Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Reed: We Cannot Afford to Wait for Russia to Leave Georgia

The coin has been tossed - but more importantly, the gauntlet has been thrown down, and America must respond.

Boris Yeltsin, the first democratically-elected leader of Russia in its long and storied history, had a close relationship with President Bill Clinton, and the two leaders worked together to strengthen ties and overcome the mistrust and fear that resulted from the Cold War. Unfortunately, for Russia, the U.S. and the rest of the free world, Yeltsin handpicked Vladimir Putin as his successor.

Putin, a high-ranking KGB officer under Soviet Premiers Andropov and Gorbachev, served as director of the Russian Federal Security Service. It has been suggested, both in Russia and the West, that Yeltsin chose Putin to follow him as President simply because his support, among the people of Russia and within his own Cabinet, had totally disintegrated, and Putin remained loyal.

Alas, it has become apparent that Putin's loyalty was self-serving. In spite of President Bush's assertion that he "was able to get a glimpse of (Putin's) soul", he obviously was unable to foresee that Putin's motives were to reestablish Russia's dominance of the Balkans, Caucuses and the rest of eastern Europe in Soviet fashion.

The invasion of the Republic of Georgia is the latest example of Putin's expansionist policies, even though he is no longer the president of Russia. His successor, Dmitry Medvedev, is little more than a front man, and the world knows that, in his new role as Prime Minister, Putin calls the shots. And while many might argue that oil is the overriding factor in Russia's decision to invade, and the most important "talking point" among nations such as France, who would seek to mediate the dispute, it is clear to me that Russia's motives are much more sinister and have to be addressed forcefully, and now.

Senator John McCain, Republican presidential nominee and staunch ally of the Georgian people, is not now, due to political expediency, calling for an American military response. But in 2005, McCain, responding to Russia's stated desire to enter Georgia to "protect" loyalists in the provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, said,"Sooner or later [Putin] has got to realize that the the path he is on will eventually bring down his government."

McCain, in an interview with CNN's Jill Dougherty, pointed out a variety of issues that indicated Putin's lack of desire to work with western allies (see: www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/24/summit.russia.dougherty). These included arresting the head of Russia's only privately-held oil company and nationalizing the oil fields, and controlling the mass media in Soviet fashion.

Politics notwithstanding, our national interest and our loyalty to democratic allies demands that we step up forcefully and, if need be, militarily. Diplomacy, conducted by French President Sarkozy, has obviously failed, since the "cease-fire" agreement Russia signed on August 12 was followed by Russian tanks entering the Georgian city of Gori early on August 13. And even while foreign correspondents reported conversations with Russian soldiers in the convoy (Associated Press - see: Christopher Torchia and Misha Dzindzhikhashvili), Russia denied its troops were even in the area.

This is not a call for ground troops, nor is it a task the U.S. should take on unilaterally. Indeed, based on NATO's previous acceptance of Georgia as an ally, and Georgia's desire to join the treaty organization, NATO should be the force that presents itself as a deterrent to further Russian expansionist policies. NATO's own website refers to Georgia's strong cooperation in maintaining Euro-Atlantic security (see: nato.int/issues/nato-georgia/index.html), and Georgia ranks behind only the United States and Great Britain in the number of ground troops sent to fight the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

Yes, NATO should take the lead, but the U.S. military is a vital part of the NATO alliance, and just as President Clinton utilized the airspace above Iraq to protect the Kurds in the southern part of that nation, so can President Bush protect our democratic allies in Georgia. Russian tanks are no match for American air power, and just as Russia has demonstrated her ability to dominate a weaker Georgia, an ally of America and western Europe, so must NATO and America demonstrate their ability to respond to aggression from what is now a weaker Russia.

If we wait, Russia will continue to consolidate her military might to Cold War levels, and our ability to protect our allies and, indeed, ourselves, will be greatly compromised.

12 comments:

Dano said...

Not bad, Reed.

But I disagree with you on a few things.

First, just as a point of fact, the Russian Prime Minister is, by their Constitution, responsible for their military--not the president.

Russia's motives may well be expansionist, but, in fact, Georgia started this fight, and Russia merely responded. One can argue the "proprtionality" of it, but it was a reaction move on Russia's part.

NATO cannot take the lead in protecting Georgia, because Georgia isn't a member of NATO (it's against the charter). You might argue that we should fast-track their entry into NATO, so that the organization could then take a lead role, but that's a different argument. Anything we do militarily, in the meantime, will have to be either unilateral or in coalition with allies.

I can't agree with you that diplomacy "has obviously failed." Diplomatic efforts are ongoing, and, as of 9:00 EDT tonight, there is no fighting between Russian and Georgian troops - this appears to be in accord with the ceasefire. There are a number of diplomatic efforts that have not yet been undertaken, including those I suggested in my post. Clearly, they can't yet have failed.

It is true that Russian tanks are no match for U.S. air power, but why would they fight planes with tanks? Do you also think Russian fighters are no match for ours? It's a valid argument, if you choose to make it, although I'd suggest that there is something close to technological parity between our fighter squadrons. Our Air Force is nearly twice the size of theirs, but it's also pretty wrapped up elsewhere. I guess I just hope you're not suggesting that Russia would be an easy target for the U.S. military. Their's is the second most powerful military on the planet, and there's no guarantee that they will not also have a coalition of forces to bring to the fight.

You didn't address the very real concerns about Russia's control over vast amounts of resources that Europe and the U.S. cannot do without. What about that?

Russia may well be trying to return herself to Cold War glory, but, unfortunately, diplomacy is our only viable tool against these illegal actions, and even that is a dangerous undertaking.

Anonymous said...

Oh, good Lord. Really, Reed? Attack Russia with our air power? Dano is right on this one. We can't do that.

J.T. Twilley said...

Reed, I don't know that you actually succeeded in making an arguement for U.S. armed conflict against Russia. But then again I don't think anyone else is at this time either. But you made your points clear that we should be prepared for military action if things continue the way they are going.

Unfortunately we can't commit to another ground war, but good point about the air power, Reed. Our fighters are pretty impressive.

Anonymous said...

Reed, I think we most certainly Can wait for Russia to Leave Georgia. It's not that I'm not a patriot but the US of A has become a laughing stock internationally when it comes to this military stuff. (Think Katrina). Come on - we can't stick our nose in all conflicts and save the world! Not only that, but it hasn't been That long since the United States and Russia came to an "agreement". Why risk blowing that all to heck. Not to mention all the young men and women's lives that are at stake. We Americans need to stay home for a while.

Anonymous said...

Think Katrina, that is, when considering our humiliation in our own country is what I meant....

Reed Mahoney said...

Thanks for all the comments - I think we'd all agree this is a difficult issue.
Dano mentioned "moral high ground". That's a statement that probably should be retired until we have come to grips with our foreign policy failures. But history is something we cannot ignore, and Putin's Russia is starting to look startlingly similar to Stalin's. And in spite of Dano's explanation of why Putin, as Prime Minister, "constitutionally" controls the military, I think the less naive among us know that Putin, as long as he is there, will control Russia in whatever post he has himself appointed to.
I don't claim to think that we can address this issue through military confrontation alone. President Bush has done a good job in sending Sec. Rice to Georgia, and allowing her to point out that this is not 1968 and the world will not allow Russia to treat Georgia as it did Czeckoslovakia. But we must demonstrate, on behalf of a strong ally in the war on terrorism, that we will be there. As I stated, an air demonstration accomplishes that. I don't believe that the Russian troops will be so cocky when U.S. fighters are strafing the ditches beside the road where the armored vehicles are. Can you say, "Let's get the hell out of here, comrade!"

Dano said...

You could be right, Reed. I never argued that military action on our part would not have a positive effect...just that we shouldn't do it. We'll see what happens.

Go Sooners said...

Ok people, have you never heard of the A-10? I think that's what Reed was referring too. It's a plane specifically built to fight tanks. So no Dano they aren't fighting planes with tanks. We are fighting tanks with planes in that scenario.

By the way, Bush only recently met with Putin Reed was he suppose to anticipate this in a very narrow window of time?

Putin came into power while Clinton was in office too by the way. What responsiblity does he have for what's going on? Actually Putin was democratically elected so why is it any Presidents fault? Just had to work in the blame Bush angle though didn't we.

Also Dano. Georgia didn't start this war. They are a sovergn nation and they weren't out of line in any manner. If we invaded Iraq out of turn the same can be said for Georgia. Georgia was feuding with Ossetia but that wasn't Russia's business. Don't you find it odd that they went in to Georgia just as the Olympics started. That's old KGB tactics to cover their rears when they know they are wrong.

Deb what does a Hurricane have to do with the Military. Why was it that Florida was able to handle their hurricanes and Iowa their floods but when a levee broke in New Orleans 36 to 48 hours after the hurricane it's all the sudden the Military's fault or Bush's fault. That disaster was the Mayor's and the Governors fault more than anything else. All those school buses could have got those people out and the mayor let them sit there in harms way.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dano and Reed said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dano said...

harkleroad, give me a break.

Of course, I know what the A-10 is. I'm a veteran (air defense artillery, no less), so please don't condescend to me about the military.

You, once again, missed the point. What makes you think the Russians won't bring their air power to fight our air power? That's my point. The notion that the U.S. will be unopposed in the air is one that is informed only by those that think the Iraq war is representative of all wars. Let me share something with you...Iraq was an aberration, not the norm.

While it's not my job to defend Deb (I'm sure she can do it on her own), you exonerate the Bush administration for their handling of the Katrina aftermath? Really? You might be the only naive person left in the country. It took nearly a week for the Feds to get into the area to help those folks in New Orleans (yes, even the military help). We were on the ground after the tsunami in the South Pacific (half way around the earth) within 48 hours. You don't think there's a problem there? Nobody said the mayor and the governor weren't partly responsible for the problems in Louisiana, just that Bush's response was slow and deplorable.

Neither Reed nor I suggested that Bush was responsible for Putin being in power, nor do we think Clinton was responsible. Where are you coming from? The issue is whether or not the Administration handles intelligence properly. It seems they were completely unaware that Russia had these plans in Georgia. The CIA does this stuff for a living, for God's sake.

I never said that Georgia "started" a war here, I said the Georgian president SPARKED THIS conflict. It was his military that fired the first shots, and did so without consulting its allies. That's a fact, not conjecture. You think Putin engineered the timing of Georgia's initial attack to coincide with the Olympics? Where is your logic there? If you want to argue over points made in our posts, read them, understand them, and react to what we actually wrote, not what you erroneously perceived.

One last point: we certainly welcome your participation on this blog. But you seem to misunderstand its point. Neither Reed nor I necessarily believe anything we write. Remember, the idea here is to formulate arguments that are supported by evidence as best we can, regardless of how we personally view each issue. Your attacks against us reflect your belief that we are personally involved with our written positions. I guess we're doing a pretty good job, if even one person believes we also buy what we say.

Anonymous said...

Dano, although you're right I can defend myself, I appreciate your support very much. Not only that, you expressed my precise thoughts so much better than I would have - and so eloquently!