Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Bush Doctrine Meets Reality. Reality Wins.
The thing about Katrina was that you could see the results right away, so that even famously ignorant and deluded Americans finally began the process of understanding their president.
The thing about Iraq is that it's taken a bit longer.
True, some of it began to be painfully obvious, even relatively early on. For example, when an absurdly arrogant president, whose preening was matched only by his gross incompetence, stood on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln to declare victory in a war which essentially hadn't even begun yet. It wasn't long before people began to notice that the mission wasn't exactly, er, accomplished.
But even today, five years later, we are only beginning to take stock of the consequences of neocon hubris. For anyone paying sufficient attention to make the connections, we got a whopping dose of that reality this week as Maximum Leader Putin did his Vlad the Impaler trick on the tiny neighboring republic of Georgia.
Surely this will be seen by almost everyone as a wholly separate affair from the Iraq invasion. And, indeed, idiotic neocon commentators -- the same people, mind you, who brought us the Iraq debacle -- are already haplessly foaming at the mouth about Russian aggression in the Caucuses, demonstrating as always, but now more emphatically than ever, how irony and hypocrisy coexist so comfortably in the (puffed out) regressive chest.
In fact, Iraq and the Georgia war are joined at the hip in too many ways to recount, and must be understood as just such. All together, we are now beginning to see the consequences of the Bush Doctrine of foreign policy in all its full glory. And if you liked Katrina, you're really gonna dig this.
It was, to start with, remarkably jaw-dropping to see the buffoon-in-chief fulminating this week about Russia's transgressions in violating the prime directive of modern international law and politics: Thou shalt not invade another sovereign state's territory. Um, excuse me? Are you freaking joking? Do you mean like, Iraq, for instance? Only George W. Bush could be so practiced in the art of deception so as to say this with a straight face. It's not clear that he any longer even knows when he's lying these days, so routine has it become.
In fact, the two incidents are nearly identical in concept, with the minor exception that Putin's war was slightly more justified by the semi-reckless quasi-provocations of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, who was likely egged on by the Bush loonies and other neocons, including one of John McCain's top advisors. Iraq, alas, was even more of a false pretext. The country had no weapons of mass destruction (and so what if they did, anyhow? -- dozens of countries possess these). Bush knew they didn't, knew that the case for war was "thin," knew that Saddam had not attacked nor threatened us, and therefore just plain lied the US into the war.
Your average American is going to have a hard time seeing the Iraq war as morally equivalent to the one in Georgia (let alone even less justified), but that is simply because he or she is American. The rest of the world has no such problem, and never has. An invasion of a sovereign state is an invasion of a sovereign state, pure and simple. It was just that when Hitler invaded Poland and France, when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, when Saddam invaded Iran (with US encouragement and assistance) and Kuwait, when Bush invaded Iraq, and when Putin invaded Georgia. Of course aggressors are going to make up some bullshit about terrorism or WMD or democracy! My god, what would we expect them to say? Everyone understands that you can't say you're going in for oil or money or real estate anymore. Especially when you are in fact going in for oil or money or real estate.
What the Georgia invasion has demonstrated is how much moral authority has been sacrificed on the altar of neocon lies and state-sponsored violence in Iraq. Today, when such soft power might have the capacity to make a difference in leading a global response to Russian aggression, Bush would be lucky to have zero credits in his account. In fact, there's about as much in there as there is in the national treasury, now rapidly approaching $10 trillion in the red (a doubling, by the way, during the Bush years, of all the debt accrued by all 42 of his predecessors -- combined -- over more than two centuries). All that is over and kaput, at least until America gets a new president and, hopefully, as well, the kind graces of an international society that has every right to be outraged at our violent petulance.
Even if we get that lucky, what has been lost in the normative sense is far larger than just American respect and soft power influence. For the decade or two following the end of the Cold War, people might have been excused for believing that a new phase in the evolution of the international political system had been realized, one in which, while plenty of injustices would remain, at least the worst excesses of great power aggression seemed a vestige of twentieth century practice and eighteenth century mentality. That fantasy has now been put violently to rest, as the two greatest powers on the planet have returned to playing the great game with a vengeance, preying on lesser powers in pursuit of resources, strategic positioning or just plain national pride.
Now America learns that there is a cost to playing the game of international politics unilaterally, and with contempt for other countries. That cost is that they will return the favor. When you want help as your military bogs down in some insane quagmire, you find that they tend to remember when you yourself simply blew off the Security Council because you couldn't get the votes. When you're seeking to uphold a general principle such as nonaggression, you shouldn't be surprised that they remember you calling them all "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" when they were busy trying to block your aggression.
But it's not just soft power that has been squandered either. Theoretically, the US and its allies could be checking Russian aggression and its breach of the peace and of international law right now by deploying forces to defend one of America's (or at least Bush's) most devoted allies, and a rare outpost of something approximating democracy in that part of the world. Theoretically, American forces could be defending George W. Bush Boulevard in downtown Tblisi from the invading northern armies right now. Theoretically. In the cold, hard reality of the real world, no such forces exist. Now we find out that those who argued that putting 160,000 American soldiers in a completely unnecessary war in Iraq, while already fighting a tenacious enemy in Afghanistan would, among other grave concerns, potentially diminish American and world security should a real emergency come along, weren't just making it up. In fact, it's very likely that this disastrous scenario goes considerably deeper than that. Bush didn't just create a power vacuum that would be there in the event some sort of spontaneous emergency might simultaneously occur. Very likely, the American military impotence which emerged from his grand blunder in Mesopotamia may well have actually invited just such an episode.
It's hard to imagine that it didn't occur to Putin, presiding over a renascent Russia, that he could run wild wherever he wanted while the world's only superpower was tied down in a useless war, and its public exhausted with the prospect of taking on any other such projects. It's equally hard to imagine that Putin was quaking in his boots when the pathetic excuse for an American Secretary of State tried to lecture him by announcing that "This is not 1968 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia where Russia can threaten a neighbor, occupy a capital, overthrow a government and get away with it. Things have changed." My guess is that he thought to himself, "Da. Things have indeed changed, Condoleezza Phukupalot. You Yankees have foolishly squandered your military power in Iraq and now I can do whatever I want with total impunity." Yo, Condi -- have you heard? The road to Tbilisi runs right through Baghdad.
Certainly the Georgians appreciate this. They had more troops in Iraq supporting Bush's Folly than any country besides the US and the UK. The administration at least had the good graces to airlift these forces back to somewhere where there was a real war going on, over real security issues, where their presence would really matter. But pity the poor Georgians, nevertheless, who bet on the wrong horse. They could have learned a lot by talking to the Kurds and Shiites of Iraq, who rose up on the instructions of the last Bush in the White House, only to be slaughtered by Saddam while American forces literally stood by watching, under command from the White House not to save those chess pieces, er, I mean, lives.
And, quite possibly, Georgia is just the beginning. Russia is now feeling its oats, just as the toxic combination of nationalist pride and rage at perceived prior humiliation goes coursing through its veins. What do you suppose they're thinking in Ukraine or Kazakhstan or the Baltic states right now? I don't know, but I'd bet it's not dissimilar to what the Poles were thinking when Hitler swallowed up Czechoslovakia. There is no disincentive now on the table to prevent the Russians from reannexing their ‘near abroad', and there will be no American rescue if they do, just as there wasn't for Poland.
In this respect, it was only slightly less laughable and slightly less ironic to hear neocon par excellence and Iraq war architect Robert Kagan on the radio this week arguing for punishing the Russians by tossing them out of the meaningless G-8 talk shop and the similarly nearly worthless cooperative institutions set-up for Russian relations with NATO and the EU. Wow, Bobby, that will really peel them back, won't it? That's right, Bro -- ya gotta sting ‘em hard, man! How about a ban on caviar next, eh? Let's hit ‘em where it really hurts!
If you ever needed a sign of how far the US has fallen under neocon stewardship, this is it. Kagan was one of the principals in the now (very) defunct Project for a New American Century, an organization whose name tells you just about everything you ever needed to know about these clowns. Why they didn't just go with Project for Imperial Sickness and Subjugation, I'll never know, but maybe the resulting acronym would have been too obnoxious even for these walking personifications of Yankee arrogance. Anyhow, PNAC was an attempt to demonstrate just how bullying America could be, by advocating for the invasion of Iraq, going all the way back to the Clinton era. Once they finally found a president who would actually do the deed, it then became a successful attempt at demonstrating how stupid the country could be, as well.
Of course, people like this absolutely never admit to being wrong, even (especially?) when they are at their most egregiously erroneous, and it probably doesn't help that the American media continues to feature them on broadcasts as experts of some sort, as if they have any clue whatsoever of what they're talking about. But the truth is that the Georgia episode demonstrates nothing more clearly than just how seriously these hypernationalists have actually damaged American military power and world security. These are the same sort of people, mind you, who derided the conservative ‘realists' of the previous century for their timidity in merely containing the Russian bear, rather than launching World War III in order to roll back Soviet territorial gains in Eastern Europe and beyond. The kind of folks who thought they were hot shit because they got Reagan to ‘liberate' Grenada, that vast and strategically crucial chunk of the Soviet empire. The kind of people who don't have to bother doing their homework because they just govern from the gut, allowing them to look into someone's eyes and see right down to his soul.
Now look what they've wrought. Iraq is an open wound that shows little sign of healing anytime soon. It was supposed to be a kick-ass little blowout that would easily secure a slew of bases in the region, buckets of oil, Bush's domestic agenda (along the lines of selling off Social Security, etc.), and put the fear of a real god into the hearts of heathen Iranians, Syrians and Palestinians, as well as perhaps your odd Cuban or Venezuelan to boot. Instead, Colin Powell has described the US Army as "broken", and that was years ago. It's certainly that, plus stuck, plus completely maxed-out, short of a draft, which neither Bush nor McCain would dare attempt. American soft power -- the ability to lead, to persuade, to appeal to higher moral convictions of others -- is now similarly in the toilet. And thus it is that the neocons of the world have traded a disaster in Iraq for the inability to even do that which they once derided as inappropriately minimalist in the past -- protect allies from Russian imperialism.
Of course, that's only the beginning of the stupidity. How is it, by the by, that Russia went from being a former superpower on the way toward becoming a third world country -- so severely flattened that the very life span of its citizens had decreased by some ten years or so -- to now racing back toward becoming a global great power again, and a very pissed off one at that? Well, one good explanation would certainly have to do with how the US reacted as the country was imploding in the 1990s. Rather than reaching out with Marshall Plan type assistance, we sent an army of right-wing economists instead, who advised privatizing everything in sight. Which they largely did, and largely to disastrous consequences. One of Putin's achievements has been to regain the primacy of the state, and bring the hammer down on the latter-day robber barons who were formerly carting it off, piece by petro piece. In doing so, he has restored a measure of Russian dignity following the humiliation of the triumphalist US fire-sale treatment, and along with that comes no small degree of national pride at humbling exploitive and supremely arrogant Americans.
These sentiments were only further exacerbated by the expansion of NATO deep into the traditional Russian sphere of influence, and the unilateral American scrapping of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in order to pursue the military-industrial complex's greatest boondoggle ever, a missile ‘defense' system, now being deployed in Eastern Europe. Lastly, as if antagonizing a potential enemy wasn't stupid enough, the bright candles in charge of American foreign policy have done so while completely failing to significantly wean the country off of our petroleum addiction, all while driving up prices dramatically. Hey, guess who's got a whole ocean of oil at their disposal? Guess which country is growing rich and powerful because of that? Guess who is able to throw its political weight around based on this economic power?
If you were wondering a week ago how the buffoons in charge of American foreign policy could possibly screw it up any worse than they already had, now you know. If you were pondering whether the results of America's invasion of Iraq could conceivably get more disastrous than they have been for the last five and a half years, look no further.
For the neocon fantasy has now not only wrecked Iraq and wrecked America and wrecked US relations with longtime allies and destroyed the reputation of America abroad. It has also torn a gaping hole in the power and significance of international law and the hopeful notion that wars of territorial acquisition were a thing of the past. And it opened the door for the Russians to do precisely the same thing, further exacerbating those tendencies. The post-Cold War moment of hopefulness regarding a more peaceful world has now been crushed, and it wasn't the supposed black hats who originally kicked down that door. It was us nice, peace-loving, god-fearing, law-abiding folks here in good old ‘Murica who did it.
With apologies to Churchill (who owes an apology or two of his own), it may be said of our time, and of the those in charge of running the world's only superpower, that never have so many been so damaged by the insanely stupid actions of so few.
David Michael Green is a professor of political science at Hofstra University in New York. He is delighted to receive readers' reactions to his articles (dmg@regressiveantidote.net), but regrets that time constraints do not always allow him to respond. More of his work can be found at his website, www.regressiveantidote.net.
58 Comments so far
Show Allmy army went to Iraq and all I got was this lousy tax bill.
( and it isn't even *my* army.. because I would never have sent it there in the first place:)
observer,
Thank you and I will.
zzz August 15th, 2008 10:31 pm
Every one of those powers exercised complete control over all their territories and their law was the law under which those people lived.
Guantanamo does fit your example. So our entire Empire is Guantanamo? Just kidding. But that hardly fits the mold. Or we would not have given Cuba to the Cubans after we took it from the Spanish. Did we not close our base in the Phillipines?
Where exactly do you think the Mexicans got Mexico? The Hawaiians Hawaii, the Indians got their land? Or any other countries. You seem to believe that they all evolved from peaceful folks sitting around together. You want cruelty and Empire, invasion and slavery, look to the Native Americans that weren't native to America. My God you should study some Commanche history. What you say about us you can say about any country in other words.
Are we interfering in other countries business, you bet your bippy. Does Russia answer to the same charges you make againsrt us? Of course it does. So does China and a number of other countries.
Do I think all we do is good, of course not. Especially with the perverted leadership of the last 12 years. Do we exert power all over the world, of course. Our economy dwarfs everyone else's for now. Its being sold down the river along with the American working man, but it still is the King Kong of economies.
If someone hostile to us takes control of the Persian Gulf, you'll think Empire. Thats simply a fact of life. There are certain facyts that don't fit a utopian outlook but are reality. Thats one of them. It would wreck our country now. Thats why we need to become energy independent or as close as we can.
I would argue that Iraq and Afghanistan would never have happened without Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfield. I would not disagree that they may have had Empire in mind, not going to happen. My soul concern is to withdraw our forces asap...within two years and to elect a congress that won't allow this to happen again.
My point has always been that those that critisize how America was formed should look to their own histories first, look at where the territories came from when we got them, cut out the romantization and looking back for fault to reinforce present day arguments. We were the most sucessful of the bandits back then.
Are we wrong on the Carter Doctrine when the Russians say the same thing? I think not.
I simply see all our faults, just like the present fiasco in Georgia and Bush's hollow rhetoric that makes him (and us) look foolish.
"An argument could be made that, due to technology, more central authority is dictated by America (and the institutions it controls such as the UN(somewhat), NATO, IMF and World Bank etc…) than by previous empires."
I agree. Lastly I'd ask why do you think its so important to call us an Empire by some interests? Its essentially the same reason for calling illegal aliens illegal immigrants. To frame the argument of course. I believe people are smarter than that, it seems that most here don't.
You could with nuancing call us an Empire of sorts, I simply think that using the word Empire hurts our legitimate arguments, wins no friends and influences no enemies. I believe when you say that to the average citizen they will look sideways at you because they are thinking where is it? They will be thinking of countries.
Pax
Dear geenerthanthou:
Why are you surprised? With perpetual war somewhere, you get a perpetual war economy and perpetual war toys. The defense contractors love it. Why would they want a peace economy?
Phukupalot here.
I am surprised that the neocon folks here in 'Murica' did not panic when they heard that Russians were attacking Georgia.
new york vaporization
OleManRiver:
(Is the 1991 April Glas(s)pie incident with Saddam over Kuwait relevant? You bet!)
----------------------------
39 comments precede mine here... I have mention that episode few times somewhere else on CD and am happy that you metion it once more. April Glasspie provocation somehow escape its deseved attention even on the part of Royal Opposition. It speaks volume about the state of mind or level of understanding of otherwise intelligent people.
LowerofLove:
Yours are very good posts, right on target. The problem with many posters is that they are too specific. In our troubled times of Great Awakening (even such former Master of Universe like Brzejinsky is talking about it) understanding of our place in the REALLY BIG SCHEME of things is paramount.
Keep posting.
"The kind of people who don't have to bother doing their homework because they just govern from the gut . . . "
which proves they got shit for brains.
Add Putin to the honor roll of those who stood up to Bully Bush. Others who resist neo con created "realiy": Ahmedinijad, Kim Jong Il, Chavez. There is no effective resistance in the US now that Congress is totally cowed. Even if Bush has institutionalized his outlaw foreign policy, the US might be saved from escalation of violence by the strength of the enemies he has created.
Please , don't say anything to King George about the war taking place on our southern border, he's currently looking to how he can find troops for Afghanistan. or was that Georgia, so many fronts it hard to keep up with them all, if he knew that the philistines were coming across our border it might put him over the edge {I hope].
You forgot to mention the criminal invasion of Vietnam. That was the first "war of agression" which the USA entered into after WWII. I know the USA has subverted many other countries before Vietnam.
Vietnam is the granddaddy of all the new criminal 'wars of aggression' fought by and for the USA. It was also the first mega disaster for our nation.
39 comments precede mine here and not one mentions the Wag The Dog scenario that seems obvious here, set up by McCain and Bush and the neo-cons.
This disaster has been building up for months and years. The American-"educated" neo-con running Georgia is now on tape saying on the U.S. national news that he had been "warning" the West for months that Russia would attack and they ignored him. So why did he attack Ossetia, and provoke Russia when by his own testimony he knew what would be the outcome? To provoke a Western response. And why was Condi appearing with him for photo-ops in Georgia in July? (Is the 1991 April Glas(s)pie incident with Saddam over Kuwait relevant? You bet!)
The Georgia advernture may well be our Presidential election's "October Surprise" two months early, possibly with more to come. Europe knows far better than Washington does that Russia is by far the better chess player and now holds far more chits in the Great Game.
Meanwhile, what hubris is displayed by both McCain and Bush when, after our invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003 and 2001, they have the unmitigated audacity to assert that in the 21st century, countries do not invade other countries?! What gall. And a day later the revanchist Poland agrees to station U.S. missiles next to Russia? Talk about a Provocation...
As another commentator put it yesterday, this is the New Cold War. Only this time the Other Side is on the ascendancy and we are fackact. The United States is now totally bankrupt; morally, economically, politically, spiritually, empirically corrupt. The year 2008 will go down in history as the year of the Decline and Fall of the American EMPIRE.
(And, as an aside, we do not have something like 125 military bases abroad: we have closer to 700, depending only slightly on definition.)
Best to you all.
-30-
Morin then offers one answer to this poignant question:
Admit that the situation is logically hopeless, he suggests:
"…if the situation is logically hopeless, this indicates that we have arrived at a logical threshold at which the need for change and the thrust toward complexification can allow for the transformations that could bring metasystems into being.
"It is when a situation is logically impossible that novelty and creativity, which always transcend logic, can arise.
"Thus, it is when the chemical organization of groups of millions of molecules became impossible that a living auto-eco-organization first appeared."
French sociologist Edgar Morin has stated that 'the conscious pursuit of hominization' would bring about a new birth of humanity, which although possible, but not yet probable, would bring an end to the 'prehistory of the human spirit.'
This process, by definition, will involve a renunciation of "infinite expectations [such as] the conquest of nature without limit."
Morin goes on to give voice to the questions and objections any thoughtful person will ineviatably raise:
"Will the struggle for the survival of humankind be transformed into the struggle for the birth of humanity?
"Always and everywhere, domination and exploitation have prevailed over mutual assistance and fellowship. Until now, religions of love and ideologies of brotherhood have brought more hatred and disagreement than love and fellowship.
"Throughout history, madness and unconsciousness have more often than not swept away reason and consciousness. Why should folly and unconsciousness, one more time, not settle our destiny?"
Goose2
The reason that foreign tourists are swarming to the United States is that the dollar has collapsed and is now equivalent to a third world currency. You just stuff your pockets with all those dollars we're making because you're going to need them for toilet paper. Inflation last month: up 5,5 percent. That's in one month.
The boundaries between major evolutionary levels (such as energy, matter, life, and consciousness) are not always clear-cut.
Peter Russell has suggested that between any two can be found "twilight zones" where the new order is becoming manifest, but has not yet fully emerged.
However, to say that humanity may be in such a twilight zone - even now moving toward the birth of a new stage in the evolutionary process - in no way implies that the emergence of the next level is inevitable.
Our human hope can and should be that the complex web of political, economic, ecological and moral crises in which we find ourselves entangled - will act as an evolutionary catalyst: motivating the human species to move to a higher level of awareness by "forcing the issue."
This process can be termed "emergence through emergency," and, as a powerful stimulant---
"capable of inducing labor" --- has a long and honored place in the history of evolution.
"the semi-reckless quasi-provocations of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili"
So launching a genocidal war on a neighbor whom you promised to leave alone by treaty sixteen years ago now falls into the demure categories of "semi" and "quasi." Why does CD even publish this shit?
Thomas More,
"I use Empire in the generally accepted meaning such as the Athenian, Roman and British Empires.
An entity such as America would have direct control of the peoples and territories in its Empire."
But none of the empires you cited directly controlled every territory or every person in their empire, they relied on local rulers, and many places enjoyed large degrees of autonomy even within an empire. Their empires were so vast that true central authority was difficult given the speed of transport and communication. An argument could be made that, due to technology, more central authority is dictated by America (and the institutions it controls such as the UN(somewhat), NATO, IMF and World Bank etc...) than by previous empires.
"But even that is imprecise, because all our bases are there at the convenience of the host countries and we always leave if asked."
Are you joking? Tell that to the Cubans. How do think we got Guantanamo?
When have we ever left anywhere when we where asked to leave? Are you including places like Iraq (or Vietnam before it) where the puppet government asks us to stay, while the population asks us to leave?
The debate over the US being an empire centers on whether or not other countries are under our central authority. Note that their is no requirement as to how many countries be under our authority to qualify as an empire. That being said, setting aside our modern empire with it's bases and puppet governments, how can you argue that the Spanish American War was not the aggressive expansion of our empire? How can you argue that our annexation of Hawaii was not an expansion of our empire? Or the Mexican American War? Do you think it's fair to just ignore how this country came to be?
What about the Monroe Doctrine that seized this entire hemisphere for the US?
"We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety."
Or the Carter Doctrine?
"Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."
Using military force to protect our economic interests half a world away sure seems like empire to me. I suppose you would argue it's only hegemony, because there is no formal empire. But isn't our occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan evidence enough for empire? Or would you argue those are humanitarian wars and that we'll soon be leaving those countries? (with no bases and no installed puppet regimes)?
elmysterio August 15th, 2008 7:23 pm
OK, you win, Putin is much, much smarter than Bush. Smarter squared for that matter.
jlocke123 August 15th, 2008 7:35 pm
elmysterio August 15th, 2008 7:17 pm
I use Empire in the generally accepted meaning such as the Athenian, Roman and British Empires.
An entity such as America would have direct control of the peoples and territories in its Empire. That is what 98% of people would expect you to mean if you say Empire. Confusing and imprecise terminology is a killer in discussion.
An argument can be made that we have a political/trade Empire if you were discussing this in the Professor's lounge. But even that is imprecise, because all our bases are there at the convience of the host countries and we always leave if asked.
Thats why the use of the term Empire doesn't fit as far as I'm conserned. I do think thats what the goofy boys had in the back of their minds though.
"Russian pride and nationalism is also very strong. If the US continues to provoke Russia, there will be consequences. If the US does end up directly confronting Russia militarily in the region, the Russians will not back down. It's a matter of national pride. This is one situation where the US must back down, the Russians won't."
Ib agree, they are trying hard to restablish their national pride and we will certainly help them here. This is a winner for them and a loser for the idiot in charge. Come on January.
Putin has no intention of engaging us militarily. He knows the result of that. trust me here. They want no part of us in the field. No part at all. This is a blustering match where the Russians win or allow us to get out of it with face by their good graces.
Remember China is their problem, not us.
You believe anything anybody says at the UN? I don't. Especially if its our ambassador!
Pax
For decades a very corrupt and controlled media has been directing the attention of the masses (that's you and I) by uniformly reporting on a state of managed chaos, which is scripted and staged to produce mental confusion and fatigue.
The relentless reporting and rehashing of catastrophic and traumatic events with images of despair and destruction repeatly planted into the minds of "news consumers," creates overwhelming states of anxiety (quite often layer upon layer hidden from our conscious awareness). Such activity can be thought of as a form of psycholotical warfare.
Authorities play with truths, half-truths, deceptions, and lies to render all of us feeling it is hopeless and pointless to do anything at all.
In this way a paralysis of personal and bottom-up social power takes hold because countless people become convinced that the only reality is what is described and perscribed by the wizard authorities pulling levers "behind the curtains."
~Goose2~, I think they were referencing the "Cuban Missile Crisis".
Its cool to see that one need not be necessarily recalling history to come to reasonable conclusions about today's World.
I think that might put lie to a few myths.
Goose2 said: "If they put ABM missles in Cuba, I don't really see that as an issue at all. Let them. Same as US missles in Poland. Not a threat."
I think your government would have a much different opinion of that.
Thomas More, can you say why you think the US is not an empire?
>>Yep…lets say the Russians set up missles on say…oh…Cuba. Would we be unhappy with them? You bet your knickers we would. I don't blame the Russians one bit.<<
If they put ABM missles in Cuba, I don't really see that as an issue at all. Let them. Same as US missles in Poland. Not a threat.
>>- Most Non-Americans, like myself, are increasingly becoming anti-American due to the reckless and aggressive actions of your country.<<
I keep hearing that then run into Europeans here on vacation all the time and they seem really happy to be here. Our foreign trade is at an all time high. Tourism to the US is at an all time high. If the world is so anti-American why aren't there any serious tangible effects of that? Seems that most everyone everywhere is willing to go on with their lives and watch our movies, listen to our music, buy our products and come over to visit. This is international oprobium that still seems to put $ in our pockets so why is it important? More importantly could it actually be a draw for foreigners to come here and spend? Maybe.
I just don't buy that everyone hates us that much given the financil figures.
Thomas also said: "Putin is a bit smarter than the Bushies. They have to come to him. But failing a military attack on Russia by us, Putin isn't going to do anything. Make no mistake about one thing, Russia has no interest in tangling with us. So rest easy."
I disagree...
Putin is MUCH MUCH smarter than the Bushies, and he's also a realist. I do agree that he's not interested in getting into a war with the United States... But keep this in mind, Putin is no wimp. He's a tough as nail KGB officer. Russian pride and nationalism is also very strong. If the US continues to provoke Russia, there will be consequences. If the US does end up directly confronting Russia militarily in the region, the Russians will not back down. It's a matter of national pride. This is one situation where the US must back down, the Russians won't.
Who else disagrees with my assessment @ August 15th, 2008 5:40 pm? IF so, why?
Thomas: How can you deny the US is an empire? With over 170 foreign military bases spanning the globe and client state after client state... when the US Ambassador to the UN stands up and declares the Caucasus region a "Sphere of American Interest", he's acknowledging the empire. Come on Thomas, I know you're not a stupid guy, take off the "American, right or wrong" glasses and take a GOOD HARD LOOK at what your country has been doing while the population was asleep.
greenerthanthou August 15th, 2008 6:18 pm
I didn't think you were.
We don't have a leg to stand on in this mess. As far as taking their troops back, those were troops that we were obligated to return on MATS since we brought them over in the first place. Thats about all Georgie Porgie could do to tweak Putin here. Putin has Bush in a box.
I'm not in any way a fan of our elites or the academic effetes that are our "ruling class"
But claiming falsehoods simply because they are cherished fables is not acceptable to me.
There won't be any war over this, trust me. Georgia or Bush, whoever decided this made a mistake. But We have no interest in fighting Russia and you can be assured they have zero interest in fighting us.
"you wouldn't be so insulted by those of us who point our their flaws, their evil schemes and their vicious behavior in the world."
You've never insulted me. I will however read everything twice to make sure I'm not being unreasonable.
Pax
elmysterio August 15th, 2008 5:40 pm
Sorry, not an empire.
"Most American PEOPLE are not evil. Some are." Yep!
Most Americans are not ignorant to world realities, some are.
"The US Government IS undeniably evil" Not our government, just the ones in charge at the moment.
"Most, not all, Americans are woefully arrogant when it comes to other nations."
I don't think so, I hope you are just meeting the wrong Americans. Most of our top 10% would undoubtably meet that description.
"Most Non-Americans, like myself, are increasingly becoming anti-American due to the reckless and aggressive actions of your country"
With the last 12 years I'm a little pissed at us myself.
The US had a great opportunity to foster a new international norm of peace and co-operation after the fall of the USSR.
"The US squandered this opportunity by pursuing an arrogant and aggressive posture and promoting" (corporate profits) "over peace."
Yep.
"The US went too far with the placement of ABM equipment in eastern Europe, under the guise of "Iranian missile threats", which of course, any rational thinking person knows is bunk. The Russians know it is aimed at them."
Yep...lets say the Russians set up missles on say...oh...Cuba. Would we be unhappy with them? You bet your knickers we would. I don't blame the Russians one bit.
The Georgians are doing what they want to. Catering to us to counter Russias power. Do they take orders from Washington...don't know, but I'd doubt it. Could be however. Is that different than Cuba even if it was true?
"The Russians are NOT going to blink in the confrontation with the west in the Caucasus region. They're just not."
In can't think of a single reason why they should. They hold the upper hand here. They are well aware we are not going to put troops in Georgia or do anything else.
Bush looks like an idiot with his huffing and puffing.
Putin is a bit smarter than the Bushies. They have to come to him. But failing a military attack on Russia by us, Putin isn't going to do anything. Make no mistake about one thing, Russia has no interest in tangling with us. So rest easy.
Actually we mostly agree I think. Except Empire and Evilism I guess.
I was amazed by the false assumptions of this article. Thanks to all who pointed out that Georgia is on the border with Russia, that South Ossetia chose to stay with Russia and Russian soldiers were there to protect them, that Saakashvili, funded by the US and pumped with arms, money and military training by the US, attacked South Ossetia in the middle of the night, killing thousands of civilians and some Russian soldiers, and forcing thousands more to flee their homes.
How is this something the US could support with troops if only they weren't tied down in Iraq? As it is, the US does have troops in Georgia, and the US used military planes to fly Georgian troops back to attack Russian troops. Really, Russia could have shot those planes down with justification, but, as usual, refrained from provocative measures to avoid a wider war.
The US ruling class is provoking Russia, and I cannot understand why. It's almost as if they want a war. But this war would not be the usual US war, fought far from our shores, and not causing any US civilian casualties. At least, I assume that it could spread to nuclear weapons.
We wouldn't have to take other people's oil if we switched to renewable energy.
Thomas More, I am not criticizing the American people, but the American ruling class. If you would realize that we have nothing in common with them, you wouldn't be so insulted by those of us who point our their flaws, their evil schemes and their vicious behavior in the world..
I find it so warm and supportive that the great "Dr. Rice" was sent asap by Geo, and supplies made it overnight---No so true of New Orleans w/ Katrina...
Read the comments above. I agree. The "best and the brightest" are absolutely clueless about international affairs, international economics, etc.
All they seem to "know" is what their corporate taskmasters tell them, i.e. "protect our oil buried under their sands, expand our markets, install local puppet leaders, and use American taxes and armies to do so wherever and whenever necessary."
Outside of that globalist mantra, they are lost.
God save the Republic.
Putin 1 / Neo-cons 0: checkmate in the Caucasus
I always enjoy Green's articles even though they sometimes are, for non-Americans like myself, a bit of an expedition into the obvious.
The point I would take issue with is the equating of the Iraq war and occupation with the recent Russian response in the Caucasus. As Green expresses it:
"In fact, the two incidents are nearly identical in concept, with the minor exception that Putin's war was slightly more justified by the semi-reckless quasi-provocations of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, who was likely egged on by the Bush loonies and other neocons…."
Actually in many important ways the two "incidents" are polar opposites as others here have noted:
--The neo-con attack on Iraq and resulting quagmire was an unprovoked war of aggression; Russia's limited military incursion was in response to the Georgian attack on South Ossetia.
--Most South Ossetians want to be reunited with their ethnic kindred in North Ossetia; likewise the Abkazians do not wish to be part of Georgia. The Russians were cheered when they arrived in both areas and they did stop the Georgian attacks. The Americans were not welcome in Iraq and are still floundering in a quagmire of their own making.
--Compared to the unbelievably brutal American massacre of Iraqis, the Russian response was one of surgical precision, with limited goals: drive the Georgians out of territory where they are not wanted, crush the military of this crackpot American Saakashvili with limited incursions into Georgian territory, and then withdraw.
--This is not to regard Putin as a humanitarian; it is, however, quite obvious this man is no fool and has caused a massive geo-political shift under the feet of the neo-con "hyper power," and this at a very modest cost indeed. In fact the Russians can claim, with legitimacy, to have saved Ossetian lives.
--Finally Iraq is thousands of miles from the uber-Homeland; Georgia, birthplace of Stalin, is right next door to Russia. I am sure the Russians would like to see the end of Saakashvili, but a complete occupation and absorption of Georgia would be far more trouble than it is worth.
Over 1 million Iraqis dead, 1.8 million Iraqi refugees, a totally destroyed infrastructure and an occupation that has lasted longer than U.S. involvement in WWII...
...vs a one week Russian punishment expedition and withdrawal across the border?
Unless the Russians decide to go all out and occupy Georgia and start massacring them the way the Americans have the Iraqis (they won't), they are not even close. If Green really wanted a somewhat parallel scenario he should have highlighted Russian war crimes in the 2nd Chechen war vs American in Iraq—Groznyy vs. Falluja for example.
The main point is that the neo-cons launched an unprovoked war of aggression in Iraq with the intention of total subjugation and long-term occupation, not so the Russians with Georgia who were stupidly provoked, right on their border, by an American quisling.
The two incidents are therefore not at all "identical" in concept. The neo-con attack on Iraq was lunacy that has created the greatest humanitarian disaster of the century. Putin, already checking the Americans all over the board in oil-rich Asia, has just checkmated them in Georgia.
DR-Montreal
Another irony is that for all those who call Putin an autocrat or tyrant, he did save Russia and rebuilt its state that was almost completely ruined by the shock therapy and pirate capitalism of the 1990s. Bush has done exactly the opposite to the US. This is why Putin's approval rating is 85% (as of the end of 2007 measured by of all publications, the Wall Street Journal) while Bush's is nearly the opposite.
Jaguara is right. Even if this article is well intentioned, it drinks from the same well of Russophobia as the neo-cons, who have been foaming at the mouth at getting a chance to crush Russia for decades now.
The Russian mission in Georgia is nothing like that in Iraq. In fact it isn't even like the month-long bombing campaign of Serbia by NATO (and NATO did set a precedent by carving Kosova out of Serbia). Russia's punitive expedition lasted less than a week, but the West is in a hyperbolic lather -- a clear indication of the neo-con virus that has infected all these right-wing politicians. Moreover, Georgia is right on Russia's border with enclaves of Russian citizens who were brutally attacked in a treacherous assault hours after a ceasefire was signed. The fact that the US goes around the world to interfere with other countries, while Russia tries to defend itself is a point that cannot be forgotten.
In fact, the Georgian forces fled in disarray. Russia didn't even have fight much, but they did take advantage to destroy some of Georgia's expensive weaponry and capture themselves some NATO loot.
Thomas More: The reality of the situation is this:
- Most American PEOPLE are not evil. Some are.
- Most Americans are ignorant to world realities.
- The US Government IS undeniably evil.
- The US is an Empire, not a republic.
- Empires are always evil.
- Most, not all, Americans are woefully arrogant when it comes to other nations.
- Most Non-Americans, like myself, are increasingly becoming anti-American due to the reckless and aggressive actions of your country.
Then to the Georgia situation:
- Saakashvili is a fascist, created by the US. He takes his orders from Washington.
- The US has been antagonizing Russia since the early 90's.
- The US had a great opportunity to foster a new international norm of peace and co-operation after the fall of the USSR.
- The US squandered this opportunity by pursuing an arrogant and aggressive posture and promoting empire over peace.
- The US went too far with the placement of ABM equipment in eastern Europe, under the guise of "Iranian missile threats", which of course, any rational thinking person knows is bunk. The Russians know it is aimed at them.
- By setting up a proto-fascist, pro-US government in Russia's backyard, they crossed a 'red-line'. Russia can only take so much before they must push back. Any rational thinking person would do the same.
- The Russians are NOT going to blink in the confrontation with the west in the Caucasus region. They're just not.
- If the US continues to antagonize Russia in the region, the results will be disastrous for everyone.
Do ordinary Americans know that the Georgia we are talking about is somewhere in the Caucuses and not in the American south? Will brain-dead Americans care? I doubt it. Also, it was Saakashvili who invaded South Ossetia under cover of night (and the Olympic opening ceremonies), killing 2000 Ossetians and creating 40,000 refugees who fled into Russia. The Russian invasion was a response to this subversion of the entente. It is not comparable to the US invasion of Iraq.
"In fact, the two incidents are nearly identical in concept, with the minor exception that Putin's war was slightly more justified by the semi-reckless quasi-provocations of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili,"
Launching artillery at a city is only "semi-reckless"? only a "quasi-provocation"? As for "identical in concept" The are so many differences I don't know where to start, but to begin with Iraq was never part of the territorial US, we don't even share a border with Iraq, there was no provocative act to start the war, and the Russians weren't beefing up Iraq's military in order to launch a proxy war against the US, not to mention the oil.
"An invasion of a sovereign state is an invasion of a sovereign state, pure and simple. It was just that when Hitler invaded Poland and France" - or when we invaded and then occupied Japan and Germany...? Yeah, it's simple, black and white, minus the contradictions.
"Theoretically, the US and its allies could be checking Russian aggression and its breach of the peace and of international law right now by deploying forces to defend one of America's (or at least Bush's) most devoted allies, and a rare outpost of something approximating democracy in that part of the world."
So Georgia is a democracy because they're backed by the US, but Russia is not because they aren't. No mention of Georgia starting the conflict and violating international law. No mention of the collusion of US and Israeli military advisers in this war. Yet when we talk about the history of the Vietnam War, for example, we now tend to include the prominent role of US military advisers.
"Now we find out that those who argued that putting 160,000 American soldiers in a completely unnecessary war in Iraq, while already fighting a tenacious enemy in Afghanistan would, among other grave concerns, potentially diminish American and world security should a real emergency come along, weren't just making it up."
Call me crazy, but I don't think even the suggestion of deploying US forces in Georgia would help world security, or for that matter "US security". I don't see the Russians (or anyone else) starting wars in our hemisphere and I don't think anyone put the US in charge of world security. We tend to make the world less secure. Spare me this absurd "Red Dawn" fantasy.
I'd say Churchill has a lot of apologizing to do. Quoting him is like selectively quoting Franco. He''s a war criminal not a hero.
Churchill was secretary of state at the war office when the Royal Air Force asked him for permission to use chemical weapons against "recalcitrant Arabs" as an experiment. Winston promptly consented (Yes, Churchill's gassing of Kurds pre-dated Hussein's by nearly 70 years).
"I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes," he explained, a policy he espoused yet again in July 1944 when he asked his chiefs of staff to consider using poison gas on the Germans "or any other method of warfare we have hitherto refrained from using."
It is important that we don't miss the Whole by looking only at the parts.
Speaking of 'forests, trees, and seeing the Big Picture'.....
******************************************
In his book, The Global Brain, Peter Russell frames our the current situation this way:
"If, however, humanity does find ways to resolve the various problems and conflicts facing it, it will have proved it can adapt successfully.
"In this respect crises not only serve as evolutionary catalysts, but also as evolutionary tests, examining the adaptability of the system. Indeed...we may have reached the final test of our viability for further evolution.
"This test, of course, is not a physical test. It is a test of our consciousness.
"It is an assessment of whether or not humanity is psychologically and spiritually fit to live on the planet Earth, whether we can change at a very fundamental level the way we relate to others and to the environment, whether we can work in harmony…whether we can balance centuries of material progress with an equal amount of inner growth"
And the result of 2-4 is blowback, which we are seeing.
Dave,
I have been thinking the same thing. I figure it is a combination of four possibilities. 1.) These people are clueless when it comes to world politics. 2.) Despite their denial that they do not want to rekindle the Cold War, they are following a pattern which is doing what they said they were not going to do. 3.) Cheney wants his war with Iran and this is one way of getting it. 4.) The neocons want to keep the world in a perpetual state of war so they can try to "change the world" with their New World Order policy.
My guess is 2, 3, 4.
jlocke123 August 15th, 2008 1:48 pm
Everbody here seems to keep missing the point. Always thinking one or the other.
American exceptionalism is not something I believe, but this constant American evilism is a bunch of B.S. and I certainly don't buy that.
Bush nad Putin are twin despots, except Vlad is a little more careful in his timing.
Isn't the hypocrisy breathtaking? I don't know if these people are utterly clueless or simply so arrogant that they feel not the slightest fealty to the truth.
Dave
I can agree with quite a few of Mr. Green's points...however...
His attitudes toward Russia show that all too common Cold War prejudice and bias.
Sure, point to today's propoganda while not realizing that many of your views are a product of old Cold War propoganda.
The Russians may not be innocent, but neither are they evil.
The French have perhaps the best assessment of this...that Russia has "overreacted" or "responded out of proportion". That is AT MOST.
The fact is that the Russians have been merely accepting and turning the other cheek after an innumerable barrage of offences.
We can say that Iran building a peaceful reactor is a threat to us that we can respond with force against...but then respond with shock that our missile defence on the Russian border is being perceived as an equal/greater threat!
Absurd.
"But pity the poor Georgians, nevertheless, who bet on the wrong horse."
Do not pity the poor Georgians, Mr. Green. I am yet to see Georgian who would not understand that less than 4 million Georgians will be lost in the Muslim sea surrounding Georgia and Armenia. Current Armenia is but one third of its former self and the same fate awaits Georgia. Tbilisi was once muslim town after forced conversion by Timurleng and then Turks. Last Georgian King bequested his country to Russian Emperor in 1802 for good reason. Paid agent Saakashvili and other quislings sold out Georgia's future to Corruptor-in-Cheif; but of course fast pens like Mr. Green have no time study history.
Mr. Green wrote: "Maximum Leader Putin did his Vlad the Impaler trick on the tiny neighboring republic of Georgia."
His further comparisons of Putin with Bush do justice neither to Bush nor to Putin for Mr. Green as any memder of American royal opposition does not see forest beyond the trees. Progresive hero JFK did exactly what Putin did when Mr. Khrushchev put couple missiles on "the tiny neighboring republic of Georgia, err, Cuba" risking nuclear anihilation. "Whatever it takes", - said American hero, - to everlasting applause of progressive American patriots. To defend what? the American way of life? The way to current cancer of the Great Rippoff?
Give me a break, Mr. Green. Your sense of judgment had left you.
In the early days of the "Troubles" in Northern Ireland, the (southern) Irish government considered sending troops over the border to protect their co-religionists in Derry. Such a move would have surely resulted in the British government sending its army to kick the sh** out of the Irish Army and defend the interests of the other half of the Northern Irish population - again co-religionists, and, like the Russian passport holders in South Ossetia, basically colonists.
Thank God the US government of the day wasn't run by neocons, or beholden to NORAID (the AIPAC of its day).
Yes, it took thirty more years to sort things out, and more than 3,000 people died violently along the way, but a war between Irealnd and Britain would have surely killed that many in a week.
As Churchill put it: "Jaw jaw is better than war war."
American exceptionalism was killed by the neocons. That is a point of this article. Had we maintained our place in the "free" world of setting and following the moral standard and a belief in the rule of law we would still be exceptional. As it is we have joined the rank and file in the history of the world.
Beautiful article, David Michael Green. Well done!
Thomas More, It's because we love America that we weep for what it has become. The sooner you lose "American exceptionalism" the better off you will be.
I should say I am not laughing at ordinary Americans, but Nightwatch's comment struck my funnybone. It just conjures up images of our Preznit who refers to Africa as a nation.
On a separate note, I enjoyed reading Prof. Green's article. He is spot on.
Thank you, Professor Green; you offer an assessment of an ongoing history that is both succinct and precise. To read it is to experience a catharsis via affirmation.
I do enjoy enountering the oxymoronic phrase "neocon hubris" (para 4): a bit of jabberwocky informing the realpolitik.
Its a shame us po ole Amercans don't enjoy the lofty intellect and knowledge of the imperial global elite here.
I don't disagree with many of Green's points but his anti-American diatribes grow old.
He is one of those that decries American exceptionalism and embraces American evilism apparently. Pathetic hypocracy.
"Do ordinary Americans know that the Georgia we are talking about is somewhere in the Caucuses and not in the American South? I doubt it."
LMAO!!!
The bullying imperial king monkey Bush has the chutzpah to accuse Russia of "bullying" after he has Iraq attacked and kills a million or so innocent Iraqis for no reason other than profiteering for himself and his cronies.
What goes around comes around`````````````````