Georgia » Undiplomatic

2 January 2009 Charles J. Brown
02:48 pm

Things You Missed While Reading about Primates

Two fairly big stories today, neither of which is getting much coverage in the blogosphere or even the MSM beyond the NYT, FT and WaPo:

1. The government of Sri Lanka has announced that it has captured the LTTE capital of Kilinochchi. If true, this would be a huge victory for the government, and may mark the beginning of the end of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam’s de facto control over a chunk of northern Sri Lanka. That’s potentially good news,as there probably isn’t a worse group out there when it comes to propagating terror — they are, after all, the folks who perfected suicide bombing.

A couple of caveats, however. First, I doubt, that a military victory by the government will end LTTE suicide bombings — in fact, the Tigers launched one against the Sri Lankan Air Force headquarters in Colombo only hours after the President announced the capture of Kilinochchi.

Second, the government offensive has, by some accounts, displaced more than 200,000 Sri Lankans, primarily Tamils. That’s not exactly going to endear them to the current government or make reconciliation possible. In addition, the government offensive is making it harder and harder for these folks to find refuge — it’s almost as if the government is planning to push them into the sea.

Third, there is growing evidence that the government has engaged in disappearances and other abuses. No matter how valid the government’s objections to the LTTE’s policies and practices may be, it does not justify the wholesale violation of human rights. It also needs to make sure that any final victory does not unleash reprisal attacks against the minority Tamil community, the vast majority of which are law-abiding citizens.

2. Russia — or more accurately, Gazprom, the government-controlled natural gas company — once again has cut off deliveries of natural gas to Ukraine after the latter refused to agree to a massive price increase. Gazprom is claiming that it ended deliveries because Ukraine wasn’t paying its bills, and the Ukrainian government is saying that Russia refuses to pay to transship its gas across Ukraine.

The good news is that Ukraine claims to have enough reserves to make it through the winter, meaning that this won’t turn into a significant crisis — at least in terms of whether Ukrainians can survive the winter.

Three things to watch here. First, it’s not clear whether this is an opening move by Russia to try to bring Ukraine back into its orbit (not in the Soviet meaning of the word, but rather as a client state in the old 19th Century balance of power meaning). Russia has made clear its dissatisfaction with the status quo — in particular Ukraine’s efforts to join NATO. The move therefore may be a warning shot that Russia will not tolerate closer Ukraine-NATO relations.

Second, when Russia took a similar step in 2006, EU member states freaked out, as much of their natural gas supplies come from Russia, and some via Ukraine. In addition, the cut-off reduced pipeline pressure across the grid, slowing deliveries. This time around, however, EU member states appear not to be as concerned. In fact, sympathy for Ukraine (particularly after the Russia-Georgia war) and the cratering of energy prices across the globe may combine to make the EU response much more measured this time around.

That gets to my third point: this may in the end backfire for Russia. Its ability to use its oil and gas reserves to promote its foreign policy objectives has declined as precipitously as gas and oil prices. And the decline in revenue is creating additional problems. Ukraine is not Georgia. Despite its fractious politics, it’s unlikely to be dumb enough to precipitate a conflict with Russia or weak enough to lose one badly. Russia should be careful not to embarass itself with policies that it cannot enforce through either its economic or military capabilities.

A personal note: I have spent quite a bit of time in both Sri Lanka and Ukraine. One is among my favorite places in the world — in fact, Molly and I honeymooned there. The other is probably the one place I wouldn’t visit again — in fact, it’s the one place where I was strip-searched. I don’t think it’s too hard to figure out which is which.

Twenty Questions for the Debate Tonight

Twenty questions I would like to see asked at the debate tonight:

1. Are we at war with Pakistan? Senator Obama, given your pledge to go into Pakistan, if necessary, to take out Osama bin Laden, do you support President Bush’s current counter-insurgency efforts along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border? And Senator McCain, when Senator Obama made those comments, you accused him of being reckless. Do you now think President Bush is being reckless?

2. Numerous reports have indicated that the State Department is woefully underfunded and understaffed. Secretary Gates, among others, has urged Congress and the President to take steps to address these concerns. Congress has largely been unsympathetic. What would you do, as President to make the State Department more effective, and to give it the resources it needs to succeed?

3. Do you support making USAID a cabinet-level agency? Given the current financial crisis, can the United States afford to continue its foreign assistance programs? Do you support reestablishing the US Information Agency or a similar construct to coordinate and strengthen our public diplomacy?

4. Is the United States more or less safe and secure than it was on September 12, 2001? Why or why not?

5. Senator McCain, can you please tell me what the difference is between Russian incursions into Georgia and American incursions into Pakistan? Don’t both involve a large power moving into territory controlled by a democratic ally of the United States?

6. Some have argued that the American century is over and that China will soon be the world’s dominant economic and political power. Do you think that is accurate? Why or why not? Would it matter if the United States wasn’t the biggest dog in the yard anymore?

7. Senator McCain, five former Secretaries of State, including two who have endorsed you, have called for dialogue with Iran without preconditions. You have stated your opposition, and your candidate for Vice President has suggested that such views are naive. Yet when it came time for you to choose someone to brief Sarah Palin on foreign policy, you asked Henry Kissinger, one of those five, to do it. Do you still believe that it is not possible for the United States not to talk to Iran?

8. Senator Obama, are there any situations where you think it would be necessary to set conditions before meeting with a foreign leader? In other words, is there anything that any leader can do that would make it impossible for you to meet with him or her?

9. Senator McCain, your running mate has suggested that the United States should not second-guess Israel should it decide to attack Iran. Is that your view as well? Senator Obama, do you agree or disagree?

10. Both of you have called on the Bush Administration to close Guantanamo and to end the practice of torture. There is growing evidence that Bush Administration officials may have violated U.S. law as well as treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory. Would you favor the investigation of such allegations and the prosecution of those, up to an including President Bush and Vice President Cheney, found to have broken American laws including statutes against war crimes?

11. What can the United States do to strenghten the United Nations?

12. Should the United States ratify the International Criminal Court treaty?

13. What can the United States do to prevent genocide? Would you favor military intervention by U.S. forces if it could help prevent a genocide? Would you have intervened in Rwanda? What are you going to do in Sudan?

14. What is the one foreign policy issue that you think is currently under the radar but will have an impact on your administration?

15. Most of the world has come to regard the United States as part of the problem rather than part of the solution. What steps would you take to reverse that?

16. Have we “lost” Latin America? What steps would you take to reverse growing anti-Americanism in the region?

17. When this campaign started, no issue was bigger than Iraq. Now it appears to be an almost forgotten issue. Senator McCain, given Prime Minister Maliki’s outspoken desire to see American troops leave, why do you continue to oppose a phased withdrawal from Iraq? Senator Obama, is there any situation where you can see American troops remaining in Iraq beyond the timetable you outlined?

18. Is the war in Afghanistan lost? Would you favor a surge there along the lines of what happened in Iraq?

19. Senator McCain, how can we afford to stay in Iraq and deal with the financial crisis at home? Senator Obama, you have suggested moving troops in Iraq to deal with the growing crisis in Afghanistan. Can we afford to do that as well?

20. Given the fact that Russo-American relations have cooled considerably since Russia’s invasion of Georgia, what steps would you take to ensure continued Russian-American cooperation on anti-proliferation measures, including not only implementation of Nunn-Lugar, but also the situations in Iran and North Korea?

Add your own questions in the comments below.

Sarah Palin and Henry Kissinger: Blech.

Two of my least favorite people in the world got together yesterday to have some laughs and share some good times.

No, I’m not talking about Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson. In case you didn’t hear, Sarah Palin met with Henry Kissinger yesterday. I wonder if Henry tried to pick her up? “Vell Sarah, you are very pretty. Have you ever done it with a war criminal?”

Ewwwwwww.

In any case, I happened to have an inside source at the U.S. mission to the U.N.. S/he was kind enough to make a list of all the questions the Sarahnator asked Hank the K:

What’s the difference is between a hockey mom and a Secretary of State?
Why can’t I see Afghanistan from my house?
Is a foreign minister kinda like a community organizer?
Do I have to read foreigners their rights before I talk to them?
Do I get to torture people personally the way Cheney does?
Are there foreigners I might mistake for moose?
Have you met John Bolton? Is he as cute as everyone says he is?
Why does this Karzai guy wear those funny dresses? Is he gay or something?
Why am I meeting with the President of Columbia University? I never went to that college.
Why does the President of the United Nations go by the name Binky Moon?

Here’s the scary part. Apparently a CNN sound tech picked up a small part of the conversation:

Kissinger: (something about a speech, not sure to whom he was referring) “And I’m going to give him a lot of credit for what he did in Georgia.”

Palin: “Good, good. And you’ll give me more insight on that, also, huh? Good.”

As I said yesterday, sometimes reality transcends satire.

Today, the fun continues. Palin is meeting with Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, Ukrainian President Viktor Yuschenko, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, new Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Word is that she spent at least two hours last night just learning how to say their names.

Photo illustration: New York Magazine

No One Expects. . .The Spanish Inquisition!

Eight years ago, a journalist asked Dubya if he knew who was the leader of Pakistan. Bush flubbed it, and the journalist was widely criticized for playing “gotcha.”

Flash forward eight years and it’s John McCain’s turn — except this time it isn’t gotcha, it’s just a candidate who clearly doesn’t know what the hell the reporter is talking about.

Today, McCain did an interview with Union Radio (Cadena Seiz) a Spanish network. I presume his handlers told him that by “Spanish radio,” he should understand that the interviewer was from Spain, and that he might, just might want to bone up a little on a few things — like the name of Spain’s prime minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. Apparently they didn’t and he didn’t.

According to stories on the websites of El País and Union Radio, the reporter first asked McCain his thoughts on Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, and Raul Castro. In each case, McCain made it clear that he would not sit down to meet with any of them, and went out of his way to note that Obama had promised to meet with Chavez.

Then the interviewer asks McCain whether he would meet with Zapatero. From what I’ve been able to glean (given that I don’t speak Spanish), it was not an attempt to trip McCain up — the reporter merely wants to cover as much territory as possible in the brief time he has.

McCain replies, (and this is a very rough translation based on me running the stories through BabelFish), “I will meet with those leaders who are friendly and who want to work with us cooperatively.”

Uh oh.

The reporter asks again. McCain says, “I will meet with those leaders who have the same principles and philosophy that we do: human rights, democracy and liberty. I will challenge those who do not [have them].”

The reporter asks a third time. According to a commenter at Obsidian Wings, McCain starts talking about President Felipe Calderon of Mexico and praises him for cooperating with the United States in the war on drugs.

Finally, the interviewer interrupts McCain and says, “Okay, I’m talking about Europe, the prime minister of Spain. Will you meet with him?” McCain repeats his earlier statement about working with friends.

Holy Sarah Palin, Batman! Can McCain see Spain from one of his homes?

One of the more interesting part of this fiasco is that the Spanish press is treating this as a straight story — that McCain dissed Zapatero repeatedly, refusing to commit to a meeting. Here’s a rough translation of the lede of the El País story:

John McCain, the Republican candidate for the White House, refused on four separate occasions to commit to meet with the Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, if [McCain] becomes the next president of the United States.

I think I understand the mistake that the Spanish press is making here: they’re assuming that McCain has any freaking clue about their country. They assume that he couldn’t possibly be that stupid.

Here’s my suggestion to the next Spanish language interviewer who wants to ask about U.S.-Spanish relations: don’t pronounce the prime minister’s name “Za-peh-tey-ro.” That was your big mistake.

You’ll find that you get a much better answer if you just learn to pronounce it “Sah-kash-vee-lee.” Next thing you know, McCain will suggest that we’re all Spaniards now and start threatening war with Portugal.

So what should we make of this? Imagine if this had happened to Obama. The media would talk about nothing else for a week: the inexperienced candidate flubs a simple question. In McCain’s case, it’s not yet clear what will happen — except that his campaign will lie about what really happened.

Ultimately there are three possible answers: he was tired; he was clueless; or he is stupid. Let’s hope it was the first.

Hat tips: TPM and Hilzoy at ObWi

Memo to Michael Gerson: WTF?

In today’s Washington Postdated, former Bush flack-hack and occasional thoughtful conservative Michael Gerson goes off the rails again, suggesting that Obama has made three mistakes during his campaign that just might prove to be fatal.

1. Obama made the mistake of choosing in Joe Biden a thoughtful, experienced, and capable running mate instead of a crazy, inexperienced, and frequently vicious unknown.

He could have reinforced a message of change and moderation with a Democratic governor who wins in a Republican state, or reached for history by selecting Hillary Clinton. But his choice came soon after Russia invaded Georgia, and the conventional wisdom demanded an old hand who knew his way around Tbilisi. When the Georgia crisis faded, Obama was left with a partisan, undisciplined, congressional liberal at his side.

Apparently it is better to score easy points by creating a celebrity while sating your red (moose) meat base than it is to think about what is necessary to govern a large and complex nation.

2. Obama made the mistake of turning his convention speech into a thoughtful discussion of the issues that matter to the American people instead of a rehash of his inspirational stumps:

In his Denver speech, it seemed that every American home was on the auction block, every car stalled for lack of gasoline, every credit card bill past due, every worker treated like a Russian serf. And John McCain? He was out of touch, with flawed “judgment.” His life devoted to serving oil companies and big corporations. And, by the way, he didn’t have the courage to follow Osama bin Laden “to the cave where he lives.”

Apparently it is better to speak blandishments than talk about the real problems facing this country. The irony, of course, is that much of the commentariat before the speech — including Republicans — could not stop talking about how Obama needed to talk policy. After the speech every commentator — even Pat Buchanan, for crying out loud — called the speech one of the finest of his career and an extraordinary challenge to McCain. All that was forgotten by Gerson and other folks, largely because the next day, John McCain opened up that big ol’ can of crazy known as the Sarahnator.

3. Obama is now making the mistake of getting tough on McCain for being such a lying liar who lies about his giant sack of lies.

Who is hurt most by this race to the bottom? McCain, by the evidence of his own convention, wants to be a viewed as a fighter — which a fight does little to undermine. Obama was introduced to America as a different and better kind of politician — an image now in tatters.

That’s right — it’s Obama’s fault for challenging the lies, because it makes him look like a typical politician. Forget the fact that McCain has sullied his honor. It’s far more relevant that Obama chose to fight back, thus hurting his reputation as a change agent.

If Michael Gerson wants to put on a pair of beer goggles when he looks at John McCain, that’s his prerogative. But he shouldn’t expect the rest of us to believe him.

Joy Behar and Baba Wawa are teh Awesome

So “The View” of all places goes where no media outlet has dared go and busts McCain for the sex ed and lipstick on a pig controversies:

I don’t know if I agree with Sullivan that this interview “just destroyed McCain’s candidacy,” but the momentum clearly has reversed, with the media starting to hit back — and call what he said, as Joy Behar did here, lies. Add into that Palin’s performance last night, and the fact that Obama has started to punch back, and you’ve got some serious problems for the campaign.

People aren’t taking him at face value anymore. That means that when the McCain campaign hits back — and you can be assured that they will hit back soon in order to try to reassert control over the news cycle — people are going to be less credulous then they were before everyone started talking about pigs, lipstick, sex ed, and wars with Russia. That’s going to make it all the harder for the next negative ad to stick — not only will the media and the public wonder whether it’s true, but another harshly negative ad will reinforce the emerging meme that McCain will do anything to win.

Last but not least, how lame was McCain’s defense? “[Obama] chooses his words carefully.” As if that’s a bad thing? As if someone who just pops off is what we want in a President? And did you hear the contempt in his voice?

Good for Behar, and for Barbara Walters, who, just for a moment, reminded people that she used to be a pretty good journalist in her own right.

So between this and the Gibson interview, how long will it take for the McCain campaign to start whining about how ABC doesn’t show proper respect towards the ticket?

Framing, the Media, and the McCain Campaign

Steve Schmidt and the other soulless Rovians running the McCain campaign understand something that neither the Obama campaign nor the mainstream media do: that if you utter a lie, no matter how outrageous, the lie will be repeated, even if it the other side is criticizing or refuting it. When Obama calls the McCain sex ad perverse, people hear Obama is perverse. When the media mockingly refers to the straight talk express, people hear that McCain is a straight talker. And when the media, in the name of balance, don’t call what McCain is doing a flat-out lie, people only hear the original message.

This is framing 101. The problem is that the McCain campaign adheres to the gospel of Frank Luntz, the Republican framing guru, and the Obama campaign doesn’t listen to his George Lakoff, his Democratic counterpart. Luntz and Lakoff both argue variations on the same theme: that people connect emotionally not intellectually, and trying to convince them with intellectual arguments only reinforces their existing perceptions.

This isn’t about the media taking sides. It’s about the media not falling into traps set by either side, where they mindlessly repeat what the campaigns say, even when doing so just reinforces the existing frame. In addition, the media have to stop inserting their assumptions into analysis: “McCain is too honorable to have done that,” or “Obama doesn’t get angry.”

What does this mean for the Obama campaign? I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: they need to go on the offensive and they need to do it now. Last night, Sarah Palin gave them a huge gift: she said that she was willing to go to war with Russia over Georgia. The Obama campaign needs to beat that drum and beat it repeatedly for the next twenty-four hours: “McCain-Palin want to get American involved in another senseless war — except this time with a country that could strike back.”

It’s that simple. Now do it.

Perhaps, Perhaps, Perhaps

I just watched the Palin interview again. If you haven’t seen it, here it is in its entirety. For the purposes of this post, please pay particular attention to the section on Russia, which begins at 3:25 and ends at 4:50:

Here’s the key part:

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.

If I and everyone else heard/read her correctly, she just suggested that a) Georgia should be part of NATO, and b) were Russia to invade again, other NATO members should go to war with Russia.

To say that those comments are staggeringly naive and dangerous would be a vast understatement.

First of all, let’s put her comments into historical perspective. Here is a list of countries that the Soviet Union and its primary successor, Russia, have invaded since 1920, excluding the “Great Patriotic War” (Russia’s name for World War II between the June 1941 German invasion and 1945):

Poland (1920)
Poland (1939)
Finland (1939)
Estonia (1940)
Latvia (1940)
Lithuania (1940)
Hungary (1956)
Czechoslovakia (1968)
Afghanistan (1979)
Georgia (2008)

In addition, the Soviet Union annexed parts of a number of countries during or after World War II:

Moldova (from Romania)
Eastern Poland (first taken in 1939 and then ratified at Yalta as part of the decision to shift Poland westwards)
Subcarpathian Ruthenia (Czechoslovakia)
Konigsberg (Germany — later renamed Kaliningrad Oblast)

After the Second World War, Soviet troops occupied a number of countries, most of which became part of the Comintern and later Warsaw Pact. The exceptions were northern Iran, Austria, and (after 1948) Yugoslavia.

Now here’s a list of American Presidents who threatened war with the Soviet Union and/or Russia as a result of these invasions, all of which violated international law.

There aren’t any.

Not Roosevelt or Truman.

Not JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Not Reagan.

Not even Dubya.

Palin has moved into territory that no President or Presidential candidate (not even Goldwater in 1964) has ever ventured. The only time anyone has said something this bad is in 1968, when Curtis LeMay, upon being named George Wallace’s VP candidate, said that he would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons.

I don’t think that comparisons to “Bombs Away” LeMay — who was the model for Gen. Jack D. Ripper in Dr. Strangelove — were what John McCain was hoping for in selecting the Sarahnator.

Let’s draw a flowchart showing where Sarah Palin’s policy could lead us.

Georgia joins NATO → Russia attacks Georgia → Article 5 of the NATO treaty, which says an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all NATO members → NATO declares war on Russia → nuclear war.

Ilan Goldenberg over at Democracy Arsenal highlights just how dangerous this kind of talk is:

No sane American or European leader would ever ever ever give an answer like that. You do not get into hypotheticals about nuclear war. You just don’t.

Palin references the Cold War. The only reason the Cold War stayed cold is because our leaders understood the stakes of getting things wrong and saying things that could lead to catastrophic nuclear war. During the Cuban Missile Crisis every word, every public statement, and any message that the Kennedy administration sent to the Soviets was checked, double checked, and triple checked to make sure it was sending precisely the right signal.

This is what you are forced to do when you have thousands of nuclear weapons and so does your opponent. The stakes are simply too high. And yet there is a nominee for the Vice Presidency of the United States who may one day have her hand on the button and she is casually talking about potential catastrophic nuclear war.

To be fair, both Obama and McCain believe that Georgia should join NATO. But neither of them — not even John McCain — has ever said, suggested, or even hinted that the United States would go to war with Russia over Georgia.

Let me be clear here. The problem isn’t that Sarah Palin is crazy. She’s not. The problem is that she is in no way prepared to answer basic questions on foreign policy in a way that doesn’t make her look crazy. And that means she is not prepared to be Vice President or President. She might be someday, but not right now.

To put this all in perspective, let me contrast the process the McCain campaign used to prepare Sarah Palin for these interviews and the process used by the State Department to prepare its officials for Congressional testimony.

Assistant Secretaries of State are usually people who have spent years (if not decades) becoming experts on the particular area or subject matter that they now oversee on behalf of the State Department. They usually know their stuff. But when they go to testify before Congress on one small part of their portfolio, they get a two inch-thick briefing book with every possible question they might get, along with answers consistent with U.S. Government policy. Those answers have been vetted by everyone in the building who plays a role in determining policy. The Assistant Secretaries also spend hours in what are known as “murder boards,” where their staffmembers pepper them with the questions and then critique their answers until they get it right.

Assistant Secretaries of State: weeks and hours of intensive, hands-on preparation for a narrow topic, undertaken by someone who already is an expert on a topic.

Sarah Palin: At most two weeks of probably not very intensive preparation (given all the speeches and appearances since she was announced, it didn’t leave much study time) to prepare answers to every possible question on every possible subject under the sun, by someone with little or no foreign policy experience. She was expected to come out of this less-than-rigorous process prepared to provide short, simple answers to easy questions on topics about which she had never thought.

And people wonder why she did so badly?

It turned out that Charlie Gibson, the McCain’s first choice for a first interview, wasn’t prepared to roll over like they expected. So when Gibson pursued a line of questioning in any depth, Palin ran out of sound bites. When that happened, she had to improvise. She had to make stuff up when she doesn’t have the experience or background to do so knowledgeably.

A more experienced politician would have had the wisdom in such a situation to avoid talking about war. But Palin is not experienced. She doesn’t understand the consequences of straying from the playbook. As a result, she committed a McCain Administration to a course that could lead directly to nuclear war. And chances are, given the McCain campaign’s recent refusal to backtrack on anything, it’s highly unlikely that the Senator would do the smart thing, which would be to issue a clarification.

In the end, however, we should judge not Sarah Palin, but John McCain. His choice of her was thoughtless, reckless, and fundamentally unwise. Such lapses in judgment demonstrate his manifest unsuitability to be President.

Palin and War

I’m still trying to get my mind around Palin’s comments on Russia, Georgia, NATO and war. I promise more in the morning, but right now I’m too fried to think straight.

Russia: Anything You Can Do I Can Make Worse

A few weeks back, Dubya sent a ship to visit Georgia. The Russians were outraged. Now we have their response:

Two Russian strategic bombers landed in Venezuela on Wednesday as part of military maneuvers, the government said, announcing an unprecedented deployment to the territory of a new ally at a time of increasingly tense relations with the U.S.

Russia’s Defense Ministry said the two Tu-160 bombers flew to Venezuela on a training mission. It said in a statement carried by the Russian news wires that the planes will conduct training flights over neutral waters over the next few days before heading back to Russia. . . . In Moscow, Defense Ministry spokesman Alexander Drobyshevsky refused to say how long the Venezuela deployment will last or say whether the planes carried any weapons. . . .

Earlier this week, Russia said it will send a naval squadron and long-range patrol planes to Venezuela in November for a joint military exercise in the Caribbean.

Everyone keeps saying it isn’t a new Cold War. I certainly hope that’s true. But let’s look at the evidence:

The U.S. and Russia are no longer cooperating on reducing nuclear arsenals.
Cheney just spent the past week running around Europe and warning against Russia (more on this later).
The EU is looking into ways to reduce its dependence on Russian gas and oil.
Russia is developing close relations with a Latin American neighbor of the United States, and has potentially sent strategic assets within striking range of the continental U.S.
U.S.-Russian space cooperation appears to be a thing of the past.
Both the Bush Administration and the McCain campaign no longer talk of Russia as an ally, but as a rival.
Russia and China have become more and more friendly since Putin came to power.
Russia has supported the establishment of two nascent organizations, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan), and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan), either of which could evolve into a rival to the United States/EU/NATO.

Is it me or is it getting chilly in here?

So Much for Mars

Further proof of the absolute inability of this Administration — and its allies in Congress — to think through the consequences of its actions:

NASA is about out of options for keeping U.S. astronauts in space after 2011. Unless President George Bush intervenes, or whoever succeeds him in January immediately steps into the space arena, the dismantling of the space shuttle program will be too far along to reverse course. . . .

The three-ship fleet is scheduled for retirement in 2010. NASA wants to use the shuttle’s budget for developing replacement ships that can go to the moon as well as to the International Space Station. The new vehicle, called Orion, won’t be ready until 2015 — five years after the shuttle stops flying.

NASA had counted on buying Russian Soyuz capsules to transport crews to the space station during the gap. But in recent interviews, NASA administrator Michael Griffin said he has no hope Congress will pass the legislation needed for NASA to keep the Soyuz assembly lines running. . . . “My guess is that there is going to be a lengthy period with no U.S. crew on (the space station) after 2011,” Griffin wrote in an email to top NASA managers that was posted on the Orlando Sentinel’s Web site.

The agency cannot purchase Russian rockets unless it receives an exemption from a trade sanction Congress levied in 2005 after Russia reportedly helped Iran develop nuclear weapons technology. Griffin has said the exemption to the Iran, North Korea and Syria Nonproliferation Act, needs to be in place by early 2009 to keep U.S. and partner astronauts in orbit. U.S. outrage over Russia’s handling of a dispute with neighboring Georgia has pretty much nixed any chance Congress will lift the trade ban again, Griffin said.

“Exactly as I predicted, events have unfolded in a way that makes it clear how unwise it was for the U.S. to adopt a policy of deliberate dependence upon another power for access to ISS,” Griffin wrote.

When I was growing up, there was nothing more exciting or romantic than the space program. John F. Kennedy’s challenge to land on the moon by the end of the decade was both a great achievement and a wonderful example of what we as a nation could do if we put our minds to it.

In contrast, our policy today, as Griffin notes, is “deliberate dependence.”

Here’s the thing. I think it would be cool for us to go back to the moon or to Mars. But I also think that there are other things that are more important and more worthy of funding if we have to make difficult choices. I’d love for us to do all the things we’d like to do, but those days are gone, at least for a while if not forever.

But if we are going to have a space program, is it too much to ask that it not be completely half-assed, utterly dependent on unreliable “third parties,” and hopelessly unrealistic about the gap between what we want to do and what’s possible with the money we plan to spend?

Ask not what the Bush Administration can do for you. Ask the Bush Administration whether they can screw things up any more than they already have.

Maybe we can beg the Chinese to let us hitch a ride.

Russia-Georgia: The Other Shoe Drops

This isn’t good:

Statement by Secretary Condoleezza Rice

Washington, DC

September 8, 2008

The President intends to notify Congress that he has today rescinded his prior determination regarding the U.S.-Russia Agreement for Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation (the so-called ‘123’ Agreement). As a result, there is no basis for further consideration of the Agreement under the Atomic Energy Act at this time.

The U.S. nonproliferation goals contained in the proposed Agreement remain valid: to provide a sound basis for U.S.-Russian civil nuclear cooperation, create commercial opportunities, and enhance cooperation with Russia on important global nonproliferation issues.

We make this decision with regret. Unfortunately, given the current environment, the time is not right for this agreement.

We will reevaluate the situation at a later date as we follow developments closely.

For those not familiar with 123 agreements, they are named after Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, which requires that the U.S. government negotiate and sign an agreement with a given country before commerce in nuclear materials can be established.

Although 123 agreements can be controversial in and of themselves (as is the case with the U.S.-India pact), they also offer a way to help promote nonproliferation and the reduction of nuclear stockpiles.

The era of U.S.-Russian cooperation on nukes may have just come to an end.

Hope Saakashvili is feeling more secure now — because something tells me that a few of those missiles are now pointed his way.

While You Were Away: Russia-Georgia

The last two weeks have been nuts, what with the Clinton and Obama speeches, Hurricane Sarah, and all other things political. And things are unlikely to slow down anytime soon, given the fact that the election is only sixty days away.

While Americans focused on the conventions (and Hurricane Gustav), world events didn’t just grind to a halt. Over the past two weeks, there have been a number of important developments that are not only important in their own right but also may have a significant impact on the next President’s ability to govern.

Over the next few days, I’m going to try to highlight someJ of them. Let’s start with Russia-Georgia.

In the past two weeks, the Russia-Georgia conflict has increasingly turned into a proxy (cold) war between the United States and the Russian Federation. Russian President Medvedev has demonstrated a particular affection for Bushian bluster, making grandiose nationalistic statements about reestablishing a Russian sphere of influence that were meant as much for internal consumption as for global politics. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration has taken several steps to bind the United States even more closely to the fate of Georgia — including a pledge of more than $1 billion in new (non-military) foreign assistance and a visit by Vice President Dick Cheney.

John McCain’s protestations notwithstanding, most Americans still do not understand what is going on or why the conflict is relevant to their lives.

For all the jokes about Cheney being sent out of the country during the Convention, the reality is that his trip was deadly serious, designed to show the Russians that the United States would not be cowed in the face of its aggression. But it also showed Cheney’s unbelievably blinkered view of the world: in the end, the reason the U.S. is backing Georgia is because of the latter’s decision to send troops to Iraq.

The Administration’s actions are going to make it much harder for the next President to pursue a more rational, interests-based policy while at the same time defending Georgian sovereignty. Of course, if McCain is President, that will not be a problem.

The bottom line: this has become a game of low-intensity chicken, with both sides acting like 12-year-old boys. And neither side really cares to behave like adults. Georgia, which is largely (though not entirely) the victim here, is stuck in the middle, with little hope of serious support from the West or complete withdrawal of Russian forces. The real fear is that some further incident will cause one side or the other to ratchet up the rhetoric in a way that we’re suddenly looking at Bosnia 1914 all over again — except this time, it will be with thousands upon thousands of nukes on both sides.

For those interested in the specifics, you can find a straightforward report on the events of the past two weeks after the jump.

Read the rest of this entry »

New Poll: Cheneypalooza!

Image via Wikipedia

Time for a new poll, boys and girls! Thanks to all of those who volunteered to staple-gun their toenails to their foreheads in our last poll.

The topic this time is. . . Dick Cheney.

With all the focus on Sarah Palin and Hurricane Gustav, I think it’s a shame that we’ve all but ignored our favorite evil nemesis.

Since he’s winging off to the Republic of Georgia (and other not-so-tropical climes) today, there’s no time like the present to think about his corrosive influence over and impact on U.S. foreign policy.

Please remember to vote early and vote often! Vice President Cheney wants to make damn sure that we can fix this election too!

And if you don’t vote, the terrorists will win.

And remember — the evil he does, he does for us. You could say it’s selfless evil, altruistic evil, a kinder and gentler evil.

Naaaah.

Controlympics: Winners Who Lost (#3 of 4)

We’re taking one last look back at the most discussed — and controversial — Olympics since Berlin 1936. Previously, we looked at the winners and the losers. Now let’s take a look at winners who in fact lost.

1. Chinese women’s gymnastics team — nobody believes they were all sixteen years old. Not even the Chinese. They may have won gold, and the Chinese may have avoided a scandal as a result of forged documents, but the reality is that sooner or later, someone will talk.

2. Misty May-Treanor and Kerri Walsh — the American bikini-clad, gold medal-winning women’s beach volleyball team may have been the ugliest winners in the entire Olympics. And May-Treanor’s “slap my butt” antics with President Bush set back both the sport and America’s image.

3. Russia — Russian athletes came in third in terms of total number of medals won. After the invasion of Georgia, however, nobody wanted them to win anything. And at one point in the Games, Georgia had as many gold medals as Russia. In addition, Russia’s hosting of the winter games at Sochi in 2014 may be at risk, given their location only fifteen miles from the Russia-Georgia border.

4. Zhang Yimou — the director of the the Opening and Closing ceremonies actually praised the “precision” of North Korean performers and dissed the New York Metropolitan Opera as whiners. He also ignored his own history — as a victim of the Cultural Revolution — to suck up to the Chinese leadership and produce massive extravaganzas without any consideration of the resultant human cost.

5. London 2012 — they may have the next games, but they have to follow what was (setting aside, for the moment, human rights abuses and other problems) the best-organized Games ever. And the London contribution to the Closing Ceremonies was beyond bad.

Next up: the medal winners in the Schadenfreude competition.

Controlympics: Losers (#2 of 4)

We’re taking one last look back at the most discussed — and controversial — Olympics since Berlin 1936. Previously, we looked at the winners. Now let’s take a look at the losers.

1. Human rights — the Chinese did everything they could to stifle dissent, and with the exception of a few brave Chinese and Westerners, they succeeded — so much so that they even managed to prevent any protests in the officially managed protest zones. In the process, they also silenced and/or arrested hundreds if not thousands of dissidents; shipped tens of thousands of migrants and homeless out of Beijing; and perhaps most depressingly, created new electronic surveillance systems that give them the ability to shut down dissent before it starts.

2. Western media — with a few exceptions, the Western media mindlessly bought what the Chinese were selling. And there was no bigger culprit than NBC, whose commentators (with the notable exception of Bob Costas) often sounded like apologists. Worst of the worst: Joshua Cooper-Ramo at the opening and closing ceremonies and Mary Carillo’s insipid travelogues.

3. Chinese athletes — for all their victories, Chinese athletes didn’t look like they were having much fun. The pressure to win was so great that it seemed to suck all the joy out of their participation. There were exceptions, of course, but all too often we saw images of Chinese athletes looking like their lives had ended after failing to win gold. Best example of this: Chinese diver Zhou Luxin, who lost to Australian Matthew Mitcham on the last dive of the 10m platform competition.

4. International Olympic Committee — for seven years, we’ve heard how the Olympics were going to open up China. When it became clear that wasn’t the case, the IOC fell back on the old trope of the Olympics being above politics. And when that didn’t work, they tried to change the subject. From his blather before the games that he couldn’t talk about human rights to his criticism of Usain Bolt to his complicity in the cover-up of the Chinese gymnastic team age scandal, Jacques Rogge looked even worse.

5. George W. Bush — while Russia invaded Georgia, he was playing hide the volleyball with Misty May-Traenor and Kerri Walsh. Given his subsequent rhetoric about the conflict, he sure took his sweet time getting back to the States.

Next up: winners who lost.

Georgia and (Cindy) McCain: No Presumption Here

Cindy McCain is heading to the Republic of Georgia. Right in the middle of the Democratic National Convention. And right before Dick Cheney heads there. But it’s all a coincidence.

Her aides say that the timing of the trip, during the Democrats’ convention in Denver, was never a consideration. But that doesn’t mean they’re ignoring the subtext: “She’s on the phone with the World Food Program, he’s on the phone with Sakaashvili,” McCain adviser Nicolle Wallace told me. “It’s like this great picture of what they’ll be like in the White House.” [Link added.]

So who’s presumptuous now? Sheesh.

Oh wait. He’s a POW. And she’s the daughter of a robber baron wife of a POW. I guess I can’t ask.

McCain Hearts Cheney While Cheney Hearts Georgia

From 2001:

All that’s missing is his “I ♥ Dick Cheney” t-shirt. So much for his ads trying to run away from the Bush Administration. If I were the Obama campaign, I’d run this clip into the ground.

Now flash forward seven-plus years. Today, the White House issued the following statement:

Vice President Cheney will travel abroad beginning September 2, 2008. President Bush has asked the Vice President to travel to Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine and Italy for discussions with these key partners on issues of mutual interest. The Vice President will meet with President Aliyev of Azerbaijan, President Saakashvili of Georgia, President Yushchenko of Ukraine, and President Napolitano and Prime Minister Berlusconi of Italy, as well as senior officials of their respective governments. In addition to meetings with foreign leaders, the Vice President will attend and address the Ambrosetti forum entitled, “Intelligence on the World, Europe and Italy” in Lake Como, Italy.

I presume Air Force Two will head to Baku straight from St. Paul, as the Dickster is scheduled to speak on Monday, September 1, followed by a brief ceremony where he shoots McCain’s VP pick in the face.

On a serious note, most of my fellow bloggers are viewing this as an effort to get Cheney out of town so as not to distract from McCain. That’s plausible, but I fear a more sinister motive may also be at play.

Think about it: Cheney will be meeting with Saakashvili right in the middle of the Convention. And not meeting with the Russians. Giving John McCain another opportunity to denounce Putin and praise the Georgians, thus making him look strong on national security.

I’d say that is far more provocative than anything Cheney could say or do in St. Paul.

Russia-Georgia: Wishful Reporting?

How many consecutive days have we seen variations on the “Russia is pulling out of Georgia real soon” story? I thought I’d take a look.

Times (UK), August 14:

Russian military officials said today that they would start to return control of Gori to Georgia soon, as agreed in a French-brokered ceasefire.

NYT, August 15:

Both Georgia and Russia took steps back from open conflict on Thursday, with Russia largely ending air operations over Georgia and preparing to withdraw at least some of the troops it had moved inside the country

AP, August 16:

Russian forces pulled back Saturday from positions in a town not far from Georgia’s capital after the Russia’s president signed a cease-fire deal, but his foreign minister said the troop withdrawal would be contingent on further security measures.

AP, August 17:

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev says Russian troops will begin a pullback Monday from Georgia toward that country’s separatist-held region of South Ossetia.

Reuters, August 18:

Russia announced it would begin withdrawing forces from Georgia today after a war that dealt a humiliating blow to the Black Sea state and raised fears for energy supplies to Europe.

Reuters, August 19:

Russian troops will pull back from Georgia’s heartland by the end of this week, the Kremlin said on Tuesday, but NATO said it was freezing contacts with Moscow until all Russian forces were out of the country.

The Globe and Mail, August 20:

A small Russian column, including three tanks, three trucks, five armoured personnel carriers and a rocket launcher, left Gori, the central Georgian city that straddles a vital east-west highway. A Russian officer said they were headed for South Ossetia, the disputed province at the heart of the conflict, then home to Russia.

Reuters, August 21:

Russia said on Thursday it would pull back some of its troops in Georgia within 24 hours after Washington demanded they leave “now”, but Moscow said it would still keep a force stationed in Georgia’s heartland.

AP, August 22:

Russian forces lingered deep in Georgia on Thursday, digging trenches and setting up mortars a day before Kremlin officials promised to complete a troop withdrawal from this former Soviet republic.

Okay guys, that nine consecutive days you’ve reported that Russia is either pulling troops out or promising to pull troops out. Don’t you think it’s time you actually figure out exactly what’s going on and stop speculating?

Russia-Georgia: A Neocon Trap?

I, like everyone else, has assumed that the neocons’ foaming at the mouth over Russia-Georgia has been genuine — in the sense that they really want to view Putin’s Russia as a reborn USSR, and really believe that we should defend Georgia. I’m sure that’s probably the case for some.

But to play conspiracy theorist for a moment, what if they don’t really believe any of it? What if they could care less about Georgia? What then would be their motivation?

Well, how about this: they’re making it almost impossible for the next Administration not to take a hard line against Russia without being portrayed as weak. And since McCain is already supporting their cause, what we’re really talking about is a ploy to limit Obama’s options should he get elected. President Obama, they will argue, isn’t standing up to Russia. And in doing so, he’s making America look weak in the eyes of Putin and all our other potential opponents.

It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. In fact, it’s the Jimmy Carter edition.

Think I’m crazy? What’s Option A in the neocon playbook? Force your opponents to go along with what you want by making them fear looking weak. And if you can’t get them to go along, make them look like traitors.

Of course I could be wrong. The neocons could actually be stark raving mad, willing to risk World War Whatever (they can’t seem to make up their minds on the number) to protect a tiny state whose significance to the United States lies primarily in the fact that the Bush Administration is embarrassed that it made promises that it had no hope of keeping.

That means your choices are a) they’re deeply cynical or b) they’re completely crazy. And by “they” I mean not just the Kristols, Kagans, and Boots of this world, but also John McCain.

I can’t think of a better argument for supporting Barack Obama.

Of course I’m probably just saying that to score a job in his administration.

Heh.

Diplospeak Translator: The Condi in Crawford

I think The Condi has been spending too much time down on the ranch with Dubya. Yes, I know she just got back from a whirlwind trip and everything, but sheesh, it’s like she caught a case of the Cold Warrior pneumonia and the malapropism flu.

Yesterday, she spoke to the press after briefing her husband the commander-in-chief. Time to break out the Diplospeak Translator. Once again, we bring you only the choicest cuts.

THE CONDI: I think everybody understands that Russia had a choice to make over the last several years, and it was a choice that should have been opened to Russia, which was a choice to act in a 21st-century way, fully integrate into the international institutions. I think it’s very much worthwhile to have given Russia that chance.

DIPLOSPEAK TRANSLATOR: It really stinks that they followed our lead in ignoring international institutions like the United Nations and the International Criminal Court. Didn’t they hear the part where we said, “do as we say, not as we do”?

THE CONDI: Now, I think the behavior recently suggests that perhaps Russia has not taken that route, and either that they have not taken that route or that they would like to have it both ways — that is, that you behave in a 1968 way toward your small neighbors by invading them and, at the same time, you continue to integrate into the political and diplomatic and economic and security structures of the international community. And I think the fact is, you can’t have it both ways.

DIPLOSPEAK TRANSLATOR: As opposed to behaving in a 2003 way, where you invade small countries on the other side of the world while continuing to dismantle the political and diplomatic and economic and security structures of the international community. There’s a big difference — as soon as I can figure out what it is, I’ll let you know.

THE CONDI: Now, we’ll take our time; we’ll evaluate. But already, the consequences for Russia of its behavior is that it has rallied people to — against them, and many of the small states, which were once captive nations, have rallied to the side of Georgia. That in and of itself is a very different circumstance than we might have faced several decades ago.

DIPLOSPEAK TRANSLATOR: Is the Cold War on again? Pretty please? Because I spent half my freaking life studying the Russkies and haven’t been able to contribute anything useful for about twenty years.

THE CONDI: I have to assume for now that the word of the President of Russia to the presidency of the EU is going to be respected.

DIPLOSPEAK TRANSLATOR: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh, I’m killing myself here.

THE CONDI: The Georgians have very often offered substantial autonomy to these two regions. We have pressed very hard for there to be recognition of minority rights in these regions. So there’s a lot of groundwork that has been laid here, but what has to happen now, when these international discussions intensify over the next period of time after this — after the cease-fire is in place, is that it all has to proceed from where it proceeded from before, which is the territorial integrity of Georgia be respected; that these regions, as the President just said, are within the internationally recognized boundaries of Georgia; and that the Security Council resolutions, which have been passed numerous times, will be respected. And there will have to be a negotiated solution on that basis.

DIPLOSPEAK TRANSLATOR: Please, please, please please don’t mention Kosovo.

REPORTER: But Russia has said explicitly that they are not prepared to return to the status quo. I mean, how do you get around that?

THE CONDI: Well, then, Russia would be in violation of extant Security Council resolutions.

DIPLOSPEAK TRANSLATOR: You know, just like they said we were doing back in 2003.

REPORTER: I mean, is there really serious discussion about kicking them out of the G8, or is there really serious discussion about the WTO?

THE CONDI: We’ll take our time and look at further consequences for what Russia has done. But I would just note that there are already consequences. There has been universal concern within the European Union, the United States, et cetera, about the way Russia has done this. I think that you will start to see reports come out about what Russian forces engaged in.

DIPLOSPEAK TRANSLATOR: Look! Over there! Human rights violations! Whew! I wasn’t sure that old trick still worked given everything we’ve done in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.

THE CONDI: The — already you have the states that are — were former captive nations, like Poland, the Baltic states, even states like Ukraine speaking out against this kind of behavior.

DIPLOSPEAK TRANSLATOR: I knew if we kept banging that old captive nations drum, it would become useful again. And what a perfect regurgitation of Cold War rhetoric! Ah, I feel complete again.

THE CONDI: [I]t’s not just talk, it is about Russia’s standing in the international community. I want to go back to the point. In 1968, when the Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia, it occupied the capital, overthrew the government, and paid no consequence. And one reason it paid no consequence is that the Soviet Union actually didn’t care about its status in the international system. It didn’t want to be member of the WTO; it didn’t want to be in the OECD; it didn’t want to be seen as a responsible player in international politics.

DIPLOSPEAK TRANSLATOR: In 2003, when we invaded Iraq, occupied the capital, and overthrew the government, we had no idea we would still paying for it more than five years later. And nothing annoys us more than seeing someone else get away with something we tried to do ourselves.

Come On, 9/11 Wasn’t THAT Big a Deal, Was It?

Another gem from Senator Rip van McWrinkle on the Russia-Georgia conflict:

Oh. My. God.

He really has been asleep for the past twenty years.

I think I might have to revise my Dean Wormer Theory of Politics.

Senator, angry, bitter, and asleep is no way to win an election.

A Reverse Nixon with a Half-Twist

When it comes to foreign policy, George W. Bush has managed to become the Bizarro Nixon.

Think about it. As Rick Perlstein notes in Nixonland,

[Nixon] explained [his] strategic rationale: I do not want to give the impression to the eight hundred million people of Communist China that they have no choice but to cooperate with the Soviet Union.” . . . China and Russia, as rivals, might someday compete for America’s favor by directing North Vietnam to reach a negotiated settlement.

Nixon understood that, in an era of waning American power (in the sense of a declining economy and the end of overwhelming American military superiority), he needed to prevent a Soviet-Chinese rapprochement. He recognized that, with U.S. troops pinned down in Vietnam, diplomatic audacity would have to replace more conventional projections of power. Triangulation was the key: play the Chinese off the Soviets, play the Soviets off the Chinese, and use both to secure as many American foreign policy goals as possible. He also realized that he couldn’t achieve any of this without making certain compromises — Taiwan in the case of the Chinese, the illusion of missile superiority in the case of the Soviet Union.

Contrast that with Bush, who seems determined to alienate as many countries as possible. He damns Russia for Georgia, China for a whole bunch of things, Iran for nukes, Venezuela for Chavez, and so on. The idealist in me appreciates his moral stances (even if it is wildly inconsistent with his Administration’s own human rights practices). But the realist recognizes that he’s succeeding in isolating the United States to a degree almost unprecedented in our history.

So here we are, thirty-odd years later, once again in an era of waning American superiority. American troops are pinned down, this time in Iraq and Afghanistan. The economy is in steep decline, except this time it is China rather than Japan challenging us. Our capacity to project American power is at best limited and at worst non-existent.

But instead of using diplomacy to protect American interests by making limited concessions to those who would like nothing better to contest our position in the world, Bush’s actions are driving other countries to unite against us.

What’s the opposite of triangulation? Pointillism? Whatever it’s called, even Nixon would have recognized it as both foolish and profoundly dangerous.

Russia-Georgia: The Big Winner

Iran.

1. The neocons are so distracted by the new meme of Russia as Nazi Germany, they’ve forgotten all about their old meme of Iran as Nazi Germany.

2. The Bush Administration, attempting to save face as a result of its failed promises to Georgia, appears determined to shame and isolate the Russians. If they keep it up, it’s unlikely they’ll get Russia’s continued cooperation on Iran.

3. The Russians have every incentive now to cultivate the Iranians rather than sanction them.

If I were the Ahmadinejad, I’d be laughing my missile-photoshopping jihadist butt off right about now.

Party Like It’s 1938

McCain campaign advisor, New York Post columnist, and paleocon Ralph Peters, during an American Enterprise Institute discussion yesterday on the Russian-Georgian conflict:

The Russians, on whom I have wasted far too much of my life, are drink-sodden barbarians who occasionally puke up a genius. And we should make no mistake. Vladimir Putin is one such genius. As this brilliantly planned and executed operation illustrates, he is the most effective leader in the world today, certainly of any major country. No one else comes close.

Obviously the ruthlessness helps. He is just uninterested in international law, precedent etc. and for now, for Russia he’s great. In the long run he may be very negative factor for Russia but for now he’s riding very very high.

[snip]

We’ve done this before. The message we’ve sent to our allies yet again or would-be allies, would-be clients yet again is america won’t come through for you, especially if you don’t have oil or gas. We did this to the Hungarians in 1956. We encouraged them to rise up, and they rose up and we did nothing.

In 1991 with the Shia in Iraq we encouraged them to rise up and they did and we let Saddam’s troops slaughter them. And we have been cheering Georgia on, free-wheeling democracy, go get ‘em, and in the pinch, we failed them utterly…

We’re faced with a resurgent major power, not super power, with imperialist megalomaniacal ambitions led by the most effective and, I would argue, the most brilliant leader in the world today, outclassing everyone I can see. Ladies and gentleman, I find this terribly reminiscent of the 1930s.

Those wacky wacky neocons. They always want to party like it’s 1938.

You know, I understand the urge to want to revel in history, pretend you’re Churchill, and portray your opponents as appeasers, but come on, folks. Wasn’t it just a few months ago that you were claiming that Iran was the new Nazi Germany? Make up your minds already.

Hat tip: The Swamp

McCain and Georgia: Who Said It?

A certain Presidential campaign on John McCain’s statements on Georgia:

Just a few weeks ago, Sen. McCain was highly critical of Sen. Obama’s foreign policy stances and politics: They were “simplistic.” I’m not sure one could find a more simplistic response to a problem in the world than McCain’s response to what’s happening [in Georgia.] Going out there and making statements… such as ‘We are all Georgians’—what does that mean? It means nothing unless it means we are to get involved on behalf of Georgia.

I read that John McCain knows the Georgian leader, President Saakashvili, that he’s been over there, but his statements seem to reflect an unrealistic view of the situation over there… whether John McCain has looked into Saakashvili’s eyes and seen something he liked, similar to the way George W. Bush looked into Putin’s eyes, I don’t know. I haven’t looked into either of their eyes, so maybe that gives me an advantage.

Answer after the jump.

Read the rest of this entry »

Three Words for John McCain

Senator Grouchy McGrouchypants yesterday on the cabletubes:

Okaaaaay. Uh. Well. Ahem.

Three words, Senator: March. Twentieth. Two-thousand-and-three.

John McCain’s candidacy is increasingly resembling that crazy old uncle who’s locked up in the attic because he no longer understands just how inappropriate it is to scream obscenities at strangers.

You know, it’s not just that McCain might sleep through the proverbial 3 a.m. phone call. It’s far worse than that. He seems to have been asleep for the past five-plus years. Or maybe, given his Cold-War era rhetoric, the past twenty.

Auditioning for PM?

My colleague Pin Collacott had a post a few days ago about British foreign minister David Miliband auditioning for the PM job. Now we have this:

I have to admit that the man is impressive. But he looks like he’s twelve years old. It reminds me of “Dish and Dishonesty,” that great BlackAdder the Third episode where Edmund takes on Pitt the Younger:

Pitt the Younger: I intend to put up my own brother as a candidate against you!

Blackadder: Oh, and which Pitt would this be? Pitt the Toddler? Pitt the Embryo? Pitt the Glint in the Milkman’s Eye?

Pitt the Younger: Pah! Gentlemen, as I said to Chancellor Metternich at the Congress of Strasbourg; “Poooo to you with knobs on!” We shall meet sirs, on the hustings!

Perhaps Gordon Brown could ask Rowan Atkinson to be his campaign manager.

Please Don’t Encourage Him

After John McCain’s “We are all Georgians” comment yesterday, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili wants Senator McGrumperson to put up or shut up:

Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili on Wednesday called for John McCain and other American leaders to do more for Georgia in their response to the conflict in his country. “Yesterday, I heard Sen. McCain say, ‘We are all Georgians now,’” Saakashvili said on CNN’s American Morning. “Well, very nice, you know, very cheering for us to hear that, but OK, it’s time to pass from this. From words to deeds.”

Oh boy. You know, there’s nothing worse than asking neoconservatives to follow their words with deeds. They have an annoying habit of actually listening.

Unless, of course, McCain is just posturing to score points on the campaign trail. America’s hero wouldn’t be that cynical, would he?

Heh.

Hat tip: Matthew Yglesias

Controlympics: Russia’s Bad Karma

Today, an underdog Georgian team (well, technically a pair of Brazilians playing for Georgia) defeated a Russian team in women’s beach volleyball. It’s a terrifically symbolic victory, but let’s not overplay it.

The Russians and Georgians have a long way to go before the events of these games can be compared to one of the most famous contests in Olympic history: the “blood in the water” water polo match at the 1956 Melbourne Olympics. Six weeks after Red Army forces had invaded Hungary and crushed the Hungarian Revolution, Hungary defeated the Soviet Union 4-0 in the semifinals. From Wikipedia:

[M]any of the players saw the Olympics as a way to salvage some pride for their country. “We felt we were playing not just for ourselves but for our whole country” said Zádor after the match. The “Blood In The Water” match was played out in front of a partisan crowd bolstered with expatriate Hungarians. . . In the morning before the start, the Hungarians had evolved a strategy to taunt the Russians, whose language they had been forced to study in school. In the words of Zádor: “We had decided to try and make the Russians angry to distract them.”

. . .Going into the final minutes of the game, when Hungary was leading 4–0, Zádor was marking Valentin Prokopov, with whom he had several verbal exchanges, abusing his family, etc. At one point when Zádor looked away, Prokopov hit him with a powerful fist, causing a deep bleeding gash above the right eye. Zádor was forced to leave the pool, and his bleeding face was the final straw for a crowd which was already in a frenzy. Many angry spectators jumped on to the concourse beside the water, shook their fists, shouted abuse and spat at the Russians. To avoid a riot breaking out, police entered the arena with one minute to go and shepherded the crowd away. . . .

Hungary was declared [the] winner since they had been leading at the time, and they went on to beat Yugoslavia 2–1 in the final and win their fourth Olympic gold medal. Following the Olympics, half of the 100-member Hungarian Olympic delegation defected.

To place the event in context, this game is to the Hungarians what the 1980 U.S victory over the Soviet Union in hockey is to Americans — if, that is, the 1980 Olympics had taken place after the Soviet Union had invaded and crushed the United States.

In contrast, the Georgian and Russian volleyball teams embraced before their match. Something similar happened after a Georgian won the gold and a Russian silver in a pistol category earlier this week. Hugs, not fists, has to date been the rule this time around.

What I do find interesting, as Passport has noted, is that the Russians are having a miserable Olympics. A once-dominant force in international sports, they have won few medals and even fewer gold. Here’s a fact that must be driving Putin and Medvedev nuts: Georgia and Russia have won the same number of gold medals (two). Sounds like bad karma to me.

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Contact Me

Blogroll

Polls

Admin

Archive