Is John McCain Ready?

One of John McCain’s most important foreign policy advisers, Robert Kagan, compares Russia to Nazi-Germany and demands a containment policy against Russia - the implications are clear: If necessary, America should even use military means to defeat Russia, but at least, there must be a new Cold War.

This approach relies on an overestimation of America’s actual power: America is at the brink of overstretch already. Its forces are bond in Iraq and Afghanistan, and its budget, due to the current financial crisis, is at the brink of collapse. The economic and military exertion a new Cold War would bring about could easily break the neck of the empire America. Let alone the delusional implication of a military conflict with Russia - considering Russia’s nuclear arsenal, such a war would most certainly be the last one America started.

Also, a new confrontation with Russia would most likely result in severe frictions with America’s closest allies: Western Europe is dependent on Russia’s oil and gas deliveries. Between 30% and 50% of its supplies is delivered by Russia, so nothing would be less in Europe’s interest, than confronting Russia.

How could it come so far?

Let’s take a look at the past eight years of American foreign policy towards Russia: Before September 11^th 2001, President George W. Bush’s foreign policy followed the traditional realism of his father, according to which America would define its interests in a sober manner and engage in limited cooperation with Russia where interests converged. But after 9/11, this changed. Neoconservatives took charge of the foreign policy agenda, and the imperial mission of spreading democracy and human rights was given priority. While this might have sounded nice on the paper, it bought about arrogance of power and divergence of imperial mission and reason.

Not only did Bush, influenced by neoconservative advisors, start wars in Afghanistan and Iraq which have not yet been won and have cost taxpayers billions of dollars, but his policies also needlessly alienated Russia. Of course, Russia is not an empire with the strength of the Soviet Union anymore, but make no mistake, it is still a relevant regional power with the second largest arsenal of nuclear weapons worldwide.

Russia approached America after 9/11, offered a priviliged cooperation in the “War on Terror”, but it was never the neoconservatives intention to deal with Russia eye-to-eye: Time and again, America blatantly violated Russian interests. Bases were established in Russia’s backyard, Kirgizistan and Uzbekistan. The SORT Treaty violated disarmament agreements with Russia. America pushed for the construction of the oil pipeline Baku-Ceyhan in Azerbaidjan and Georgia, directing oil transport lines away from Russia.

And time and again, the ideological neoconservative imperial mission of spreading freedom got in the way of mutual relations: At least since 2004, American officials missed no opportunities to wag its finger at Russia, lecturing them about human rights and democracy standards. Bush’s agenda of spreading freedom caused active support for enemies of the Kremlin, Estonia and Georgia, with the accession of Estonia into NATO in 2004 and the promise to Georgia and Ukraine of NATO membership. The USA supported “coloured revolutions” in Ukraine and Georgia in order to strengthen pro-Western forces against Russia. American political strategists such as Anders Aslung developed similar scenarios for Russia, where “Putin’s authoritarian regime” could be “toppled by a popular uprising”, while America should “stand firmly on the side of democracy against Putin” in order to contain “Russian neo-imperialism”. Significant amounts of money were invested in the Russian opposition.

Russia has swallowed all this for several years. But eventually, Putin’s patience was exhausted: Russia ignored the decision in Brussels not to start negotiations with Hamas in Palestine. Putin started cooperation with Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who is considered an enemy by the USA. And Putin pushed the shutdown of an American base in Uzbekistan, which was considered a direct affront in the USA. He accused the USA of pursuing its own interests against Russia’s, using human rights and democracy only as an excuse.

A Cold War of words emerged, and Russia started a direct attack on the unipolar world order Bush had subscribed to since September 11^th. A thunderbolt was Putin’s speech at the Munich security conference on February 10th, 2007, where he harshly attacked the USA by accusing it of “overstepped their national borders in every way” and drawing the world into an “abyss of ternal conflict” with their “blatant disregard for the principles of international law”. He branded the American policy of democratization as “colonialism”.

Brimming with this new self-confidence, Russia presented the USA a “sin list” which labels the “colored revolutions” as “colonizing interventions”. Russia attacked the intrumentalization of OCED by Washington for its national interests. The disrespect for Russian interests due to the interventions in Kosovo and Iraq is criticized, as is the missile defense system planned in central eastern Europe, the American troop stationing in Bulgaria and Romania, the NATO expansion to the east, and the American violation of the ABM treaty.

Russia considers itself in a new position of strength, while America is about sinking in the quicksand of Iraq.

The absolute low of mutual relations was reached in August 2008, when Georgia attempted to gain military control of the breakaway province South Ossetia supported by Russia. Russia reacted with a large-scale invasion on Georgia, which was no match for the Russian forces and soon declared a cease fire. Not before EU Council President Nicolas Sarkozy mediated did Russia agree to a withdrawal.

But Russia again enraged the USA by acknowledging the independence of South-Ossetia and Abkhasia. US Republican presidential candidate John McCain immediately demanded sanctions against Russia and its expulsion from G8. There is word now of a “new Cold War”. Obviously, John McCain is influenced by the same neoconservative agenda which made Bush fail on Russia.

In his 2005 book Empires - The Logic of World Dominance from Ancient Rome to the United States, renowned German political scientist Herfried Münkler proposes a systematic historical comparison of the imperial model of international dominance. He outlines the particular attributes of empires and the inherent logic of imperial leadership. Münkler is optimistic the empire is an efficient model of organizing international relations which offers stability and peace, as certain historical examples suggest. The Roman Empire, for example, is an example for an extraordinarily stable and prosperous imperial order, which guaranteed imperial peace and order at the periphery and material, as well as cultural prosperity in the center of its imperial realm.

As the title of his book reveals, Münkler considers the United States of America today an empire, comparable to historical examples like the Roman Empire or the British Empire: Within its realm, the empire America guarantees peace and imperial order, it exerts considerable economic and cultural influence that binds the periphery to the center, which is considered attractive by allies and potential new partners. Zones of lacking statehood or disorder at the periphery are being pacified, and thus the imperial order expanded, as for example when former Yugoslavia decomposed and perished in civil war. The empire America controls and protects the crucial streams of trade and commerce world wide, with military force if necessary, which is known as “humanitarian intervention” or “war against terror”. And the empire America has a strong cultural sense of mission, as other empires had before, in this case the imperial mission of spreading human rights and democracy.

But there are weak spots as well, which may cause an empire to fail, collapse or at least lose its status - there are historical lessons the empire America should study thorougly, to avoid the fate of past empires, all of which collapsed eventually. The classic threat for the empire is imperial overstretch: The empire overextends its capacities, engages in too many military adventures abroad  at the periphery, its military endeavors surpass its economic capacities and in the end, the empire implodes, other powers fill the sudden vacuum. Often, this overstretch is preceded by a fatal overestimation of the own potence, the arrogance of power.

What causes empire to engage in unprofitable and fatal endeavours resulting in overstretch? Münkler identified one possible reason: The imperial mission may get in conflict with imperial reason. For example, the imperial mission of spreading Catholicism, which was given priority by the elites of the Spanish Empire, caused them to push Counter-Reformation and Inquisition, which severely strained the empire’s economic potential and eventually became one major reason for its fall.

All this leads me to believe the American foreign policy since 9/11, mostly dominated by neoconservative ideologues, has not just spectacularly failed, but may even bring about the end of America as an imperial power, if these policies are maintained.

The neoconservatives who dominated Bush’s policies, and who now advise John McCain, blatantly overestimate America’s military strength, while spending taxpayer money as no drunken sailor ever could in their place. As desirable it would be if America could spread democracy and freedom in the world, America simply cannot afford this imperial mission at any cost - but this mission, on the contrary, severely damages America’s soberly recognized own interests.

What has John McCain to offer, regarding foreign policy? He wants to stay in Iraq “for 100 years, if necessary”. One of his top advisors, Robert Kagan, is a delusional megalomaniac disconnected from reality, who would even start a nuclear war for America’s greatness. And McCain has no sound plan about dealing with the dangerous financial crisis that threatens America’s status as dominant economic power; on the contrary, he supports the expansion of the military budget, while the deficit explodes. He wants to further alienate Russia by expelling it from G8 and embracing Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. John McCain’s foreign policy proposals are not just wrong, they are outright dangerous - for America and for the whole world.

If you want America to maintain its status as global power, do not vote for John McCain. And if you think the world deserves a better fate than being turned in radioactive wasteland, make sure ideologues such as Robert Kagan stay as far from power as possible.

Tags: financial crisis, judgment, Russia

• 

  Johnny's very angry

  People watching the first two debates for a temper tantrum from Senator John McCain were disappointed. But McCain did provide some entertainment tonight: At some points, his face clenched as he seethed, his eyes almost jumped out of their sockets, his mouth contorted into a rictus of scorn. McCain did not present us with anything so fun as his grimace to the right, but Johnny was still very angry tonight. How might he conduct himself when foreign leaders say things he doesn’t like?

• McCain presents himself as a champion of small government, and yet he touts the examples of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Hillary Clinton in defense of his plan for government to buy back mortgages (for which McCain apparently wants to tax our children in the form of debt, since he adamantly opposes making us pay for the goodies he wants to give us). That’s like bragging about remaining celibate and then taking Bill Clinton’s advice on sexual morality! This implies at best philosophical confusion on McCain’s part and at worst cynical exploitation of ideals in which he doesn’t believe in order to attract Republican votes.
• During his 26 years as a politician on Capitol Hill, John McCain has had ample opportunity to press issues that were important to him. For example, he fought vigorously to pass the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill, which trampled the First Amendment and shielded politicians running for reelection. And he found time to push for extending the nanny state to Major League Baseball. One would think, if McCain had ideas for taking the country in a new direction, he would already have been using his position as senator to promote them as strongly as he has his other pet projects. To borrow a phrase from the 1980’s McCain might have forgotten, “Where’s the beef?” It’s certainly not inside that earmarks windmill, comprising a minuscule portion of the federal budget, at which he keeps tilting.
• McCain thundered indignantly, “I am not President Bush.” But McCain has been supporting the president more and more in recent years, even as the chief executive has grown more and more unpopular. In 2006, McCain backed Bush 96 percent of the time; in 2007, 95 percent of the time; and in 2008, 100 percent of the time. In light of McCain’s imitation here of a non-maverick, one could be forgiven for believing the Republican presidential candidate might support most of the policies of the Republican presidential incumbent.
• Barack Obama gave McCain too much credit on the issue of torture. As Glenn Greenwald writes,
  

  In September, 2006, McCain made a melodramatic display — with great media fanfare — of insisting that the MCA require compliance with the Geneva Conventions for all detainees. But while the MCA purports to require that, it also vested sole and unchallenged discretion in the President to determine what does and does not constitute a violation of the Conventions. After parading around as the righteous opponent of torture, McCain nonetheless endorsed and voted for the MCA, almost single-handedly ensuring its passage. That law pretends to compel compliance with the Conventions, while simultaneously vesting the President with the power to violate them — precisely the power that the President is invoking here to proclaim that we have the right to use these methods.

  McCain has failed since then to oppose torture, such as when he voted against a bill that would have banned waterboarding.

• I dealt with the John Lewis remarks here.
• Ditto the “associations” nonsense. I’ll add that the chairman of John McCain’s presidential transition committee lobbied for Saddam Hussein. One would think the Arizona senator would have learned by now that tossing stones from a glass house is a bad idea!
• Speaking of lobbyists: McCain says he wants to sweep away the “old-boy network” in our nation’s capital, and yet lobbyist operatives from that network run his campaign and raise his money. So McCain’s declaration has all the credibility of someone whose cupboard is full of Twinkies claiming he’s on a diet.
  
• McCain repeated his point from the first debate, “I oppose subsidies for ethanol because I thought it distorted the market and created inflation; Sen. Obama supported those subsidies.” I’ll reproduce my response from after the first debate: Regarding ethanol subsidies, McCain was against them, and then he was for them, proclaiming, “I support ethanol and I think it is a vital, a vital alternative energy source not only because of our dependency on foreign oil but its greenhouse gas reduction effects.” Now, I guess he’s against supporting ethanol again.
• As I said in my remarks on the vice presidential debate, offshore drilling will not help us now or in the near future.
• Mr. “Next Stop Baghdad, And Then Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran” isn’t one to talk about impetuous statements.

Tags: Barack Obama, earmarks, ethanol subsidies, flip flops, George W. Bush, lobbyists, maverick, Saddam Hussein, torture

Representative John Lewis, Democrat from Georgia, who was one of the most prominent crusaders for black civil rights, has likened the McCain campaign of late to infamous segregationist George Wallace:

“What I am seeing reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history. Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse,” Lewis said in a statement.

“George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama,” wrote the Democrat.

According to the CNN article linked above, Senator McCain has said that, as president, he would turn to Lewis for advice. But candidate McCain apparently feels little need to do so, for he has replied, “The notion that legitimate criticism of Sen. Obama’s record and positions could be compared to Gov. George Wallace, his segregationist policies and the violence he provoked is unacceptable and has no place in this campaign.”

Certainly, “absurd hyperbole” would characterize any comparison of the Republican presidential contender to an abomination such as Wallace, who thundered during his 1963 inauguration as Alabama’s governor “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” McCain has done nothing so awful as perpetuating segregation that should trouble his conscience.

But, given the behavior at McCain campaign rallies that provoked Lewis’s outburst, one must wonder what McCain deems “legitimate criticism.”

• Associated Press: “Shouts of ‘traitor,’ ‘terrorist,’ ‘treason,’ ‘liar,’ and even ‘off with his head‘ have rung from the crowd at McCain and Sarah Palin rallies, and gone unchallenged by them.” (Emphasis mine.)
• OpEdNews: “‘There are millions of people around this world praying to their god — whether it’s Hindu, Buddha, Allah — that [McCain's] opponent wins, for a variety of reasons…,’ Rev. Conrad said, ‘…And Lord, I pray that you will guard your own reputation, because they’re going to think that their God is bigger than you, if that happens.’” (Religious bigotry and ignorance in one package: Hindu is a religion, not any god to which one would pray, and no adherent of Buddha considers him a god!)
• Radar Online: “The Secret Service is following up on media reports today that someone in the crowd at a McCain/Palin event suggested killing Barack Obama, according to Secret Service spokesman Malcolm Wiley. The shout of ‘kill him‘ followed a Sarah Palin rant on Obama’s relationship with radical Chicagoan Bill Ayers.” (Go here for more on the “relationship” / “association” nonsense.)
• Associated Press: “For the second time in three days, a rally for the Republican presidential ticket invoked Democrat Barack Obama’s middle name, Hussein, in an attempt to add to doubts about his background, faith and campaign… In Florida on Monday, a sheriff told voters at a Palin rally: ‘On Nov. 4, let’s leave Barack Hussein Obama wondering what happened.’”
• NYTimes.com: “Another, separate video from a Pennsylvania rally has McCain supporters calling Obama a ‘commie faggot‘ among other epithets, and is the No. 25 most-discussed YouTube clip today.”

Let’s watch the aforementioned video of what McCain calls “legitimate criticism”.

To McCain’s credit, he has begun repudiating a few of the slanderous insults some of his supports have been hurling at Obama, earning the gratitude of the Illinois senator.

Representative Lewis’s statement could have served as a good opportunity for McCain to further debunk the ugly attacks on his opponent. McCain could have said, “My friends, the honorable congressman from Georgia is right. Our will to win must not debase our honor. Let’s stop the unjustified assaults on Obama’s character and resume talking about how we can make things right in Washington.”

So why on Earth would McCain instead complain that Lewis was unfairly maligning “legitimate criticism,” thereby undercutting McCain’s efforts to reign in his supporters?

One might wonder that perhaps McCain has another goal. Maybe he wants to come out of the election with his veneer of civility intact while still tossing out just enough chum to keep his supporters in a frenzy. But that would hardly be worthy of the Straight Talk Express…

Tags: Barack Obama, George Wallace, John Lewis, legitimate criticism, straight talk

If Barack Obama had John McCain’s “integrity,” this is what you’d be hearing from the Democratic candidate’s campaign. Thankfully, Obama — while by no means perfect — has avoided such dishonorable character assassination. Too bad one couldn’t say the same about the Republican candidate, who professes to value honor and whose aide and co-author proclaimed, “We’re not going to do anything dishonorable,” in the contest for the White House.

Earlier this year, McCain tarred Obama as the Hamas candidate for president, an outrageous slur no better than Lyndon Johnson’s linkage of Barry Goldwater to the KKK in 1964.

Now, with McCain floundering in the polls in the runup to Election Day, his campaign has decided once more to grab from the bag of Johnson-style dirty tricks. Sarah Palin has started accusing the Illinois senator of “palling around with terrorists” because he occasionally saw a guy who lived in his neighborhood and who committed what Obama has called “detestable acts” when the future presidential candidate was eight. And more scumbaggery is to come, according to a Republican agent (in the CNN link):

“We’re going to get a little tougher,” a senior Republican operative said, requesting anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to discuss strategy. “We’ve got to question this guy’s associations. Very soon. There’s no question that we have to change the subject here.“

(Bold is mine for much needed emphasis: The statement is tantamount to a confession of desperation.)

People who live in glass houses should strongly reconsider throwing stones. Let’s consider a few associations from McCain’s and Palin’s own pasts to demonstrate the idiocy of the McCain campaign’s new tack.

Near the beginning of the year, McCain sought the endorsement of the Reverand John Hagee. After getting it, McCain proclaimed he felt “very honored” to receive Hagee’s endorsement. This man whose endorsement McCain coveted has spewed anti-Catholic bigotry for years, declared America would deserve terrorist attacks were it insufficiently loyal to Israel, said Hitler was doing God’s work (in his twisted mind, this and the previous inanity fit together), and opined Hurricane Katrina was God’s judgment of New Orleans for tolerating homosexuality.

Hagee wasn’t the only terrorist-/mass murderer-sympathizer whose support McCain solicited. Before Jerry Falwell’s death, the Arizona senator worked to establish a rapport with him and gave a commencement address at Falwell’s Liberty University. Apparently, McCain didn’t mind Falwell’s remarks shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

JERRY FALWELL: And I agree totally with you that the Lord has protected us so wonderfully these 225 years. And since 1812, this is the first time that we’ve been attacked on our soil and by far the worst results. And I fear, as Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, said yesterday, that this is only the beginning. And with biological warfare available to these monsters — the Husseins, the Bin Ladens, the Arafats — what we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact — if, in fact — God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.

Over 3,000 people died when al Qaeda struck America, and Falwell said that was “probably what we deserve[d].” McCain wanted this bastard’s support, and he got it.

McCain isn’t the only one on the Republican ticket with uncomfortable associations. His running mate, Alaska governor Sarah Palin, attended and contributed to conventions of the Alaskan Independence Party, which seeks a vote on Alaskan secession. And her husband was a member of the Alaskan Independence Party for years.

Of course, the aim of this post isn’t to engage in the kind of mudslinging it condemns. Politicians, and most other people, can’t help but associate from time to time with shady, wacky, or embarassing characters or find themselves involved in situations that are difficult to explain.

This is the understanding McCain and Palin, considering their own histories, ought to extend to Obama. That would allow us to focus on the issues that actually matter to the American people.

Tags: Alaskan Independence Party, Barack Obama, Jerry Falwell, John Hagee, Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin was widely expected to implode in a miasma of inexperience and ignorance tonight. Many of the interviews she’s given up until now have fueled that expectation (on ABC with Charles Gibson, on CBS with Katie Couric [and cut material from that]). But the debate format let Palin avoid major slip-ups, as she could throw out talking points without needing to defend them from intensive scrutiny. (Who knows how Palin would have fared within the setup of the presidential debates, wherein both the moderator and her opponent could have probed her answers more deeply.)

In the aftermath of the debate, though, this blog will give some of what Palin said more of the attention it deserves.

• Sarah Palin bragged about reducing taxes, but she didn’t mention the debt she simultaneously accumulated. When Palin left the Wasilla mayor’s office in 2002, the town had accrued more than $20 million in debt. In 1996, Wasilla’s debt was $1.12 million; in 2002, it was $24.8 million. Tonight, Palin urged Americans to live within their means, but as mayor, perhaps that credo slipped her mind.
• If only we allowed more drilling for oil, we could ameliorate energy costs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, Palin wanted viewers to believe. But government restrictions on where to drill — notwithstanding their wisdom or lack thereof — do not explain why oil companies refrain from fully exploiting America’s oil resources. As the Associated Press has reported, “Nearly three-fourths [75 percent] of the 40 million acres of public land currently leased for oil and gas development in the continental United States outside Alaska isn’t producing any oil or gas, federal records show…” Since oil companies are far from fully exploiting the land where they can drill, we have little reason to believe we’d be flush with oil if we lifted drilling restrictions. And, even if oil companies were to drill in now-restricted areas, we still couldn’t expect oil from those operations before 2020 or impact on gas prices before 2030. So rescinding drilling prohibitions would do little to reduce gas bills or get us off foreign oil.
• Palin portrayed McCain as a consummate straight talker, despite his congenital flip flopping and double-talking.
• Regardless of Palin’s claims to the contrary, General David McKiernan, the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, has proclaimed a “surge” with the same principles as the one in Iraq would not work in Afghanistan.
• Palin echoes President George W. Bush’s meme of “listening to the commanders on the ground.” But, referring to the strategies of the Bush administration, General John Abizaid, who succeeded General Tommy Franks as Commander-in-Chief of Central Command, grumbled, “These bastards in Washington have no idea what they’re doing,” as Bob Woodward’s State of Denial reveals. Woodward’s newest book, The War Within, describes the frustrations of General George W. Casey, the Commanding General of Multi-National Force, Iraq, from 2004 to 2007, over his feelings the president didn’t listen to him. Since Palin wants to continue the Iraq policies of President Bush, one might wonder how “listening to the commanders on the ground” might fit into that.
• As a corollary to the above, General Casey said at one point regarding Iraq, “We need to get the fuck out.” Is deriding such an idea as “a white flag of surrender” Palin’s notion of “listening to the commanders on the ground”?
• The Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, has backed Senator Barack Obama’s troop withdrawal plan. Is he also waving “a white flag of surrender”? If America wants to avoid waving “a white flag of surrender,” must we disregard the wishes of the leader of Iraq’s sovereign government?
• Palin accused Obama of seeking direct presidential diplomacy with hostile nations such as Iran “without… diplomatic efforts being undertaken first.” This is false; Obama has said all along lower level negotiations must ensue before any direct presidential contact could take place, a position Obama reiterated during the first presidential debate: “There’s a difference between preconditions and preparation. Of course we’ve got to do preparations, starting with low-level diplomatic talks.”
• Even though Henry Kissinger claimed to disagree with Obama’s position on Iran, he supported something very much like it at a recent CNN forum.
• John McCain knows how to win wars, Palin told viewers. When has McCain proven that? When McCain served in the military, he was a fighter pilot, then a prisoner of war, then a student, then a commander of a stateside unit in Florida, and then a liaison to Congress. He’s never acted as a combatant commander who would’ve had to strategize beyond a small section of a battle zone. (Perhaps that’s why he campaigns without seeming to consider the larger ramifications of what he says and does from day to day. Whereas he might grasp the tactics of the immediate battlefield, he’s never had to wrestle with the strategy of a whole theater or war.)
• Is this the brand of “maverick” this country needs as vice president?

Tags: Barack Obama, flip flops, foreign oil, George W. Bush, Henry Kissinger, Iran, Iraq, leadership, maverick, military service, Nouri al-Maliki, oil drilling, Sarah Palin, straight talk, Wasilla, white flag of surrender

During last night’s debate, Senator John McCain portrayed Russia as an aggressive bully that, without provocation, trounced the helpless victim that was Georgia. From the transcript:

Well, I was interested in Senator Obama’s reaction to the Russian aggression against Georgia. His first statement was, “Both sides ought to show restraint.”

Again, a little bit of naivete there. He doesn’t understand that Russia committed serious aggression against Georgia.

Health tip: Do not poke the bear!

McCain is the one who is displaying ignorance, viewing the situation through his old black-and-white spyglass from the Cold War. As Mark Almond and Ted Galen Carpenter write, Georgia shares much of the blame for starting the war between it and Russia. Whereas Russia overreacted by invading its smaller neighbor, Georgia shouldn’t have provoked the Russians by firing anywhere near their peacekeepers in South Ossetia.

Also, the United States bears some culpability for the fiasco. Before the war, the Americans had shipped weapons and ammunition to the Georgians, helped revise their military procedures, and trained some of their officers and soldiers. In addition, President George W. Bush had vigorously supported NATO membership for Georgia. These policies gave Georgia false confidence in its military position, emboldening it to take imprudent action against Russian interests.

American strategy influenced the psychology not only of the Georgians, but of the Russians as well. Washington’s aggressive championship since the 1990’s of NATO expansion ever closer to Russia’s borders has made the Kremlin increasingly jittery. As George Friedman writes in “The Russo-Georgian War and the Balance of Power“:

… the discussion of including Ukraine in NATO represented a fundamental threat to Russia’s national security. It would have rendered Russia indefensible and threatened to destabilize the Russian Federation itself. When the United States went so far as to suggest that Georgia be included as well, bringing NATO deeper into the Caucasus, the Russian conclusion — publicly stated — was that the United States in particular intended to encircle and break Russia.

Americans might have difficulty understanding that, but conversations with Russian friends have led me to conclude a siege mentality infects the Kremlin’s strategic thinking, which is likely a psychological scar remaining from the Mongols’ conquest and occupation of Russia. Washington’s contempt for Moscow’s interests and breakneck expansion of NATO — founded as an anti-Russian alliance — since the end of the Cold War have fed Russian paranoia for years. Such fear always makes people more likely to lash out, as the Russians finally did in their war with Georgia.

Of course, given the role of NATO expansion in exacerbating tensions with Russia, both McCain and Obama were reckless and foolhardy to support it last night. But McCain was more so in portraying Russia as an international archvillain; at least Obama had the judgment to reject a black-and-white characterization of Russia.

To the Arizona senator’s credit, he disavowed any wish to return to a Cold War footing with Russia. One might wonder how he expects to avoid this outcome, though, when he’s casting Russia as the Evil Empire reincarnate and pushing to ostracize it in the international community, such as by expelling Moscow from the G8.

Senator John McCain’s flawed appraisal of Russia sullies his boasts of ”knowledge and experience.” Instead, his continual foreign policy blunders indicate he might not be “ready to go at it right now.”

Tags: Barack Obama, judgment, Russia

• During the first quarter of the debate, Senator John McCain’s discomfort with economics manifested prominently. He seemed rushed and disengaged with his answers, such as when he tossed out a casual and unthinking “sure” in response to Jim Lehrer’s question of whether he’d vote for the bailout package. And he offered few specifics about how he would handle the financial crisis. He just said, “We’ve got to fix the system,” while repeating as a mantra the need for accountability and responsibility, without saying much about his ideas for accomplishing these things. If McCain’s insights into our current economic mess are this slim, then one might wonder what he expected to accomplish by inserting himself into the bailout negotiations.
• McCain insists government spending has gotten out of control, and he’s quite right about that. But he’s not going to do much about it tilting at earmarks. As I say here, “The Congressional Research Service pegs earmarks at $52 million annually, equivalent to just 0.001 percent of the president’s last budget request of $3.1 trillion.” Also, funneling hundreds of billions of dollars into fighting a war in Iraq and maybe in Iran seems unlikely to result in less spending or government. (As Randolph Bourne wrote, “War is the health of the state.”)
• Regarding ethanol subsidies, McCain was against them, and then he was for them, proclaiming, “I support ethanol and I think it is a vital, a vital alternative energy source not only because of our dependency on foreign oil but its greenhouse gas reduction effects.” Now, I guess he’s against supporting ethanol again.
• Given McCain’s profligate flip flopping, he has no right to make an issue of “shifting.”
• Senator Barack Obama has the most liberal voting record in his chamber, McCain announced. But the editor of the National Journal, which issued that ranking, has questioned using it as a crutch: “In the end, the debate over whether Obama was the most liberal senator last year doesn’t strike me as particularly useful. If Obama had voted differently a couple of times, or if we had added or subtracted a couple of other votes in our ratings, he might not have been ranked as the most liberal senator.” Certainly, by almost any metric one might use, Obama would emerge with a liberal voting record. After all, he is a Democrat. But casting Obama as a frothing extremist because of one rating in one year from one magazine is absurd.
• In spite of McCain’s insistence to the contrary, former Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger did in fact advocate negotiating with Iran absent preconditions.
• McCain spent most of the debate smirking and sneering. Not even Al Gore’s huffing and sighing during the 2000 presidential debates seemed as arrogant and condescending as McCain’s behavior appeared tonight.

Tags: bailout, Barack Obama, earmarks, ethanol subsidies, financial crisis, flip flops, Henry Kissinger, Iran, Iraq

In July, Barack Obama visited Berlin. Two hundred thousand Germans came to Victory Column in Berlin to listen to his speech. Obama received overwhelming applause, and this is no coincidence. Obama enchanted his German audience, he has proven he understands Germany and its people very well, and he has the sensibility necessary to win our hearts. Polls have shown an overwhelming majority of the Germans (76 percent) hope Obama wins the election, against only 10 percent who favor McCain.

Why is that?

To answer this question, let me explain a few things about my country and my life first. I grew up as a member of the second post-war generation in Germany. For my generation, America is very close. I grew up with American cartoons and TV series, most movies playing here were made in Hollywood, the German chart hit lists are dominated by American artists, and English is taught as the first foreign language in elementary schools. For my generation, which grew up in the 1980s and 90s, America probably is the closest foreign country in the world.

America was our friend in the past decades, protecting us so we could build a new, free, and democratic Germany, once and for all breaking with our past. For that reason, the German people are very fond of America, and we feel very close to your people.

But this seems to have changed in the past years, when George W. Bush was President. For the first time in history, the German people no longer are fond of America’s policies. A recent poll published in the popular German weekly Der Spiegel found that, while an overwhelming majority of more than 70 percent of the Germans considered America a positive factor on world politics at the end of the 90s, this number has now reached a low never seen before, dropping below 30 percent. Other polls found Germans consider America a bigger threat to world peace than “rogue states” like Iran or North Korea. Millions of Germans protested in 2003 against the American invasion of Iraq.

Many Americans had trouble understanding the sudden German criticism and asked, Was America not liberating a country from a horribly tyranny, much like Germany in 1945? Was America not defending freedom from terrorists who might attempt to repeat their attacks from 9/11? From where did the sudden German distrust come? Have Germans become anti-American?

To answer this question, after having explained what makes our people feel close to America, I’d like to explain what distinguishes us. You cannot understand our reaction to George W. Bush and his policies without understanding Germany. And I am sure once you understand us, you will comprehend that we are not “anti-American,” that we do not hate freedom or support terrorism against America. And you will understand why so many Germans desperately hope for Obama to become the next leader of the free world.

Up to this day, Germany is obsessed with our Nazi past. And what we are taught is that Nazism does not start the moment when crematories start burning or troops cross the border with Poland. No, Nazism started way earlier. It started with a nationalistic jingoism that would justify any crime as long as it was wrapped in the flag. It started with the anti-intellectualism of people who considered military strength the ultimate yardstick for national greatness. It started with newspapers pandering to “patriotism” instead of doing their job of questioning their leaders and their own prejudices. It started when the first person was denied a fair trial for political reasons. It started with a seemingly harmless racist remark. And it even started with an authoritarian education that included physical punishment of children, which suffocated individualism and replaced it with “discipline” and obedience. And all of this reached back to the time of the German Empire’s militarism and imperialism. “Never again!” still is the dominant slogan for Germany’s post-war generations.

We Germans have learned our lesson and are still learning and studying it. And we have learned so much from America. But today, I think, you Americans can learn from our experience, like a friend from a friend.

Continue Reading »

Tags: Barack Obama, fascism, Germany

Trumpeting Senator John McCain’s military service, while questioning Senator Barack Obama’s fitness for leadership, has become a centerpiece of McCain’s campaign for the presidency. For example, at a July event, the Republican candidate proclaimed, “I don’t need any on the job training,” while deriding his Democratic challenger, Senator Barack Obama, for having “no military experience whatsoever.” And recently the McCain campaign released a web ad declaring Obama “doesn’t have much experience and isn’t ready to lead.”

Given the Illinois senator’s lack of executive, diplomatic, or military experience, one might legitimately wonder whether Obama has the seasoning to lead the most powerful nation in the world. But can McCain really claim a more sterling record than that of his adversary?

Every American knows of McCain’s heroics during the Vietnam War. They have earned the fighter pilot a spot in America’s pantheon of champions and inspired millions of McCain’s fellow countrymen, including this writer. As four-star general and successful war-leader Wesley Clark noted, however, McCain’s bravery in Vietnam didn’t “include executive experience wrestling with national policy or go-to-war decisions.”

The future presidential aspirant did achieve one command after the war: VA 174, an air group in Florida that trained carrier pilots. McCain remembers in his autobiography Worth the Fighting For that when he took charge, 20 of the group’s planes were in too poor repair to fly. McCain changed that, setting a squadron record by ensuring all its planes were airworthy. In addition, McCain’s VA 174 set a naval record by flying the most hours without accidents. These accomplishments under McCain’s leadership earned VA 174 its first Meritorious Unit Citation.

Clearly, as his squadron’s commanding officer, McCain showed audacity, ingenuity, and diligence. A good leader must embody these traits. Nevertheless, commanding a unit stateside didn’t give McCain experience with economic stewardship, grand strategy, or foreign relations—challenges the President of the United States must confront.

History, in any event, casts doubt on whether military experience necessarily presages wise judgment in the Oval Office. President Andrew Jackson, the victorious general at the Battle of New Orleans in the War of 1812, pursued disastrous economic policies and flouted the Supreme Court to ethnically cleanse Cherokees. A later soldier-cum-president, Franklin Pierce, had served as a brigadier general in the Mexican War, but historians consider his administration one of the worst for exacerbating tensions that would lead to civil war. Another general, Union Civil War hero Ulysses S. Grant, ran one of the most corrupt administrations ever.

Today, some of McCain’s comments during his latest campaign make his own judgment suspect:

• He championed a “gas tax holiday,” against the almost unanimous advice of economists.
• He boasted he could balance the budget by eliminating earmarks. In reality, terminating earmarks would hardly dent the budget: The Congressional Research Service pegs earmarks at $52 million annually, equivalent to just 0.001 percent of the president’s last budget request of $3.1 trillion.
• He confused Sudan with Somalia.
• He referred to Czechoslovakia, a country that dissolved soon after the Cold War, as if it still existed.
• He thought Vladimir Putin, actually the former president of Russia, was the president of Germany.
• He said, of any danger from Iran, “I don’t know the progress or the significance or the nature of the threat.”
• He sang about bombing Iran, despite evidently not knowing what threat it poses.
• He accused Shi’a Iran of backing Sunni al-Qaeda in Iraq, apparently forgetting the two Islamic religious branches are fighting a civil war there.
• He proclaimed, while condemning the Russian invasion of Georgia, “In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations,” ignoring his own positions regarding Iran and Iraq.
• He attributed the Anbar Awakening to “the surge,” whereas Anbar’s security began improving before the Army increased troop levels.
• He dismissed Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s advocacy of drawing down American troops, proclaiming, “Voters care about [the] military, not about Iraqi leaders,” contradicting McCain’s 2004 declaration “we would have to leave” should “the elected government of Iraq” demand withdrawal.

And, of course, in 2002, Senator McCain predicated his support for invading Iraq on the belief victory there would “be fairly easy.”

At this point, one might say, “OK, John, you’re an incredible war hero, an inspiration to all Americans. But what qualifies you to be president of the United States?”

The Arizona senator chasing the 2000 Republican presidential nomination said he asked himself that very question every morning. Rather than tout his experience and disparage his opponent’s, McCain should contemplate that question again and then tell the American people the answer.

Tags: Barack Obama, earmarks, gax tax holiday, Iran, Iraq, judgment, leadership, military service, prisoner of war, Russia

In the Associated Press article “McCain’s campaign nourished by humble pie,” former Secretary of State George Schultz says of McCain:

“All he could do was go up to New Hampshire and be John McCain,” he said. “It was a streak of good fortune that he ran out of money and went up there and was himself. That’s what people love _ that he is himself, not some sort of synthetic character trying to figure out who he is.”

Does Mr. Schultz mean this Mr. McCain?

As if that wasn’t enough flopping around, McCain also has many more flip flops to his name. For a man who’s “not some sort of synthetic character trying to figure out who he is,” McCain seems to have a lot of difficulty figuring out what he believes.

Of course, most politicians flip flop; McCain would be exceptional if he didn’t. But that’s the rub: McCain boasts he is such an exception, as he rides around in his “Straight Talk Express” and makes proclamations like these:

I don’t switch my position depending on what audience or what time it is in the electoral calendar. … I believe that [voters] will more and more see where Sen. Obama has switched his positions on fundamental issues. The one thing they want is trust and confidence in their leadership, and I think I will win in that area.

Given McCain’s profligate flip flopping, that’s an incredible declaration. For Bill Clinton to brag about marital fidelity while scolding philanderers would be just as appropriate.

Tags: flip flops, straight talk