My man Victor Davis Hanson chimes in on the question of Iraq vs. North Korea. 

The Nuke question changes the ground considerably:

The sad truth is that once an outlaw regime possesses nuclear weapons, it wins special consideration as the range of our own countermeasures diminishes — hence the mad scramble of utterly failed regimes in the post-Cold War era to acquire such expensive weapons in the first place, and in turn the importance not to appease them.

He provides a series of reasons why Iraq and DPRK are different situations:

1. Preventing nuke proliferation vs. dealing with existing proliferation
2. Dealing with the remnants of the Gulf War -- Hanson argues that Husseins repeated violations of the basic tenets of the cease fire agreement provide adequate reason along to after Iraq
3. End of History -- DPRK is culturally closer to other successful nations (S. Korea and Japan), is more economically shoddy and can be addressed by containment   (echoing my blog entry...)
4. War on Terror -- even if Iraq isn't implicated in 9/11, it has been strongly implicated in a variety of past and potential future actions
5. Divide and conquer -- take on the weaker party first and use the political capital to take in DPRK