The midterm results were nothing short of a minor earthquake here in Washington, with a new party in power and new leadership at the Pentagon. To decipher just what it all means for the war in Iraq, the race in 2008, and our allies - and enemies - abroad, FP turned to David Gergen, a professor at Harvard's Kennedy School and advisor to four presidents, to get an insider's take. Here's a excerpt:

FP: After 9/11, many people said the “Vietnam Syndrome” was dead—that Americans were now willing to accept large numbers of casualties in prolonged interventions overseas. Does this election prove that wrong?

DG: What we are seeing in Iraq is not a replay of the Vietnam Syndrome. Rather, it’s a sense that we are engaged in a conflict without an obvious end in sight and [that] things are getting worse. The Vietnam Syndrome argued that we should not commit force again unless our vital interests are clearly at stake. But in Iraq, we did commit our troops to conflict without a clear national interest at stake. It was a war of discretion and yet, the American people supported it. So, I don’t think the Vietnam Syndrome is what our problem is here. Rather, it is that the war has been so incompetently managed that the people have lost faith in the capacity of those running it.

 

South Koreans are taking to the sheets to relieve stress triggered by Kim Jong-Il's nuclear test. Condom sales and motel bookings are way up this month south of the DMZ. South Koreans are also flocking to stock up on butane gas and ramen noodle packs. Turns out a nuclear date is a cheap one.

Hat tip: Guardian Newsblog

With its nuclear weapons test confirmed (and another possibly on the way), North Korea can now claim to be the world's ninth nuclear-armed state. That could spur other states in Asia and the Middle East to join the club. Who will be No. 10? Over at ForeignPolicy.com, The List takes a look at some of the frontrunners.

This morning at the National Press Club, Foreign Policy, in partnership with Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School, hosted a series of roundtable discussions on "The Current State of North Korea and the Future of the U.S.-Korea Alliance."  U.S. Ambassador Christopher Hill was the keynote speaker. One of the final questions Hill took from the audience revealed a key disconnect between the U.S.'s rhetoric regarding North Korea and reality. Watch here:

The North Korean position is clear. "If the U.S. keeps pestering us and increases pressure, we will regard it as a declaration of war and will take a series of physical corresponding measures." As Richard Spencer points out, the North Koreans have been unusually straightforward in their statements throughout the crisis. Gone are the long denunciations of Bush as “an idiot, an ignorant, a tyrant and a man-killer.”

But what if this clarity is a result of their increasing confidence? The Bush administration, as William Perry notes, has regularly told the North Koreans that its actions would be unacceptable, then done little as North Korea goes ahead and does what it wants anyway. So the question is, would North Korea feel emboldened enough to follow through on this threat if the United Nations passed a sanctions resolution?

If today's nuclear test in North Korea is confirmed, it could portend a nightmarish global scenario. The rogue nation could sell its nuclear technology, highly enriched uranium, or even an actual device to a terrorist group. I just asked one of Washington’s foremost North Korea experts, Marcus Noland of the Institute for International Economics, if we could be sure Kim Jong-Il would not do a deal with al Qaeda. His reply: "I wouldn't bet Chicago on it." Another keen observer of the Hermit Kingdom pointed out that permanently cash-strapped North Korea, "sells anything to anyone." A more likely scenario is that North Korea would do a trade with a fellow rogue regime, especially if that country has oil. Noland points out that historically, Iran and Syria have had close trade relations with Kim Jong-Il. In short, the effects of this test are going to be felt far outside the Korean Peninsula. The test will also inject urgency into the Japanese debate about revising its constitution and whether Japan itself should go nuclear. One short term compromise being floated is that Japan might invite the United States to base short-range nuclear missiles in Japan.

Expect Washington to expend a lot of energy reassuring Tokyo that the United States will defend Japan. Apparently, Bolton told the UN Security Council this morning that any attack on Japan or South Korea would be treated as an attack on the United States.

Does the timing of North Korea's nuclear announcement have anything to do with the apparent selection of South Korean foreign minister Ban-ki Moon as the next U.N. secretary-general? True, rumors of an impending test had been circulating for weeks, but it's a remarkable coincidence that the announcement came the day after Ban-ki Moon was reported to have received the Security Council's endorsement, making his selection all but certain. Whatever the case, it seems likely that the quiet diplomat will be thrust into the middle of the dispute, leaving him little time to find his feet.

The whole Wisdom of Crowds kick has made online betting exchanges the new "in" thing. The NYT's John Tierney was so impressed by the fact that one of the exchanges called each of the 50 states correctly in 2004 that he fretted he was inaugurating his column "just as the job is being outsourced." But a great piece on the invaluable PoliticalBetting.com points out one of the dangers of betting on world events: How do you decide what actually happened?

Obviously, if you're gambling on something clear-cut like who will be the next French president, it is fairly simple. But when you start wagering on more subjective matters, things get complicated - and fast. As the article points out, Trade Sports is refusing to pay people who bet that North Korea would test a missile by the end of July 2006 because the betting contract stipulated that the Pentagon would have to verify it. The Pentagon hasn't done so, even though the White House has. 

So, those who like a good gamble are probably better off sticking to elections and the like. If you want a tip for the day, I'd say that there's a better than 2.6 percent chance of Barack Obama being the Democratic presidential nominee—Annie Leibovitz doesn't photograph just any senator—so buy that contract. But do so at your own risk. Passport is not responsible for any losses you may incur.

Despite how tempting it is, now is not the right time for the West to deliver a slap to Vladimir Putin about Russia's backsliding on democracy. Russia's veto at the Security Council means that it must be kept sweet if the Iran and, to a lesser extent, North Korea crises are to be dealt with successfully. (Indeed, all those people who sing paeans of praise to the moral legitimacy of the United Nations might want to consider how it empowers a dictatorship and a so-called "managed democracy.") So, all talk of boycotting the G8 or hosting a separate "democracies meeting" of the G7 beforehand has been quietly shelved. But Russia's behavior in the lead-up to the summit is demonstrating just how far Putin's Russia is from being a proper liberal democracy.

Yesterday, pro-Putin youth groups disrupted a conference on the state of Russian democracy organized by those who take issue with Putin's governing style and attended by foreign diplomats. Today's Daily Telegraph contains a report about how a St. Petersburg opposition leader was threatened with anal rape unless he signed a form promising that his supporters wouldn't protest during the summit. This man is a member of a thoroughly unpleasant party and so his allegations must be treated with suspicion. But perhaps the clearest indication of how far Russia is from being an appropriate host for a meeting of liberal democracies is that one can't dismiss the report out of hand.

Putin may have called Kim Jong Il's missile test disappointing and Iran may be resentful that the Taepodong 2 has replaced centrifuges in above-the-fold notoriety. But Kim's provocation is benefiting Moscow and Tehran in at least one way: record oil prices.

Crude oil prices closed at a new record Wednesday: $75.19 a barrel, largely thanks to tensions over the North Korean missile test and the likelihood of a long summer of strained relations with Iran. And oil analysts today raised their annual average price forecasts, with oil expected to average $67.25 a barrel this year, $9.25 higher than expected back in January. Prices are down slightly today, but otherwise holding steady. Iran and Russia, being two of the world's top oil producers, have been enjoying oil windfalls all year and the recent trouble north of the 38th parallel is simply adding to the coffers.

Will he or won't he? Reports are out today that the North Korean missile causing heartburn in Tokyo and Washington may not actually be fueled for launch, and even Cheney thinks Kim Jong Il is bluffing. To get a handle on this little chess game, FP spoke recently with Don Oberdorfer, veteran journalist and author of The Two Koreas, about the timing of the missile threat, the prospects for diplomacy, and whether Kim Jong Il is crazy like a fox - or just plain crazy.