Palin, McCain and War with Russia

Gov. Palin's ABC interview raised concerns over her experience and knowledge.

It is her policy that should worry us most. The combination of McCain's recklessness, Palin's proclivities and neoconservative belligerence could plunge a McCain presidency into an early confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia.

Palin generated alarmed headlines when she casually said America could go to war with Russia to defend the Republic of Georgia.

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help.

No leader or candidate should promote, threaten or bluff global thermonuclear war. Russia has over 10,000 nuclear weapons, including some 2000 nuclear-tipped missiles ready to launch on 15-minutes notice. The failure of the two previous administrations to eliminate this threat means that the next administration must make it a top priority. There are many ways to both reduce this threat and stand up to Russia's brutality without suggesting war.

But this is more than inexperience. Gov. Palin's comments mirror Sen. McCain's response to the Russia-Georgia conflict. Both follow the hard line laid down by neoconservative advisers now dominating the campaign's foreign policy.

Their plans deserve more attention than they have received. Would President McCain implement this radical policy and establish Georgia as a military ally of the United States, placing American weapons and troops directly on Russia's southern Asian border?

Fred Kagan urges exactly this in The Weekly Standard. He would extend NATO-like security guarantees to Georgia now, rush hundreds of US military advisors to the nation, fund a major increase in Georgia's military forces, and pledge the US military to block Russian aircraft or troops from Georgian territory. In short, the doctrine Palin now espouses. Kagan, a fierce advocate for the invasion of Iraq and of strikes on Iran, wants to greatly expand the US military presence in Eastern Europe, Ukraine and Georgia. "This program would aim to turn each of those states," he says, "into daunting porcupines capable of deterring the Russian bear."

His Weekly Standard colleague, Stuart Koehl, thinks this plan is too modest. Koehl says the Russian military is a paper bear that could be knocked off with a determined guerrilla war. He advocates sending U.S. anti-tank weapons and anti-aircraft Stinger missiles to Georgia troops, encouraging them to wage protracted war with Russia, backed by lavish US military aid. "As Russian forces start to bleed," he claims, "it will be impossible...to hide the casualties from the Russian people." The full aim of Koehl's proxy war would be overthrow of the Russian regime.

If this regime change strategy sounds familiar, it should. It is the same disastrous policy that brought us into an unnecessary war with Iraq, threatens war with Iran, blocked negotiations to end North Korea's nuclear program, and now returns in full glory to the original object of neoconservative ire: Russia. McCain and Palin seem to embrace this world view.

These plans have fermented for decades in various crackpot conferences and journals. A McCain-Palin administration could bring them directly into the White House. Nothing could be more dangerous for America's national security.

Follow Joe Cirincione on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Cirincione

Comments

[tommo]

Who cares about our nation's best interests. McSame's foreign policy advisor has been a paid lobbiest of Georgia. What could trump that?

Let's get our priorities straight here, people!!

[ssello]

Excellent post. You have said it all. I wonder if the American people have thought this out. The implications of these two in the White House is frightening. In a nuclear war NO ONE WILL WIN. and there can be no gains to be made by beating the drums of war, especially with a nation that can do you mutual harm. We need a leader that has sound judgement and wisdom that will guide the country away from a unilateral position on foreign affairs and will work together with our allies to make the world a more stable place. Not a hot tempered, bellicose administration.

[ElBruce]

Anybody else here remember living under the threat of global thermonuclear war? Raise your hands.

We're already back there. From what they've said, the likelihood of McCain/Palin winning this thing = the likelihood of the destruction of the human race.

[djarvis]

McCain would be insane to throw us into war with Russia now. Our military is already overstretched with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There would need to be a draft to even have enough soldiers, not to mention the threat of mutually assured destruction if we were to get into a nuclear conflict with Russia.

[SamThornton]

The disturbing part about NATO alliances with countries like Georgia is how closely they resemble the web of alliances with fractious, minor Balkan states by major European powers that led to World War I. The underlying question, then as now: is a country like Georgia, with its volatile politics and internal ethnic conflicts, worth a country like the U.S. fighting another major war in Europe? If so, it's reasonable to ask why. Just what does the U.S. -- or the other major players in NATO -- stand to gain from such a major commitment to such an unpredictable ally? I confess, I don't see any advantage, only unreasonable risks.

[gevan]

It was always my understanding of the NATO treaty that "perhaps so" isn't the operative distinction of mutual defense. The treaty's umbrella was designed to mean certain distruction to anybody who screwed around with attacking a member. With all the unresolved border issues in the Caucasus and even in the Ukraine we should go slow in handing out membership to countries in those areas.

[canobs]

Russia is justifiably worried that US is making alliances with its neighbours, Georgia and Ukraine. Russia is uncomfortable with former parts of the Soviet Union being admitted to NATO.
However, it is in our interest (as well as Ukraine's and Georgia's) to pull these countries closer to the West and farther from authoritarian Russia's influence. What Kagan is proposing is in no way unreasonable. Yes, Russia has a huge nuclear arsenal. So do we. MAD principle still applies. We have to keep Russia in check by all means necessary.
Palin is absolutely correct when she says "the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help". Georgia and Ukraine are not NATO members yet and don't have the sense and the level of security that such membership offers to cuntries such as, say, Latvia and Poland. However, Latvia and Poland were in the same situation a short time ago. There's no going back for them. Georgia and Ukraine are no less worthy.

[Vere15]

In the context of recent history, do you not think it possible that Russia would love to embroil in a complex multifronted conflict there at the same time was are dealing with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. From her own statements, Palin seems prepared to take on any other wars that she feels God calls her to call. Do we not remember how the Soviet Union imploded, because it couldn't cover the territory. Might Putin not feel that he might turn the tables on the US with the help of trigger finger McCain and Palin. Just a thought, the US must also think of itself.

[motley2]

"daunting porcupines capable of deterring the Russian bear"? More like road kill under the tracks of Russian tanks.

[buzz101]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u-lvizDuL0

Why McCain is bad news for everyone

[0whole1]

"He advocates sending U.S. anti-tank weapons and anti-aircraft Stinger missiles to Georgia troops, encouraging them to wage protracted war with Russia, backed by lavish US military aid."

Er...Isn't that how the US helped to create Bin Laden? By furnishing local guerrillas against the Soviets in Afghanista­n....with Stinger missiles?

So....say we arm the Georgians, and they succeed. What happens if the Russian government topples? What replaces it? Do we want warlordism, a la Iraq, with Russia's nuclear arsenal divvied between them? Do we want the rise of another Stalin clone? Who inherits the wind -- the Russian mafia?

[hopeless277]

But she's soooooo purdy.