Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiPutin's War Enablers: Bush and Cheney
The run-up to the current chaos in the Caucasus should look quite familiar: Russia acted unilaterally rather than going through the U.N. Security Council. It used massive force against a small, weak adversary. It called for regime change in a country that had defied Moscow. It championed a separatist movement as a way of asserting dominance in a region it coveted.
Indeed, despite George W. Bush and Dick Cheney's howls of outrage at Russian aggression in Georgia and the disputed province of South Ossetia, the Bush administration set a deep precedent for Moscow's actions -- with its own systematic assault on international law over the past seven years. Now, the administration's condemnations of Russia ring hollow.
Bush said on Monday, responding to reports that Russia might attack the Georgian capital, "It now appears that an effort may be under way to depose [Georgia's] duly elected government. Russia has invaded a sovereign neighboring state and threatens a democratic government elected by its people. Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century." By Wednesday, with more Russian troops on the move and a negotiated cease-fire quickly unraveling, Bush stepped up the rhetoric, announcing a sizable humanitarian-aid mission to Georgia and dispatching Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to the region.
While U.S. leaders have tended to back Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, there are two sides to every dispute, and in the ethnically diverse Caucasus it may be more like a hundred sides. Abkhazia and Ossetia are claimed by Georgia, but they have their own distinctive languages, cultures and national aspirations. Both fought for independence in the early 1990s, without success, though neither was Georgia able to assert its full sovereignty over them, accepting Russian mediation and peacekeeping troops.
The separatist leaders of South Ossetia and Abkhazia now speak of Saakashvili in terms reminiscent of the way separatists in Darfur speak of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. Sergei Bagapsh of Abkhazia and Eduard Kokoity of South Ossetia have come out against conducting any further talks with Georgia, calling instead for Saakashvili to be tried for war crimes. Kokoity told Interfax, "There can be no talks with the organizers of genocide." The Russian press is full of talk of putting Saakashvili on trial for ordering attacks on Ossetian civilians.
All sides have committed massacres and behaved abominably. There are no clean hands involved, notwithstanding the strong support for Georgia visible in the press of most NATO member countries. (Georgia has been jockeying to join NATO, something Moscow stridently opposes.) Still, not everyone in NATO agrees that Saakashvili is a hero. While traveling with the negotiating team of President Nicolas Sarkozy, one French official observed that "Saakashvili was crazy enough to go in the middle of the night and bomb a city" in South Ossetia. The consequence of Russia's riposte, he said, is "a Georgia attacked, pulverized, through its own fault."
An emboldened Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin sarcastically likened Russia's actions to Bush's foreign policy. Pointing to the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Putin said, "Of course, Saddam Hussein ought to have been hanged for destroying several Shiite villages ... And the incumbent Georgian leaders who razed 10 Ossetian villages at once, who ran over elderly people and children with tanks, who burned civilians alive in their sheds -- these leaders must be taken under protection."
In the run-up to the Iraq war, Bush officials repeated ad nauseam the mantra that Saddam Hussein had killed his own people. Thus, they helped create a case for unilateral "humanitarian intervention" of the sort Putin says Russia is now pursuing. Washington had failed to get a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing a war on Iraq, and Iraq had not attacked the United States, so no principle of self-defense was at stake. But since all governments (even the United States under Abraham Lincoln) repress separatist movements, often ruthlessly, Bush was turning actions such as Saakashvili's attack on South Ossetia into a more legitimate cause for an outside power (especially one bordering it) to wage war against Georgia.
Indeed, Putin's invoking Bush's Iraq adventure points directly to the way in which Bush has enabled other world powers to act impulsively. With his doctrine of preemptive warfare, Bush single-handedly tore down the architecture of post-World War II international law erected by the founders of the United Nations to ensure that rogue states did not go about launching wars of aggression the way Hitler had. While safeguarding minorities at risk is a praiseworthy goal, the U.N. Charter states that the Security Council must approve a war launched for this purpose or any other, excepting self-defense. No individual nation is authorized to wage aggressive war on a vigilante basis, as Bush did in Iraq or Russia is now doing in the Caucasus.
Eight years ago, the United States would have been in a position to condemn Russia for its unilateral war without necessarily seeming hypocritical. After all, even the Korean War had been sanctioned by the United Nations, and President Dwight Eisenhower had condemned the 1956 tripartite attack on Egypt by Britain, France and Israel for violating the U.N. Charter.
Bush's recent argument, that a democratically elected government should not be overthrown (no matter what its behavior, apparently), was intended to sidestep comparisons between his own unilateral wars of aggression and ones such as the current Russian intervention. He was implying that his invasion of Iraq toppled a government that lacked the legitimacy enjoyed by Saakashvili's.
In fact, Bush's foreign policy includes a long list of actions intended to undermine elected governments.
Whether the United States was actively involved in the attempted coup in 2002 against Hugo Chavez, the democratically elected president of Venezuela, or merely cheered it on, it is clear that Venezuelan popular sovereignty meant nothing to Bush if it resulted in a government unfriendly to and critical of Washington.
An even more egregious example came with the destabilization and overthrow of the Hamas government, which won control of the Palestine Authority in January 2006. Bush insisted on allowing the participation in elections of Hamas, a fundamentalist party with a covert paramilitary that has struck at Israeli targets, including civilians. When the party unexpectedly won, however, Bush refused to recognize the legitimacy of the new government, denying it funds and sympathizing with the Israeli attempt to overthrow it. Israeli security forces kidnapped elected Hamas representatives and cabinet ministers, and harmed civilians by blocking medical aid and food that might go to people via the Hamas government.
In 2007, Bush and the Israelis supported a takeover in the West Bank by forces of the Palestine Liberation Organization, lead by Palestine Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Similar attempts were made in Gaza, but they failed, leaving the elected Hamas government in charge of the small territory. Palestinian popular sovereignty, and Hamas' victory in what were widely judged to have been relatively free and fair elections, were disregarded by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Bush.
Bush and Cheney also repeatedly sided with military dictator Pervez Musharraf against elected civilian politicians in Pakistan. Even when the Pakistani Parliament, elected in open polls last February, initiated impeachment proceedings against Musharraf earlier this week, the Bush administration came out against the idea of Musharraf's going into exile if convicted, urging that he be allowed to stay "honorably" in Pakistan if he stepped down.
Bush's exceptionalism, whereby he implicitly maintained that no international laws or institutions would be allowed to constrain U.S. actions taken in the name of national security, grew out of the sole superpower status of the United States after fall of the Soviet Union. A unipolar world is, however, an exceedingly rare circumstance in modern world history, and it was unlikely to last very long. China may soon have the economic and technological clout to go toe to toe with the United States; and Russia, fueled by the energy boom, is recovering from its economic disaster of the 1990s.
The collapse of the Soviet economy produced tremendous misery and downward mobility. Uncertainty made couples unwilling to risk having children. In one of the great demographic reversals in history, the Russian Federation's population fell by 10 million in the years after 1991. Russian need for U.S. foreign aid and goodwill led Moscow to acquiesce for a time in the expansion of U.S. influence into Eastern Europe and Central Asia.
Russia is now reemerging and flexing its muscles. The run-up in the price of oil and gas has filled Moscow's coffers, since it is one of the great producers of natural gas in the world (prices of natural gas tend to track with those of petroleum). Russia has reasserted its influence in countries such as Uzbekistan, which had briefly licensed a base to U.S. forces but then kicked them out, and in Turkmenistan, which recently agreed to pipe its natural gas through Moscow. Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin are increasingly acting like Gulf emirs, flush with petrodollars and assured of political leverage because of their control over energy resources.
In a unipolar world, the Bush doctrine of preemptive war allowed Washington to assert itself without fear of contradiction. The Bush doctrine, however, was never meant to be emulated by others and was therefore implicitly predicated on the notion that all challengers would be weaker than the United States throughout the 21st century. Bush and Cheney are now getting a glimpse of a multipolar world in which other powers can adopt their modus operandi with impunity. Bush's rhetoric may have sounded like that of President Woodrow Wilson, but his policy has often been to support the overthrow or hobbling of elected governments that he does not like -- and that has not gone unnoticed by countries that also count themselves great powers and would not mind following suit.
The problem with international law for a superpower is that it is a constraint on overweening ambition. Its virtue is that it constrains the aggressive ambitions of others. Bush gutted it because he thought the United States would not need it anytime soon. But Russia is now demonstrating that the Bush doctrine can just as easily be the Putin doctrine. And that leaves America less secure in a world of vigilante powers that spout rhetoric about high ideals to justify their unchecked military interventions. It is the world that Bush has helped build.
--Juan Cole
Copyright ©2008 Salon Media Group, Inc.
65 Comments so far
Show Allljdavis...the growing disaster the Americans have created is NOT soley their business, has not been for at least 60 years,as it gets people killed in many ways, their business and economies destroyed in various ways, their free speech and even Democracy crushed in all sorts of nasty ways.
Maybe the UN should treat the USof A as more of a third-world country, a once proud nation founded upon some of the BEST PRINCIPLES in all Human History- now run as an effective "bananna republic" with the English language and a HUGE military as a few differences to the norm...the UN could look into Education, labour laws, the way the media works, agricultural subsidies- all the stuff thrown at other countries (usually in BAD faith) thrown at the USA in good faith because, damnit, the whole planet needs the USA healthy because the USA will always matter- too many great people and great ideas and GREAT potential to write off for the sake of wealthy/sick/distorted/sociopathic (etc) write-offs. Maybe a new Nurenburg for these choice specimens would help the whole world rebuild on more decent lines.
How about Obama having to make an emergency landing today on the plane he was in? THESE SCUMS will stop at nothing. McCain in the WH whether America likes it or not.
When Bush welcomed Abramoff and Kennyboy Lay into the Oval Office, other federal officials took their cue-and their bribes. When Bush oked sadistic measures, even West Point graduates learned to enjoy them. When Bush bypassed the UN and invaded Iraq, Saakashvili and Putin did likewise.
For better or worse, the president of the United States is a powerful symbol of ethical standards. The world absolutely cannot afford another bait-and-switch, compromising, moral weakling in the White House.
The United States of America is owned, operated and controlled by Khazars. Over the past week, haven't you noticed that almost all the "talking heads" on TV supporting the Georgian position are Khazars. Just last night on PBS evening news, Khazar Ariel Cohen of the NeoCon Heritage Foundation provided the latest example. The Khazars are behind Goergia's stupid move, and now the Khazars whine and lie about the situation in Georgia.
Simplified:
1) Khazars poke Bear.
2) Bear stomps Khazars.
3) Khazars whine and lie.
The Neocon's central policy document is entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses. It is Bush's "Mien Kampt" and it outlines a plan for American hegemony in the coming years, pinpointing "problem areas" of the world and suggesting REGIME CHANGE of unfavorable governments so that eventually the whole world will be unified under the banner of America.
The document is written with all of the single-mindedness, unilateralism and inattention to international ramifications (with either friend or foe) that the Bush administration displayed in its current build-up for war with Iraq. There is even assertion of the necessity of American political leadership overriding that of the U.N. (p. 11), a policy that was sadly played out when the U.S. invaded Iraq without the approval of either the U.N. or the international community.
Rebuilding America's Defenses
I believe that "Rebuilding America's Defenses" is a must-read for anyone concerned about the future of our planet.
Subject areas are arranged under 4 categories: A. Pax Americana — outlining the rationale for global empire, B. Securing Global Hegemony — pinpointing regions that are considered trouble spots for U.S. policy, C. Rebuilding the Military — plans for expansion of U.S. military might, and D. Future Wars of Pax Americana — the "RAD" vision of complete control of land, sea, air, space and cyberspace.
A. Pax Americana
"It is not a choice between preeminence today and preeminence tomorrow. Global leadership (hedgmony/domination) is not something exercised at our leisure, when the mood strikes us or when our core national security interests are directly threatened; then it is already too late. Rather, it is a choice whether or not to maintain American military preeminence, to secure American geopolitical leadership, and to preserve the American peace" (p. 76).
The building of Pax Americana has become possible, claims "RAD," because the fall of the Soviet Union has given the U.S. status as the world's singular superpower. It must now work hard not only to maintain that position, but to spread its influence into geographic areas that are ideologically opposed to our influence. Decrying reductions in defense spending during the Clinton years "RAD" propounds the theory that the only way to preserve peace in the coming era will be to increase military forces for the purpose of waging multiple wars to subdue countries which may stand in the way of U.S. global preeminence.
Their flaws in logic are obvious to people of conscience, namely, 1) a combative posture on our part will not secure peace, but will rather engender fear throughout the world and begin anew the arms race, only this time with far more contenders, and 2) democracy, by its very definition, cannot be imposed by force.
Following is the preamble to the document:
"As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's most preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievement of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and AMERICAN INTERESTS(OIL)?
America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental INTERESTS (OIL).
Four Vital Missions
On Usurping the Power of the UN
"Further, these constabulary missions are far more complex and LIKELY TO GENERATE VIOLENCE than traditional 'peacekeeping' missions. For one, they demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations.
"Nor can the United States assume a UN-like stance of neutrality; the preponderance of American power is so great and its global INTERESTS so wide that it cannot pretend to be indifferent to the political outcome in the Balkans, the Persian Gulf or even when it deploys forces in Africa. Finally, these missions demand forces basically configured for combat.
On Preserving American Preeminence
"Since today's peace is the unique product of American preeminence, a failure to preserve that preeminence allows others an opportunity to shape the world in ways antithetical to American interests and principles. The price of American preeminence is that, just as it was actively obtained, it must be actively maintained" (p. 73). NEVER-ENDING WARFARE
"Moreover, America stands at the head of a system of alliances which includes the world's other leading democratic powers. At present the United States faces no global rival. America's grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible.
B. Securing Global Hegemony
"RAD" takes the posture that only the U.S. should manipulate international relations and points out "trouble spots" that may cause future problems, like Iraq, Iran, Korea and all of East Asia. There is concern that several nations might come together to challenge U.S. interests. Consequently any nation that produces nuclear weapons or engages in significant arms build-up will be viewed as a potential threat.
"America's global leadership, and its role as the guarantor of the current great-power peace, relies upon the safety of the American homeland; the preservation of a favorable balance of power in Europe, the Middle East and surrounding energy-producing region, and East Asia;
Europe
"The Balkans, and southeastern Europe more generally, present the major hurdle toward the creation of a Europe 'whole and free' from the Baltic to the Black Sea. The delay in bringing security and stability to southeastern Europe has not only prevented the consolidation of the victory in the Cold War, it has created a zone of violence and conflict and introduced uncertainty about America's role in Europe" (pp. 15-16).
"Despite the shifting focus of conflict in Europe, a requirement to station U.S. forces in northern and central Europe remains. The region is stable, but a continued American presence helps to assure the major European powers, especially Germany, that the United States retains its longstanding security interest in the continent. This is especially important in light of the nascent European moves toward an independent defense 'identity' and policy; it is important that NATO not be replaced by the European Union, leaving the United States without a voice in European security affairs" (p. 16).
Regime Change
Several statements advocating the possible necessity of removing hostile regimes can be found in the document.
"American military preeminence will continue to rest in significant part on the ability to maintain sufficient land forces to achieve political goals such as removing a dangerous and
hostile regime when necessary"
http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3580136,00.html
Move along, nothing to see here. The US and Israel are behind Georgia's initial provocation and actions. Exactly the same thing Carter and Brzezinski did in 1979, when they financed the Mujahideen and suckered the Soviet Union into invading Afghanistan.
The US and Israel are, historically, the greatest terrorist nations on the face of the Earth, as we all knew, move along, nothing to see here.
More from the blithering Idiot in the "White House of Ill Repute"
REMEMBER ALL THE US POSTURING IN 2002 ABOUT THE GLOBAL US EMPIRE AND HOW IT WAS THEIR DIVINE RIGHT TO RULE THE PLANET???
"Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century," the president said. "UNLESS YOU ARE A NEOCON US GOVERNMENT WHO'S "PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY SPELLS OUT THE USA'S PLAN TO BULLY THE PLANET"
"To begin repairing relations with the United States, Europe and other nations and to begin restoring its place in the world, Russia must respect the freedom of its neighbors," Bush said. "UNLIKE THE USA, WHICH HAS REPEATEDLY OVERTHROWN DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENTS IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE MIDDLE EAST"
Still, Bush said, "The Cold War is over. The days of satellite states and spheres of influence are behind us." " NOT COUNTING THE US NEOCON SHERE OF INFLUENCE ACROSS THE PLANET
The United States has rushed humanitarian aid to Georgia, using U.S. military planes that put American forces in the midst of the showdown with Moscow....A NICE CHANGE FORM THE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF WEAPONS THEY HAVE BEEN FLYING IN RECENTLY
"Moscow must honor its commitment to withdraw its invading forces from all Georgian territory," Bush said. " BUT THE USA DOES NOT HAVE TO REMOVE ITS INVADING FORCES FROM ALL THE PLACES IT HAS OVERTHROWN
The president said Americans might be perplexed why the United States had drawn a line in the sand in defense of Georgia, an impoverished country that is largely unknown on the world stage. OIL AND GAS, WHY ELSE?
"In the years since its gained independence after the Soviet Union's collapse, Georgia's become a courageous democracy," Bush said. "It's people are making the tough choices that are required of free societies. Since the Rose Revolution in 2003, the Georgian people have held free elections, opened up their economy, and built the foundations of a successful democracy." AS HAVE THE RUSSIANS
Aligning itself firmly with Washington, Georgia sent troops to Afghanistan and Iraq. WHICH IS WHERE THEY LEARNED THE BRUTALITY THEY HAVE SHOWN IN ITS SNEAK ATTACK ON OSSETIA
Bush acknowledged that Russia is anxious about the spread of democracy to its borders and sees it as a threat to its security. ( EXUCSE ME???? HOW ABOUT THE SPREAD OF DEMOCRACY INSIDE THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION....RUSSIA IS A DEMOCRACY, YOU FUCKING IDIOT!!
Our quest is to survive the machinations of our deeply flawed leadership. The skyrocketing level of plots, schemes, and intrigues is taxing the ability of statesmen and citizens to cope. The variables are so great, and pace of change so hyper, that even the best efforts often fall short. Bush seems hellbent on foolishly risking stability for anarchy. Not only is Bush dangerous but he is comfortable being deadly. He is a cold and hollow politician with strong megalomaniacal tendencies and seemingly capable of anything.
ijdavis August 14th, 2008 4:57 pm
"Or better yet blame the American people for being so dumb they elected a walking disaster area not once but twice."
Actually Bush was not elected either time, he stole both elections. The first time in Florida and the second time in Ohio. If you want to blame someone, blame the Democrats for capitulating to both thefts.
Lobo Gris
A brief history of US commitment to international law:
"There is no such thing as the United Nations". He added that "if the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." John Bolton, 1994
"...treaties are law only for U.S. domestic purposes. In their international operation, treaties are simply political obligations". John Bolton, 1997.
"It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law even when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so - because, over the long term, the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are those who want to constrict the United States."
The oil pipeline, of course, has nothing to do with these events.
Some background ...
"Georgia was taken over after the US-assisted removal of legitimately elected Georgian President Gamsakhurdia from power in Tbilisi on 7th May 1992, when George W. Bush Sr.'s corrupt Soviet trading partner Eduard Shevardnadze was 'parachuted in' to replace him."
"The former legally elected Georgian President (Gamsakhurdia) was found over the New Year of 1993-94 buried in a shallow grave in Western Georgia, having been both poisoned and shot."
Quotes from http://www.worldreports.org/news
I don't know what to believe - except that the welfare of anyone but the richest .01% does not enter into consideration.
Hillary Clinton
October 10, 2002
If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?
So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233783
Russia did go to the Security Council, early Friday morning. The US and Georgia refused to agree to a ceasefire.
"But McCain's brain remains undeterred by reality, a fact that became painfully clear today in Des Moines when he also demanded, "The US should immediately convene an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council to call on Russia to reverse course."
The problem with McCain's bold demand about going to the UN is that Russia already tried doing exactly what McCain called for–and got rejected by McCain's neocon pals in the Bush Administration. Early this morning, Russia convened an emergency session of the UN Security Council, calling on both sides to immediately cease hostilities, return to the negotiating table and renounce the use of force–but the last part about renouncing the use of force is exactly what Georgia's president Mikhail Saakashvili refuses to do.
The Bush Administration showed that it too has no patience with crunchy "renounce the use of force" resolutions. According to a Reuters report from earlier in the day:
At the request of Russia, the U.N. Security Council held an emergency session in New York but failed to reach consensus early Friday on a Russian-drafted statement.
The council concluded it was at a stalemate after the United States, Britain and some other members backed the Georgians in rejecting a phrase in the three-sentence draft statement that would have required both sides "to renounce the use of force," council diplomats said"
From:http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/08/09/10898/
So even CommonDreams commenters have fallen for the ruling class storyline and have forgotten that Russia went to the Security Council.
I know the Murderer is off to his Texas ranch to tally up that 2 1/2 years of vacation time, yet seems to me it was Hu, Putin and the Murderer at those there Olympic games?, it was "Murderer meet Murderer meet Murderer, Torturer meet Torturer meet Torturer..."
The whole run up to this Russia, Georgia and Ossentia bombing, shooting, murdering event which WAS NOT at the Olympics yet not Putin nor the Murderer could care less as long as Phelps kept gittin' the Gold...
"What's so funny about peace/love/joy/ understanding?"
Prediction: the world governments will keep up their righteous nonsense until humanity really hits a wall....like an addict hitting bottom...
(And assuming it is not the "Armageddon Bypass" - in which case you should start getting flexible because you will be kissing your rump goodbye.)
If we are very, very, very lucky (it would be miraculous, actually)...those of us who are open may receive a glimpse or vision of what Pierre Teilhard de Chardin called "the Omega Point": that destination and direction which can explain the rise of the universe towards ever-higher stages of consciousness.
Well, that's just my thought. You can fill in the blank as you wish. Just be fearless and envision the least cynical and most realistically positive and hopeful scenarios which just *possibly* might unfold...
Juan Cole has suffered the same fate as Naomi Klein. He established credibility with the left on Iraq, so now he becomes a useful tool on other subjects, to sell the war hawks (Brzezinski-Obamas foreign policy director) view on Russia. Naomi established credibility with "The Shock Doctrine", then gets used against China.
My how history repeats itself. So Russia had a little "Remember the Alamo" incident of it's own. Perhaps they will next force the loser, Sakashvili to the "negotiating table" and, as the "duly elected representative" of the Georgians, force him to sign a treaty ceding half of Georgia to the Russians for sixteen million dollars. (lol)
Why is it so difficult for commentators to acknowledge the fact that Russia was justified in its actions just as the US would be justified to take action to defend its citizens and allies in its own back yard.
We all know what a hypocrit Bush is, and that is not the point. Russia would have done what it did regardless of any precedent by the US. Russia did nothing wrong in smiting Georgia in defense of its soldiers, the Ossetians, and established UN mandates. Russia didn't need to ask permission from the Security council. No international law was violated. It can be argued that Russia is defending international law.
So, Juan Cole, you've got it backasswards. Bush & Cheney are not Putin's war enablers. Putin is actually a deterrent to the war mongering of Bush & Cheney.
Your commentary is irresponsible. You're a Russophobe.
Worth repeating. Thanks to RichM:
"Sen. John McCain: "I want to have a dialogue with the Russians. I want them to get out of Georgian territory as quickly as possible. And I am interested in good relations between the United States and Russia. But in the twenty-first century, nations don't invade other nations.""
His slips showing. I don't suppose Brian Ross of $$$ News is interested in reporting that. Maybe in 2014.
Rice is on her way to the area but MUST stop in France. I guess a stop in Israel to get her orders on what to say would be to obvious so she gets her orders from the new Jewish leader/puppet of France.
rtdrury 3:07 pm wrote:
"Employ the trial lawyers in a quest to expose intents among people of influence."
If 'people of influence' = 'politicians and their handlers', is that really necessary? Progressives usually know who the dopes and cutthroats are long before elections, but the people vote for, and elect them anyway. How about a plan to explain to the voters how to distinguish between the creeps and the good guys?
"An emboldened Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin sarcastically likened Russia's actions to Bush's foreign policy. Pointing to the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein..."
I guess they dont teach "irony" in the USA's poor excuse for an education system...
I am still seeing US Talking Heads expressing "shock" that some country would disregard another nations sovereignity...and with a straight face even...
I am sick of hearing about the "Russian invasion of Georgia"....NEWSFLASH! Georgia attacked Ossentia, and by treaty with the Georgians, the Russians were stationed there as peackeepers since 1991.
"TBILISI, Aug 14 (Reuters) - The United States will urgently press Russia to ensure free access to Georgian ports and the unfettered movement of ships from the ex-Soviet state, a senior U.S. envoy said on Thursday."
Just like everyone has free access to U.S. ports, eh?
militantliberal -
Thanks much for the link to the Bacevich article in Christian Science Monitor. I think his treatment of the whole Georgia/Russia situation is much better than Professor Cole's. Both seem to me to miss a couple of key points however.
First, Georgia's timing of its attacks into south Ossetia (while Putin was off to the Beijing Olympics) was strongly influenced by its recognition that the clock is running out on the Bush regime. Just like every surge-sensitive partisan faction in today's occupied Iraq keeps jockeying for position with one eye on what likely will happen come January of 2009, so too was the Georgian nationalist regime.
Also remember, George Bush I and Bill Clinton both extended assurances to Gorbachev and Yeltsin that the US would not go fishing in troubled waters as the Warsaw Pact dissolved and the Soviet Union came unraveled. Yeltsin was specifically assured by Clinton that there would be no US support for further expansion of NATO membership to include Georgia or the Ukraine.
George W the Lesser and his neo-con cabal squarely reversed that policy committment. Bush/Cheney/Condi also cavalierly ignored Russia's later threat that US support for a Kosovo independent of Serbia would cause Russia to retaliate by supporting secession from Georgia by south Ossetian nationalists.
How intimately the CIA and US military intelligence on the ground in Georgia were directly involved in Saakashvili's decision to pull the trigger exactly when he did is a bit beside the point. The handwriting was on the wall. Use it or lose it. If the threat of US and NATO backing were to carry any weight against Russia at all, Georgia had to intervene now. By January it would be too late.
So Georgia jumped. And Putin called the bluff.
Lo and behold, geopolitical realities of the region rudely reasserted themselves again, much as they have in the post-Iraq invasion Middle East.
Great big hat. Not nearly enough cattle.
Second, the future thing to watch in Russia's military push into Georgia is what happens to the oil and natural gas pipeline there.
Putin has already proven his cajones of stone when it comes to shutting off supplies for Europe in the dead of winter as a political blackmail tool. I say you can bet your last petro-euro that before the Russian army pulls back, that Georgian alternative pipeline route is going to be very securely within the Kremlin's control.
MiMiCcS -
And thank you for the Putin remarks.
I did not know Putie actually went around saying thoughtful things like this about global power relationships, the role of international law, and how destablizing for all concerned concepts like the preemptive war doctrine have predictably become.
Bill from Saginaw
Masters Of War
by Bob Dylan
Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build the big bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks
You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly
Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain
You fasten the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud
You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins
How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do
Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul
And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand o'er your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead
Bush: Why don't you shut up?
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/106067-bushshutup-0
Excerpt:
"President Bush, Why don't you shut up? How do you account for the fact that among the Georgian soldiers fleeing the fighting yesterday you could clearly hear officers using American English giving orders to "Get back inside" and how do you account for the fact that there are reports of American soldiers among the Georgian casualties? Kinda odd, eh?
President Bush,
Why don't you shut up? Do you really think anyone gives any importance whatsoever to your words after 8 years of your criminal and murderous regime and policies? Do you really believe you have any moral ground whatsoever and do you really imagine there is a single human being anywhere on this planet who does not stick up his middle finger every time you appear on a TV screen? Kinda makes ya'll think, eh."
First-beware all - Zunes, Cole etc - are the bait to garner and identify dissent within the US. Is there any real assurance that commondreams.org is not 'sharing' information of certain posters with our benevolent and liberty loving government-especially with the invention of the no fly list -(should be renamed -no escape list)- who may bring a bit too much logic and reason to the table?!
I am glad that most of the readership is aware that Georgia did indeed launch a blitzkrieg on a small province of 70K people and mercilessly exacted civilian casualties for the sole purpose of de-populationg South Ossetia (which was accomplished).
The question then is - that why was the tunnel - the only route of re-enforcements by the Russia's mighty army seemingly left intact? In short- why raze a city to the ground in hours- knowing there would be retribution and leave the ONE route for re-enforcements perfectly intact?!?
The answer -must be with in the realm of the obvious- which is -that the act was INTENDED to not only provoke Russia but also 'allow' it to invade Georgia as easily as possible. No need to dodge anti-aircraft guns, missles and use aerial deployment (a much more complex process)etc -just use the ONE tunnel that gives access to the region.
The 'plan' was quite simply - to sacrifice the pawn (Sashikivilli) to open up the lines for the bishops (Missle systems in Poland/Ukraine etc). The Russians - accepted the pawn sacrifice and brought out its knights (tanks). It has worked wonderfully -as within -5 days Poland has indeed become a signatory -justifying what it intended to do all along by using the retaliation by Russia -as a 'reason'. Now - the crcial state of Ukraine remains in the balance - and has been the prize all along. IF Ukraine also 'joins' Nato and the missile defence system- the Russian's are indeed encircled.
As for the impressive show of force and the wars of Bush used to draw attention to this overwhelming arsenal - it has worked splendidly. A bit like the bully who collects luch money fro everyone beating the bejeezus out of two small boys - and there by not only quelling dissent but in fact causing the formation of an orderly line -so that the bully can collect his money in the form of tribute in the roar of the deafening silence known as petrifying fear.
The United States has gone beyond it's ability to re-pay it's debt ever since the 1990's. The impressive and overwhelming use of force was not used for tactical reasons rather pyschological ones. The increasing show of military mght along with its brethren of indebted bullies (UK/France?Germany) - allows all of the bullies to continue to collect lunch money.
At this point - if the Neocons had any sense - it would basically wipe out the Federal deficits by calling the group of banks known as the federal reserve as terrorists - in the interest of national security. Although in a sense - they have donethat. By moving trillions of dollars of risky debt (much more than the federal deficit of a mere 9 trillion dollars) -and 'helping' out these banks- in effect - these private bankers can no longer actually charge interest or collect the debt. What exactly is JPMorgan/UBS/Chase goingto do to collect their debt? Not much I am afraid and that pretty much goes for the rest of the fools who bought into the US bonds- such as Japan, China, India, Germany. So in a sense - these wars -by accelerating spending at such a dramatic rate and the dim-witted masters of the FED Reserve -particularly Greenspan - have actually helped the US.
If we only had a president of courage - or a cabal (Cheney/Bush/Rove/Obama/Clinton etc) who would actually step forth and cancel the debt - the US is indeed set for several decades as a power that has so far been unrivalled in human history.
wsws, haha
George Bush is such a stupid hypocrite, along with McCain and the rest of the plutocracy. They have no shame whatsoever and feel entitled to do whatever and say whatever they want even if it's something absurd and immoral.
George Bush is shocked -- SHOCKED I tell you
-- that one sovereign country would invade another sovereign country!
Juan Cole better stick to what he knows. He is either clueless on this issue, or they got to him.
BTW, here is what Putin said in a speech in Munich a while back.
"The unipolar world refers to a world in which there is one master, one sovereign---- one center of authority, one center of force, one center of decision-making. At the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.… What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilization."
"Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and created new centers of tension. Judge for yourselves---wars as well as local and regional conflicts have not diminished. More are dying than before. Significantly more, significantly more!
Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper-use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts.
We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state's legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?
In international relations we increasingly see the desire to resolve a given question according to so-called issues of political expediency, based on the current political climate. And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasize this – no one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them. Of course such a policy stimulates an arms race.
I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security."
Why is it that none of our candidates hold the same views. It is because they want to maintain the current course. There will be no change.
Now, some Americans think if America is the sovereign this might be good-for Americans, and so go along with it. However, our leaders are not about national soverignty, but One World Government, where it is the elite of many other countries who will lead us. And that is not good for Americans.
Most of those in Congress and the Executive Branch over the last 30 years are guilty of high treason. They are not acting in the interests of the US, but instead represent the globalists who are destroying the US with their help.
Since my previous post (3rd from top), I have found a Christian Science Monitor column by Andrew Bacevich that makes my point better than I did. See
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0815/p09s01-coop.html
George Bush is something of an alter-ego to Gold Finger. Only in his case just about everything he has ever touched or meddled with turns instantly to SH*T. Don't blame the Russians. Blame George. Or better yet blame the American people for being so dumb they elected a walking disaster area not once but twice. The only thing protecting Americans from themselves is that George doesn't get the opportunity of running for president a third time around.
I'm sure we'll find out there was a legitimate reason for Georgia to attack its breakaway region, some provacation by the Russians. As for what Russia is doing to Georgia now, it's not comparable to what the U.S. decided to do in Iraq. Georgia has a legitimately elected government, Iraq did not. While I don't necessarily agree we should have invaded Iraq, at least not using the pretense we did, Georgia and Iraq are not comparable in any way, and those who say it is are delusional.
"Eight years ago, the United States would have been in a position to condemn Russia for its unilateral war without necessarily seeming hypocritical."
Um, er, I don't think so. Iraq was not the first time the US has barged its way in.
I really appreciate the filling in of recent history that this article provides. I also wonder if there isn't a superficial attraction between the words "George" and "Georgia." This would be consistent with the view that George W. Bush much like his mother, is a not fully formed person, lashing out at personal symbols and projections in a fragmentary, half-assed way.
Don't forget, the Georgians named their airport road after him-- years before any of the present trouble. After that, they had the man's loyalty unto death. And once George W. is loyal, reason had better not try to interfere.
Bush's bitching about Putin is nothing but an act. Privately they snicker together and wonder how many of us were fooled.
Nationalities are obsolete. Now there are only the rulers and the ruled. Both are international classes.
The super rich, aka the ruling class want to keep this truth from leaking out as long as possible.
Remember the final scene in ANIMAL FARM where all the animals (us) were looking in the window at the humans and the pigs (them) drinking and laughing about the lower classes and the lower animals being the same as far as they were concerned?
From now on all wars, diplomacy, international squabbles, will be only an act. Hell, maybe it always has been.
Well said, safiyyah,
Cole writes,
"The run-up to the current chaos in the Caucasus should look quite familiar:"
Way to go, Cole. In the run-up, go ahead and leave out the part where Georgia attacked Ossetia (except to let an unnamed French official bring it up midway through the article ""Saakashvili was crazy enough to go in the middle of the night and bomb a city"). Leave out the historical background. Don't bother to mention the American encroachment on former Soviet land and our expansion of military bases. Leave out any mention of oil or a pipeline, and leave out any mention of US, French, or Israeli involvement.
"With his doctrine of preemptive warfare, Bush single-handedly tore down the architecture of post-World War II international law erected by the founders of the United Nations to ensure that rogue states did not go about launching wars of aggression the way Hitler had."
So according to Mr. Cole the US did not engage in aggressive warfare between WWII and Bush. Why does Common Dreams bother to print academic hawks like Cole? He supported the Afghan War ("the right war at the right time"), refused to condemn the invasion of Iraq due to his "mixed feelings", and he's a huge "support the troops" cheerleader. He's also turned his blog into a Pro-Obama, anti-McCain rant. And apparently, he's either never heard of the Vietnam War, or in his hawkish fantasy it wasn't a war of aggression.
To equate our invasion of Iraq, with Russia's invasion of an area in which they had peacekeepers since 1992, that had voted for stay with Russia or be granted independence, that was a former autonomous territory, and that was pre-emptively attacked, is a truly distorted comparison.
When he blithely says Russia "called for regime change in a country that had defied Moscow" he blithely ignores the full exchange where Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin explicitly says, "Regime change is purely an American invention," "We're all for democracy in Georgia." Why did he feel the need to distort or even contradict the quote to support his argument?
When he says that Russia didn't go to the Security Council, I have to ask, how dumb is Mr. Cole? Does he not realize that the US possesses a veto on that council? And that the US was the primary military sponsor for Georgia's attack? Russia understands this is a proxy war. Clearly Cole does not.
Why doesn't Candy Rice help out in this dispute since she's (supposedly) an expert on Russia? Is scolding another country all she's good for?
Here is the McCain quote - http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/14/headlines#4
Jesusofjonesboro, I got the other quote from "Democracy Now" it has a great interview on today, Suskind, if you really can't find it, send me five euros and I'll mail it to you;)
Also you seem to be harbouring the illusion that this is my "work", how much are you paid to write your comments here? I do it for the love and adulation of my fellow posters.
"The two quotes do not appear to be equally ridiculous as you claim that they are. In fact, Obama's quote is pretty much what you'd expect any leader to say."
Ok, that is fair, as far as the quotes go, but I am considering them in the context of the article.
Consider: "Eight years ago, the United States would have been in a position to condemn Russia for its unilateral war without necessarily seeming hypocritical."
That is what I was keying off of. I am basically trying to point out hypocrisy. There is nothing hypocritical in what Obama is saying, if you have been in a coma for the last few years and didn't notice him voting in favour of continued Iraq/Afghanistan occupation and promoting attacks on Pakistan.
Thanks for the observation and the interest, I hope that makes my viewpoint clearer, now I have to go find my blood pressure tablets before my head explodes!
What the hell ever happened to Juan Cole? Does he have Alzheimer's? What is all these nonsense about going to the U.N. while the South Ossetians (only a hundred thousand of them) are wiped off the face of the earth? GEORGIA INVADED SOUTH OSSETIA and murdered, with the aid of mercenaries, U.S. and Israeli "trainers", at least two thousand people. Of course, when the Russians retaliated all these folks ran like hell. Who wants to die for podunk Georgia?
Mr. Cole writes "Russia acted unilaterally rather than going through the U.N. Security Council."
This sentence alone disqualifies Mr. Cole from taking shelf space in this supermarket of progressive ideas named CommonDreams.
What a display of ZERO knowledge of history and geography of Caucasus and elements of Great Game for world domination on the part of Masters of Universe from Washington, DC, the hired hands of World Oligarchy!
What an agreement with similar statement
"It now appears that an effort may be under way to depose [Georgia's] duly elected government. Russia has invaded a sovereign neighboring state and threatens a democratic government elected by its people. Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century" attributed to Mr. Bush.
Bravo, Mr. Cole. You have a good company!
OK. You've substantiated Obama's quote but not McCain's.
Yes, I've heard of Google. However, it's not my responsibility to do your work for you.
The two quotes do not appear to be equally ridiculous as you claim that they are. In fact, Obama's quote is pretty much what you'd expect any leader to say.
jj
Esusofjonesboro, have you heard of google? Do you want me to hold your hand while you try it?
OK I see you are more concerned about Obama and you apparently can't find his website either(yes I'm being snarky!)
Here it is damnit!
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/08/13/america/NA-POL-US-Elections.php?page=2
WANKER and his wrecking crew will still be around for about 5 more months. BE AFRAID - BE VERY AFRAID !!!!! What does WANKER mean? When you WANKER a person or animal, what is the punishment?
Good historical overview.It would take an absolute moron not to see
Bushes hypocrisy.Hearing bush scold Russia for invading Georgia is the same as Hitler scolding the allies in WW2 for not getting along.
There's a way to rebuild civilization on this planet. Employ the trial lawyers in a quest to expose intents among people of influence. Only after we can differentiate intents and employ peer and social pressures can we rebuild trust among people, groups and societies. Talk to your nearest trial lawyer and suggest he/she donate such service for the health of the society. Suggest donation of 10hrs/week to start. The results will be reported in the progressive media.
overkill August 14th, 2008 1:55 pm
"Is mankind just another failed species?"
Short answer, yes. Tomorrow or next year? No. But in comparison to the lifetime of this planet, we've been here but a heartbeat. And look what we have made of it. All because of our 'superior' brains we have substituted evolution with revolution. We are no better than any paraisite that eventually kills it's host.
Reminds me of Low's cartoon after Hilter-Stalin pact -- each calls the other, correctly, a criminal murderer.
jlocke123, if you're going to present statements as "real quotes" then you are obligated to substantiate that they are. Links to articles containing these quotes would suffice.
It appears that you're trying to stain Obama with Bush and Cheney's failures.
jj
Has everybody read McCain/Obama's statements on Russia/Georgia? They are ludicrous.
Obama: Russia must "withdraw its ground forces from Georgia" – Notice that he doesn't call for Russia to "redeploy" to Ukraine or for the Russians to increase military spending.
McCain: "Nations don't invade other nations". – Perhaps his memory is not what it used to be, but then he has said stupid things like this all his career and gotten away with it, hasn't he?
These are real quotes by the way, no fooling.
To someone observing US foreign policy, not the public platitudes but the real secret, bipartisan policy that continues to this day, whether it is run by Republicans or Democrats, this is indeed astounding hypocrisy. When is America going to get tired of these bumblers?
The first two paragraphs are built on dangerous assumptions. They assume that Russia and other states are so naive as to allow the USA to influence them. And that the USA has some kind of credentials that make it an influence on this planet if only other states were so naive. But neither assumption is true. And yet both are key elements of the mass brainwashing in the USA that enables the imperial skulduggery. It may seem like a minor issue, but why should we reinforce the imperial assumptions at all?
Some years ago I translated a book by the American historian Charles Kupchan on this matter. It was called The End of the American Era and in it the author explained why America's hegemony newly found after the collapse of the Soviet Union wouldn't last. From there Kupchan made a case for peacefully dividing the world into hemispheres each controlled by one of the super powers, warning that if it couldn't be done through negotiating wars would settle the matter in pretty much the same way, of course this time leaving millions of civilians dead in the process. Indeed it looks like we are going to split up our world the hard way. Inhabitants of small countries beware!
"Might Makes Right" is a great foreign policy...provided you have absolutely ZERO MORALS, and you can ensure you will always be the mightiest.
If not, you have just signed your own death warrant...much like Hitler did.
bye bye USA..we WON'T miss you
militantliberal:
Good job.
Well stated, Professor Cole.
Excellent analysis and definitely correct.
I'm waiting to see how the McCain Rovites try to use this story to attack Obama.
jj
Thanks to Juan cole for the very succint summary of the situation. Who the hell are we to point fingers at those "bad" Russians - they were just following a page out of our own playbook.
Bush/Cheney/Olmert's boy in Georgia failed in his genocidal assault on S.Ossetia thanks to Russia's quick response. Now the Evil Triad is howling about using the U.N. to stop genocide like in Rwanda. And the Great Shroud of arms continues to roll over the earth as it has for a thousand years and more. Is mankind just another failed species?
Juan Cole seems utterly lost in his Damn Them Both rhetoric. Both of them being the US and Russia.
'Russia acted unilaterally rather than going through the U.N. Security Council. It used massive force against a small, weak adversary.'
Excuse me if I don't hear an echo of Bush and Rice Talk with this weak, weak, weak analysis by you, John? Do you really think that Russia could go to the UN Security Council with its concerns over the Georgian destruction of South Ossetia? If so, then I believe you are quite a bit more in La-La Land than I had imagined before.
Our anti-Russian policies began during the Clinton era, when we punished Russian magnanimity in allowing the reunification of Germany and withdrawing peacefully from eastern Europe by expanding NATO to include the former Warsaw Pact members, barring states of the former USSR. Bush pushed the process forward by withdrawing from the 1972 ABM treaty and preparing to install ABM systems in Poland. And at last he insisted on trying to expand NATO to include Ukraine and Georgia. While I heartily disapprove of Russian aggression against Georgia, it's quite understandable. We have tried Russian patience beyond all endurance.
Hello!
Welcome to Hypocrites 'R' US.
Check out the Bush Doctrine, now in the $1 bin. Last chance. Soon they'll be gone!
We currently feature McCain rants and in the food aisle Obama waffles.
Pay no attention to the homeless and jobless outside, begging for scraps.
Thank you for coming.
When George Wanker Bush finally and mercifully dies and the world is at last rid of him, the name carved on his tombstone should be Raymond Shaw, the protagonist of "The Manchurian Candidate". In its history, the United States has been cursed by any number of rotten presidents. George Wanker Raymond Shaw Bush has proven to be the most rotten of the rotten, the principal assassin of our democracy and the catalyst for what may very well be a worldwide rollback of what little civilization the so-called civilized world still enjoys. The point of Richard Condon's novel "The Manchurian Candidate" was to demonstrate that the far left and the far right are one and the same. Bush has proven the truth of this, for he has shown himself to be both a Nazi and a Communist all at the same time.
Lobo, I do blame the democrats. And yes I would conceed that the last two presidential elections have both been stolen,
precisely where you say they were stolen. But ultimately I
think it is up to the American people to fix the plumbing that doesn't work in their own house. It is not seemly for the US
to be permitting election after election to be stolen. If the people of the US (a population of more than 300,000,000) can't collectively produce a political system that is answerable to them, and representative of them that is no ones failure but their own. The first step would be to eliminate your one party state, mascarading as a two party state. Yes the democrats and republicans differ to some degree. But they both oppose genuine democracy.