Reality Checks And Tough Talk On Georgia

By Cernig

Booman has a truly excellent post discussing something I've touched upon myself in the last couple of days - the hawkish wish to bang the war drum over Russia's actions in Georgia is, at the highest levels, a bi-partisan affair. I'm going to unashamedly quote a big chunk, because it's so spot on.

While many on the Left are twiddling their thumbs wondering why the United States decided to involve themselves in the Caucuses in the first place (a decision initiated by Bush and Baker in the early 1990's and enthusiastically endorsed by Clinton's powerful Commerce Department), the National Security Council (including Democratic members) and the NSC-in-exile (people like ZBig and Holbrooke) are having none of it.

This moment could well mark the end of an era in Europe during which realpolitik and spheres of influence were supposed to be replaced by new cooperative norms and a country's right to choose its own path. Hopes for a more liberal Russia under President Dmitry Medvedev will need to be reexamined. His justification for this invasion reads more like Brezhnev than Gorbachev. While no one wants a return to Cold War-style confrontation, Moscow's behavior poses a direct challenge to European and international order.

... This is power geopolitics at its rawest and it has major consequences for our strategic position in Central Asia and the Middle East. Did Dick Cheney say something alarmingly bellicose? Sure. But Cheney differs from Holbrooke only in tone. Russia is threatening more than the Bush/Cheney policy vis-a-vis Georgia. They are threatening eight years of Clinton foreign policy.

In the many years I have been writing this blog I have been a consistent critic of Clinton's foreign policy, especially in the Caucuses and as relates to NATO expansion. I made these points many times during the primaries. But there are two things you need to keep in mind. Just because there are legitimate criticisms of U.S. foreign policy does not mean that Russia is on the right side of history. But, more importantly, the foreign policy Establishment is united behind these policies and has invested in them over the course now of almost 20 years. There isn't a whole lot of room for debate over what should have been. We're here now. Like an aircraft carrier, you cannot turn around bipartisan U.S. foreign policy on a dime. This is not some uniquely neoconservative policy. This is U.S. policy.

Working to change that policy demands that we understand the policy as it is and as it has been. We need to understand the military justification of that policy (access to energy supplies to fuel our Naval Fleets and Air Force) as well as the economic justifications. And we should not kid ourselves that we will find Democratic allies in Congress or the Obama campaign that are going to argue that our policy has been all wrong all along. That will never happen. If this conflict becomes a matter of debate in the presidential campaign, it will not be over the wisdom of the overall policy. Obama would be abandoned by the foreign policy Establishment in a New York Minute.

That's the sad fact. So, the U.S. is not going to back down willingly. If it backs down it will be for the same reason that the USSR ultimately backed down during the Cuban Missile Crisis. If we back down it will be because this is ultimately in the Russian sphere of influence and we have no better options given the risk of nuclear conflict.

And, ultimately, no matter how much "ZBig", Holbrooke, Cheney, Kagan or anyone else loves their decades of hawkish policy, the US finds itself between the Iraqi rock and a Caucusus hard place. Over to Brandon Friedman at VetVoice:

For years, sane observers have noted that the decision to tie up the bulk of our Army in Iraq was strategically dangerous.  By overextending our military, the thinking went, the U.S. would be left with limited options should another, more dangerous conflict emerge.  And there was always the fear that such an overextension could, in fact, embolden our enemies to take advantage of the situation.

...It's the whole "what-if-another-conflict-broke-out-what-would-we-do-then" scenario ... even if we all wanted to rush our forces in to defend Georgia, we wouldn't have the capacity.  Everything is tied up.  Every combat unit in the Army is either overseas, preparing to go, or is recovering from a recent deployment.   

And Russia knows that. . .just like Iran and everyone else.  That figures heavily into the reason why Russia has felt so emboldened during this period.  The United States has neither the moral authority, nor the military forces with which to realistically intimidate them any longer.  And, at bottom, that's the most troubling aspect of this situation: Because the ability to intimidate, or, rather, "deter," has been precisely the purpose of our professional military since the Cold War.  Deterrence--our ability to influence other state actors with unacceptable damage through economic and military might--is what truly made us a world power.  It was never about the actual number of enemy killed on the battlefield.  It was about how frightened of us other countries were.  It was peace through strength.   

And it now seems as though we've lost that ability.

Seems to me like the VSP's of the bi-partisan foreign policy Establishment need their own reality check - but that's soooo not going to happen. Scary times - when people like the VSP's get bipartisanly frustrated, bad things often happen.

Comments

[Klaus]

Oh no, mate. The dangerous part would've been if the American army had not been tied up elsewhere, but free to go to war with Russia. Or Iran. Be glad they wasted it on Iraq.

[BJ Bjornson]

That is a truly excellent post.

I had forgotten that a number of years ago I said something to the effect that what Bush was doing overseas wasn't anything new. The policies hadn't changed, he was just being more blatant and undiplomatic about it. It's bloody frustrating to be reminded of it once again.

[Monkeyfister]

I think that keeping Putin's and Medvedev's (Gazprom 2000-2008) Energy Export Control motives in sight is by far the more valuable fruit, although I must say that you Newshoggers have been all over this story.

I'm seeing more typical and practical Russian motives:
http://monkeyfister.blogspot.com/2008/08/russias-big-move-on-energy-export.html

As much as I keep trying to cypher it all through, It all really only makes sense in an Energy Source Control context. The Turkmenbashi->Baku (TCGP) pipeline is effectively stopped, now.

I think that this was more an ill-timed and/or ill-prepared proxy war for pipeline control on the part of Georgia and NATO/US than anything else.

But, my own cypherings have taken me to some very dark places in considering Russia's continued push.

I like to call Putin the James Bond of the Russian Mafia... I think that we've seen some very serious masterwork here.

NATO is now utterly SACKLESS in this conflict, as they are 100% reliant upon the BTC Pipeline (Baku, Azerbaijan-Tblisi, Georgia-Ceyhan, Turkey), which carries Caspian Basin Oil and NatGas to Europe, and to the US. Both Russia and Georgia know this. Russia has dropped bombs perilously close to the pipeline, just to make the point. If that pipeline goes BOOM!, just stand by for Oil and NatGas prices to shoot back through the roof, and watch NATO scramble for some sort of feeble response. We do not want to wake up to that news.

By legally taking control of the NatGas spigot in Turkmenistan, they have really rendered even an invasion of Iran fairly moot, as we'd have to immediately press to Turkmenistan, and that'd appear simply garish and loud.

--mf

[Dyre42]

Even if we were only involved in Afghanistan I don't see W doing anything more than bringing this conflict before the UN Security Council. Ultimately there is no long term benefit in bailing out Georgia after they punched an ogre in the nose.

What remains to be seen is whether or not Russia will continue to find excuses to invade their former satellite states thereby building a second Soviet Union. That however reains to be seen and it may prove the to be the ultimate test of our next president's policies and mettle.

[Jimbo]

I created a account at Booman Tribune to comment, but, 12 hours later, still no response, so Iwill post the response here.

"This is a not a war Georgia wanted; it believed that it was slowly gaining ground in South Ossetia through a strategy of soft power."

Asmus and Holbrooke are full of it. South Ossetia was ignored and the South Ossetian have been looking North to the development in North Ossetia, and the Olympic building in Sochi and fondling those Russian Passports for a long time now.

Georgia could have taken significant chunks of that Western Aid and spent it on projecting soft power in South Ossetia, but instead, preferred to spend it on arms and training to allow the Georgian Military to take back the enclaves by force.

It is pretty obvious from their proposals that they are just reflexively wanking hard, and have not put any real though into the situation

"What can we do? First, Georgia deserves our solidarity and support. (Georgia has supported us; its more than 2,000 troops are the third-largest contingent in Iraq -- understandably those troops are being recalled.) We must get the fighting stopped and preserve Georgia's territorial integrity within its current international border. As soon as hostilities cease, there should be a major, coordinated transatlantic effort to help Tbilisi rebuild and recover."

Note, that there is not a single word about military support for Georgia. With out military support for Georgia, there will be regime change, not a bad thing in this case.

There will be no military support for Georgia because there is no Western Military force to support Georgia, it is all spent, in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Africa.

There will also be no military support for Georgia because nobody, other than American Crazies, are dumb enough to poke the Bear. The US has no power left, military or economic, and Europe needs to keep the lights on and their homes heated.

There will be little post war Western Aid for Georgia, because the new regime will be very well aware of which side of its bread, is buttered. Capitolism will march on, with Russian Companies favored, but there will be little rebuilding of the Georgian Military, and the New Georgian Government will be pro-Russian, or at least, much more circumspect about it's relationship to Russia.

"Second, we should not pretend that Russia is a neutral peacekeeper in conflicts on its borders. Russia is part of the problem, not the solution. For too long, Moscow has used existing international mandates to pursue neo-imperial policies. We must disavow these mandates and insist on truly neutral international forces, under the United Nations, to monitor a future cease-fire and to mediate."

No one has ever pretended that "Russia is a neutral peacekeeper in conflicts on its borders." The ugly reality is that as fast as possible, and as cynically as possible, (The Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution), the West has tried to peel away the onion skins of the 'stans along Russia's border.

Georgia shows that Western Promises of trade, arms and aid, are empty when push comes to shove.

Not unexpected when you in effect, "buy" something that passes in the West for Democracy through The Foundation for Democracy.

"Third, we need to counter Russian pressure on its neighbors, especially Ukraine -- most likely the next target in Moscow's efforts to create a new sphere of hegemony. The United States and the European Union must be clear that Ukraine and Georgia will not be condemned to some kind of gray zone."

The Western dismemberment of Yugoslavia, and Western helplessness have shown quite clearly, that yes, Georgia can be dismembered and so can the Ukraine.

Little Nations living next door to elephants have to accomodate the elephant, or face severe consequences, economic or military.

Sadly, "we" have common ground with the Elephant, and common ground with the Little Nations living next door to elephants, and much of it how ever, does not involve the isssues of the rich getting richer,

but not our Governments.

As ususal, Asmus and Holbrooke are wanking off for a domestic audience.

[John Shreffler]

Georgia, another bridge too far. Thank God the Airborne is already booked in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our pet Caucasian Terrier has picked a fight with a Rottweiler. Let's hope that the Rott pulls back before our cute little pet gets killed. Our foreign policy gurus should stay clear of the streets in their respective cities--they don't have any street smarts.

[Batocchio]

"Russia halts Georgia action"

Some developments...

[tp]

The US was involved in the Caucasus because the Clinton administration deliberately over-estimated the oil and gas holdings of the Caspian Sea, in order to encourage investment in the post-soviet states there to counter the Russians.