In response to the fifth comment on the Jon Voight post from a couple weeks ago, this one regarding Barack Obama's approach to the Russia/Georgia conflict. To said commenter (who was alas anonymous), thank you for breaking my writer's block. For those who come here purely for the geeky movie news, please re title this post - 'Steve Rogers vs Tony Stark against Dr. Doom' (or, perhaps 'Hawk Vs. Dove against Black Adam').I prefer Barack Obama's diplomatic approach to John McCain's saber rattling when he knows full well that we have no saber to rattle. Besides, John McCain's absolute support for Georgia is a conflict on interest, since his chief campaign adviser, Randy Scheunemann, was until recently a paid lobbyist for Georgia. Fortunately, this is slowly coming out in the mainstream media. Neither are perfect solutions and this is a terrible situation that has been bubbling for years under the 'watchful' eye of Bush and alleged Russian expert Condoleezza Rice.
For the record, Vladimir Putin is, pardon the simplification, a power-mad wannabe dictator, and I've said so for nearly a decade. I've constantly joked that he had an internship under Blofeld in his college years and took Dr. Evil under his wing in grad school. His hard-line counter terrorism tactics ('if terrorists don't kill their hostages, we will!') showed that he had absolutely no regard for human life, to the point where it made Bush look like a tree-hugging pacifist hippie. He is popular because, after a good fifteen years or so of post USSR economic misery, he made Russia look and feel large and strong again (Reagan's popularity in the 1980s similar). Never mind that he has more or less ended democracy in Russia and put a serious dent in the capitalistic systems and the free press, he made Russia look tough and most of them loved him for it. No wonder he and Bush got along so well at the beginning.But remember, this is a situation that was at least partially caused by the Bush administration. Georgia's future actions that brought this on were apparently condoned or at least acknowledged by Rice and company during a visit last month, or at least not . Neither the US or Georgia expected Putin to retaliate so brutally. And while Georgia did 'cross the line' first, and they are responsible for the initial deaths of civilians and Russian peacekeepers, it is also correct that Putin used this as an excuse to show off how powerful Russia was and how impotent the rest of the world was in response.
As for the lessons of World War II, I personally think that the lessons of World War I apply in a far more disturbing sense. If Georgia had been allowed into NATO, this would have been considered an act of war against all of the allies of NATO and we would have had World War I again. So does that mean it's good that Georgia wasn't in NATO? Maybe, or maybe if Georgia had been in NATO they wouldn't have engaged in the initial aggression and/or Russia wouldn't have come down on them so hard.Obama's performance in this moment has not been his finest hour, on that we can all agree. He seemed ill-at-ease, unsure of himself, and not terribly confident in the strategy he was laying out (he also should have worn a suit for the occasion). Still, just because he gave a lousy speech doesn't mean the contents of that speech were incorrect. He understands that we can't really threaten Russia with force, since all of our army is in Iraq and Afghanistan. He knows that we can't really condemn Russia for invading a sovereign nation and attempting regime change, because the US has been engaged in that for years and it was likely the invasion of Iraq that convinced Putin that he could get away with his present actions. Israel's crushingly disproportionate response in Lebanon two years ago probably didn't help either.
What Barack Obama also should have said is that this was a perfect example of blow back from the foreign policy of the Bush administration, emboldening both sides of an armed conflict and then being more or less helpless to resolve that conflict. In the same way that the invasion of Iraq, a country with no nukes, has restarted an arms race in the Middle East, our immoral and illegal acts of aggression (spying, invasions, torture, rendition, etc) has shown to the world that this kind of behavior will more or less be tolerated on the world stage. And, John McCain's all-but declaration of war against Russia, despite our current tactical disadvantage, is a sign that John McCain will really give us more of the same.
Of course, that's what Obama should have said. He's not the perfect candidate and he won't always say exactly the right thing. Heck, he wasn't even my top pick in the primary (my favorite candidate was Chris Dodd), but I still mostly agree with him on the issues and vigorously disagree with McCain's outlook on the world, which if anything seems more draconian, militaristic, and authoritarian than Bush. Despite what Clinton said back in 2002 in regards to US voters, I'd rather have a president who is weaker but right, rather than one who is stronger but wrong.Here's an article with samplings of reactions to the candidates' performances on this new development. So far, it's still advantage McCain. I guess Clinton may be right.
Scott Mendelson
"I'd prefer Barrack Obama's diplomatic approach to John McCain's saber rattling when he knows full well that we have no saber to rattle"
ReplyDeleteAre these really mutually exclusive? Why does tough talk have to be reduced to saber rattling? If its obvious to you and me that America doesn't have the military to invade and attack Russia right now, don't you think that Putin and the rest of the world know that as well? I don't know about you, but I see tough talk as something that says to the world, we take what Russia is doing seriously and we want to support Georgia. I don't think McCain is the perfect blwnd of tough talk coupled with diplomacy, but I also don't think he's advocating for war, nor that he wants to go to war. Just your reaction to McCain that he "might take us to war" is exactly the point of tough talk. The reaction the world gets from Obama and his response (and I'm sure its an example of whats to come in the future if elected), is that there is no way there will be anything But talk. Its a tight walk, but thats what makes it difficult. The easy thing to do is signal to the world our disapproval and an unwillingness to do anything but cry Foul. I don't think that would do much of anything to dissuade our friendly Russian leader.
"Besides, John McCain's absolute support for Georgia is a conflict on interest, since his chief campaign advisor, Randy Scheunemann, was until recently a paid lobbyist for Georgia."
The connection is unfortunate, and maybe there should be some stepping down of the advisor, but where the advice comes from does not mean the advice is not good advice. Were you saying earlier this year that Obama had a conflict of interest on sub-prime loans and CEO breaks when it was learned that one of his VP vetters was knee deep in it?
"Never mind that he has more or less ended democracy in Russia and put a serious dent in the capitalistic systems and the free press, he made Russia look tough and most of them loved him for it. No wonder he and Bush got along so well at the beginning."
Little digs like that completely undermine the seriousness of your argument. Are you really arguing here that Bush and Putin got along because they both desired to dent capitalistic systems and free press?
"But remember, this is a situation that was at least partially caused by the Bush administration."
How this is relevant (except as another dig at Bush) is tough to decipher. How does Bush deserve any blame for Putin's decision to enter Georgia? Should we have rattled our Saber more with Russia, been friendlier? What alternative moves could Bush have made that could've directly led to this not happening? I think you give him too much credit.
"He understands that we can't really threaten Russia with force, since all of our army is in Iraq and Afghanistan. He knows that we can't really condemn Russia for invading a sovereign nation and attempting regime change, because the US has been engaged in that for years and it was likely the invasion of Iraq that convinced Putin that he could get away with his present actions."
Again, how can you draw an equivalency with the invasion of Iraq and Georgia? Show me the multiple violations of UN sanctions that Georgia has defied. Show me the past history of Georgia to invade its neighbors and kill its own people. Show me the worldwide military intelligence that BELIEVES Georgia holds WMDs against sanctions? I'm not looking to argue the case for the war in Iraq, but to draw equivalence is just neglectful and possibly worse. Not all invasions are equal, Iraq is not Vietnam, Vietnam is not WWII, and so on.
"And, John McCain's all-but declaration of war against Russia, despite our current tactical disadvantage, is a sign that John McCain will really give us more of the same."
So if we never went into Iraq and Afghanistan, and our entire army was here at home waiting to go, we would have tactical advantage? Are you saying that if those two wars had not happened then McCain would be ok in saber rattling because he could back it up then? There's no way we would send troops into Georgia against Russia, even if Iraq and Afghan never happened. This is going to be a diplomatic war of words, because Russia is a large nuclear nation. In a diplomatic war of words, I'll take words with bite to them over limp words anyday.
Ah yes, my own personal check/balance.
ReplyDeletere - tough talk. While you're correct that the world knows full well that McCain's tough talk was mainly a bluff, it bothered me for two reasons. A) the last thing we want is Russia or another country out and out calling our bluff, be it in words or deeds. B) I felt that McCain's tough talk was less about Russia and more about pandering to certain 'low-information voters' who don't know that we are stretched thin, who believe that America can win every conflict, and that might always makes right. It felt like political pandering.
re - conflict on interest. Yes, Randy Scheunemann should step down,
and it's really about a bigger problem. If McCain is elected
president, it will be difficult to maintain impartiality in our
relationship with Russia when it is well known that one of McCain's
top advisors was using his connections to one of Russia's enemies and advising McCain to take the position that would benefit Scheunemann (gosh that's a pain to spell). It may still have been the right advice and Mr. Scheunemann may have offered it regardless of who he worked for, but the stink of conflict mars the entire relationship with Russia in a McCain presidency. And yes, Obama was right to can his VP advisor when said conflict came about. It came and went so quickly I didn't find it worthy of comment. I suppose for me the difference was that in Obama's case we could only wonder how his policies would be affected by this alleged conflict on interest, while with McCain we saw it potentially happening right in front of us, on a matter of gravest importance.
re - digs - I do believe that Bush and Putin got along at least
partially because of their shared belief in a unitary authority (they
both did damage to the free markets and they both made attempts at curbing the press). Perhaps I was snide about it, but the point still
stands.
re - cause and effect. Perhaps too broad a generalization, but I've
always believed that because Bush and Putin seemed to see eye to eye
on so many areas, specifically ones I disagree on, it is certainly
plausible that Putin saw America engaging in 'my way or the highway'
foreign policy and decided to use that as a model.
re - comparing Georgia to Iraq. I believe that the invasion of Iraq
and the invasion of Georgia were both wrong, both strategically and
morally. Yes they are different situations and different histories,
and I made no attempt to imply they were identical in any other way
other than that they were bad ideas. I would argue that the invasion of Iraq was far worse since it was built on falsehoods and a complete act of aggression, as opposed to the Georgia/Russia and Israel/Lebanon situations, which were severe overreactions, to a genuine grievance, for the sake of showing force. But I firmly believe that the United States (the alleged moral authority of the world) acting the way it has over the last seven years has made it that much easier for other countries to engage in such might = right actions with their own foreign policy. If the US does it and more or less gets away with it,
why can't Russia or Israel or, eventually, someone far more dangerous?
You're correct that it's sometimes better to bark a little bit rather
than talk softly if the opposing side knows you have no stick. But,
again, I was most annoyed at how McCain's tough talk was less a message to Russia and more a message to would-be voters that he would be a hard-ass commander in chief. And, again, Obama's weak delivery did him no favors, even if I believe he was right.
For what it's worth, I was heartened to see other countries, such as France, take a leading role in helping to resolve this issue. Since so many countries complain about the US's constant interference and our need to be the king of the world, it was nice to see them put their money where their mouth was and step up to the plate in a time of our own weakened moral authority.
I know we're likely to disagree on most of the political essays/rants
that I happen to post, but thank you for keeping me honest and
(occasionally correctly) calling me out on allegedly simplistic ideas
and contradictory notions.
Scott Mendelson