Posted on 08/19/2008 8:38:44 AM PDT by Publius804
Strategy
Who Started Cold War II
Posted by Patrick J. Buchanan on August 18, 2008
The American people should be eternally grateful to Old Europe for having spiked the Bush-McCain plan to bring Georgia into NATO.
Had Georgia been in NATO when Mikheil Saakashvili invaded South Ossetia, we would be eyeball to eyeball with Russia, facing war in the Caucasus, where Moscow’s superiority is as great as U.S. superiority in the Caribbean during the Cuban missile crisis.
If the Russia-Georgia war proves nothing else, it is the insanity of giving erratic hotheads in volatile nations the power to drag the United States into war.
From Harry Truman to Ronald Reagan, as Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, U.S. presidents have sought to avoid shooting wars with Russia, even when the Bear was at its most beastly.
(Excerpt) Read more at takimag.com ...
Patrick J. Who?
If Georgia had been in NATO, we would not have this stand off in South Oessia because Russia would of know they could never get away with it. Weakness invited aggression. History proves it to anyone but Paddy B with his welded shut mind.
Obviously, Pat, the Putinista, Buchanan, has become Putin’s number one American apologist for his foreign policy of bullying Russian neighbors.
Notice in the column that he has no problem comparing Russia’s resurgent and gratuitous militarism and his invasions to the history of the United States. Putin is just Andy Jackson in Pat's hero worship (reminds me of Michael Moore comparing the Iraqi terrorists to the American Minute Men during the Revolutionary War). For Pat, there is essentially no difference or distinction between Putin, the KGB thug, who murders Russian journalists, suppresses political opposition, and the USA. One might think that Pat would concern himself with the fate of journalists, but Pat's concern is for Putin.
After being rejected so roundly by the American voters in each of his risible runs for president, Pitchfork Pat changed. Today, in many ways, Pat’s the Noam Chomsky for his tiny number of followers. He writes potboilder full of historic sophistries, draws moral equivalences between his own country that’s made him rich, and belittles others (Iraqis, Georgians, Poles, Ukrainians, Israelis) for aspiring to be free and independent while excusing tyrants. There is a lengthy body of evidence in Pat's books and columns by now. From them, it's clear that his hate for the neo-Cons has pushed him into the arms of the neo-Coms. And there is no doubt that if Pat could re-write history Hitler would have controlled all of Europe, probably to this day. Pat’s recent book blames the Poles for World War II; they were just too damned stubborn. And he’s not too happy with Churchill for what he did to Hitler. But if Poles and Churchill upset him, it's not as if Pat’s not found a new strong man to revere. Pat doesn’t complain about Putin’s arm sales to Venezuela, Iran, or Syria. He doesn’t mind, or at least he doesn’t ever say anything about, Russia’s sale of Uranium to Iran or their providing of nuclear technicians who in their own ways are helping Iran to achieve its goals of becoming a nuclear-armed state. Nor, as he defends Putin’s putative defense of his countries spheres of influences does he note the Russians threats to station its forces in Cuba again. After all, in Pat’s mind, we made Putin do it. Putin’s got Pat to defend him. Pat’s a Blame America Firster. They deserve each other.
Former pitchfork Pat now the Putinista ping.
Pat, Pat, Pat - have you been exchanging dirty text messages with Putin again?
Russia is dictating with its open support of our enemies(Iran) and its attempt at a proxy war and will continue on with Georgia if we do not back up the tough talk. The US should not put up with this and if it came to war like that it is on the Soviets. It would eventually come to that with the way it’s heading now. They are continuing to test us.
Andrew Jackson.
Pat’s just upset that there is more outrage from Pres. Bush and McCain toward Putin than toward Mexico for breaking our own International Borders.
Deal with it Pat, we will protect Europe against Russia more than we will defend our country from invasion by foreign Nationals.
It’s just the way it is.
I guess Pat like totalitarians of all kinds, Nazis or Stalinists.
But, in hindsight, I guess Stalin killed enough Jews to be “OK” in Pat’s book.
How does Saakashvili invade it’s own territory? If there was an uprising in Florida, would the media say the US invaded Florida?
Pat hates the neo-Cons and loves the neo-Coms.
Looks like Putin did a pre-emptive strike against NATO advancing to Russia’s doorstep. Bush knows Putin’s soul so Bush understands that Putin’s mind works just like his.
The US media? Hell yes.
Ok, yeah, I guess you are right.
Well, Pat did have an uncle who died at Auschwitz. He fell asleep on guard duty and fell out of the tower to his death. Pat’s never forgiven the Jews for this.
Same way those pesky Czechs invaded the Sudetenland -- and IIRC Pat's on record as saying the Czechs were at fault for what happened there and later....
Who cares what Pat says or thinks?
(”Ride to the sound of the guns”, my butt!)
Don’t worry... The crocodile will eat us last.
Was that a lie or a joke from you?
Paddy and his buddies over at “Chronicles” have been in the tank for Putin ever since he came to power.
Or perhaps Russia would have not invaded Georgia with the knowledge that NATO, including Old Europe, would actually do something.
Georgia was warned by the US not to go playing with Russia’s toenails along their border. They did anyway, and the red dog came to spank them. I am all for them getting out of a free nation, and I am proud of Bush putting our military in their face in the name of aid, but if Russia wants to push our equipment and people around, I say kill them. I am tired of this little pussy-foot game of chance. Just kill them. Let’s get it on.
Patrick J. PITCHFORK, aka Pitchfork Pat. What a clymer....
P.J. is an idiot.
Whenever I read Pat’s narratives, I get this German tuba band sound in my mind...
Pat has no problem with calling Mexican immigration an invasion.
LOL!
Seems that way. And we have some very sick minds around here.
And who funded this disaster? George Soros?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Protected/Articles/000/000/004/104ygtvi.asp?pg=2
http://www.new-fed.com/pr/2008/080809soros_georgia_crx.html
First page of above article: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Protected/Articles/000/000/004/104ygtvi.asp?pg=1
I agree.
Everyone is too rough on Pat Buchanan and the Russians.
I mean, the Russians just needed some “living space.”
I think it is necessary for me to set forth my previous posts so that the inevitable charges of "appeaser" or "Buchananite" can be fended off an advance. The first post is in response to a column by Michael Ledeen in which he advocates the bombing of Syria and Iran as a response to the Russian invasion of Georgia:
It is long past time for us to strike at the terrorist training camps inside those two nasty Russian allies, Syria and Iran.
When this thing broke in Georgia I sat down dictated some musings about the implications of all this. I will set them out now to demonstrate that I agree with the author but I am adamantly opposed to the quoted portion of his article above. I cannot think of anything stupider than to engage for no definitive strategic purpose in military adventures in Syria and Iran. This would leave us utterly without support in Europe and that is the first place we must secure if we are to wage a global war which this author otherwise correctly describes.
Beware the Council of neocons who would exploit every crisis through a lens that requires America, at all costs, to act in a way that irrevocably commits it to Israel. The Stakes in this game are not Israel. We are talking about the survival of Western civilization as we know it. If Russia aligns itself with the Arab and Muslim petroleum exporting nations, and can contrive an alliance with Venezuela and the natural resource producing nations and South America which have recently gone leftist, America will be hard-pressed to rally the world.
We're on the verge now of losing Europe. Mindless attacks on Syria and Iran (unless the regime in Iran is overthrown) are almost certain to lose Europe. Any attack on Iran should be done by the Israelis. United States strategic interest is to prevent an axis between Iran and Russia. Pinpricks will only assure that axis will be built.
China's decision at that point, to go with the forces of darkness and autocracy, to remain neutral, or to throw its weight in on behalf of civilization and prosperity, can decide the affair. What will China choose if Europe has abandoned us because of mindless attacks on Syria and Iran?
Here are the musings which I post to demonstrate that I am in overall sympathy with the authors strategic conception but not in his myopic, neocon, pro-Israeli application of it:
Some implications of the Russian attack in Georgia:
An Israeli strike against Iran is now more likely. It look that the map will see that Russia inching closer to direct geographical contact with Iran which only confirms the very dangerous trade and nuclear support that the Russians have been conducting, some of it in the dark.
Seen from the Israeli side, they can have no doubt now that Iran will soon have the bomb one way or the other, either through their own efforts or directly from Russia. The Israelis will see that Iran and Russia could well announce a mutual defense pact as a kind of a tit for tat with our installation of missiles in Poland. Once such an announcement is made, an attack by Israel against Iran becomes much more problematical. It makes it more difficult for Americans to supply, even clandestinely, the necessary logistics such as in-flight fueling needed for the Israelis to strike. So the Israelis must preempt if they are to act at all. In any event, we know that if they are going to act, they must act before George Bush leaves office, especially if Obama is elected.
A separate implication of the war in Georgia is that it might well cleave NATO. This has been a Russian/Soviet aim for at least half a century. Consider the matter from the European point of view: they are utterly dependent on oil and gas delivered via pipeline and almost all of which is controlled by Russia. My neighbors, many of them, heat with natural gas stored in a giant cavern not far from my house and Upper Bavaria which comes to them through a pipe from Russia. If the Europeans were adamantly opposed to the war in Iraq where they risked nothing and blamed America for everything, imagine their reaction to American proposals to get tough over Georgia. [Imagine their reaction to American strikes against camps in Syria and Iran!]
European pusillanimity, their leftism, will make it impossible for their politicians to do anything other than appease Russia and blame America. The Russians need only advance vaguely plausible arguments on their behalf- e. g. American meddling (read: CIA) caused the Georgians to overstep and commit aggression against the "independent" regions- which the Europeans can seize upon to save face. Couple that propaganda with reassurances that the pipelines will be kept open, and you have Chamberlain/Hitler redux.
A third implication of the Russian aggression in Georgia is that waging war with oil has now become a strategy used in a new world war which overlaps and might even embrace the world war conducted by radical Islam against civilization. In both wars oil is both a weapon and a prize. In both wars, civilization must fund its enemies with petrodollars.
Great risk here of course is that Russia will contrive a new world order of controlling nations starting with Iran and including Venezuela and whatever other.
Because of the international diplomatic disaster of our war in Iraq, even George Bush knows that he is virtually toothless in the Caucasus both militarily and diplomatically. He knows he has no backup in Europe. He himself has said that he has very few cards to play. So if Bush bows to reality and does nothing except fulminate and try to kick Russia out of the G-8, NATO will muddle on but it will be bereft of any international respect.
Should Bush pushback against the Russians too hard, McCain might do so as well if elected, that could strain NATO to the breaking point.
As pointed out Libslayer, Europe has so far behaved much more honorably than I had anticipated and so far I am wrong in that assessment.
As could have been anticipated, and that post raised cries of" appeaser" to which I responded as follows:
I beg your pardon.
Where do I advocate appeasement?
Instead of bluster, you might consider that the obvious Russian strategic purpose is to sheer NATO away from America. You do not want to give them that huge strategic advantage without some compensating gain. Means you better make damn sure you know what the hell you are doing when you push back against the Russians in Georgia where you have no levers.
When you hit them, it then hard and devastate them. Otherwise kindly refrain from bluster that makes you feel good but which is otherwise counterproductive.
Finally, to demonstrate that I am quite serious about doing something effective in Georgia, I repost this post from Sunday:
I want decisive action but I want it in pursuit of a strategic goal. At the end of this game we face nuclear weapons. At this point in the game the prize is world hegemony through control of oil.
We must raise our sights above Georgia. But there are many things inside Georgia that we might be able to do. First, I believe that the Soviet military is not nearly as good as this operation at first glance makes them appear. If you go to C-SPAN you can watch the panel involving Frederick Kagan and Ralph Peters and other analysts who believe that the invasion by the Russians reveals many weaknesses as well as strengths in their operation. The panel in particularly pointed to deficiencies in the Russian air wing exposed by the ability of the Georgians, weak as they are, to shoot down so many Russian planes. Further revealed by the Russians evident inability to hit targets despite the fact that they "preen" over their use of smart weapons.
I believe that we have seen the very best the Russians have to offer and we have seen it in the very best light because the Russians were preparing this invasion in minute detail, with rehearsals, since April. I believe this leaves us with an opening.
It might be possible to filter in a vanguard of American forces and have many available to airlift in upon the invitation of the Georgians. This might be accomplished before the Russians can wake up and overrun the rest of Georgia. That would put a tripwire east and North of the all-important oil pipeline and demonstrate to Europe that there is an alternative to appeasement.
Assuming we could do it, is it in our interests to do it? What are the risks? What do we gain? If we pull it off, Europe will acquiesce. If we bungle it, we have created a hell of a mess. Are we prepared to stay a long line in Georgia acting as a tripwire as we have for more than half a century in Korea? Is it worth it?
There is also a great deal such as we did in Poland which could be done in the Baltic states and in Ukraine. The beauty of the installation of missiles in Poland is that it was not put up for discussion for the Europeans to weigh in. Even though the negotiations had been proceeding for a long time, America shifted and presented the Russians and I might add, the Europeans, with a fait accompli.
My belief is that the Europeans will take the path of least resistance. If the Russians seem to be the bigger problem, they will appease them. If America presents them with a fait accompli, they will acquiesce.
Please note, I do not know whether such a course is logistically possible nor do I know if it is strategically desirable. These are the kinds of things that we ought to consider because they offer a way of changing the dynamic in our favor which right now is decidedly unfavorable to us.
You say I sound like I do not want to do anything, I do not want to do anything foolish because it feeds some emotional need.
My apologies for the solipsism of publishing my own posts at such length. I do itonly because I feel that somebody has to advocate that part off Pat Buchanan which it is not tainted by his excesses.
Pat Buchanan has it right when he says that America must be very careful about assessing its national interests. I am not willing to go to war for Georgia, but then I am not willing to go to war for Israel. I'm not sure we could go to war for either Georgia or Israel even if we should, considering the attenuated state of our arms currently. I do not want our foreign policy to be made with any consideration in mind other than the best interests of the United States of America. I believe that the best interest of the United States of America mean that we should willing to go to war for oil, and we might have to go to war to prevent Iran from getting a bomb, and we might have to go to war somewhere to stop Russia. But neither Georgia itself nor Israel itself constitute interests of the United States sufficient to go to war.
It is a pity that this call for the most basic kind of national soul-searching must come from Pat Buchanan who never misses an opportunity in these columns to discredit his views with his excesses.
Well, perhaps in the sense that Putin is handling the Georgians like Old Hickory handled the Seminoles & Cherokees.
The Islamists. Cold War II is the way we are choosing to fight the war against Islamic tyranny. It will probably go “hot” before it ends.
The Soviet REUnion is another matter altogether.
We never bothered to END Cold War I by eliminating global communism.
Thanks for posting this interesting commentary.
Andrew Jackson threatened to hang secessionists, invaded Florida and hanged the British representatives he caught there, and sent the Indian tribes of the Southeast on the "Trail of Tears." Putin deals with those he views as threatening Russia in a similar manner, because Putin is a nationalist just as Jackson was a nationalist. Americans didn't come to dominate North America by holding hands and singing "Kumbayah."
The moral relativism which equates early America to the Soviet Union is interesting, to say the least.
LOL!
Go Pat Go!
Georgia is a separate sovereign nation, not an internal part of Russian territory or an area claimed by an overseas power as a colonial possession.
Real history is always discomfiting.
Good. The Constitution authorizes him to do so, and treason is justly a capital crime.
invaded Florida
With good reason.
and hanged the British representatives he caught there
Good. International law sanctions the hanging of spies in war time, with or without trial.
and sent the Indian tribes of the Southeast on the "Trail of Tears."
Does the US Congress not have authority over US land?
Putin deals with those he views as threatening Russia in a similar manner, because Putin is a nationalist just as Jackson was a nationalist.
Andrew Jackson never invaded Canada or Mexico on the pretext that he had given some Canadians or Mexicans US passports and was therefore entitled to garrison US troops in Canada or Mexico to "protect" these brand new citizens.
Comparing Georgia - a sovereign, independent nation of 4 million with a republican form of government and democratic institutions - with 1817 Florida is just silly.
Florida in 1817 was allegedly a Spanish overseas territory, but it was actually a lawless area where there was no effective Spanish administration - so much so that Spain's enemy, Great Britsin, could have its agents operate freely in this supposed "Spanish" territory and use it for military operations against the US.
Wandering and warring Indian bands, escaped slaves and American criminals on the run, British spies and freebooters and legitimate American farmers trying to establish land claims under Spanish law were all absorbed in this lawless chaos until US forces expelled the British pirates and purchased the land (with maybe 20,000 inhabitants in an area seven times the size of the nation of Georgia) from its absentee landlords in Madrid.
The two situations are not even vaguely comparable.
If 3,000 people of various nationalities lived in a Georgia which had no actual government and which was claimed as an overseas possession by Argentina, and the almost-empty territory had just been used by the US as a staging area for a failed attempt to seize Volgograd, there might have been an analogy.
Jackson did kill a man in a duel. The man had already fired and hit Jackson, wounding him. Putin delegates the wet work to his assistants. I suspect he always has.
Patrick J. Buchanan hates America because it didn't make him President. With every article he tries to extract his revenge.
Don't forget the Mullahs.
In fact Pat used Putin's description of the USA to describe the expansionist evils we've perpetrated on Iran.
'Comrade Wolf' and the mullahs, Patrick Buchanan
Forget Georgia, there are others who need our help.
Buchanan defends foreign aid - for Hamas, Patrick Buchanan
Buchanan defends foreign aid [For Hamas-he's wrong],Joseph Farah
Suppose Mexico grants citizenship to anyone with a Mexican grandparent. Dual citizenship would be established. I haven't a clue how many would apply for Mexican passports or vote in Mexico, but numerous border cities and counties would likely have Mexican citizen majorities, particularly when illegals are counted. By Russia's test, Mexico clearly has the right to protect their citizens from American abuses, real or imagined, and yes, were there unrest, we'd be "invading" when we put it down. Heck, we'd probably be "invading" if we enforced border controls.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.