We've Lost our Ability to Deter
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.
But John McCain was never fazed by this rationale. The question never seemed to occur to him, and he has since spent months advocating for a hundred years in Iraq, a surge in Afghanistan, a war with Iran, and now, he's blustering for still more. In fact, McCain's recklessness in this regard is what now drives both the Russian advance on Georgia and his own insane desire for war against what he sees as the old "KGB."
Because John McCain seems as though he wants to progress beyond simply talking with Russia. Here's what he said yesterday:
"Today, many are dead and Georgia is in crisis, yet the Obama campaign has offered nothing more than cheap and petty political attacks that are echoed only by the Kremlin," said McCain aide Tucker Bounds in the statement. "The reaction of the Obama campaign to this crisis, so at odds with our democratic allies and yet so bizarrely in sync with Moscow, doesn't merely raise questions about Sen. Obama's judgment -- it answers them."So what's McCain implying here? That words aren't enough in dealing with Russia? Because this is what Obama had said previously:
"I condemn Russia's aggressive actions and reiterate my call for an immediate ceasefire," Obama said in a statement.If a stance like that isn't good enough, and McCain really does want a fight with his old Soviet nemesis, then I have to wonder what U.S. military forces McCain would propose to use -- as this goes back to the readiness/national security argument against the Iraq War. It's the whole "what-if-another-conflict-broke-out-what-would-we-do-then" scenario. McCain has been so irresponsible on Iraq, that 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."Russia must stop its bombing campaign, cease flights of Russian aircraft in Georgian airspace, and withdraw its ground forces from Georgia."
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. This is one of the most egregious examples of how the Bush, Cheney, and McCain line of thinking has not only destroyed our military, but endangered our national security as well.
Also available at VetVoice
Follow Brandon Friedman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BrandonF
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Bush hasd nearly bankrupted the USA.
If Russia decides to force the USA's hand internationally they will cripple the USA.
Mc Cain wants to follow this same failed forgien ploicy !!!!
Time to cash in your dollars for EURO's if Mc Cain is elected.
I suspect that we are having a knee-jerk reaction to this situation and not really seeing what is going on. We, leaders and populus alike, need to step back and take a sober look at our relationship with the Russians since the fall of the Soviet Union. One of the things that we have constantly ignored has been the response and pushback the Russians have made to our continuous pushing of NATO into Central Asia and the regions surrounding Russia. While we and our politicians have insisted that this process is harmless, the Russians clearly have a different take. I suspect that Georgia has more to do with our "writing off" the Russians as a force than our unsanctionded and illegal incursion into Iraq. (Let's be clear that those actions are the responsibility of political and not military actors.) I think the Bear is telling us to stop ignoring him. People will be wise to recall that, unlike Iran and North Korea, Russia has actionable nuclear weapons and the ability to bring war to our shores.
A true leader will make a realistic assessment of the situation and base their response accordingly. Bush, Obama and McCain are under the gun on this one.
A clear, concise and well thought out post...
One question. It's a sincere and honest question..
Do you believe that countries like Poland, Georgia, etc etc should have the right to join NATO if they so choose???
Michale...
No non-inclusive alliances!
ALL pan-European countries should join, including Russia.
Leaving nations outside of NATO is mean & only frightens them.
Michale,
I believe that Poland, Georgia et. al. should have the right to join NATO if they choose. But, as with SRegnet, I believe that Russia should also be invited and allowed to join NATO. As such NATO would probably need a new mandate and a new charter. The thinking on and about security in Europe and Central Asia would have to change, probably more so here in the USA than over there.
Regards
NATO isn't a club; it's a commitment to mutual self-defense. If we can't defend a nation that wants to join, the alliance is a promise we can't keep.
Under the figleaf of "the coalition" was a club.We whipped it out to club another third world country into a bloody mess,no one is fooled,another disaster.N
You can't "deter" anything when your own nation has become one of the most flagrant violators of the same international laws that it once crafted.
Perhaps the American media will not show dead soldiers, will not count the number of mercenaries now running amok in the Middle East, will pretend that "life is beautiful all the time," but the rest of the planet does not live in the curious non-reality zone that is modern American propaganda. The Russians actually did nothing different than what America has been doing in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran over the last seven years. I am not condoning any actions -- quite vehemently the opposite!! -- but simply pointing out exactly what it is that we have lost. Ummm... that would be, "everythin
I don't see anybody anywhere bring up what I think is the obvious point, the US conducting a preemptive strike against another country, Iraq, robs us of any moral ground to criticize Russia's actions. Hoist on our own petard. The hypocrisy of Bush and McCain to chide them harshly knows no bounds.
You are comparing apples and eskimos...
In Iraq, the US led a COALITION.
In Iraq, the US-led COALITION was there under the auspices of the UN to enforce UN resolutions. In Georgia, the only resolution that Russia is enforcing is it's own greed and desire to recreate the USSR.
Michale...
Coalition? You must be joking. Our third largest partner there after the US and UK (and btw, Tony Blair is no longer PM because of this) was GEORGIA.
I wonder what W promised them in return for this "coalition" support.
And the UN figleaf?
Obtained post facto.
Ha,Ha. Mike is a big joker. He can't admit the obvious (not the first time) : we've been rendered impotent by the disastrous foreign policy mistakes of the Bush Regime. Mike, as a military man, you must realize that our forces are stressed now without beginning a very real major conflict. Sober up Mike.
What, you mean the "coalition of the bribed and bullied?" The coalition that agreed to hold our coats while the U.S. military did virtually all the real fighting in Iraq?
That coalition, of governments like Poland and Eastern Europe generally, whose populations were more than 90% OPPOSED to U.S. intervention?
The only difference between the "Old Europe" that Cheney complained about and the Eastern European nations he praised was that their populations were about 15% MORE opposed to our actions than the French and Germans! So, the real praise was for governments that flatly ignored the overwhelming sentiments of their own people.
Tony Blair decided that Bush was going to attack Iraq whether Britain supported him or not, and that refusing to help would destroy the alliance. So, he decided (disastrously) to back Bush.
He was forced out of the leadership position as a result of what a disaster it turned into.
Clearly there's a typo. It should read:
"In Iraq, the US lied (to) a COALITION.
Let's stay in reality folks!
You're missing the point that deterence only works against STATES (countries' governents), and not against guerilla insurgents. Most wars since the WWII have been either internal to the state or have been trans-national in character, involving internal wars spilling over borders. Hence, the role of the military is changing from a blunt club into more nuanced roles.
Obviously, Russia has had the same difficulty with detering internal violence in the neighboring state of Georgia.
I disagree..
Coupled with NATO's ground forces, the US still has a potent war-machine. While our own ground forces are tied up, we still have more air and sea assets than necessary.
Couple those assets with NATO ground forces and that is more than a match for the Russian military, which shares MANY of the problems of the old USSR Red Army...
The only question is, do we have the will to do the right thing. Support Georgia in resisting the naked aggression of Russia.
Michale...
Getting into a hot war with Russia would be the dumbest thing anyone could do. Do you have a secret death wish? Russia violated international law by invading Georgia. Let the international community deal with it. We have two fronts already, plus a potential third front if the neocons convince Bush to bomb Iran in October.
The "International Community"(in the form of NATO) will deal with it.
The US will simply provide air and sea assets and support..
I am not talking about putting US boots on the ground. That probably wouldn't be possible in any numbers to be significan
But we have thousands of fighter and bomber aircraft that can be used, plus numerous sea assets that could be brought to bear in support of NATO.
This is the reality...
As I said, the only question is, does NATO have the political will to do the right thing and bring Russia to heel...
Michale...
And when do you plan to enlist in the army of a NATO ally so you can fight your war?
I have served in two branches of the US Armed Forces (USAF & US Army). I was an MI EllTee during Desert Storm and have served as an LEO and an FSO for nearly a quarter of a century.. I have been a military and intelligence liaison to a dozen different countries spanning the globe..
I have done my bit for King and Country...
Michale...
Rumsfield started the downsize trend as he wanted lean and fast military. For whatever reason he had this thought he never backed it up with the best available equipment to make the troops even safe to go into Iraq. The lack of battalions were no issue to him because he thought the mere prescense of US military would make the Iraqi throw flowers at the troops. Bush/Cheney/McCain etc all were thinking we were a world power that somehow didn't have to have a resonable amount of troops that could go wherever needed because somehow a few would do. This false belief led to not enough troops for a sustained conflict that Bush/Cheney and Rummy all never thought would last more than a few months. I truly believe they never picked up any book on the middle east as any one of them would have told stories about the way the area was with protracted wars of many years in the region. Anyone is still delussional to think we have some troops hidden away somewhere to take on more battles they might make happen. We are not the world police anymore and very few heads of state see us as trustworthy after Iraq. I expect Bush to start ordering the troops out of Iraq now that Iraq wants them gone because there is a "real" war now and we will have to sit it out even with the UN and NATO getting involved if there is no troops.
John McCain has failed to learn the basic principle of not being able to have your cake and eat it, too. He likes to rave about how successful his Surge has been and to insist that we need to keep fighting in Iraq until we "win." He appears to be in denial about the fact that the suppression of violence in Iraq comes at great cost. The financial and human resources we spend in Iraq cannot be used elsewhere. One might be tempted to ask John McCain, at this point when we need to have our military resources, if not use them, for other purposes, whether devoting so much of our resources to Iraq is worth it. That begs the question, though, of what "it" is, what John McCain's definition of "winning" in Iraq is.
Unlimited resources for an indefinite goal. Somehow, that doesn't make me feel safe.
If having large military forces poised on the door-steps of Russia doesn't
offer some deterrence (& intimidation), then what will? Admittedly, the
supply lines are stretched, as is logistics in general.
Would the former super-power take us up on the opportunity we've
offered them? Would our forces be too exhausted to respond?
Well, the AF is no doubt rested & ready, at least.
More than likely McCain knows how to start wars but not how to win them,his pugnacity is evident,no military or strategic genius so easy to see.
It's obvious. mccain is going to use his mighty power to win wars, my friends, and win ALL wars even if the US isn't involved.
Teddy Roosevelt, McCain's boy hero, used the first part of his presidency
to send what was called 'The Great White Fleet', 16 battleships and 14k
sailors, on a two-year round the world mission to 'project US power'.
What would 'Navy' John McCain do to top that?
Different world. Our fleet does what Roosevelt started every day. They cruise in and out of disputed waters around the world, keeping the international waterways open and free. We already have world-wide force projection.
"Russia must stop its bombing campaign, cease flights of Russian aircraft in Georgian airspace, and withdraw its ground forces from Georgia."
What if Russia will not stop the peacekeeping missiong in Georgia? What could happen then? There is no realistic military action US could undertake. EU will never commit it's troops to take part in the conflict wth Russia. NATO unity is a relative matter and can only last so far. Russia has no reason to let US-proxi pseudo Georgian government to remain in power. But who knows what kind of logic Russia might use.
Don't keep making the assumption that the Georgian government is a proxy for the US. It isn't. If it were, it wouldn't now be eating out the core of itself with corruption, which weakens it more every day. Strong states don't have problems with breakaway separatists the way Georgia does.
"Strong states don't have problems with breakaway separatists the way Georgia does."
So ... Russia isn't a strong state (Chechnya and others?)
Great Britain isn't a strong state (Northern Ireland?)
China isn't a strong state (Tibet?)
Spain isn't a strong state (Catalans and Basqes?)
Be honest. When was the last time the USA airlifted 2,000 soldiers for any other country?
Do not play the voters for fools, especially those that read other sources beyond the Huffington Post. Obama's campaign staff notified the press at another newspaper that McCain's some on McCain's staff had past ties to Georgia. That is what McCain was talking about. McCain was also talking about Obama's initial statement, his second statement is the one you quoted.
Further, what gives you the impression that the citizens of this country would support putting our military there. Nor, do I believe either candidate has that in mind. McCain believes the matter should go to the UN. That seem a fitting view for the US to take. We should refrain from fighting wars for other countries. We should as well stay out of any diplomatic efforts since our involvement would only incite Russia and Georgia to further extremes I am sure. Nor should any of our Peacekeeping forces be there. Heavens know we could never be an impartial, being the imperialistic, capitalistic nation we are.
Even if we had the desire to be in a war there, it would be an escalation of the situation and not a solution. Trust me, if we did need to be there, we could and would find the resources. Its not as bad as you seem to believe it is. There is much more then the US that would get involved if warranted, it isn't, and it is foolish to suggest it is.
You ask "what gives you the impression that the citizens of this country would support putting our military there?" What in recent history (like, say, the last seven years) makes you think that what the citizens of this state support makes the slighest difference? The reason the US has lost the ability to deter states is that we - the citizens - have lost the ability to influence our glorious leaders. The truth is that people who pick who runs for office, run the the office. The rest of us just give them the veneer of democracy. We fell for supporting a "change in how Washington works"; what we'll get is a change in who works in Washington.
Remember John McCain knows how to win wars my friend. So what do we have to worry about?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
