What Georgia Tells Us About Obama and McCain
The crisis in Georgia has revealed a great deal about both candidates for president. In particular, the approach they each took in the days immediately after August 8th were quite informative.
Senator McCain was decisive, quick to condemn what he termed "Russian aggression," saying that it was "a matter of urgent moral and strategic importance to the United States... a clear violation of international law" and called on Russia to "immediately and unconditionally cease operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory."
For his part, Senator Obama, reacted thoughtfully, condemning "the outbreak of violence in Georgia," urging "an immediate end to armed conflict." He added, "Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation.... Georgia's territorial integrity must be respected."
The McCain camp termed Obama's position "naïve," "weak," and "appeasement." Randy Scheunemann, McCain's top foreign policy advisor, criticized Obama's comments calling for both sides to show restraint, stating that McCain "is clearly willing to note who he thinks is the aggressor here."
The Obama campaign responded, defending their own position as "measured" and "nuanced," and accusing McCain of being irresponsible and provocative. Susan Rice, a Senior Obama foreign policy advisor, noted that Obama's position tracked that of the administration and U.S. NATO allies. "We were dealing with the facts as we knew them. John McCain shot from the hip [with a] very aggressive, belligerent statement." Said another Obama advisor, the "temperature of your rhetoric isn't a measure of your commitment to Georgian sovereignty."
As events unfolded and the disproportionate nature of Russia's actions became clear, Obama, like the Administration and NATO allies, became more critical of Russia, demanding an immediate end to hostilities and its withdrawal from Georgian territory, and called for the replacement of Russian peacekeeping troops with an international force.
McCain also went further. He reiterated his position, calling for Russia to be removed from the G-8, and, for emphasis, has in recent days consistently referred to that group as the G-7. He also now calls for the U.S. to reject Russia's application to join the WTO, and warns that Russia's behavior in Georgia could represent a return to "a divided Europe."
While McCain offers his "strong stand" as proof of his readiness to lead, others aren't so sure. Some regional experts have noted that, just two months ago, in a major foreign policy address, McCain discussed the importance of engaging Moscow in nuclear arms reduction talks and in helping to restrain Iran. How, they ask, could both of these critical objectives be met by ostracizing Russia?
At the same time, there have been concerns raised that McCain's closeness to Georgia and its president may, in fact, have clouded his judgment. McCain continually refers to the Georgian President as "my friend Misha," and notes that, since the crisis began, they have spoken on the phone several times a day. And, in an emotional address on August 14th, he told a cheering Pennsylvania crowd, "Today we are all Georgians." It has also been revealed that Scheunemann has, until recently, been a paid lobbyist for the Georgian government. His two-man firm has recorded almost a million dollars in receipts from the Georgian government since 2004, with almost $300,000 coming during the very time period when Scheunemann was serving as a paid McCain advisor.
All of this has raised questions about whether or not, as a result of this too-close embrace, Saakashvili had unreasonable expectations of U.S. support, causing him to make a strategic miscalculation in approaching this conflict.
Obama, like McCain, has long-supported Georgia's entry into NATO, and expressed concern about Russian ambitions in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Nevertheless, on July 23rd, Obama noted that only a political settlement can resolve the conflicts; and, while he called on Russia to roll back its aggressive actions, also called on the Georgian government to "resist the temptation to be drawn into military conflict."
In assessing both candidates, one observer noted that McCain's position could be seen as being "in line with the moral clarity and American exceptionalism projected by President George W. Bush's first term" -- i.e., hard-line neo-conservative and confrontational. (Personally, I find McCain's glibness to be disconcerting, especially when coupled with his absolute certainty -- a dangerous mix.) Obama, on the other hand, has taken a position, on this crisis, more in line with the current occupant of the White House (the "kinder, gentler" George W. Bush) with his newfound appreciation for diplomacy.
The conflict between Russia and Georgia did not begin on August 8th, and it won't end anytime soon. Bluster will not push the Russians back, nor will (nearly empty) threats of retaliation. And, as we learned in Iraq, there's an enormous difference between being tough and certain, and smart and thoughtful. The former makes good sound bites, and leads to chaos.
Given a choice, if the phone rings in the White House at 3 a.m., I'd rather have the smart guy answering the phone and hope the tough guy stays asleep.
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
McCain and his Neocon advisor, Randall Scheuneman have arranged to have our military assets tied up in Iraq. Their tough talk against Russia is pure bluff. McCain bluffs a lot.
Obama is the cool cerebral poker player. He is learning to read McCain's bluffs. When the chips are down, he will call McCains bluffs.
McCain is a crapshooter. He is superstitious and has an anger management problem. His understanding of issues now is no more rigorous than it was for his studies when he was at the bottom of his class at USNA.
My biggest fear is that McCain will start WWIII if elected. He is a hothead and peace (and prosperity) don't seem to be particularly high priorities for him. That being said, Obama and McCain are both wrong on admitting Georgia into NATO. What would we think if Russia entered into a military alliance with Mexico? Oh yeah and maybe they could put anti-ballistic missles in Canada for protection against a 'rogue' state. We are starting a new Cold War and this time we may not be so lucky to avoid a devastating nuclear exchange.
NATO TO GEORGIA SOVIETS TO CUBA AND VENEZUELA!
Brzezinski: The West desisted from extending the NATO "membership action plan" to Georgia -- a preparatory stage for becoming a member -- out of deference to Russian objections. It is now clear that the deference shown to Putin, in the face of his obvious ambitions, has been counterproductive. In view of what has happened, NATO ought to extend the membership action plan to Georgia, therefore reinforcing the commitment NATO made in Bucharest last March to the effect that NATO intends, at some future point, to include Georgia.
Triathlon: The New Soviet Russia will extend the "Open Hand Of Mutual Defense" too Cuba and Venezuela it is now clear that the US Military Industrial Complex has obvious ambitions, and counterproductive to world peace, but world economic and political domination thru military means.
In view of NATO's plan to include buffer states to The Soviet Russian State, the targeting of Thero-Nuclear Weapon upon NATO (EU) and other threats must be taken, and the location of The New Soviet Russia Militrary assets into Cuba and Venezuela will be necessary.
The politicians and media in this country dumbed down Americans to get our money. If we stir up Russian nationalism and find ourselves in another cold war, we will not have the intellectual abilities to come out on top.
Great post. Me too. Are you related to the Zogby poll people?
McCain's bluster plays well domestically as did Bush's bluster way back when. That may not be a wonderful thing, but it is certainly predictable. And it's a shame. I think a lot of the public doesn't really get into international politics so much, they just want to feel safe, and so if there's a problem overseas, the tougher the language, the better. End of story. There's not a huge amount of thinking involved; it's all pretty primitive stuff.
I used to live all around Europe and got into a good habit of reading foreign newspapers, which I still do over the Internet, esp. during a time of international crisis. For what it's worth, I can tell you that Europe's experienced and concerned leaders are closer to the Obama camp's position and tone than they are to McCain's. His premature saber-rattling stuck out like a sore thumb. And it didn't do an ounce of good either.
McCain is still fighting the Vietnam war in his head - he'll never stop doing that - he's angry, mad and disturbed - We will never know his mental status until it's too late - we did not know the mental status of Reagan either until he left office -
Thank you for the article. It truly behooves me that anyone can think that Mcc has foreign policy experience. A prime example is this statement by Scheunemann-McCain "is clearly willing to note who he thinks is the aggressor here." IMO, this statement shows how quick Mcc is willing to respond to a crisis with limited information and without checking the facts, or an ulterior motive. Anyone who has taken the time to look beyond the normal propaganda that is fed to us will know that Georgia was the aggressor when they attacked Russian citizens in the province of Ossetia. Strangely, Georgia fails to acknowledge the same rights to Ossetia and Abkhazia in seeking their independence that was afforded them from Russia.
I'm not saying that Russia's continued agression is right, but who did they learn from? How can we in good conscience rally around a statement "that in the 21st century nations don't go around invading other nations", when this country invaded another with disapproval by the world community. The current administration set the standard, and now Mcc and his followers want to continue this failed policy of "bullying" and "threats of violence" whenever he wants with total disrespect to those he's speaking to and disregard for human life and rights.
I'll tell you what Georgia, and any number of other critical foreign policy and national security related issues, tells me about the two presidential candidates
Questions, comments, insults?
I'll take #2. Comment.
I agree.
Obama, as a candidate, impressed me from the beginning, and I have absolute faith in his abilities. He has an intellectual facility (translation: the guy is really smart) that has impressed not only me but apparently leaders all over the world. And has shown a judgment that the pols in Washington who claim superior judgment based on years in office (see crusty old opportunist John McCain) lack. He's an amazing candidate.
However...
Obama has an ugly election to get through. And he has plans for a brilliant White House. And I believe even though Joe told us today that he's "not the guy? Joe's the guy.
I just hope that the position will come with full reign over the Iraq file and carte blanche to implement the Biden strategy! Besides, the SecState will have enough to stay busy 24/7 without having to worring about ending a civil war in Iraq.
could say the same for Clark.
...except that General Clark doesn't come with a comprehensive strategy to reverse US policy in Iraq by promoting a sustainable political settlement based on federalism (NOT partition!) and Iraq's own constitution which has attracted the support of most of Iraq's sectarian leaders.
General Clark just doesn't have what Senator Obama needs the most.
Liz M,
Didn't Biden vote for the war in Iraq? How is that not a liability for Biden as it was for Hillary?
continued
The mistake was believing that President Bush would have so incompetently misused the authority he was given by rushing into war, without allies. I would also suggest that the trust that was placed in SecState Colin Powell, and in his ability to hold sway over the neocons (and their PNAC) in the administration, was another mistake.
I guess the long-winded point I'm trying to make is that there is no Senator - at the national or state level - who was more prescient about the dire and persistent consequences that would follow an invasion of Iraq or more insightful about the AUMF resolution or more knowledgeable about how best to deal with the threat that Saddam had become, though not imminent, and which would continue to grow if the Iraqi leader was left unfettered.
If anyone tries to make an issue out of this, or around any other vote the Senator has cast, then let them reconsider this approach or risk the wrath of Biden...fr
continued
This will not be a liability for Biden because there is no one in the US Congress or any state legislature who better understands what the AUMF resolution was all about or the context within which that vote took place. In fact, Biden was involved in drafting a stronger resolution - along with Lugar or Hagel, I think - that would have made it more difficult to resort to the option of war without exhausting all other options but...woul
Senator Biden has been - by far - the most honest, candid, and straightforward when discussing, in retrospect, his vote for the AUMF resolution. Essentially, he doesn't believe he made a mistake in voting for it because, as he said before the vote and since, he believed it provided a pathway to peace and the best chance to avoid war. In fact, he has said that, if he were the President, he would have wanted this resolution as a strong show of support from Congress to take to the UN but that he would have used it to avoid war.
continued
The AUMF resolution was actually the best hope there was to avoid war by giving the President and the Secretary of State the clout they would need to (1) force the UN Security Council to keep sanctions on Iraq in place (at the time, you'll recall that continued sanctions were under threat); and (2) keep the weapons inspectors in Iraq with the authority they needed to get the job done; and (3) to compel Saddam to comply with a number of UN resolutions dealing with weapons of mass destruction that he had been in violation of since the end of the Gulf War in 1991. A strong show of support from the US Congress would strengthen the hands of Bush and Powell who could say to the UN, if you don't act to force Saddam to comply, we already have the authority to act to disarm him.
I would say that the AUMF resolution was probably one of the most misunderstood resolutions ever passed in the history of Congress! And, I wouldn’t be surprised if some senators thought of their vote as a vote for war because they did not fully understand or agree with the intent of the resolution. The Levin amendment - also widely misunderstood, and not passed - would have somewhat decreased the effectiveness of the resolution by weakening the force of the President’s arguments to the UN.
Hey KoolBreez,
Actually, Senator Biden did NOT vote for war in Iraq. Now, I know that most people understand a vote in favor of the October 2002 resolution authorizing the use of US military force in Iraq (AUMF) as being the equivalent of a "vote for war" but nothing could be further from the truth.
continued.
McBush and his adviser STARTED THIS WAR!
Then we are supposed to be impressed because grandpa Knew it was coming and had a planned response?
Truly frightening how the MSM and even BHO and KO is not getting the big picture here.
To The shock doctrine loving BushCo McCain war profiteers, chaos, conflict and war are all money makers.
They also allow more fascism to be imposed on the frightened public.
It made it easier to sell snake oil missiles that don't work to Poland.
McCain's foreign adviser told Gerogia, Ossetia was theirs and they should take it back now!
the Israelis sold them weapons, and
the USA trained them just weeks before.
The Russians, seeing the war game training, were prepared to support the Ossetia requested Russian peacekeepers as a result. The Georgians planned this attack for the Olympics start. Ossetia has been fighting against the Georgian takeover since the breakup of the USSR. Georgia had just agreed to a cease fire, after the claimed Ossetian breakaway group attacks. In this context, The Georgians claims of "rebel factions attacking" are worthless.
The Russians, tired of the attacks and eager to squash a blatant USA client state land grab, demolished Georgian military capability.
Everyone needs to start asking Sen. McCain when he intends to reinstate the draft and if he demurs ask him how much it will cost (in lives and money) to carry out his grandiose military ambitions. You can't afford him.
There is positve movement to swing 160 delegates from Obama to Clinton. If that happens, Clinton will re-establish her campaign and face John McCain in the fall.
Twenty delegates have switched from Obama to Clinton in July. A floor convention vote to fully seat the delegations from Michigan and Florida — will be called and benefit Clinton in a HUGE way.
On to Denver!!
Living in so much denial is just sad. We all feel your pain, but let it go already.
go back to sleep , you were having a nightmare. Not going to happen
You just do that, and the Democrats will lose the election, and the Clintons (sic) will not have a prayer of being nominated in 2012.
betcha can't name one .
So glad to see some actual thought on this issue. The Georgians, Russians, Ossetians and Abkhazians have been squabbling and fighting over territory for centuries. If we ever find a resolution, it’s going to take more than empty threats from McCain. And he’s dumbing it down into a battle between democracy and authoritarianism, but it’s much more complex than that.
No offense, but there's one tiny error in your third sentence. "If we ever find....." shouldn't that be "If they ever find......
Anyhow, don't you think it's something Russia and Georgia have to work out? Everyone's entitled to have an opinion on the situation of course, and it's fine to offer help of the diplomatic kind, but that's basically all you can do when two countries have a dispute. Besides, offering help shouldn't depend on whether you have business interests or not.
You forget to not that Obama called for the U.N. to issue a Resolution condemning Russia's aggression. That resolution (apparently unknown to Obama) would of course not pass because Russia has a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council.
Obama is a complete lightweight. The "nuance" spin only works so long...
The UN can pass a resolution without the Security Council, lightweight.
You too can go back to sleep. When you wake up check the rules again.
The "tough guy" won't be able to get up at 3 a.m! We are in serious trouble if this maniac is elected because he is a hot head and too quick to fight! I bet every night before he goes to sleep he sings a lullaby "Draft, draft, draft, got to start a draft"!
Nice one Zogby...
Great post by Mr. Zogby. One additional detail - there's no question that the Russian response was disproportionate, but the truth remains that Georgia triggered the whole episode by invading South Ossetia and destroying the largest city in that region - and Russia does, after all, have an existing agreement with Georgia and South Ossetia that denotes Russia as a peacekeeper and forbids invasion by Georgia. In short, Georgia started it and they got their butts kicked by Russia, as you'd expect. In light of that, McCain's bluster and bellicose language is just as disproportionate as the Russian military response.
Georgia started it. We can reasonably confront Russia about their response, but we have to first acknowledge the fact that Georgia started it. Otherwise, we sound like McCain - like a guy who hopes that he can scream loud enough so that nobody will try to really understand what he's saying.
Of the two presidential candidates, Obama got it right. Again. And McCain was wrong. Again.
Indeed Georgia did start it, a fact lost upon the brain-dead.
Yes, Georgia DID start the whole mess (with Dubya's people behind), not Russia. Russia, as a peacekeeping agent went in to protect the S. Ossettians.
Re: Georgia started it. You have to ask WHY Georgia started it and whether Mr. Scheunemen (sp?) was giving accurate reports to Pres. Saakashvili (sp?) of how well he was doing with his lobbying efforts. It seems to me reasonable to at least think about this. Maybe the Georgians thought they could get away with aggression in South Ossetia because Sen. McCain's foreign policy adviser suggested the US had their backs. If not, what WERE they thinking?
Don't put anything past Bush, Cheney and the gang - anything to fool the foolish - of course Bush wants McCain to win - anything to steal the election again - Oh, I'm no Georgian -
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
