Crunchy Neville Chamberlain

They all hate us anyhow
Let's drop the big one now!
- Randy Newman

May you live in interesting times. Come November we'll have the opportunity to see exactly how much the electorate actually thinks (as opposed to reacts) before pulling the lever or touching the screen.

The reality is, short of a nuclear exchange, there is nothing the U.S. can do militarily to stop Russia from having its way in Georgia, whatever that may be. All the bluster about intimidating Putin is too juvenile and silly to be a credible policy . . . except that it may still strike a sympathetic chord with too many Americans and politicans too ambitious to actually think.

Where, O where, is Ron Paul?

It's looking like the possibility of sane foreign policy faded right along with his candidacy.

Lord have mercy.

You want these people to quickly change their mind about going to war with Georgia? No problem. You just have to do two things.

1. Require a draft until we get enough soldiers to do the job right. Do not allow allowances for college, for family connections, etc.
2. Require the war be pay-as-you-go, so that taxes would have to be increased to pay the ongoing costs of military engagement.

Poof! War support vanishes. Most of these faux patriots and faux manly war supporters would change their mind quickly if they had to chose between paying for a war vs paying for luxuries and necessities.

Without endorsing the ... um ... belligerence in those responses (and I'm sure you got worse that you're not printing because unprintable), the reason I think you got the responses you did, Rod, is that you walked off with (and reproduced as the chosen excerpt here) a variation of the "chicken hawk" argument: "Only 1 percent of the population serves in the military and that's why most of the 99 percent back this stupid policy."

That is a bad argument in principle, always and everywhere. (What percentage of the population serving in the military is necessary to sanctify an optional war? Is it in fact a good idea to have a large percentage of the population in uniform? Wouldn't this seem to imply that only the bloodiest wars deserve moral support?)

But more relevant to the point made here, the "chicken hawk" argument is a chemically-pure form of personal cage-rattling. It implies that in foreign policy, the personal is the political and that one's views can be legitimated or delegitimated based on one's military biography. OK, Rod ... sauce meet gander. "Bacevich has a right to say X (abandon Georgia) because of his biography" or "You're only saying Y (fight Russia over Georgia) because of your biography" does in fact imply that "Hawk has the right to say Y because of his biography" and to ridicule those who say X because of our different biographies.

There is a Realpolitik case for abandoning Georgia. There is not a "Chickenhawk-argument" case for anything.

JLF: The reality is, short of a nuclear exchange, there is nothing the U.S. can do militarily to stop Russia from having its way in Georgia, whatever that may be.

Even absent NATO, the Americans could land a division in Georgia as easily as it docked the humanitarian aid ship. It would then be up to Russia to decide whether to take on the United States. Putin, I am convinced, would be to clever to take the gambit. Georgia is a pawn and he already has South Ossetia. His sights are firmly on the queen, the Ukraine.

I am not advocating such a tactic. Saakashvili is a thug and would like nothing better than to goad the US into a confrontation with Russia. Hopefully Bush and McCain will confine their ineffectual indignation to their accustomed hot air. Just pray that Obama self-destructs (with the help of Hilary and Biden) and that Brzezinski is not making foreign policy come January.

Good article Rod. The responses you got are hilarious; sad, but funny in an absurd kind of way.

I was struck by this line...
"Instead, Mr. Obama me-too'd his way into Mr. McCain's shadow, joining the call for Georgia's NATO membership to go forward"

Ironic. That Hillary me-too'd Bush's Iraq war, thus alienating many progressives, is why Obama is going to Denver this week and accepting the nomination.

In our country, the thinking is...being "for war" is ALWAYS patriotic, strong, and macho and being "against a war" is ALWAYS weak and pacifist regardless of whether a given war is a good or bad idea.

I don't understand how the "conservative" position is considered to be the belligerent, pro-war one. What happened to the caution and realism of Taft and Eisenhower or even Nixon?

We do need a whole reorientation of our government along the lines of those advocated by Bacevich, Ron Paul, or the Constitution Party.

It was war and depression--WW I and II, the Cold War, and the Great Depression--that brought an end to our modest, freedom-loving, constitutional republic. I'm afraid, ironically, that it may take another depression or loss in war to bring us back to it.

I suppose the "national security state" and the "military industrial complex" were necessary to defeat fascism and communism, which were existential threats to the world and to the U.S. But now there are no such threats, and the attempt to make the backward, pathetic Islamists into one is absurd.

Come home, America.

Georgia started this war, how did Russia become the bad guy here? If some other country killed a few of our soldiers I would expect a military response from the President.

Either way, the US has no moral authority, or right for that matter, to lecture someone else on invading countries.

I don't know why we get worked up about democracies getting invaded, tyranny has existed much longer than democracy and is going to continue to exist forever. We support our share of dictatorships as well. Saudi Arabia and Egypt come to mind.

Victor I think the chickenhawk argument has validity because if you experience no effects of an action, it's really just an intellectual exercise for you. (Not you personally.) The problem with this, is that it gets real people killed.

Chris

Wow! You did not support the official right wing position and were willing to risk your job. Good luck.

"Even absent NATO, the Americans could land a division in Georgia as easily as it docked the humanitarian aid ship"

Any idea how long it takes to get a division ready to go? You would have to have heavy armor if you were going to do it. If the Russians decided to challenge us we would be sitting ducks trying to land. The logistics would be awful. Everything would have to come by sea through those narrow straits. Where would you propose we get said division? Which of our other two wars would you short change? Heck, why should we be there if NATO is not willing to act?

Bombing is unlikely to actually decide anything. It may be appealing as it seems a great way to kill lots of the other guys w/o loss of American lives. However, in any real conflict airpower is mostly supportive.

I would much prefer less bluster and more action that we can accomplish. Russia has oil, natural gas and foreign investments as the basis for its economy. Let's put real economic pressure on by withdrawing investments along with the other NATO countries. That is already happening and oil prices are dropping. Our biggest advantage over Russia has been our economy. Let's use that advantage.

Steve

Thank you, Rod, for an insightful, sensible, and timely column. All weekend I have been hearing from friends in Russia and Sweden who are scared to death the US is about to get itself into a war with Russia. And roaming around central Texas, I've overheard more than one comment to the effect "We need a-bomb them thar Russkies and learn 'em a lesson." I translated your column into Russian (hope that's OK) and faxed the translation to a friend who leads a political conversation group in St. Petersburg. As for my fellow Americans, it's much more difficult to have that conversation, as you would know better than I. But please keep those columns coming.

Rod:

Threads like this make me wonder exactly how much the average American commoner actually knows about the military, particularly really basic things, like how large the military is, how it is organized and how many support troops are needed to ensure that the front-line soldier can fight. Heck, I wonder exactly how many adult commoners know where places like Afghanistan and Georgia ARE on the map.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, our deficits in this area are partly educational in nature. Basic geography and military history (or any kind of history, for that matter) have, over the last 30 years or so, been cast out of the formal-education curriculum in favor of outright emotional engineering. It would be interesting, for example, to find out how many commoners can answer some of the more basic questions pertaining to the Russian/Georgian business, to wit:

A) Where is Asian Georgia and what countries does it border ? How many people does it have, what are their ethnicities, and where is its capital ?

B) How long has it been independent, and who owned it before the USSR did ?

C) How many troops does Russia have in the area, and what kind of weapons do they have ?

D) How many troops does the US have in the area, where are they, and how would we get them to Georgia if we wanted to get them there ?

E) For that matter, how many troops does America have in ALL its armed forces ?

I don't think these are overly tough questions. (Full disclosure: I don't know the answers to all of them myself. Most of them, but not all.) I'd wager $ 1.85 to a box of rocks that not one American commoner in 100 could answer more than one of those questions to any level of accuracy. The problem is that the average commoner needs to know these things and more in order to make any sort of sense of the situation, let alone to form an intelligent opinion about what to do in the area.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

John, anishnaube:

I read a lot of things. I don't generally pass them on in comboxes unless I think they say something interesting or relevant. Do YOU pass on everything you read? If not, under what criteria, John, did you pass on that factoid if you don't think it relevant. Is Scheunemann's employment history relevant to whether the US should fight Russia over Georgia? If not, why did you cite it?

And John ... Buchanan's not here, you are and you cited the fact. Defend its relevance, please.

Chris:

Arguing is inherently an intellectual exercise. It doesn't matter whether one is arguing for a war or against a war. Your defense of the chickenhawk argument's relevance is ... remarkable. It's the opposite of what has been taken for granted throughout the history of thought with very very few exceptions (Nietzsche, for one) -- that one's particular circumstance ought not reflect one's thoughts about justice, morality and right, and the fallacy of the ad hominem.

And apart from the specifics of Georgia, which are yet unknown, it is an indubitable fact of longstanding that military veterans tend to be more hawkish than those without military service. FWIW. (Not much, I'd say.)

Rod wrote:

I said that there is a "connection" between the fact that very, very few Americans serve in the military, and the knee-jerk willingness to resort to force.

But what is the basis for that connection if not some version of the chickenhawk argument?

And is it really the case anyway? The great period of American isolationism (since the American Civil War, when it becomes meaningful to talk about the US as a Great Power) was after World War I, when plenty of American had the recent experience of a drafted Army. And the US took its greatest military risks (MAD and the Cold War tripwires of West Germany and South Korea) at the time of a drafted military.

In the Cold War it was called Brinksmanship, each side pushing to see how far it could go before the other one went nuclear. In most cases it was the Soviets that backed down while the Nato allies hid under their desks. (There was an old joke in Washingtion that the Europeans were easily recognizable by the yellow stripe down their backs.)

You will note that the Russians made no attempt to stop our warship from docking in Georgia nor were there any attempts to harrass our aircraft flying into Tblisi. The Russians know that an election year is not a good time to tweak the US. It virtually guarantees the election of the more hawkish candidate. If it was an attemt to intimidate Poland and the Ukraine it failed miserably.

The truth is that Georgia was a mistake for Putin and he probably realizes it. We now know just how the Russians plan and the equipment they have available, very good on planning, equipment obsolescent by our standards (T62s?) And they can't go any farther. The Ukraine will fight and we will defend it no matter what the Europeans think and Poland is in Nato, which means any attack on Poland is an attack on the US. So Russia is in check. Putin is no more anxious to get into a nuclear war than Kruschev was, for all the bluster of his generals.

Given the strategic situation, Putin is unlikely to use his military again, at least heading west. He will now turn to different tools to advance his strategy. The big question is trying to figure out what the hell his ends are.

JLF: I assume you are more frightened of the possibility of Brzenzinski's foreign policy than of "ineffectual indignation".

You are correct. I am afraid of Brzezinski and the renewal of the Cold War. I agree completely with the view Rod expressed in his column. It is to the advantage of the West to work with Russia. I used the phrase "ineffectual indignation" to try to highlight that words are about the only weapons the politicos can bring to bear in the matter of Georgia.

Or are there other, unstated, reasons why you wish to see Obama "self-destruct"?

Yes. Out-of-control entitlements, tax-and-spend fiscal policy, federally sanctioned and financed infanticide, et al. ad nauseam.

But all is not lost. If Joe Biden does become the "next president of the United States", it will be historic having a "clean, bright, articulate African American" doing his "on the job training" under his tutelage.

McCain strikes me as one who never saw a war he didn't like.

McCain knows war and I don't believe he would rashly involve the US in a foolish venture. I could be wrong. I know a lot of guys who served in Vietnam. The are the most convinced pacifists.

It bears repeating: the enemy is the scimitar-swinging Mohammedans. Russia, China, India, Europe and the US are all part of the dar al-harb, implacable enemies to be killed or conquered. It's all in their manifesto. They believe it. We should too.

I'm not talking about a pissing contest. You posted a fact, and I want to know why you think it's relevant. If you call that a pissing contest ... drip, drip, drip.

Am I the only one who laughed at Spengler's "board game" comparison of the strategic approaches
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/JH19Ag04.html
as resembling the Men-are-from-Mars---Women-are-from-Venus meme where Russia's stallions brood over a chessboard while America's mares go shopping on Monopoly's malls?

If we consider that consumerism is the venal pursuit par excellence, perhaps Americans need to do a bit of soul searching and ask themselves are they being duped into becoming girly-men by androphile jingoists who bear an uncanny resemblance to the butch chaps who parade in Gay Pride marches? Consider Edith Steins reflections on the particular "nosey neighbor" vices of the weaker sex:

"“The clear and irrevocable word of Scripture,” writes Edith Stein, “declares what daily experience teaches from the beginning of the world: woman is destined to be wife and mother” From this it follows that, while she shares the same human nature with man, her faculties differ in a basic way. Woman seeks to embrace what is “ ‘living, personal and whole.” Her maternal desire is to protect and nourish others. She is not at home with abstraction or with lifeless facts unless they advance the personal. Her thought is naturally directed towards an intuitive and emotional grasp of the concrete whole rather than being analytical and conceptual. An attitude of caring extends to her role as life companion to a man. While he is absorbed in “his enterprise,” he expects those around him to be equally consumed and finds it difficult to interest himself in the affairs of others. ... Having given a portrait of the feminine ideal, Stein points to the distortions of woman’s nature resulting from original sin. Her penchant for the personal can become self-centered so that on the one hand she gives in to vanity, the need for praise and unrestrained self-disclosure. On the other, she takes an exaggerated interest in the lives of others. Her tendency to grasp the whole influences her to a superficial dabbling in many areas because she lacks the requisite discipline to master one. She becomes absorbed in the affairs of others in an unhealthy way to her own detriment and that of others. While it is the role of both men and women to understand, enjoy and create, woman’s joy in things and desire to enjoy the good life can make her greedy and lead her to yield to her own desires in relationship to a man."

cited from "Sense and sentimentality" at catholiceducation.org/articles/feminism/fe0018.html

Christians might consider that the Church has in its wisdom recognized that the gender "feminine" best describes the faithful's receptive relationship to their Lord's redeeming sovereignty. Perhaps America's failure to recognize the busibodiness of our own actions lies in our increasing secularization and loss of a sense of sin. A manly man is a humble man who knows his own limits and concerns himself with his enterprise -- that station in life God has entrusted to him to be steward of. God did not entrust the welfare of the globe to Americans only, he shared it out among all the persons who scratch a living from its verdant (or not so verdant) pastures. Ron Paul is indeed the model family man we need at this hour - what chance McCain picks him as his running mate? Well we can pray for a miracle!

Bacevich understands what "conservative" really means; government and even the military, no matter how good(in the case of the military) or well-intentioned(like the Great Society)can only do so much. For example, turning a country of factional Islamists into New England town hall meeting democrats is asking too much. It's also too much to ask government to provide each of us with cradle-to-grave social programs to meet all our needs. And it's especially absurd to pay for both with debt financing IOUs to Red China in the form of t-bills and trade deficits. Rather such decisions and costs and successes and even failures are best borne by each individual.

While Mccain is clearly preferable(simply because we cannot be sure what would be left after President Obama and his socialistic insanity), the long serious look in the mirror by conservatives is long overdue. And whether it's a Mccain loss now or sometime in the near future, It will have to happen. But we know that anyone, like ROn Paul, who even suggests we take that hard look is going to be mocked and savaged, because the permanent government of lobbysists and interest groups from both parties do not want a Republic beholden to the Constitution and the people.

Derek-

It's the slight difference between being ultimately disgusted with Mccain, and being totally horrified with Obama.A four year coma is better than being dead. And while Mccain's foreign policy team is linked specifically to Georgia, Obama has an angry Russophobe moron like Brezinski, who brought us all those wonderful foregin policy successes under Carter.

McCain is just as Russophobic as Brezinski, and he'd be carrying the football instead of acting as an advisor. Of course, Biden doesn't give much comfort either.

Does "Sudetenland" ring a bell?

It certainly rings a pavlovian bell for you guys.

Some pundit screeches Sudetenland or Munich, and you're looking to launch the buffs, flown by someone else's kid, of course.

On the economic front, all you ned do is Google US debt to se how our debt has grown under conservative Republican presidents. I se no reason to believe McCain is any different. Projections by neutral evaluators show that McCain will increase our debt more than McCain.

On foreign policy, it seems pretty clear that McCain has bought completely into the neocon viewpoint. In his recent statements he has declared that a victory in Iraq means leaving that country as a pro-Western democratic ally. We may be able to leave it a relatively stable and secure country (for a while), but how the heck do we make an Arab country we have destroyed want to be our allies, ie help us in fighting other Muslim countries?

Steve

The chickenhawk argument is so tiresome.

Yet here you are rising to the bait.

At any rate, the poster I responded to was making his own personal insult, so this one was justified IMO, since it was mainly seasoning to for the main point, which you ignored--of course.

Derek writes: "McCain is just as Russophobic as Brezinski, and he'd be carrying the football instead of acting as an advisor. Of course, Biden doesn't give much comfort either."

Derek, we disagree on so much. But on this issue we're one. The last thing I want is "the decider" to carry the football. You might not want to go this far,but one advantage I see Obama having is that he is at least as smart as those advising him and has proven himself willing to listen to advice but not take it. Witness: the remarkably disciplined campaign that he directed, at times against the wishes of his advisors.

Does "Sudetenland" ring a bell?

Yup. An ethnic German portion of Austria-Hungary that was assigned to Czechoslovakia (that flophouse of nations) at Versailles, contrary to the wishes of its inhabitants and the principles of national self-determination. While part of the Czech lands, the inhabitants were discriminated against and through gerrymandering, denied representation in the national parliament.

Erin Manning @ 5:52 PM writes:

"Okay, just finished: it took ten minutes, and I avoided Wikipedia entirely. Now, that's just to locate and skim the answers; as a non-military person with limited historical knowledge of the region I estimate that it would take me approximately three to six hours of study and writing to create a simple "report" on the information. I'd say that would be a reasonable estimate for any American college grad except for those with specialized knowledge of Russia, Georgia, or the military in general."

Well ! You work fast; tracking down the information on the history of Russian intervention in the area took me a couple of hours---but then again, I didn't go online at first; I used a couple of historical atlases, plus some Russian history books I own. (All right, all right; I'm fussy.)

My grandfather was a history/geography/civics teacher back in the 50s and early 60s. From what he told me about how and what he taught in his classes, I have a sneaking suspicion that the information you'd put in your "simple report" would have been required standard stuff on an Asian Region test in one of his H.S. classes. What a pity it is that modern "Social Studies" classes don't have anywhere near that kind of rigor.

Almost forgot ! In answer to your third thought, I'd say that neither one of them would be terribly informed about matters in the area, although I think McCain would be more likely to know something about it than Obama; I'm told a West Point education is rather rigorous in such areas. I'm sure his studies included something about (then-)Soviet Central Asia. Obama ? Not so much.

It's not McCain's or Obama's level of general knowledge about this sort of thing that concerns me, so much as the average commoner's grasp of things. Presidents have advisers, both military and civilian, to help. It's the ordinary commoner, who is at least theoretically the "decider" in our electoral system, who needs to know this stuff, particularly the information about what our military can and can't do. Without such knowledge, said commoner falls back on what the media shows and tells him, and on his own emotional biases. Such things are seldom conducive to good decision-making, especially in the voting-booth.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

Lord Karth: "...but then again, I didn't go online at first; I used a couple of historical atlases, plus some Russian history books I own. (All right, all right; I'm fussy.)"

Not at all! If the topic at hand were British literature I'd do the same; it would take me a while to remember to use the Internet. And I nearly got sidetracked myself by the interesting mentions of the Roman Empire's occupation of and activity in the region--it's always intriguing to trace that Empire's legacy through subsequent political realities. But since I just wanted to see how long it would take a voter to *locate* the info you mentioned, not necessarily study the issues in great detail, I tore myself away from the tangent. (Though if you could recommend a readable book for a non-historian on the Roman Empire's Eastern European/Asian footprint I'd be grateful!)

I'd have to agree that McCain is more likely to know at least some of what you asked; Obama's not that much older than I am, and is the same age as some relatives, whose classical and historical education is as lacking as my own, alas.

Hitler had his own version of "no appeasement": it was called the "no retreat" policy. It led to millions of German casualties on the Eastern front, with the devastating defeat at Stalingrad and utter collapse with the Russian spring offensive of 1944.

Thanks so much, Lord Karth! While I'll probably look for the Norwich short volume you recommend, the fiction collection sounds like tons of fun--definitely going to get that one!

As far as the nasty/gory elements, well, I confess to having gone through a rather bloodthirsty period of deep interest in the French Revolution, particularly during the rise of Robespierre's Committee of Public Safety--an Orwellian name long before Orwell, don't you think? I still find that troubled time intriguing to read about.

It bears repeating: the enemy is the scimitar-swinging Mohammedans. Russia, China, India, Europe and the US are all part of the dar al-harb, implacable enemies to be killed or conquered. It's all in their manifesto. They believe it. We should too.

We can believe that as much as we want. But if any of the Russian or American ships take a shot at each other, nothing in this world will be able to prevent an escalation to a full nuclear exchange in a matter of weeks.

We've understood for half a century that all it took to bring about The End was one shot.

75-100 million Americans would die one the first day of the first strike. 500-1,000 of our cities would be destroyed. 25-50 million more Americans would die withing a month. I'm sure the Russian figures would be just as catastrophic, though on a smaller scale.

Our President, Vice-President and Congress are doing what they want to escalate. The Russian President, Prime Minister and their Duma are doing the same.

I'll say it again. My kid's life is not worth Georgia's territorial integrity. I grew up with the Cold War and I do not want it back.

So I'm writing our leaders and urging them to behave with maturity. And I'm sending the same letters to Russia. And you should all too. Because if enough people shout out, someone will have to listen.

Remember Samantha Smith. Honor her. And make sure those in charge in both countries do as well. Both of our kids are entitled to grow up.

Thomas R,

His view is that expanding the influence of the West makes Russia feel vulnerable so it is understandable they react this way. We are to blame in some sense.

You make it sound like the complaint isn't clearly stated. This isn't about some woozy soft power thing, like selling Coca-Cola in the Crimea. The problem is that U.S. is pushing the NATO alliance up to a majority of Russia's Western Frontier. Remembering 1999, the Russians are aware that NATO is no longer a defensive alliance (what foreign country did Serbia attack in '99?), and they don't want to spend the money required to repel any NATO conventional assault. That means they either knuckle under to any demand we put on them, no matter how ridiculous, or they warm up their ICBMS, because that's all they have.

Are you ready to swap nukes over Sebastopol? Yes or no? If not, then we need to back off. If yes, then we really are governed by a pack of lunatics.

What I'd like to see is one of our three leaders (Bush/McCain/Obama) explain to the world that an attack on a NATO member state would be treated exactly the same as an attack on America, but Georgia has yet to meet the standards required for NATO membership.

Now we have a destroyer in one Georgia port, a Coast Guard cutter with "aid" dispatched to Poti and a Russian missile gunboat dispatched to shadow them.

Now I'll say it: What the freak are GWB and Putin trying to do? See how far we can take this and see who blinks? Frankly, Putin is too tough to blink, and Cheney won't allow Bush to.

We may never even see Election Day.

Ah, the sheer loveliness of neo-con foreign policy. Vote for McCain, get more of the same. Vote for Obama and...Jimmy Carter redivivus.

Oy vey.

"The problem is that U.S. is pushing the NATO alliance up to a majority of Russia's Western Frontier. Remembering 1999," DTC

I'm aware of the Russian and Slavic nationalist position. It's good to be aware of it and find a way to deal with it. I just don't personally believe in it and I don't see why I should. I'm not a Russian or Slavic nationalist. I'm a bit confused why any American is one, but admittedly some Paleocons are in that camp.

I think you're going more on non-interventionism, but that doesn't really make sense. If you reject what we did in Kosovo you should reject what they do as well. Or is your position that their interventionism is more "contained" and therefore lesser? If so I think you're deluded. Russians arm as many or more dictatorships than we do. They are involved in Africa, Asia, and elsewhere. They may not directly intervene in as far-flung of places, but much of the misery and tyranny in the world is aided by them. And we're supposed to think their intentions are good because they're not evil Neocon Americans? Well I'm not going for that, but you may if you wish.