I wonder how much our capability to handle explosive political situations has matured over time. As academics have we contributed to how this situation can be contained and amicably settled. What is the basic root of the felt need of North Korea to be combative? Does the USA respond differently overall or is it contingent upon the leader in the White House?

There is a saying that you should never fight with a man who has nothing to lose. North Korea is reputed to have 150 artillery pieces trained on the South for every mile of their common border. A war would devastate the south, which is the deterrent card they are playing.

The US lost the Korean war because of its hubris and its unnecessary aggravation of China. If not for the costly miscalculation of moving US troops close to the Chinese border, most of Korea would be democratic today. The North Korean leadership conveniently forget that fact, and trumpet the US defeat as though it was all their own doing.

North Korea is on the verge of economic collapse. It is an almost totally unproductive state, with most of its population living in crushing poverty. Like the Soviet Union before it, it will eventually implode under its own weight. The problem is, what does North Korea want, or to be more accurate, what does it despotic ruler want? Fareed Zakaria says that they want respect. I say they want money (for their leaders, that is). President Obama needs to find a way to shut down their US Dollar counterfeiting operations. Missile and nuclear technology are other major earners for them. North Korea is a major sponsor of the Iranian nuclear program.

Diplomacy takes time, but for now it is the only viable solution to the Pyongyang problem.

Today, ex-President Clinton was successful in facilitating the release of the two women who had been held by North Korea. Laura Ling, 32, and Euna Lee, 36, were greeted at Bob Hope Airport in Burbank by family, friends and former Vice President Al Gore.

This was a private mission by Bill Clinton, but without a Federal Government waiver, it would have been illegal for him to visit the reclusive state. Interestingly enough, the rescue is being panned by Republican Party critics who cannot find the "good" in good news. John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., harshly criticized President Clinton's trip to North Korea. To quote:

"The symbolism of a former president going to meet with Kim Jong Il I think is something that benefits Kim Jong Il a lot more than the United States, and it only encourages others to do the same thing,"

This is completely indecipherable stupidity. What is the 'same thing'? People who wander over borders will be arrested in most places in the world. Are they to be instantly released because they are US citizens? This neocon stupidity is what led us into the disastrous adventure in Iraq in the first place. An adventure based on a lie.

This was a non-governmental mission by a private citizen, where nothing was given or promised in exchange. Actually, it breaks the icy impasse between North Korea and the world and provides a possible opening to negotiations. IN the GOP, neocon ideology always trumps common sense, in my view. That is why the GOP will be a southern regional party within 12 years, mark my words!