Who knows if they think it helps McCain as well as an appearance by Bin Laden. They do long for a good old Cold War. They can build a lot of missiles, without the hassle of welfare to other people's children i.e., funding to help wounded veterans.
I think this guy has a solid take on what's gone down and the best way forward from here. http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/2008/08/mccain_clueless.html McCain: Let's Compound the Blunder! We live in a season of risible "3 AM moments", where the breathless commentariat in this country overhear a strange overseas country's name--perhaps with tales of some military action underway--and rush off towards dim-witted debates about what candidate would better handle that resultant red-phone ringing in the middle of the night (this I guess most immediately derivative of Mark Penn's desperately lame "positive ad"). This infantile fare passes for serious debate on generally well-regarded sites like Politico.com, or among the beard-stroking class chiming in from a Situation Room near you. There is really nothing we can do about it, this is the sad echo-chamber we dwell in, and it's not going to change anytime soon--so I won't belabor the point here. This being said, if the horrors inflicted on varied Abkhazians, Ossetians and Georgians this past week (by both sides) must be seen from these provincial, grossly self-interested shores merely through the lens of the U.S. Presidential election, let me chime in very briefly within these contours. Regarding the 3 AM sweepstakes, Obama has taken it by a mile (if his Pavlovian movements to 'sound tougher' after his initial statement were a bit underwhelming, if sadly predictable). Witness this incredibly poor reasoning by McCain, jaw-dropping even by the standards of the mammoth policy ineptitude we've become accustomed to during the reign of Bush 43 and his motley crew of national security miscreants. Here is McCain: Mr. McCain urged NATO to begin discussions on “the deployment of an international peacekeeping force to South Ossetia,’’ called on the United Nations to condemn “Russian aggression,’’ and said that the secretary of state should travel to Europe “to establish a common Euro-Atlantic position aimed at ending the war and supporting the independence of Georgia.’’ And he said the NATO should reconsider its previous decision and set Georgia – which he called “one of the world’s first nations to adopt Christianity as an official religion’’ — on the path to becoming a member. “NATO’s decision to withhold a membership action plan for Georgia might have been viewed as a green light by Russia for its attacks on Georgia, and I urge the NATO allies to revisit the decision,’’ he said. [my emphasis] First, what does it matter in this context that Georgia was "one of the world's first nations to adopt Christianity as an official religion"? If it had been the first to adopt Islam, or Judaism, or Buddhism, would the situation be different? Perhaps this might get assorted Christianists in an excited tizzy or such, which come to think of it, might be why some clueless aide to McCain, fresh from a Google sortie, decided to plug this little factoid into his statement. But what is really mind-boggling here is that McCain would have us double-down, and cheer-lead having NATO "revisit" the decision not to extend membership to Georgia! It is precisely this type of profoundly flawed thinking (think too the League of Democracies crapola bandied about from centrist advisors to Obama to the fanciful Kaganites around McCain who want to pick and choose who the supposed good and bad guys are meriting membership in the splendid "League") that has gotten Georgia into this bloody mess. As George Kennan had put it (would that we had a single diplomat in the entire foreign service of his stature and caliber today): "(E)xpanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold war era. Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking. Or, related, as Henry Kissinger had recently written: "Confrontational rhetoric notwithstanding, Russia's leaders are conscious of their strategic limitations. Indeed, I would characterize Russian policy under Putin as driven in a quest for a reliable strategic partner, with America being the preferred choice...But the movement of the Western security system from the Elbe River to the approaches to Moscow brings home Russia's decline in a way bound to generate a Russian emotion that will inhibit the solution of all other issues. It should be kept on the table without forcing the issue to determine the possibilities of making progress on other issues." These are the systemic historic forces at play here, and McCain would just idiotically throw fuel on the fire. Meantime, my post here sketched out the specific bill of goods leading to this crisis, whether the ill-advised, rushed handling of Kosovo, or how Saakhasvili's over-reaching was a major factor in contributing to this Russian reaction, among other factors. On this last, C. J. Chivers puts its well in this NYT piece: Some diplomats considered Mr. Saakashvili a politician of unusual promise, someone who could reorder Georgia along the lines of a Western democracy and become a symbol of change in the politically moribund post-Soviet states. Mr. Saakashvili encouraged this view, framing himself as a visionary who was leading a column of regional democracy movements. Other diplomats worried that both Mr. Saakashvili’s persona and his platforms presented an implicit challenge to the Kremlin, and that Mr. Saakashvili made himself a symbol of something else: Russia’s suspicion about American intentions in the Kremlin’s old empire. They worried that he would draw the United States and Russia into arguments that the United States did not want. This feeling was especially true among Russian specialists, who said that, whatever the merits of Mr. Saakashvili’s positions, his impulsiveness and nationalism sometimes outstripped his common sense. The risks were intensified by the fact that the United States did not merely encourage Georgia’s young democracy, it helped militarize the weak Georgian state. [my emphasis] We know from Kennan that NATO encirclement of Russia is ultimately a poor idea (incidentally, what is the purpose of the NATO alliance anyway with the Soviet Union defeated--nation-building in eastern Afghanistan, or some such?). And Kissinger is right that Moscow has been in the hunt for a "reliable strategic partner, with America being the preferred choice" (remember the Spirit of Ljubljana!), so why push them away allowing a country on Russia's southern under-belly (one far less important to us strategically), to have become such a nettlesome U.S. proxy badgering the Kremlin? Look, all of this would have been stupid and deeply flawed policy, but at least morally defensible, if we meant to actually defend the Georgians. But we don't, and never will, as this would mean a war with Russia. We've had a tough go of it fighting small militias and tribes in Iraq and Afghanistan, so even McCain would pull back from such unbridled folly (though doubtless some imbecile will pen an op-ed in coming days about the need for NATO airstrikes on Russian forces should they attack Tbilisi). So here is where matters stand. Rather than talk and obsess about what we should do, it is the Russians, sad to say, who will determine the fate of Georgia in the coming days and weeks, and so we might take a moment or two and stop and think about what their next moves are likely to be. Will they stop at Gori (just south of Ossetia) as well as a bit to the east of Abkhazia (a similar 'exclusion zone'), or have they now decided to march into Tbilisi and unseat this Government whole stop (I think it's a closer call which way Russia will go than many of us realize at this hour, but won't hazard to make a call just yet. UPDATE: The latest Russian moves would appear to indicate the former). As a Georgian civilian put it more pithily: "The border is where the Russians say it is. It could be here, or it could be Gori". Or, indeed, it could be Tbilisi, as I say. Meantime, a Georgian soldier tells a U.S. reporter in the same piece: "Write exactly what I say. Over the past few years, I lived in a democratic society. I was happy. And now America and the European Union are spitting on us." They are, aren't they? They had no business making the cheap promises and representations that were made. No business on practical policy grounds. No business on strategic grounds (though I guess it got Rummy another flag, near the Salvadorans, say, for the Mesopotamian "coalition of the willing"). And now our promises are unraveling and nakedly revealed for the sorry lies and crap policy they are, with the emperor revealed to have no clothes, yet again. This is what our foreign policy mandarins masquerade about as they play policy-making, in their Washington work-stations. It's, yes, worse than a crime, rather a sad, pitiable blunder. And one McCain would have us compound, I stress, again! An honorable man who served his country well, it is clear his time has past and his grasp on the most basic foreign policy calls we'll need to make in the coming years is very tentative indeed. He'll be surrounded by second-tier 'yes-man' realists and residual neo-con swill, few with any ideas worth pursuing if we mean to take the national interest seriously with sobriety and freshness of perspective. So let us help him exit off-stage gracefully, as he served his country with dignity when called upon, but let us not sacrifice our children's future to ignorants with deludely romantic notions of empire. Been there, done that. Indeed, we have a President who has announced a pre-emptive doctrine which allows us to, willy-nilly, instigate regime change when and where we deem appropriate. Who are we to lecture Putin now? What standing do we have to do so? And what parochial and self-satisfied myopia has us indignantly thinking we are some unimpeachable arbitrer of right and wrong in the international system after the disastrous missteps of the past eight sordid years? If we mean to help the Georgians escape an even worse fate, we must summon up the intelligence and humility to have a dialogue with Putin, Medvedev, Sergie Lavrov, Vitaly Churkin and the rest of them based on straight talk (not of the McCain variety, and if we can somehow find a messenger of the stature and talent to deliver the message in the right way, hard these days), to wit: we screwed up overly propping this guy up and he got too big for his britches, we understand, but for the sake of going forward strategic cooperation (and don't mention Iran here, at least not as the first example)--as well as stopping further civilian loss of life--agree to work with us in good faith towards a status quo ante as much as possible, don't enter Tbilisi, and throw show-boats Sarkozy/Kouchner a bone with some possible talk of a going forward EU peacekeeping role (if non-binding, for the time being). This is roughly what we should be saying/doing now, not having the President step up to the White House mike fresh back from the sand volleyball courts of Beijing to gravely declare Russia's actions are "unacceptable in the 21st century." Such talk will get us nowhere, instead, it might just fan the flames more (as will Cheney's threats of "serious consequences", apparently a favorite sound-bite of his, but this time mentioned only in the context of the U.S.-Russian relationship). Let us be clear: these men's credibility is a sad joke, and Putin knows it only too well. So let's get real. Before it's too late, and more facts are created on the ground, mostly on the backs of innocent civilians throughout Georgia's various regions.
yet another crisis that links back to George Bush's war. Georgia has committed enormous resources to the War on Terror, rivaling the manpower committed by Great Britain, Australia and South Korea. We do owe them. Unfortunately Saakashvili miscalculated how much support we would feel we "owe' them when he precipitated this conflict. Otherwise he would never have taken a hard line stance. For what it's worth, Georgia is a TRUE democracy since the Rose Revolution and it's exactly the type of country born from a formerly totalitarian regime that we profess to be trying to build in the region (read: Iraq/Iran). It's entirely West-leaning and modern. Not that I personally support Iraq or ever have, but if you at all support Iraq for the professed ideals of Democracy building or toppling dictators then you have to support Georgia over Russia in this conflict to have any sort of internal consistency The issue with South Ossetia is obviously complicated but you cant sit there and say it's kosher for Russia to invade a neighboring democracy regardless of regional ethnic disputes
go russia!!, the georgian government think they can just boss around ossetia and not suffer any consequences? georgia for practical purpose is committing genocide in that region, props to russian for have the balls to stand up against such obvious atrocity.
i was going to try and reply in depth to your questions, but frankly, the font is too small for these tired eyes to puzzle over. might i suggest you experiment with the RQUOTER tag? instead, let me quote VDH, who neatly sums up much of my opinion of this whole sad affair: [rquoter]Moscow’s Sinister Brilliance Who wants to die for Tbilisi? By Victor Davis Hanson Lost amid all the controversies surrounding the Georgian tragedy is the sheer diabolic brilliance of the long-planned Russia invasion. Let us count the ways in which it is a win/win situation for Russia. The Home Front The long-suffering Russian people resent the loss of global influence and empire, but not necessarily the Soviet Union and its gulags that once ensured such stature. The invasion restores a sense of Russian nationalism and power to its populace without the stink of Stalinism, and is indeed cloaked as a sort of humanitarian intervention on behalf of beleaguered Ossetians. There will be no Russian demonstrations about an “illegal war,” much less nonsense about “blood for oil,” but instead rejoicing at the payback of an uppity former province that felt its Western credentials somehow trumped Russian tanks. How ironic that the Western heartthrob, the old Marxist Mikhail Gorbachev, is now both lamenting Western encouragement of Georgian “aggression,” while simultaneously gloating over the return of Russian military daring. Sinister Timing Russia’s only worry is the United States, which currently has a lame-duck president with low approval ratings, and is exhausted after Afghanistan and Iraq. But more importantly, America’s attention is preoccupied with a presidential race, in which “world citizen” Barack Obama has mesmerized Europe as the presumptive new president and soon-to-be disciple of European soft power. Better yet for Russia, instead of speaking with one voice, America is all over the map with three reactions from Bush, McCain, and Obama — all of them mutually contradictory, at least initially. Meanwhile, the world’s televisions are turned toward the Olympics in Beijing. The autocratic Chinese, busy jailing reporters and dissidents, are not about to say an unkind word about Russian intervention. If anything, the pageantry at their grandiose stadiums provides welcome distractions for those embarrassed over the ease with which Russia smothered Georgia. Comeuppance Most importantly, Putin and Medvedev have called the West’s bluff. We are sort of stuck in a time-warp of the 1990s, seemingly eons ago in which a once-earnest weak post-Soviet Russia sought Western economic help and political mentoring. But those days are long gone, and diplomacy hasn’t caught up with the new realities. Russia is flush with billions. It serves as a rallying point and arms supplier to thugs the world over that want leverage in their anti-Western agendas. For the last five years, its foreign policy can be reduced to “Whatever the United States is for, we are against.” The geopolitical message is clear to both the West and the former Soviet Republics: don’t consider NATO membership (i.e., do the Georgians really think that, should they have been NATO members, any succor would have been forthcoming?). Together with the dismal NATO performance in Afghanistan, the Georgian incursion reveals the weakness of the Atlantic Alliance. The tragic irony is unmistakable. NATO was given a gift in not having made Georgia a member, since otherwise an empty ritual of evoking Article V’s promise of mutual assistance in time of war would have effectively destroyed the Potemkin alliance. The new reality is that a nuclear, cash-rich, and energy-blessed Russia doesn’t really worry too much whether its long-term future is bleak, given problems with Muslim minorities, poor life-expectancy rates, and a declining population. Instead, in the here and now, it has a window of opportunity to reclaim prestige and weaken its adversaries. So why hesitate? Indeed, tired of European lectures, the Russians are now telling the world that soft power is, well, soft. Moscow doesn’t give a damn about the United Nations, the European Union, the World Court at the Hague, or any finger-pointing moralist from Geneva or London. Did anyone in Paris miss any sleep over the rubble of Grozny? More likely, Putin & Co. figure that any popular rhetoric about justice will be trumped by European governments’ concern for energy. With just a few tanks and bombs, in one fell swoop, Russia has cowered its former republics, made them think twice about joining the West, and stopped NATO and maybe EU expansion in their tracks. After all, who wants to die for Tbilisi? Russia does not need a global force-projection capacity; it has sufficient power to muscle its neighbors and thereby humiliate not merely its enemies, but their entire moral pretensions as well. Apologists in the West The Russians have sized up the moral bankruptcy of the Western Left. They know that half-a-million Europeans would turn out to damn their patron the United States for removing a dictator and fostering democracy, but not more than a half-dozen would do the same to criticize their long-time enemy from bombing a constitutional state. The Russians rightly expect Westerners to turn on themselves, rather than Moscow — and they won’t be disappointed. Imagine the morally equivalent fodder for liberal lament: We were unilateral in Iraq, so we can’t say Russia can’t do the same to Georgia. (As if removing a genocidal dictator is the same as attacking a democracy). We accepted Kosovo’s independence, so why not Ossetia’s? (As if the recent history of Serbia is analogous to Georgia’s.) We are still captive to neo-con fantasies about democracy, and so encouraged Georgia’s efforts that provoked the otherwise reasonable Russians (As if the problem in Ossetia is our principled support for democracy rather than appeasement of Russian dictatorship). From what the Russians learned of the Western reaction to Iraq, they expect their best apologists will be American politicians, pundits, professors, and essayists — and once more they will not be disappointed. We are a culture, after all, that after damning Iraqi democracy as too violent, broke, and disorganized, is now damning Iraqi democracy as too conniving, rich, and self-interested — the only common denominator being whatever we do, and whomever we help, cannot be good. Power-power We talk endlessly about “soft” and “hard” power as if humanitarian jawboning, energized by economic incentives or sanctions, is the antithesis to mindless military power. In truth, there is soft power, hard power, and power-power — the latter being the enormous advantages held by energy rich, oil-exporting states. Take away oil and Saudi Arabia would be the world’s rogue state, with its medieval practice of gender apartheid. Take away oil and Ahmadinejad is analogous to a run-of-the-mill central African thug. Take away oil, and Chavez is one of Ronald Reagan’s proverbial tinhorn dictators. Russia understands that Europe needs its natural gas, that the U.S. not only must be aware of its own oil dependency, but, more importantly, the ripples of its military on the fragility of world oil supplies, especially the effects upon China, Europe, India, and Japan. When one factors in Russian oil and gas reserves, a pipeline through Georgia, the oil dependency of potential critics of Putin, and the cash garnered by oil exports, then we understand once again that power-power is beginning to trump both its hard and soft alternatives. Paralysis Military intervention is out of the question. Economic sanctions, given Russia’s oil and Europe’s need for it, are a pipe dream. Diplomatic ostracism and moral stricture won’t even save face. Instead, Europe — both western and eastern — along with the United States and the concerned former Soviet Republics need to sit down, conference, and plot exactly how these new democracies are to maintain their independence and autonomy in the next decade. Hopefully, they will reach the Franklinesque conclusion that “We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.” — NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.[/rquoter]
VDH, as he is oft to do, once again rises above the rubble of futile political rhetoric and sees what so many people fail to see. The soft cuddly hippies want to think this whole deal is about Ossetian independence or some similar feel-good ideal. Anyone who had eyes to see, from the start, knew that this was a purely opportunistic move by the Russian Federation, which has quietly consolidated its power base over the past few years while we were busy squabbling over Iraq and watching our mortgages go kaput. Everytime I think of just how powerful Vladimir Putin has become, I almost shudder. No one human being should ever be allowed to have as much power as this man has amassed. This is a man who utters a few disapproving words and entire multi-billion dollar corporations go bankrupt (I wish that was an exaggeration). This isn't even a "new cold war". The fact is: right now, there's not a person who has the ability to do a damn thing about the Russians right now. VDH is absolutely right. Forget about the UN, NATO, alliances and all that garbage. We're talking about REAL power here, and Russia has it all.
so this guy "vdh" says this will work because the anti iraq war advocates will sabotage the west's response while also espousing the fact that we can't respond because we're bogged down in iraq? and he somehow even took a shot at obama's popularity in europe being a distraction to responding unfreakinbelievable
That pretty much covers it. It the neocons had any self awareness they would now be able to understand why people who aren't them almost universally freak out when they act unilaterally. Unfortunately, I don't credit them with that much self awareness. I'm willing to bet that he irony is completely lost on Bolton, Kristol, etc. as they all sit wherever they are gnashing their teeth at the darned Russians who refuse to listen to anybody else. Welcome to your dream world, neocons. Be careful what you ask for, you may get it. BTW, I know of at least one major journalist who has described Bush as a Trotskyite back in 2000. He has that same Robespierre-esque zeal and absolute cocksure 'idealism of inexperience' in everything he does.
The way I see it if the US had gotten it self involved it would be like another Korean war allover again. Except this time the roles are switched. Georgia=North Korea: Even tho all the elements to fuel a conflict was already there they are the ones that lit the match by attacking South Ossetia, and bite off more then they could chew. Russia/South Ossetia= USA: Russia rushed to support the pro-Moscow South Ossetians and pushed the Georgians back quickly, since they also have its own interests not only push the Georgians back but also take control of the entire country by force. USA=China/USSR: Fearing what might happen if Russia does take over the entire country jumps into the fray.
Well up yours, chump. As an actual hippie back when it meant anything, and as someone who still likes to look as himself that way, decades later, I want to be sure that you consider the option of taking "soft and cuddly" and sticking that thought of yours where the sun don't shine, and where you obviously have parked your brain. Have you ever considered the fact that the reigning idiot of the international scene, George W. Bush, helped create this opportunity for Russia by invading a sovereign state, Iraq, which has tied down the bulk of our Army and Marines? That if Bush had never decided to mislead America and the world about Iraq and Saddam, and not invaded and occupied the country, that we would appear far more powerful to Russia and the world today? That the large forces at our command, by not being used, would present a weapon that would give pause to any aggressor? That by putting the United States in the mess in Iraq, he (Bush) has fostered the impression that we are weak and relatively powerless, compared to pre-Iraq? I don't want to leave out the fact that Bush's incredible foreign policy ineptitude has incouraged Putin, as cold blooded a fish as you are ever going to encounter, to assume a government with Bush as its leader will fumble around while countries like Russia do whatever they desire? No, I'm sure you haven't considered any of that. You are too busy imagining your "soft cuddly hippies," while forgeting that Democratic administrations fought most of the wars of the last century and that many liberals and progressives are more than willing to act, if action is needed, to protect what we hold dear. Put that in your pipe and choke on it. Thanks in advance. Impeach Bush.
^^^^^ Brilliant post Deckard. Bush helped create this monster. While Gerogie was wasting his time in Iraq, which was never really a credible threat to US to begin with, Putin was left unchecked. Cold War was over for Bush but not for Putin. I can't believe that this administration was naive or stupid enough (you pick) to overlook that. Putin is a nutcase and empowering him might turn out be a bigger blunder by this administration, than invading Iraq.
I don't want to be a Bush apologist but Bush embraced Putin because they had a mutual Islamic militant problem. And around 2001 Russia was still a failed power that looked like it might be coming around to democracy and capitalism in order to sustain itself. It was the meteoric rise in energy prices that tempted the Kremlin to throw out the oligarchs and suppress the civil rights of the populace. Everything is always about the money. This conflict is about the control of the Western Asia energy markets. I don't think for a second that Putin gives a ratsass either way about the South Ossetians or Abkhaziya'ers. And they, only care about being Russians if it means less economic discrimination. Russia wants to maintain unassailable control and as near a monopoly of these markets as they can. They won't be outflanked flanked by European allies. The US would never be drawn onto a direct confrontation with the Russian Federation and define them as THE enemy. The world balances on three or possibly four shifting alliances. Tipping one way or another into confrontation would be bad for business; and it's always about the money.
Wow. And people wonder why it is nearly impossible to have a civilized discussion in here. Where in my post did I make a reference to Bush or defend Iraq? Did you just see my reference to "soft cuddly hippies" and suddenly get offended, to the point that you had to hurl as much gratuitous vituperation my way as you could muster? If you do associate yourself with that term, then that's OK -- feel free to wallow in that puddle of insecurity. I only made a comment as to Russia's incredible consolidation of power. If you want to blame Bush for allowing that to happen, feel free to -- I'm not going to stop you. I'm not interested in recycled partisan bickering. Geez. Some of you people are so incredibly bent on this whole left-right conflict that you can't even have a sane discussion about a completely external topic without resorting to ad hominem attacks on others.
people on the right and left has said we can't do anything WRONG We can do this tell the Russans that they have 48 hours to leave Georga or we will launch our nukes period at the same time force Georga to give up South Ossetia to the UN and the UN Only There are alot of things you never do to a Russan the worst thing you can do is to show weakness
And have them nuke back? Really smart South Ossetia was a autonomous state and Georgia tried to take it back by force, I really don't want to side with the Russians but the Georgians where clearly the ones who was at fault for starting this. Obviously they knew Russia would retaliate against them too, why else would they attack on the eve of the Olympics opening? They clearly miscalculated on the level of support they would receive from the US. If the US had moved against the Russians over this they won't even have NATO's support either.
?]And have them nuke back? Really smart If Russia had stayed in South Ossetia and didn't invade Georgia I might agree with you but Georgia didn't invade Russia did they. At least BUSH went to the UN got a resolution to invade Iraq the Russians didn't ask anyone In fact most of the world asked Russia to stop and allow The UN to mediate this Russia Refused not letting Georgia off the hook at all they should lose South Ossetia forever. And for the invasion Georgia should have to pay restitution to the South Ossetia people My point is if you don’t stop them now (Russia) you’re not going to This is world politics 101 if your enemy doesn’t respect your power their not Ever going to respect you and the treaties you sign with them I we do make the treat sense they already won as far as South Ossetia is concerned they will probably back off as we would if this was Cuba People on the left tend to be angry if America breaks international law but care less if Russia or China Brakes it. It is a double standard
