While I was racing around frantically last night to try and arrange the last minute details of my move to England, I was shocked to hear whatever conservative talk show host that was on the radio calling for the president to send US troops into Georgia to fight Russia. The host went on a long tirade about “protecting our national security interests” and how these missions must be handled delicately because of the gravity of the international relationships at stake.
It boggles my mind, when the economy is tanking and the currency is being debased to pay for our military expenditures, that some would be so quick to commit more blood and treasure to yet another conflict in some far-away land to fight some other global threat.
Is this what conservative foreign policy has been reduced to – sending troops at the bat of an eye on the basis of a vague ideal such as “national security interests?” This is recklessness.
Believe me, if I ever believed that the security of my family or my property were at risk, I would be the first to show up at the recruitment office with my guns in hand. I would gladly defend my home and even my neighbours from an imminent threat. But the idea of sending US troops over to start a war with in Georgia against Russia would definitely be the blow that absolutely cripples this country.
I presume that most conservatives do not share the views of the radio personality I heard last night. John McCain is arguing for a US military surrogate (NATO) to do the dirty work. McCain suggests using diplomacy “force Russia to withdraw from Georgia.” Last time I checked, diplomacy was about giving and taking, negotiating and making voluntary proposals. “Force” however, ultimately means threats and coercion which must be backed by aggression. McCain is clearly engaging in double-speak.
Yet another war would be disastrous for the US. Our economy is swirling around the toilet and our important relations around the world are dissolving. We need to wake up and start plugging holes or this ship is going to sink.
You may also be interested in:
William F. Buckley thought he was an anti-Semite in 1992 when he wrote a book pointing out Buchanan’s agenda. The article that I linked to basically blames Churchill for the Holocaust. Hitler was a reasonable guy until the unreasonable Churchill came along and ruined it all. That is one of the despicable articles I’ve ever read, especially from someone I used to admire.
For a long time I have thought Buchanan is somewhat of a racial bigot in his rhetoric, but that doesn’t mean I will write off everything he says over that aspect of his persona. Is he anti-Semitic? I don’t know. It wouldn’t surprise me, but would that nullify everything the man ever said? He is admittedly xenophobic; that’s for sure.
But let’s get real. A lot of these old school politicians are bigots. The difference between him and some of these other guys is that he is honest about what he believes. Even George H.W. Bush ran for a Texas senate seat as a Segregationist. Then you’ve got Strom Thurmond, Richard Nixon, Trent Lott, all these guys and many more. Nixon’s White House tapes recorded him saying some blatantly anti-Semitic stuff. Buchanan was part of that administration. That alone wouldn’t make him guilty, but when you combine this with some of the other stuff…
Incidentally, I saw Buchanan on the McLaughlin Group Friday. They discussed the Russia/Georgia stuff. He an Eleanor Clift both agreed that this was a Georgian provocation. (I don’t know if any of you guys watch this show, but it is quite rare when they agree on anything.) Monica Crowly disagreed of course, but she is the resident Neocon sympathizer filling in for Tony Blankley, so her position is easy to forecast.
Yeah, I watch that show every week. He used to disagree with Clift most of the time, now he almost always agrees with her, especially on foreign policy issues. Pretty sad.
Found this very interesting piece by Michael Totten in my web travels. Lots of information on the Georgian situation.
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/08/the-truth-about-1.php
An excerpts to get Chris A spinning:
“The Ossetians start provoking and provoking and provoking by shelling Georgian positions and Georgian villages around there. And it’s a classic tit for tat thing. You shell, I shell back. The Georgians offered repeated ceasefires, which the Ossetians broke … Can I stop you for a second?” I said. I was still under the impression that the war began on August 7 and that Georgian President Saakashvili started it when he sent troops into South Ossetia’s capital Tskhinvali. What was all this about the Ossetian violence on August 6 and before?”
There is much more in the article. If you are interested in the truth, read it.
The Michael Totten article states that South Ossetia attacked Georgia on August 5, August 6. But I still don’t see how that proves that South Ossetia started the conflict. According to the AP, fighting between the two parties broke out on August 1, and each side claimed that the other had started it.
Exactly my point, Ric. However, some ears and eyes on this site are closed to the facts.
Ric and Darius, it is perfectly fine with me if you want to side with Georgia. I don’t think Russia was the aggressor, but that’s neither here nor there. The thing that disturbs me is the ramifications of potential U.S. involvement.
You might notice that both presidential campaigns sought to capitalize on this early on, although the Obama campaign was much more slick. They put Biden over there to show off his foreign policy experience before he was named as the VP nominee. Of course, I could just be a conspiracy nut. He is promising Georgia money for humanitarian aid. Oddly enough the USS McFaul was docked in a Georgian port yesterday with 50 Tomahawk missiles on board – all under the guise of humanitarian aid. And I guess you could say it’s not actually the U.S. because its NATO, but whatever. This is a very dangerous situation. It really could lead to eventual nuclear conflict.
So should navy ships stop to unload their weapons before they deliver humanitarian aid to potentially hostile regions? Should they hang a big banner that says “Hay guyz, we’ere unarmed. Plz dnt shoot. K thx bye.”
Jew, that was my exact question.
We couldn’t find a freighter in the entire mediterranean and black sea? This bit of posturing (provocation???) is about as subtle as a train wreck. Not to mention a lot more dangerous. This area has been in conflict for the last 3-4 millennium. Virtually every significant civilization in history has fought in the caucasus. Of course now that america is involved we should be able to clear it right up.
Baiting the russian bear is an extremely hazardous game. Especially since, in this case, they hold all the cards.
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/24596/sec_id/24596
Don’t fool yourselves into thinking that NATO didn’t know exactly the message they were sending by using a fully armed U.S. Navy ship. I’m not even trying to debate this with you guys anymore, I’m just saying think for a minute. This is very serious, potentially more serious than anything that has happened in Iraq or Afghanistan. We’re talking World War III potential – Russia, Brittain, United States, Iran, Israel, Poland, Georgia, Czech Republic, and God knows who else. Even when they were threatening Iran, they were taunting Russia. They knew that. I’m not concerned about being proven right about this later. I’m just saying watch this carefully, and please don’t be so anxious to follow the kind of rhetoric that is manufactured to support mass destruction.
Darius, I am encouraged by the fact that you have said any call for U.S. military action is “over the line”, but let’s not kid ourselves. Where is this thing heading? Haven’t we been down this road before? Has history taught us nothing?
US Navy ships do humanitarian work all the time. I’m not sure why everyone is getting so worked up about this.
No, we’re really not. None of the nuclear armed nations is so foolish as to start a shooting war with the another nuclear power.
Chris, you keep denying that Iran is a threat because they aren’t dumb enough to start a nuclear war, but then in your next breath, you claim that the rest of the world is that dumb.
Gotta love how conspiracy theories make even sane people sound absolutely nuts.
“No, we’re really not. None of the nuclear armed nations is so foolish as to start a shooting war with the another nuclear power.”
Well, India and Pakistan have come very close to nuclear conflict in times past and may have actually gone through with it if it had not been for diplomatic intervention. I think it is quite foolish to make such an assumption as to the rationality of leaders of nations with whom we are not personally familiar. Have their been leaders in times past that would have utilized such power if it had been made available to them – even to their own peril? Who is to say?
Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, believes that the U.S. is headed for a nuclear confrontation with Russia. He even went so far as to say that such a conflict would almost certainly happen if McCain is elected. I don’t necessarily agree with him because I don’t have the information that would be necessary to agree or disagree, but I would be remiss to take his comments with a grain of salt. He also said this has the potential to lead to World War III. Whether we’re looking at World War III or not, this is a very serious situation.
“I think it is quite foolish to make such an assumption as to the rationality of leaders of nations with whom we are not personally familiar.”
So you must disagree strongly with Don E. and his assessment of the Iran nuclear situation, since he counts on them being rational.
“Have their been leaders in times past…”
Have there been, actually.
“So you must disagree strongly with Don E. and his assessment of the Iran nuclear situation, since he counts on them being rational.”
I’m not sure which comment you are referring to, but Iran doesn’t have nuclear capability. Even if they were irrational, that wouldn’t justify a preemptive strike against them. Such action would constitute another provocation of Russia. Then it would be a question of whether Russia would be rational or not.
And in times past the USA and USSR have come very close to nuclear conflict. Here’s the bottom line: everybody is willing come close, but nobody is willing to start a nuclear war. It’s a bit of an optical illusion. It seems like the brink of a nuclear war, but in reality neither side is anywhere close to actually starting that war.
Anyway, history isn’t the point here. Regarding Georgia, it’s clear that the US government is posturing to confront Russia, and vice versa. It’s not about a war, it’s all about Russia proving it’s still a superpower.
“It’s not about a war, it’s all about Russia proving it’s still a superpower.”
Exactly. Russia knows that it is irrelevant to world politics and can’t even get it’s Asian allies to back them on their invasion of Georgia. Russia is the schoolyard bully who is ignored by everyone, so he goes and beats up the little nerdy kid for his lunch.
“It’s not about a war, it’s all about Russia proving it’s still a superpower.”
So Georgia broke the ceasefire to prove that Russia is still a superpower? Now that is a conspiracy theory.
Russia involved itself in another country’s affairs to prove it’s still relevant. Georgia was being attacked (read: the ceasefire was already broken).
No, all the rhetoric and posturing about this conflict is about Russia demonstrating its power. If it wasn’t this conflict, it would be something else. I’m not into conspiracy theories. I don’t think anybody started this to prove a political point about Russia’s relevance. It’s just a convenient opportunity for some Russian rhetoric.
Alright, so I’m sure everyone is aware of Governor Palin’s interview with ABC’s Charlie Gibson. Here is an excerpt of their discussion about the Russian/Georgian conflict:
GIBSON: Let’s start, because we are near Russia, let’s start with Russia and Georgia.
The administration has said we’ve got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?
PALIN: First off, we’re going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain’s running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we’ve got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep… GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.
PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there.
GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
Sarah Palin on Russia:
We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We’ve learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union.
We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.
GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?
PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.
GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.
PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO.
Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but…
GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?
PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.
But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to — especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.
We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.
GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.
PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.
And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.
It doesn’t have to lead to war and it doesn’t have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.
His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that’s a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.
Right on, Palin, right on.
George Washington would be aghast.
Oh, do we now operate on Neville Chamberlain-like foreign policy? Let Rome burn, we’ll just fiddle away.
Washington is Chamberlain now? No, I mean just no entangling alliances. That leaves us the option to act when we need to and mind our own business when we don’t.
Ah, gotcha. Yeah, alliances like NATO and the United Nations are baloney, and we should have gotten out of them long ago, especially since we do all the heavy lifting. I do believe that Palin is right when she says that we need to keep an eye on Russia and have all options available if they are going to keep challenging the sovereignty of nations. If you allow them to do it once, they’ll do it again and again. That’s what I meant by Chamberlain, he let Hitler take half of Europe before anyone even put up a fight.
Well, Palin has one thing right. This conflict is not about oil, it’s about democracy…not!
Darius, I think you need to do a little deeper reading on chamberlain. He didn’t operate in a vacuum. His policy was well supported internationally and initially made a great deal of sense. Many people believed that germany was unfairly treated at the treaty of versailles and that the invasion of the rhineland was just regaining what germany had lost.
After the invasion of czechoslovaki it was pretty obvious that appeasement had failed. What would have chamberlain confronted hitler with at that point (or for that matter a year earlier)? You do remember hitler walked through france in a week and threw the british army out at dunkirk? Was this the army that was going to take hitler down on his own soil a year earlier? Many historians believe that appeasement gave britain the time it desperately needed to build up. Immediate confrontation would have had very little effect on hitler, but could have easily resulted in the loss of britain. As it was britain only survived the battle of britian because of serious strategic errors on the part of air martial goering. Thankfully goering made equally large errors during the allied bombing of germany.
Did appeasement work then? Did chamberlain have any other choice except to try? No to both. Could anything have stopped hitler? Very unlikely. So is putin the new hitler planning to march through the fulda gap? Also very unlikely. Right on Chris. This is just about oil money.
Of course the idea of bush being condescending about appeasement (speech to the Knesset) is a very delicious bit of irony, since he probably owes his being president to the family fortune amassed by his grandfather prescott’s companies profiteering from (including the use of slave labor from concentration camps) and collaborating with nazi germany right up to the time america declared war in 1941.
Georgia in NATO. That’s crazy. Look at a map. Didn’t anyone ever hear of the battle of Stalingrad, the Crimean War, Shah Agha Mohamed Khan, Tamerlane, Seljuk Sultan Mahmud, Genghis Khan, Pompey, Alexander the great, etc, etc.?
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
George Santayana, The Life of Reason
or if you prefer
“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Sir Winston Churchill
“His policy was well supported internationally…”
That right there shows that it was doomed to fail. World opinion is almost always wrong.
true enough, which brings us to the current world opinion about the georgia situation.
touche
Judging a policy on whether the world supports it is silly. Judge it on its merits.
I was making that exact case, Jew. “His policy was well-supported internationally” means squat, since we all know how well it turned out. Just like we know how well the UN’s policy in Rwanda worked.
Yes, but you also can’t dismiss a policy because it has widespread support.
I wasn’t saying you could do either, just trying to refute the idea that world opinion gives any position legitimacy.
I didn’t say world opinion meant squat. My point was that chamberlain wasn’t some kind of loose cannon moron careening off into disaster on his own as depicted by some historians. Opinion didn’t matter anyway since there was really no other course of action. In 1939 the only army that could have challenged hitler was the british, The problem was that the troops were scattered all over the colonial empire and/or tied up in colonial wars. The polish actually charged panzer tanks on horseback with swords (romantic but not effective), the czechs weren’t much better off, the french only had a guard force for the mignot line, stalin had just finished killing off all his military leadership, and america had a second rate military that was severely understaffed, poorly equipped sitting 4000 miles away with no shipping. The idea that standing up to hitler would have prevented WW II has a certain swashbuckling appeal, but has never been very realistic. Maybe in 1932, but who knew? Hindsight is always 20/20.
It doesn’t matter today either. Europe won’t challenge russia unless they want to be unemployed while sitting in the dark freezing to death. America’s military is scattered all over the world and tied up in two wars (anyone see a pattern here?). Not much chance russia will be terribly intimidated unless we start aiming nuclear warheads at them again. I desperately hope that the chickenhawk neocon cabal currently in power isn’t that crazy. Turkey won’t let what could turn into WW III happen on their eastern border anyway. If things get too heavy they will simply close the dardanelles.
Putin saw an opportunity to send a crystal clear message to the baltic states, the ukraine, and the central asian stan republics to be very careful about pushing russia. Even better, there was almost no risk that anyone would or could do anything about it. There is a reason why so many chess masters are russian. They are very, very good strategic thinkers.