Month: August 2008

The Neocons And The Soviets

It’s very bizarre to read the neocons’ speaking about Russia as if the Soviet Union were still in existence. Here’s a classic slice of the mindset from Max Boot, who wants a third little war in the Caucasus:

It should be no surprise that Russian spokesmen are masters of the Big Lie–their Soviet predecessors practically invented the technique.

Condi Rice, who really should know better, said:

"This is not 1968 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia, where Russia can threaten a neighbor, occupy a capital, overthrow a government and get away with it. Things have changed."

Yes, things have changed: the Soviet Union no longer exists. Wasn’t the entire point of the Cold War that totalitarian expansionist states are different than authoritarian ones? Are we now going to elide this Kirkpatrick distinction when it comes to Russia? Putin is not a saint; and his attitude is Cheney-esque in his fondness for secrecy, brute force and contempt for international law. But he is not a communist and he is not attempting to take over the world. The West fought the Cold War based on this distinction. Why should we forget it now it’s over?

Hitch Retrenches

The jaw drops:

Yes indeed, Iraq should pay for its own reconstruction. But, just before we all join hands on this obvious proposition, may we take a moment to apologize to Paul Wolfowitz? Of all the many slanders hurled at this advocate for Iraq’s liberation, probably none was more gleefully bandied about than his congressional testimony that Iraq’s recovery from decades of war and fascism could be self-financing.

Let me try to get this straight: a prediction that the entire war and reconstruction could be all but paid for by the Iraqis is vindicated by a $2 trillion expense to the American tax payer because five years after the invasion, Iraq’s oil supplies are finally bringing in revenue. I mean really.

Real Realism

More sanity from Ross:

We can do what the Bush Administration seems to be doing, if perhaps somewhat belatedly – support Georgia’s government with humanitarian aid and shuttle diplomacy, and (depending on the decisions Moscow makes this week) with sanctions of various sorts as well. But committing ourselves to "coming ashore" for Georgia – whether through a proxy war or the security guarantees that come with with NATO membership – just doesn’t strike me as realism of any sort, given the strategic necessities facing America elsewhere in the world.

Getting Another War On

Krauthammer this morning goes into raptures about the possibility of reliving the 1970s and 1980s:

The most crucial and unconditional measure, however, is this: Reaffirm support for the Saakashvili government and declare that its removal by the Russians would lead to recognition of a government-in-exile. This would instantly be understood as providing us the legal basis for supplying and supporting a Georgian resistance to any Russian-installed regime.

This is a 1980s Afghanistan gambit, a de facto return to the Cold War, even though Russia is not a global expansionist power any more, and even though it is no longer communist. No thought given, apparently, to the chance that this could backfire on a power now occupying two countries rather closer to Russia than Georgia is to the US. Oh, well. They’ll figure that out later. There’s Russians to fight!

One thing that baffles me: why does the US need a legal basis for anything in Krauthammer’s view?

Saakashvili Sees A “Turning Point”

As US troops are on their way, the Georgian leader appears satisfied:

“We were unhappy with the initial actions of the American officials, because they were perceived by the Russians as green lines, basically, but this one was very strong,” he said in a telephone interview after Mr. Bush’s statement in Washington.

Mr. Saakashvili interpreted the aid operation as a decision to defend Georgia’s ports and airports, though Bush administration and Pentagon officials quickly made it clear that would not be the case. A senior administration official said, “We won’t be protecting the airport or seaport, but we’ll certainly protect our assets if we need to.”

Reckless on Saakashvili’s part? Or is he trying to enmesh the US in his country’s fight with Russia? Sending troops under any humanitarian auspices is a risky strategy, if you ask me. It could easily escalate; and Saakashvili has shown he’d be only too happy to precipitate a wider war. I hope Bush has fully understood the risks he is taking. I mean: he’d never precipitate a war without thinking through the full consequences, would he?