Cheney and the GOP criticizing Obama over Crimea

http://news.yahoo.com/cheney-putin-obama-ukraine-171405306.html

I find it ironic (but typical) that Cheney and others in the GOP (except for the Paul family libertarians) would bash Obama for being "weak" in the face of Putin's aggression in Crimea. Politicians have short memories, but I seem to recall that Bush did jack squat against Russia's overt invasion of Georgia in 2008 (and in that war, >700 people died whereas in Crimea one guy got a concussion so far). Diplomacy, not threats or military buildup, eventually led to a Russian withdrawal and UN peacekeeping mission.

Obama said that the US would issue travel restrictions and asset freezes of Russian nationals tied to the Crimea situation (that is already more than Bush did in 2008). We are giving $1B in aid to Ukraine's bankrupt transition gov't. Obama is pulling out of a future G8 summit in Sochi and will likely cut some planned joint military activities. But that's about all he can do for now. If we can't pressure Assad to change course, what do you think we can do against a top energy producer and nuclear arsenal? It remains to be seen if the EU will implement these sanctions too in order to make them more effective, but of course they have more to lose being closer proximity and dependent on Russia for gas and trade.

Previously, I was against Bush's plans to build a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe (ostensibly to counter Iran, but we know who it was meant for). I thought it was provocative to Russia, ineffective, and a handout to Lockheed. Our defense budget is tighter now, but I am reconsidering whether the missile shield would be useful as a strategic deterrent (albeit a pricey one). Russia should abandon their plans to reclaim former Soviet republics, as the West is not going to stand for it as long as the peoples of Eastern Europe are choosing Western values over Putinism.

After the Georgia War:

The [2008 EU] Report claimed that Russian citizenship, conferred to the vast part of Abkhaz and Ossetians may not be considered legally binding under international law. As a result, the interests of these people may not be used as a reason for starting military actions, in defense of Russian citizens living abroad.

Snowden, Syria, and Obama

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/government_programs/july-dec13/surveillance_09-06.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/us/nsa-foils-much-internet-encryption.html?hp&_r=0

Snowden leaked that the NSA gave companies court orders to fork over their security keys so that they could access confidential financial and personal info. The made the companies sign gag orders so they couldn't complain, and we are talking about the major players like MSFT and GOOG (in fact Google is now suing the gov't for the right to tell the public about how they were forced to give access to user info). Also, the NSA just blatantly cracked other firms' encryption. Ironically the US Gov't has recently complained about China doing that to our companies. The NSA hasn't denied anything, and said that the disclosure has hurt national security. As we discussed before in the original Snowden story, maybe this invasive action is tolerable when there is a court-issued warrant (from a real court with real oversight, not some shadowy FISA BS), but they can't just arbitrarily cast a dragnet on everyone.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec13/shieldsbrooks_09-06.html

Was it a mistake for Obama to involve Congress in the Syria decision? Apart from the hard core hawks like McCain, many in the GOP have incentive to make Obama look ineffective on Syria. House leaders "support" Obama's plan, but won't round up votes for him. Congressional Dems now feel pressured to go to bat for the president, and if the Syria op goes bad, it may cost them in the midterms. The majority of Americans are apathetic or against military escalation in Syria, as are the majority of the world's people (or so it seems after the G20 summit). So it's unlikely that Obama will even be able to assemble a coalition at home and abroad to match the support for the Iraq invasion, as sad as that is (Saddam: imaginary WMDs, Assad: real WMDs and he used them). So now will Obama "go it alone" (+France), which is the type of unilateral action that he denounced when the Bushies did it. Or when is it OK to go it alone if you know you're right? Well, if you are right, it shouldn't be too hard to persuade/bribe/intimidate others into tacit approval or full support. And for all of Obama's big talk and int'l adoration, his administration has actually been pretty horrible on diplomacy. Talk is cheap now that Assad has deployed WMD. The trick is you talk to him BEFOREHAND, when better options still existed, stakes were lower, and emotions were cooler. But we tend to dither until problems get out of hand. Maybe that is also a side effect of Iraq's failed pre-emptive war strategy and resultant anti-Americanism, now we are skeptical/hesitant to swiftly engage anyone, even if it's not militarily.

I have mixed feelings about a military strike, unless we want to do it purely as formality to show that there are *some* consequences to using WMD (just lob some missiles at easy targets and that's it, no escalation plans, no what-ifs). But like Iraq, right now we don't really have an exit strategy, or any strategy, or even agreed-upon objectives (regime change, reduce Assad's ability to use WMD again, protect civilians? Not necessarily mutually exclusive). That's why it's so frustrating to see big Dems like Pelosi rubber-stamping this. Another problem is Iran has called for terror groups to strike at US targets and affiliates if we do anything to Syria, so we have to weigh the risk-benefits (and sorry Syrian victims, unfortunately your lives are less valuable to us).

Russia has moved some warships into the Eastern Med. I also don't understand that... why does Russia care so much what happens to Assad? I know he is a big trading partner and buys a lot of weapons from them (and is serving as a distraction for the US to prevent our "hegemony" in the Mideast), but is it worth losing face if Assad ends up going madman and doing something worse? According to Putin, it's not just him and China though, as India, Brazil, Argentina, and Italy have also opposed military action.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/world/meast/syria-iran-china-russia-supporters/index.html

But as usual, Syria is really a proxy battleground and the underlying issues are much bigger. Syria's people are unfortunately a test case to evaluate what are the int'l norms for violating sovereignty for humanitarian, political, or security reasons. Supposedly we're going to have to face similar issues with Iran as it gets closer to a functional bomb, and as the people demand more freedom from the theocracy and may revolt. What the interested parties do vis-a-vis Syria is signaling to the other parties on what will happen should Iran go down a similar path. Unfortunately the US is not sending out great signals at the moment: dithering on justification and appropriate response to WMD usage and other atrocities. Plus all this pre-warning and debate is giving Assad plenty of time to prepare and hide or shield his military assets, as well as giving Iran's proxies preparation for potential retaliations. The trick was to diffuse Syria way before we ever got to this point, but that ship has sailed long ago. You think Kennedy and Khruschev could have resolved the CMC if troops had already killed each other?

FUBAR....

--------

I was listening to someone on NPR about the Russian perspective and it was really interesting.  Aside from the fact that Russia has a fair amount of Russian interests at stake in Syria, they view the crisis much more on the side of Assad than they do the rebels because of their past with Chechnya.  A sub-unit of their country, Islamic terrorism, etc.  So for the ruskies this looks a lot more like a conflict they are familiar with and don't want to see the "terrorists" win.

I'm not sure why Obama is giving this to the congress.  I think, as a rule, it should.  But in his own speech at the G20 he said that these types of conflicts don't poll well.  If Rwanda were today it wouldn't poll well.  So given that he knows it is generally unpopular, why put it to a vote?  Just so posterity can be SURE that his action was against the will of the people?  

Also an onion article, I paraphrase:  "Obama debating to either proceed with missile strikes, or to strike with missiles".  It doesn't seem like there are any alternatives being considered, perhaps rightly so, but it doesn't help the idea that the congress is controlling this mess.  If they vote 'no' then what happens?

The fact that Snowden is not considered a whistle blower is ridiculous.  I don't see how anyone can, with a straight face, say that we the people don't have a right to this kind of information.  The fact that there are secret courts, massive spying networks, privacy tools currently available have been backdoor'ed or defeated entirely, is insane.  And the response is "why doesn't he let a court decide if he is really a whistle blower?"  As if history is full of examples of prosecuted whistle blowers who had nothing bad happen to them.  Get real.

--------

Thx, M.

I 100% agree with you on Snowden. The "official" definition of whistleblower is BS, modified by the people who stand to lose from whistleblowers. And as you said, the whole "give yourself up and you will get your chance to be heard" has probably never worked out. This NSA garbage is blatant abuse of power, and the only difference with Nixon is that the NSA hasn't been caught obstructing justice yet (because they have courts that exist to protect them, unlike Nixon). Another side effect of the terror-industrial complex. But I think the bigger tragedy is that democratically minded, progressive, and smart leaders like Obama and Feinstein are not only failing to hold the NSA accountable, but actively defending them. There was a scene from this season of Sorkin's "The Newsroom", ironically about investigating a wild claim that the US used WMD on Pakistani "terrorists". The producer was frustrated that his peers couldn't fathom this president's capacity for criminality because they liked and admired him so damn much. To me, THAT is Obama's greatest sin (not the fact that he is a Kenyan born Muslim).

Ya I can understand that Russian perspective, and China may have it too regarding their internal dissidents. But unless they really consider unarmed women and kids as "terrorists" who deserve to be gassed (assuming the evidence is solid and not the BS that Colin Powell presented to the UN), I think they are kind of full of it. Remember when Russia invaded Georgia, because Georgia was trying to put down a rebellion in South Ossetia that was trying to unify with Russia? So in that crude analogy, Georgia = Syria, Ossetian rebels = Al-Qaeda linked Syrian rebels, and Russia = the US ("peacekeepers"). So it was OK for Russia to invade then, but they oppose the US+France doing it now? There are plenty of reasons to protest Obama's plan, but Russia doesn't really have the cred to say anything.

A friend sent this interesting read on Syria (below). It is basically saying that the worst thing Obama can do is pledge a "limited" response to Assad's war crime (my bad, as that was what I suggested with some ceremonial Tomahawk strikes). That way Assad knows exactly what the cost of using WMD is, and he can make the rational choice as to when it will be worth it to use them. Uncertainty breeds fear and caution (and sometime clarity), and that is what we want to attack him with. It was no accident that Saddam and Osama looked pretty sickly and pathetic when we found them. Hiding for your life and never knowing when SEALs are going to bust down your door takes a helluva toll on a person. It might even motivate them to capitulate. So the author is saying that we shouldn't reveal our hand. We should build up massively on Syria's borders, run some major military exercises and flex our muscles, and that will scare the crap out of Assad. Maybe Obama should lose the cool veneer and act a bit unstable for the cameras. Dictators fear cowboys like Bush more than vulcans like Obama. Idiots and bullies think that violence solves problems. Clever leaders know that there are many other levers of persuasion.

And what about cyber warfare? We crashed Iran's centrifuges and we spy on our own innocent civilians. Why can't we shut down Assad's military IT and wipe our his finances? Heck we could make his warplanes fire on each other instead of strafing towns.

Syria and Byzantine Strategy

September 4, 2013 | 0900 GMT

Stratfor

In March 1984, I was reporting from the Hawizeh Marshes in southern Iraq near the Iranian border. The Iran-Iraq War was in its fourth year, and the Iranians had just launched a massive infantry attack, which the Iraqis repelled with poison gas. I beheld hundreds of young, dead Iranian soldiers, piled up and floating in the marshes, like dolls without a scar on any of them. An Iraqi officer poked one of the bodies with his walking stick and told me, "This is what happens to the enemies of Saddam [Hussein]." Of course, the Iranians were hostile troops invading Iraqi territory; not civilians. But Saddam got around to killing women and children, too, with chemical weapons. In March 1988, he gassed roughly 5,000 Kurds to death. As a British reporter with me in the Hawizeh Marshes had quipped, "You could fit the human rights of Iraq on the head of a pin, and still have room for the human rights of Iran."
The reaction of the Reagan administration to the gassing to death of thousands of Kurdish civilians by Saddam was to keep supporting him through the end of his war with Iran. The United States was then in the midst of a Cold War with the Soviet Union, and as late as mid-1989 it wouldn't be apparent that this twilight struggle would end so suddenly and so victoriously. Thus, with hundreds of thousands of American servicemen occupied in Europe and northeast Asia, using Saddam's Iraq as a proxy against Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran made perfect sense.
The United States has values, but as a great power it also has interests. Ronald Reagan may have spoken the rousing language of universal freedom, but his grand strategy was all of a piece. And that meant picking and choosing his burdens wisely. As a result, Saddam's genocide against the Kurds, featuring chemical weapons, was overlooked.
In fact, the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War, coterminous with the life of the Reagan administration, was a boon to it. By tying down two large and radical states in the heart of the Middle East, the war severely reduced the trouble that each on its own would certainly have caused the region for almost a decade. This gave Reagan an added measure of leeway in order to keep his focus on Europe and the Soviets -- and on hurting the Soviets in Afghanistan. To wit, only two years after the Iran-Iraq War ended, Saddam invaded Kuwait. Peace between Iran and Iraq was arguably no blessing to the United States and the West.
Likewise, it might be argued that the Syrian civil war, now well into its second year, has carried strategic benefits to the West. The analyst Edward N. Luttwak, writing recently in The New York Times, has pointed out that continued fighting in Syria is preferable to either of the two sides winning outright. If President Bashar al Assad's forces were to win, then the Iranians and the Russians would enjoy a much stronger position in the Levant than before the war. If the rebels were to win, it is entirely possible that Sunni jihadists, with ties to transnational terrorism, will have a staging post by the Mediterranean similar to what they had in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan until 2001, and also similar to what they currently have in Libya. So rather than entertain either of those two possibilities, it is better that the war continue.
Of course, all of this is quite cold-blooded. The Iran-Iraq War took the lives of over a million people. The Syrian civil war has so far claimed reportedly 110,000 lives. Even the celebrated realist of the mid-20th century, Hans Morgenthau of the University of Chicago, proclaimed the existence of a universal moral conscience, which sees war as a "natural catastrophe." And it is this very conscience that ultimately limits war's occurrence. That is what makes foreign policy so hard. If it were simply a matter of pursuing a state's naked interests, then there would be few contradictions between desires and actions. If it were simply a matter of defending human rights, there would similarly be fewer hard choices. But foreign policy is both. And because voters will only sustain losses to a nation's treasure when serious interests are threatened, interests often take precedence over values. Thus, awful compromises are countenanced.
Making this worse is the element of uncertainty. The more numerous the classified briefings a leader receives about a complex and dangerous foreign place, the more he may realize how little the intelligence community actually knows. This is not a criticism of the intelligence community, but an acknowledgment of complexity, especially when it concerns a profusion of armed and secretive groups, and an array of hard-to-quantify cultural factors. What option do I pursue? And even if I make the correct choice, how sure can I be of the consequences? And even if I can be sure of the consequences -- which is doubtful -- is it worth diverting me from other necessary matters, both foreign and domestic, for perhaps weeks or even months?
Luttwak himself offers partial relief to such enigmas through a meticulous and erudite study of one of the greatest survival strategies in history. In The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire (2009), he demonstrates the properties by which Byzantium, despite a threatened geographic position, survived for a thousand years after the fall of Rome. This Byzantine strategy, in its own prodigiously varied and often unconscious way, mirrored Morgenthau's realism, laced as it is with humanism.
The Byzantines, Luttwak writes, relied continuously on every method of deterrence. "They routinely paid off their enemies….using all possible tools of persuasion to recruit allies, fragment hostile alliances, subvert unfriendly rulers…" He goes on: "For the Romans…as for most great powers until modern days, military force was the primary tool of statecraft, with persuasion a secondary complement. For the Byzantine Empire it was mostly the other way around. Indeed, the shift of emphasis from force to diplomacy is one way of differentiating Rome from Byzantium…" In other words, "Avoid war by every possible means in all possible circumstances, but always act as if it might start at any time [his italics]." The Byzantines bribed, connived, dissembled and so forth, and as a consequence survived for centuries on end and fought less wars than they would have otherwise.
The lesson: be devious rather than bloody. President Barack Obama's mistake is not his hesitancy about entering the Syrian mess; but announcing to the Syrians that his military strike, if it occurs, will be "narrow" and "limited." Never tell your adversary what you're not going to do! Let your adversary stay awake all night, worrying about the extent of a military strike! Unless Obama is being deliberately deceptive about his war aims, then some of the public statements from the administration have been naïve in the extreme.
A Byzantine strategy, refitted to the postmodern age, would maintain the requisite military force in the eastern Mediterranean, combined with only vague presidential statements about the degree to which such force might or might not be used. It would feature robust, secret and ongoing diplomacy with the Russians and the Iranians, aware always of their interests both regionally and globally, and always open to deals and horse-trades with them. The goal would be to engineer a stalemate-of-sorts in Syria rather than necessarily remove al Assad. Reducing the intensity of fighting would thus constitute a morality in and of itself, even as it would keep either side from winning outright. For if the regime suddenly crumbled, violence might only escalate, and al Qaeda might even find a sanctuary close to Israel and Jordan.
Such a strategy might satisfy relatively few of the cognoscenti. Though, the American public -- which has a more profound, albeit badly articulated sense of national survival -- will surely tolerate it. The Congressional debate that preceded the Iraq War did not save President George W. Bush from obloquy when that war went badly. The lack of such a debate would not hurt Obama were he to successfully execute the methods described in Luttwak's book.

Problems with NATO and Russia in a post-Cold War world

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7571109.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7571096.stm

This is not about an expansionist [Russia] with an ideology bent on world domination, but a major power eager to establish a sphere of interest in its own backyard and jealously guarding what it sees as the approaches towards its own frontiers - what Russians have traditionally called the "near abroad."

- Jonathan Marcus, BBC

History can really help us understand this recent Russia-Georgia conflict, but we should try to avoid false comparisons. Russia has changed a lot since its Soviet days, and their invasion of Georgia is not like Czechoslovakia, despite what some politicians and journalists claim. However, post-Cold War NATO hasn't changed much - obviously it's goal is still to contain/defeat Russia. If NATO really cared about Western stability and security, of which Russia is a key element, they would have tried to bring her into the fold rather than exclude her. As Secretary of Defense Gates said, it is not in America's or Russia's interests to have our relationship sour, yet why does each nation continue to jeopardize the fragile partnership with provocations and poor diplomacy? We have cooperated on nuclear disarmament and security, but not much else (and each side still has plenty of warheads to destroy the world 5 times over). Now that the War on Terror and oil money have empowered Putin's people to roll back freedoms and assume a more aggressive defense strategy, how will we respond? We did nothing over their "disproportionate use of force" and atrocities in Chechnya, and I bet NATO would rather see the Georgia situation swept under the rug (even at high cost to the Georgians) than be forced to take a hard line with Russia over a poor, obscure country that most Americans couldn't locate on a map.

But we should remember cause and effect. Typical of the greedy West: After the Soviet collapse, we were licking our chops to snatch up as many former Iron Curtain nations as possible. But we shouldn't provoke a wounded beast, especially when that beast still has very sharp teeth (the #2 military in the world). After the shame of the Soviet defeat and the virtual collapse of their economic and military systems, Moscow probably wasn't too thrilled about opportunistic Western "meddling" in their former satellite states. Especially after the "Orange and Rose Revolutions" in Ukraine and Georgia, where Western-backed shady leaders replaced the old Russia-backed shady leaders, Russia is seeing its former sphere of influence rapidly contracting. Clearly it is wrong for Moscow to censor/imprison/murder dissidents and journalists, centralize power, and meddle in the politics of neighboring sovereign nations, but world events have almost compelled them to take a more hardline approach to domestic security and foreign policy, especially during the Bush years. We claim that our forces in Asia are there to keep the peace and fight Islamic terrorism, but how can Russia be sure? Venezuela and China recently went on spending sprees for more modern military hardware, such as fighter planes and missiles. Is it for defense or aggression? It's impossible for outsiders to know, and plenty of right wing Americans are concerned. So from Russia's point of view, they almost have no choice but to assert themselves more forcefully in Central Asia. They already lost Eastern Europe to the West. Stalin was apathetic or in denial about the German forces massing on Russia's border in 1941, and it almost cost him Moscow. I am sure Putin and Medvedev (who are corrupt but definitely not in Stalin's league), will be a lot more proactive concerning the buildup of American forces, aircraft, and missiles around them.

Maybe NATO would have tried to tighten the stranglehold on a weakened Russia even more, if not for the fact that they are a top 5 oil producer and supply 25% of Europe's energy. And they will use that as leverage if they need to, as was the case in 2006 when they cut off westbound natural gas exports over a price dispute with pro-West, anti-Moscow Ukraine. Unfortunately Europe's gas is fed through pipelines crossing Ukraine, so they were caught in the fracas and had to plead with both sides to compromise and turn the spigots back on. So fortunately or not, the energy situation provides a good stability check between Russia, Europe, and the US. The more we need each other, the less likely we will try to scam and threaten each other. Though Europe needs Russia a whole lot more than vice versa (especially with the rise of Asian and Middle Eastern trading alternatives for Russia), and our economic fate is clearly tied to Europe's.

As Noam Chomsky said - America has to choose between hegemony or survival. We can't have both, so either we treat nations fairly and keep the peace, or we try to dominate the globe and risk catastrophic war. It's not enough for us to have won the Cold War, but now we seek to fill the Soviet power vacuum in the region too? Let's also remember the lessons of Versailles: it will come back to haunt us if we overly punish and shame a defeated empire. Many Russians are not happy with their homeland's loss of prestige, and some have even become nostalgic for the Soviet days when they commanded fear and respect. Even younger Russians tend to think positively about the USSR. The last thing we need is a nationalistic Russia with a chip on its shoulder and reverting to Soviet ways. I know that Moscow controls its media and people, but the vast majority of Russians are supporting Moscow over the Georgia war. They feel that President Mikhail Saakashvili brought the invasion onto Georgia by his incursion into South Ossetia and violating the fragile balance. After some small clashes on August 7, Saakashvili asked the Ossetian paramilitaries to cease hostilities and "give peace and dialogue a chance", but just 5 hours later Georgian forces fired artillery and started to send troops into the region, killing some civilians.

And unlike McCain and his former Georgia lobbyist staffers, I don't think the Tiblisi regime is worth defending at the cost of angering Russia further. Their leader Saakashvili is progressive but no saint. He's not a Moscow stooge or a kleptocrat (though he is building a lavish new presidential palace for a very poor nation), but he's not George Washington either. He is a Western-educated lawyer, and only came to power by betraying his political mentor and convincing him to step down amidst scandal. Since he took office in 2003, Saakashvili has modernized the economy somewhat and increased foreign investment, but critics say he sold the country on the cheap to outside interests. He also curbed some freedoms and violently cracked down on protests against him just this winter. As a PR damage control stunt, he offered to hold snap elections against opposition party rivals to see if the people really wanted him out. He won the vote to stay in power (52% vs. his nearest competitor at 25%). Some international monitors concluded that the election was more or less fair, but others faulted them for accepting things at face value and not investigating the many allegations of fraud. But in the words of LBJ, it's clear that Saakashvili is "our SOB" and we want him to stay, despite the fact that half of the nation disapproves of him. Maybe there's no one better in Georgia, but that's why it's Georgia. I hope we would learn the lessons of Saddam and Musharraf, and be wary of allying ourselves with questionable characters just for modest strategic gains.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7174343.stm

For Saakashvili and Ukraine's Victor Yuschenko to be elected to power was a big slap in the face to Moscow, though maybe they had it coming (and still that's no excuse to poison Yuschenko). But it's the equivalent of an anti-immigrant extremist (some might say racist) like Tom Tancredo winning the US presidency - so how would Mexico react to that? Saakashvili was elected on a platform of defiance against Russia, increased relations with the West (for democratic and economic modernization), and reclaiming the Ossetia and Abkhazia breakaway regions, so I guess he thought he was carrying out the will of his people. But that is in violation of a 1992 agreement between Russia, Georgia, and South Ossetia to preserve peace and semi-autonomy in the region. Parts of Central Asia are very multi-ethnic and plagued by similar problems as the Balkans. Georgia has clashed with its minorities for over 100 years. Order was maintained under the Soviets, but old habits returned with an independent Georgia, and over 1,000 people died during fighting in 1992 and 2004. Under threat by Tiblisi and treated as second-class citizens due to their ethnicity, of course the Ossetians and Abkhazians would turn to Russia for aid, as Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro did during the Cold War, when menaced by what they saw as Western imperialism. And Moscow seems more than happy to help and make life difficult for Tiblisi, though they officially deny providing any military support to the rebels.

MISSED OPPORTUNITIES

So in a sense, Georgia provoked this excessive Russian meddling in their affairs. I do not think that Moscow would have felt so threatend by a gradual Georgian re-alignment with the West, while still maintaining some basic relations with Russia. But simply dismissing Russia and pledging to join NATO can only invite a hostile reaction from Moscow. Russia is an important historical patron and partner in the region, so her presence can't simply be ignored (or replaced by America/NATO), despite her sometimes negative influence throughout history. It's clear that former Warsaw Pact nations have not fully forgotten or forgiven past Russian tyranny, which may complicate relations today. As nations like Poland, Czech Republic, and Hungary make plans for their futures, it's no surprise that they now prefer to look west instead of east. Russia could have done a much better job addressing its harsh treatment of her satellite states and healing old wounds, so it shouldn't surprise them when their former subjects are seeking partnerships with Russia's competitors. France and Britain have done well to rehabilitate and improve relations with many of their former colonies, and despite some lingering distrust and injustice, both former colonizer and colonized now profit from robust trade, travel, and other exchanges. Therefore, both Georgia and Russia could learn a lot from history and save themselves some future headaches. Russia is notorious for poor diplomatic tact and sensitivity (example: Khruschev slamming his shoe at the UN and proclaiming "We will bury you!"), but they really dropped the ball on reaching out and mending fences with the former Warsaw Pact. Georgia has every right to strengthen ties with the West and lobby for NATO admission, but the manner in which they do so can either reassure or provoke Russia. They are a small country that can't afford to have such powerful enemies on their doorstep. Russia has already crippled their weak economy with trade sanctions, and now this current incursion has decimated their meager military infrastructure and compromised their ability to govern.

Both sides screwed up, and now they find themselves in quite a mess. What America can do about it is another mess, which I can't really address here without writing 3 more pages. But Russia had the propaganda advantage last week, and they pissed it away with poor communication and excessive violence. There is strong evidence to show that Georgia violated the treaty, attacked Ossetia not as last resort, and civilians were killed. But Russia didn't lobby the international community and allow media access in Ossetia to validate its case for intervention. Many Georgians were actually quite angry at their leader for inviting this Russian retaliation. This was a totally asymmetrical war, even worse than Israel-Hizbullah, and Georgia's defense couldn't hold for even an afternoon. Russia's excessive destruction of a weakling foe (plus some atrocities in all likelihood) was probably meant to send a message that they still run things in these parts, and chop the defiant Saakashvili down to size. But the horrible manner in which they did it actually galvanized support for politically compromised Saakashvili from shocked foreigners and nationalistic Georgians outraged at the razing of their homeland. Of course it wasn't like Ivan the Terrible beheadding every Georgian he could find, but enough damage was done to make global opinion label Georgia as the victim and Russia the aggressor. Medvedev's faux cease-fire was also a bad blow to their credibility and PR campaign. Georgia was not, and will never be, a military or political threat to Moscow. Russia could have halted its advance after it retook Ossetia and surrounding areas, delivered humanitarian aid to gain local support, and hooked up with opposition leaders in Tiblisi to attempt to overthrow Saakashvili. Then they could have made a legitimate case that they were just responding defensively, while also turning the Georgians against their controversial leader. Now Georgia can lobby the UN and NATO that they might require Western peacekeepers in their territory, to balance the Russian troops in Ossetia and deter future aggression. I am sure that Washington would be more than happy to set up more bases in Central Asia, but probably won't since it will only escalate tensions with Moscow. But Russia screwed up royally as usual, and now they are the goats. Like the Israelis in Lebanon, you can't bomb bridges and hospitals, and then claim that you're trying to keep the peace.

But try telling Russians on the street that they are to blame for all this, and you might end up in the hospital. They heavily support their government in this conflict, so obviously something is getting lost in translation. In conflicts like this, there is rarely a "good guy", but Russia is not 100% to blame. The Russians do have a point that they did not fire first, and they have a right to enforce the 1992 agreement to defend Russian citizens and defenseless Ossetians under attack by Georgian forces. And their meddling in the separatist regions is just supporting independence for oppressed minority groups, as Bush did for Kosovo (despite Russian protest). But we know that the truth is not, and can never be, so plain and innocent.

THE MISSILE SHIELD

Of course we want to help former Soviet nations like Georgia modernize, democratize, and open up their markets to us (the US, France, and Russia are bitter rivals for arms sales), but most importantly their real estate on Russia's front yard is so precious. Do you really think we give a crap about Poland and Bulgaria because they're nice people? Like Turkey, Ceaucescu Romania, and Pakistan during the Cold War, we allied ourselves with unstable yahoos because of their strategic locations. Under the auspices of the War on Terror, we've planted troops and airbases in at least 3 former-Soviet central Asian 'Stans in addition to many Middle Eastern nations. For petty cash and propping up a few dictators, we can protect our energy investments and keep an eye on the Muslims and Russians simultaneously; it's a good deal.

The biggest afront to Russia is the missile defense shield. The USSR went bankrupt trying to have its bloated, in most cases delapidated, military keep pace with American advancements, and some argue that Reagan's selling of the Star Wars program helped convince the Kremlin that the show was over. All Russia had left was her nuclear deterrent, and if America could neutralize that asset (even though our billion-dollar system couldn't shoot down a seagull), then they had no choice but to accept defeat peacefully, or end human history with nuclear war. Thank goodness they chose the former. No matter what BS comes out of Washington, we can't fool anyone that the proposed missile interceptors in Eastern Europe are for defense against Iran. No way. There are only two nations in the world with nukes on hair-trigger alert: Russia and the US. Not even China or Pakistan, and North Korea can't even miniaturize its primitive bomb for missile delivery anyway. So only Russia and the US have the arrogant temerity to believe that we deserve the ability to destroy cities (or whole countries) immediately and without provocation, and that will somehow keep the peace. Yes that is a scary reality, but amazingly it's something that humanity has lived with for 50 years. Of course other nuclear nations don't profess to want or need first-strike capability, and prefer to keep their arsenals as passive deterrence.

The Czechs have already committed to the missile shield with us, but Poland has been more hesitant. Nothing has materialized from years of negotiations, maybe over concerns that their neighbor Russia might be offended, and the costs may outweigh the meager benefits. We claim that the shield is intended for rogue states (namely Iran) and definitely not Russia, but less than a week after the Russian invasion of Georgia, panicked Polish leaders are signing on the dotted line with Condi Rice. So I guess it's just coincidence that they suddenly had a change of heart? Give me a break. If other nations like China and Iran want to fire missiles at neighbors, they need time to prep their missiles and go through the appropriate protocols. It's possible that our satellites and other intel can detect that activity in time to mount a preventive response. Then there is no need for an interceptor shield. And I hate to break it to the Czechs and Poles, but NATO and the missile shield won't protect them from Iran or Russia anyway. The shield is obviously meant to neutralize missiles before they reach more high-valued targets in Western Europe and North America. The shorter the missile flight, the harder it is to shoot it down. If Iran (or Russia) were stupid enough to waste their first-strike on insignificant Krakow or Prague (and then suffer nuclear anihilation by NATO in response), then in all likelihood our interceptors won't be able to stop them. Plus many nuclear warheads are built to detonate above a city for maximum damage (like Hiroshima), not to actually strike the ground. What if the bombs detonate before the interceptor reaches them? And even in the Pentagon's best test-runs, the shield was only able to stop 50% of bogeys, so in practice it will probably drop to 20% at most (but you only need one missile to get through for the whole shield to fail its purpose). Plus the shield will do nothing if Russia ever invades "the old-fashioned way" with armored columns and attack aircraft, as they did in Georgia.

So we're sorry Poland and Czech, but really we're just using you for your real estate, to protect the "real Europeans" we care about. What's sad is that some Poles interviewed on the street say that they're happy to hear the news and they'll feel safer against Russia now (no mention of Iran of course). But I guess in times of crisis, some humans prefer to take comfort in illusions. Other Poles echoed my view that this shield is a bad idea, because for whatever possible defensive advantage it may give them, it's not worth the provocation to Russia. Moscow knows that this missile shield is designed with them in mind, so their hostility is understandable and not irrational/aggressive. Actually we are the aggressors, trying to force this down Eastern Europe's throats or bribe/scare them into agreement. It's not like it was their idea, and they were screaming for years to protect them against evil Iran or Russia. Many of those nations buy oil and gas from Iran and Russia! Why would they attack their best customers outside of Asia? And if the tables were turned, how would we feel if Russia builds a big base for attack submarines in Cuba, and claims that it's meant to stop drug smuggling in the Caribbean? No one likes to be played for a fool, especially the Bear.

I know some politicians have offered to placate Russia by offering to base some of the missile shield installations within her borders. But that does no good at all. Russia isn't worried about Iranian missiles aimed at them, and they have their own defenses. If we really wanted to reassure Russia and offer parity, then we would permit them to place their bases and interceptor missiles in North America. You have to balance the playing field if you want a clean, fair game. Honestly, the best defense against a nuclear attack is a good line of communication, not a military response, as we saw during the Cuban Missile Crisis. If America really cared about protecting Europe from Iranian missiles, Russian missiles, or whatever, then they would expand dialogue with hostile nations instead of encircling, namecalling, and stonewalling them. If America really cared to prevent nuclear war, then we would take our missiles off hair-trigger alert, dismantle some of our huge arsenal, and convince Russia to do the same. Can anyone in the Pentagon explain to us why it is better for global stability that we are able to destroy any target on Earth at the flip of a switch?

IS NATO STILL RELEVANT?

So what is the NATO security alliance really worth? I can almost guarantee that the Western powers will not stick their necks out for the recently accepted Eastern European members, risking nuclear war with Russia if she somehow decides to become belligerent with her neighbors. The developed nations did not come to Poland or Czech's aid when Hitler and Stalin annexed them, and the stakes were a lot lower then in a pre-nuclear world. Nor did they come to their aid during their Cold War uprisings. The West has been petrified of confronting Russia directly militarily, and now their oil leverage complicates matters. I know that in theory, an attack on one NATO member is considered an attack on all, but can you imagine a US or UK leader trying to persuade the voters that they have a duty to fight Russia just because she invaded Estonia?

What has NATO really done for us since the fall of the USSR? They have presided over botched peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s, and were ultimately unable to stop former Yugoslavians from slaughtering 100,000s of each other. In fact, the NATO bombing campaign over Serbia actually accelerated ethnic cleansing for a while until Milosevic capitulated. In the NATO charter, they have the "right" to engage in military operations without the approval of the UN Security Council. After 9/11, as we all know NATO forces went to Afghanistan to topple the Taliban and apprehend/destroy Al Qaeda leadership. But since then, few NATO allies have stepped to the plate and really committed to counterinsurgency and anti-Taleban operations. The US, UK, and Canada have borne the brunt of costs and casualties (notwithstanding the French who lost 10 soldiers this week). If the other nations don't want to leave their bunkers to help stabilize one of the 5 poorest nations on Earth, then how can we count on them to come to our aid in a more serious security crisis?

Can someone give me an honest, rational explanation why America's collective security should involve Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania, who were admitted to NATO in 2004, after Poland, Hungary, and Czech in 1999? Croatia and Albania are slated to join soon, and an "offer" has been made to Ukraine and the now-famous Georgia. But basically Russia pulls the strings for Georgia's membership, because they are inelligible to join NATO as long as they have unresolved territorial disputes within their borders, such as the South Ossetia situation. I know that most of the recently added nations are semi-functional democracies and eager trade partners, but why should we have to devote American blood and money to defend them? We have very little in common, and half of those states are borderline Third World. Actually if anything, Eastern Europe and Central Asia should forge more economic pacts with the West (which will naturally help stability and development), not military ones. But if the EU is not rushing to admit nations that aren't quite ready yet, why is NATO in such a hurry? Europe today is the most cooperating and peaceful its ever been since the invention of the sword, but new problems and hard feelings from past tensions still exist. It's quite possible that even NATO allies may have serious tensions with each other in the future, as the competition for resources intensifies and other problems worsen (immigration, terrorism, climate change, etc.). Then what is America supposed to do? If we expand NATO to 20-30 members (it stands at 26 now), that is too many for America to stick its neck out every time there is trouble.

It is a pain in the ass to be the world's policeman, especially when we don't really know what we're doing and may not even be able to stop some of the "crooks". We have our hands full with Iraq, we couldn't stop North Korea and Iran from maturing their nuclear programs, and we can't (or don't care to) intervene in the humanitarian crises in Sudan, Myanmar, and Zimbabwe. And even when we put boots on the ground to "keep the peace", we failed miserably in Southeast Asia in the 1970s, Lebanon/Iran in the 1980s, and Rwanda in the 1990s. So how the hell are we supposed to stop Russia, China, and other powers from menacing their neighbors? Stuck in Iraq and having lost so much international credibility because of it, everyone knows our condemnations and threats are hollow. It's a lose-lose proposition. I am not saying that isolationism is the answer, but we can't keep wading knee-deep in other people's messes. We have to clean up our own house first. I know in this globalized world we are all interconnected, and regional conflicts can cause massive socioeconomic disruptions overseas, but I would hope that we could adopt a more preventative, inclusive foreign policy rather than the current costly, divisive, and reactive one. For sure, the answer is not dividing up the world into spheres of influence, resuming arms races, and forming pacts to obtain strategic advantages, which happened in the years leading up to WWI and during the Cold War. When will we ever learn?

Russia and Georgia made quite a mess of things last week, and we have become centrally involved because of our alliance with Georgia and our insistence on installing an inflammatory missile shield in Eastern Europe. Either we will intervene and make things worse, or our credibility as "world's policeman" will suffer worse because we were too impotent or undiplomatic to convince Russia to change her behavior. Or maybe in some feat of diplomatic genius, we will improve our dialogue with Moscow and come to an equitable compromise, but I doubt it. "Compromise" is often not in Washington's vocabulary. But before we sink deeper into the NATO and Russia pit, we should remember how we got here. If America wasn't so insanely greedy to expand our presence in Russia's backyard, and admit many former Soviet nations into our club to take advantage of their territory, maybe Russia wouldn't feel so cornered and forced to respond to crises so harshly. If we value our security and the security of our NATO partners, then we must also value the security of Russia, Iran, and other competing interests. When our opponents feel safe and trust us, then there is no reason for them to endanger us. If we don't want Russia to keep bullying its neighbors, then we need to stop bullying in that region too. We can't keep trying to create a world where we hold all the cards, and the "left out" countries just have to accept their lot. Based on these arguments, maybe a good first step towards that goal of achieving a fairer, safer world is to cancel the missile shield and disband NATO.

This is what Ron Paul had to say about the matter on the House floor this spring:
Ron Paul: Disband NATO
April 1, 2008 in News by Eric Garris | 44 comments

This is Ron Paul's statement before the US House of Representatives on House Resolution 997, "expressing the strong support of the House of Representatives for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to enter into a Membership Action Plan with Georgia and Ukraine."

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution calling for the further expansion of NATO to the borders of Russia. NATO is an organization whose purpose ended with the end of its Warsaw Pact adversary. When NATO struggled to define its future after the Cold War, it settled on attacking a sovereign state, Yugoslavia, which had neither invaded nor threatened any NATO member state. This current round of NATO expansion is a political reward to governments in Georgia and Ukraine that came to power as a result of US-supported revolutions, the so-called Orange Revolution and Rose Revolution. The governments that arose from these street protests were eager to please their US sponsor and the US, in turn, turned a blind eye to the numerous political and human rights abuses that took place under the new regimes. Thus the US policy of "exporting democracy" has only succeeding in exporting more misery to the countries it has targeted.

NATO expansion only benefits the US military industrial complex, which stands to profit from expanded arms sales to new NATO members. The "modernization" of former Soviet militaries in Ukraine and Georgia will mean tens of millions in sales to US and European military contractors. The US taxpayer will be left holding the bill, as the US government will subsidize most of the transactions. Providing US military guarantees to Ukraine and Georgia can only further strain our military. This NATO expansion may well involve the US military in conflicts as unrelated to our national interest as the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia. The idea that American troops might be forced to fight and die to prevent a small section of Georgia from seceding is absurd and disturbing.

Mr. Speaker, NATO should be disbanded, not expanded.

---------

http://www.forbes.com/2000/11/02/1102atg.html

This is an interesting piece in Forbes from 2000, when W was running against Gore for the White House.

With an estimated annual budget of $1.56 billion, the U.S. shouldered about 29% of NATO's operating budget in 1999, or about $452 million. Each of the member nations pays into NATO based on its gross domestic product, making the U.S. the biggest single contributor. That fund pays for NATO's basic day-to-day operations like staffing and communications, and will presumably pay for NATO's new headquarters, a 557,000-square-foot complex in Brussels. But when an American plane drops a bomb under NATO auspices, its cost is borne by American taxpayers out of the defense budget, not by NATO.

Especially now that the Iraq War has strained our military so much, it doesn't make sense for the US to be NATO's chief financial and military contributor. We are the de facto primary intercessor if an ally needs help, and the more backwards Eastern European nations we admit into NATO, the more we will have to cover their asses if trouble happens. Actually if we want to reform NATO, the US and UK should pay zero, and actually the small, defenseless, minimally-contributing members to the east should pay the most into the system, like "protection money" to the mob! They're the ones on the front lines, they need our expertise and technology to modernize their armies, and they'll cry to us for help in times of crisis, so why should they pay the least yet get the most benefits/protection? It's not like Lithuania is helping make America safer or catching Osama.

--------

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Columns/13-Aug-2008/Disband-NATO

Granted that this op-ed came from Pakistan, but at least that country has the courage and conviction to impeach a corrupt leader who doesn't respect the constitution, unlike Americans.

Russia-Georgia conflict

What do you think of the recent conflict? I think the US is in no position to criticize Russia being an "intimidator" and using "disproportionate force", since basically we and Israel have done the same thing to Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon this decade. After the Iraq War, I think we've opened up Pandora's Box and set a dangerous precedent of violating territorial sovereignty "to defend our people". Columbia did it in Ecuador to kill the FARC leader, and now Russia did it to Georgia, even if Georgia fired the first shots. Plus we have a double-standard regarding sepratist regions after East Timor, Chechnya, and Bush endorsing Kosovo independence too enthusiastically. It's only ok to declare independence if you are pro-Western. And for the US and Poles to agree to the missile shield at this time is very poor diplomacy. It only makes Russia more paranoid and aggressive to spread its influence on its neighbors before the US/NATO get them. If we back Russia into a corner, she will do something bad. It's an old story. And Russia has the oil leverage to bring Europe down, and us with them. What can we do to Russia? Empty threats and ineffective sanctions? We can't even get a second-rate nation like Iran to behave!

Some funny user comments on BBC:

I actually feel sorry for the Russians.

As the US and UK have proved when they use force unilaterally its of course for the good of the world. Now Russia have used it, its detrimental to world peace and a naked act of agression.

Georgia caused much of this mess, have been shown to create extensive damage in the region and they inflicted the first blow. But in the US view they`re the victims.

If the US is really the policemen of the world, he's on the 'take'.

Dave, Manchester, UK

all US Presidents since Korean War in 50s used to say that US will protect with all its power any US citizen in any part of the world. It's their favorite sentence. It was the reason of US invasion to Somali, Guatemala, Panama, Serbia, Korea, Vietnam etc

Russia did the same in S.Osetia. We protect our citizens.

US have dozen Presidents proclaimed this principle. Russia has first President proclaims this principle.
It's up to USA how to react on this with its Policy of Double Standards

alec b, Moscow, Russia

The USA is very provocative and continually tries to move further East direction Russia. It is using its economic power and money to convince former Soviet small states to let the US install missile systems on their territory. Of course, Russia feels somewhat threatened but the US does not care if this ratchets up world tension. Why, because the US is only interested in its self and not in maintaining stability in the region and in the world. New Russian missiles in Cuba and Venezuela?

Hendrik Mahr, Frankfurt

In fact Joseph Stalin was born (in Gori of all places that Republicans show so much concern for) to an Ossetian father and Georgian mother. With such infamous offspring from a Georgian-Ossetian marriage, shouldn't we all be praying that they separate into independent states as soon as possible.

[desnol], London, United Kingdom