This past Saturday, Jessica Lynch returned home to the United States after a harrowing experience in Iraqi captivity. She has two broken legs, a broken arm and a fractured spine. But she's home, and she's alive.

The USS Portland also brought 320 troops home on Friday, the first Navy ship to return from Iraq. The euphoric mood this has created is evident everywhere.

Baghdad fell so quickly it surprised even the most optimistic military experts -- and me. Saddam Hussein's "elite" Republican Guard was practically a no-show. Saddam himself might be dead. The streets of Baghdad, at least on television, appear jubilant.

Forget "let's roll." How about "let the good times roll"?

But wait -- what about the rest of the world? What about North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il? You know, "lil' Kim"? That zany short dude with bad hair, platform shoes, aviator sunglasses and a garage full of nukes?

Going into the war on Iraq, many critics expressed concern that other threats, particularly North Korea, would be forgotten. North Korea, unlike Iraq, probably already has at least two nuclear weapons. Also, unlike Iraq, North Korea is developing long-range missiles, namely the "Taepo Dong 2," which could strike America's western seaboard.

More importantly, on April 10 North Korea's 90-day withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was finalized. This cannot be ignored. Popular estimates put North Korea's nuclear production capability at a bomb per month. In a few years, according to the Pentagon, North Korea will be capable of producing about 60 per year.

If they follow through, the lack of willingness Washington currently shows to provide talks or aid to North Korea won't matter. North Korea will be able not only to directly threaten the United States, but also to peddle its nukes to the highest bidder.

In the worst-case scenario, North Korea could then bypass American sanctions by selling nuclear products to anyone, including al Qaeda. In the worst-case scenario, this means terrorists could detonate nuclear weapons in U.S. cities. In the worst case scenario, this means nuclear conflicts between warring regimes throughout the world.

Put plainly: In the worst-case scenario, this means global nuclear war. I typically associate global nuclear war with "crisis." According to the Bush administration, however, North Korea is nothing of the sort. It's more of a "concern." But, I ask myself, what exactly does a "concern" mean for President Bush?

Of North Korea, Bush offered the following on March 3: "[If American policies] don't work diplomatically, they'll have to work militarily." These remarks followed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's comments that the United States is capable of fighting simultaneous wars in Iraq and North Korea. According to the New York Times, the Pentagon has even recently drafted plans for possible pre-emptive tactical strikes against North Korean nuclear and defense sites.

Military resolutions to frustrated diplomacy and pre-emptive strikes? It sounds rather safe to say that Iraq must have "concerned" the Bush administration. More importantly, North Korea likely thinks the same thing. This is a problem.

Despite all the hawkish rhetoric, neither side truly wants a conflict. North Korea's brinkmanship belies its self-awareness that it could not survive an all-out military conflict with the United States.

On our side, the U.S. Department of Defense has calculated that allied U.S. and South Korean casualties would be in the millions. It would be insane to desire such an outcome.

History shows that wars are often initiated by accident in times of high tension. By prolonging the diplomatic silence with North Korea and undercutting it with threats such as those mentioned above, the United States is truly walking on thin ice.

We should not confuse North Korea's capabilities with its motives. True, North Korea might be capable of initiating nuclear war. But unless it believes it's next after Iraq and has nothing to lose, why would it want to?

There are better solutions. The lead article of Foreign Affairs' latest issue proposes a plan in which the United States and our allies could provide a multilateral peace agreement, thereby removing North Korea's impetus for nuclear proliferation.

Other various "win-win" formulas have been offered wherein Washington agrees to full-scale negotiations in exchange for a North Korean nuclear freeze. Former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, among others, has advocated such alternatives.

In any case, despite the success of Operation Iraqi Freedom the United States cannot afford to "let the good times roll." In both the Middle East and North Korea, the United States faces immediate problems that won't be solved with the blunt force of "shock and awe."

North Korea is terrified of American aggression, and might act like a cornered animal unless calmed. Reactions in the Middle East to a broadened campaign in Syria and Iran, which both Rumsfeld and Bush have suggested, will be similar.

As President Bush and his war cabinet toe a thin diplomatic tightrope, outcomes ranging from peaceful democracy to world war hang in the balance. As Baghdad falls, and as our summer approaches, we might like to think things are settling down.

But, get ready: Things are only just getting started.