military intervention had been based on threats of both chemical and biological weapons - which Hussein had used to quell uprisings within Iraq - and nuclear weapons - which Hussein was believed to be attempting to develop.

"The justification at that time was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and specifically was working on nuclear weapons. Remember the aluminum tubes?" Inouye said.

He referred to a claim made by the administration that a shipment of intercepted aluminum tubes destined for Iraq was evidence of Iraq's efforts to develop centrifuges needed to refine nuclear fuel to bombard plutonium. The claim was later refuted when the tubes were found to be suited for medical uses, but not adequate for nuclear processing.

"The U.N. inspection teams, and they were mostly Americans on those teams, searched high and low across the country, and they found nothing to support the contention that Iraq had those weapons," Inouye said.

Inouye noted the Iraq policy as one of the issues that draws a clear difference between his Senate colleague, Daniel Akaka, and Akaka's Democratic challenger, Congressman Ed Case. Inouye sharply criticized Case when Case announced his decision to seek Akaka's seat.

Case says he would have supported the resolution granting the president authority to take military action in Iraq, Inouye said. Case also opposes any congressional move to require the U.S. to set a timetable for taking American forces out of Iraq.

Inouye and Akaka both voted in favor of Senate resolutions to require the U.S. military begin planning a departure from Iraq. Both resolutions failed.

Contrasting the situation in Iraq with the policies on dealing with North Korea, which Inouye saw as an even greater threat to the U.S. than Iraq had been, Inouye said the U.S. needs to consider perceptions of U.S. actions. Staying in a country where American troops are not wanted perpetuates a view in other countries of the U.S. as an occupying force, he said.

"Why don't we ask the Iraqis: Do they want us to be there?" he said. "When you look at the media, it's reporting the polls in Iraq say that 85 percent of the Iraqis want us to leave. That's not just 45-55, but 85 to 90 percent."

He did not advocate immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from the region, which he said would lead to "absolute chaos." But he said the U.S. can plan a phased withdrawal to areas where American forces would be welcomed, such as Kuwait.

"And if something disastrous should occur, we send the troops back in," he said.

A phased withdrawal would hold the Iraqi political leadership responsible for cooperating to re-establish stability in the country, with the option of requesting American assistance if needed.

"We're in South Korea and Japan because South Korea wants us to be there, and the Japanese not only want us to be there, they are paying for the infrastructure for our forces to be there," he said.

The World War II veteran and Medal of Honor recipient also expressed concern over the effects of the disputed war on the U.S. military. He said the Army is suffering from a significant loss of key leaders, the captains and majors who are the commanders in the field for any military action.

"If you look at the situation for West Point graduates, more and more after they have completed their commitment, they quit," he said. "After we have spent thousands, even millions training them, they are leaving the military, and we are losing our future leadership."