Cold War Hawks Nesting with Obama
So, Vladimir Putin was right: It was Georgia that started the war with Russia, and once again it was President Bush who got caught in a lie. As the New York Times reported last week, "Newly available accounts by independent military observers of the beginning of the war between Georgia and Russia this summer call into question the long-standing Georgian assertion that it was acting defensively against separatist and Russian aggression."
The Bush White House knew--but kept from the American public--facts concerning provocation by Georgia's U.S.-trained forces, which killed civilians in the capital of South Ossetia before Russian troops crossed the border. The provocation has also been documented in a BBC investigative report and by a growing consensus of other reliable sources.
No surprise, but it is a reminder of just how eager some are for a new Cold War and how indifferent they are to the truth of the matter. The career hawks are influential in both political parties, as was evidenced by the knee-jerk response of both presidential candidates, who claimed that the Russians had launched a totally unprovoked attack.
Sen. John McCain, whose top foreign policy adviser had been a paid lobbyist for Georgia, was most eager to confront the Russians, while Sen. Barack Obama was a bit more cautious. But as recently as in his Oct. 29 infomercial, Obama promised to "curb Russian aggression," which hardly suggests the change we need from the unilateral belligerence of the Bush foreign policy.
The result of that policy has been increased estrangement from the one country whose cooperation is totally indispensable in the effort to control the spread of nuclear weapons, given that Russia possesses roughly half of the world's nuclear arsenal and the ready means to build more nuclear arms. Yet instead of putting up a common front against nuclear proliferation, and even before the Georgia fracas, the Bush administration insisted on placing missiles on Russia's borders in a deal-breaker with Putin, whom President George W. Bush had previously embraced.
Improved relations with Russia are critical to the change toward a more peaceful world that Obama has promised, but it is disquieting in the extreme that some of his closest advisers are inveterate hawks with a history of needlessly provoking tension with the Russians during the Cold War days. Key among them is Zbigniew Brzezinski, who, as President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, engineered the U.S. involvement on the side of Islamic fanatics in Afghanistan.
Of course, the official story line at the time was that the Soviets had invaded Afghanistan to support their ally, which happened to be the governing power in Kabul, against the fanatic mujahedeen rebels, whom President Ronald Reagan would later officially embrace as "freedom fighters." Those freedom fighters came to be united by our CIA with the likes of Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of the 9/11 attacks.
It was decades later that the truth came out that the Soviets invaded only after being deliberately provoked by U.S. hawks. One of them was Robert Gates, who worked for Brzezinski in the Carter administration and who is currently the secretary of defense; President-elect Obama is now reported to be considering retaining Gates in that position. A 1996 press release promoting Gates' memoir promised the revelation of "Carter's never-before-revealed covert support to Afghan mujahedeen--six months before the Soviets invaded."
The Gates revelation prompted an interviewer for the French publication, Le Nouvel Observateur, to ask Brzezinski in a 1998 interview whether he regretted "having given arms and advice to future terrorists," and Brzezinski replied: "Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? ... What is most important to the history of the world? ... Some stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?"
That was three years before those "stirred-up Muslims" attacked us on 9/11, but Brzezinski has not lost his nerve for escalating wars. While advising Obama, he gave interviews hyping the Russian "invasion" of Georgia as the occasion for a new global conflict, telling journalist Nathan Gardels that Putin's action "was ominously similar to Stalin's and Hitler's in the late 1930s."
I know, Obama is not yet in office. I voted for him with enthusiasm in part because he does seem to have transcended the preoccupations of the Cold War. But as a buyer, I have to beware of those unrepentant Democratic hawks now hovering.
Robert Scheer is author of a new book, "The Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened America."
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
CONT
}}}}
When Ice caps start to melt that is not a planet cooling. When there is a 75 degree day in January on the East Coast, we have problems. You must have gotten your intended misinformation from an Oil company funded study.
{{{{
And yet, news reports pile in daily on record cold temps. Florida itself set a record cold day for October a few weeks back..
Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) is a con to make the likes of Al Gore and Richard Branson richer at the expense of the general planetary population.
But that is neither here nor there to the issue of Russia invading Georgia..
Michale.....
@Tubalcain
}}}
There is no disagreement, Georgia f**ked up and so did the USA.
{{{
That's your opinion.
In hindsight, I do believe that Georgia could have handled it better.. But hindsight is always 20.20
}}}}
The irony is that Rice & Bush condemned the Russians for invading a sovereign nation with no one from the MSM called them out on Iraq.
{{{{
Another comparison of Apples and Alligators..
The US was part of a coalition that invaded Iraq. And did so under the auspices of the UN..
There was no such coalition when Russia invaded Georgia and there was no mandate that Russia was enforcing, save their own greed..
}}}}
Most scientists, BBC excluded, agree that Humans have accelerated Global Warming.
{{{{
And yet, many MANY scientists are backing away from their earlier assertions of Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling)..
Regardless of that, my point was that the BBC, by taking sides in a controversial issue, is no longer a NEWS organization, but rather an advocacy organization. This being the case, it's impossible to take what the BBC says at face value, because they have proven that they will advocate one side of an issue at the expense of the facts..
CONT
@Yermammy
}}}}
All I know of you (which is too much) is that you are a lobbyist and apologist for the new FISA bill.
{{{{
Apparently, you don't know ANYTHING about me at all. I am no where, no how, no way a lobbyist for ANYONE.. If you have any proof that says differently, please feel free to "expose" me.. But I know you are just throwing out hysterical and unfounded accusations, simply because you have no logical or rational argument to counter with..
As for being an apologist for FISA.. I am no more an apologist than President Elect Obama is..
}}}}
Georgia threw the first punch. Russia countered. Deny that, Mr. AT&T.
{{{{
The facts say differently...
}}}}
Update: The EFF and the ACLU are going hot and heavy after the "retro-active" immunity the Telcos were given, so I'd be hesitant in spending that lobby money just yet.
{{{{
Actually, the ACLU case against the new FISA measures has already been dismissed. And the EFF didn't file anything, but rather latched onto the now defunct ACLU filing...
Want to try again??
Michale.....
I like most of your reporting Mr. Scheer but your obsession with Brzezinski as a demonic figure is unfair.
The American empire is bad but the Soviet empire was much much worse as they were socialist in name only. The Brzezinski strategy did finally bankrupt and destroy the Soviet empire and what you consistently neglect to report is that in 1989 when the Soviets finally left Afghanistan Brzezinski begged and pleaded with the Bush41 White House and Congress to invest up to 2 billion dollars in rebuilding and democratizing Afghanistan, which would have denied the Taliban and Al Qaeda the territory to do their dastardly deeds.
CONT
But, as we have determined, the Missile Shield simply prevents missile impacts in-theater on an ENGRESS TRAJECTORY basis..
The threat isn't Russia. It's Iran and North Korea et al..
}}}
So far all you offer is hot steamed words.
{{{
Hardly.. I have posted many links to support my contentions..
The fact that you simply refuse to read them is on you, not on me..
Michale.....
>>I have posted many links to support my contentions..
I see no links, no evidence, no coherent arguments, just hot words as has been already stated.
Most people see what they want to see when confronted by evidence that shows their position is in error..
Michale.....
@BayAreaResident
No evidence to support your contention that the Missile Defense Shield can easily be turned into an offensive weapon??
OK, good... That question is settled..
}}}}
1. How is that "comparing apples and alligators"? Coherent arguments please.
{{{{
I thought it would be self-evident. OK, I can explain...
For your scenario to have relevance, we would have to assume that USA is a rogue nation, bent on destroying the freedom loving people of China and her allies. We would further have to assume that China and Mexico enjoy the same close co-operation that is shared by the USA and the EU...
Now, if THAT is the situation you want to paint then I would be in FULL agreement that China putting a Missile Defense Shield in Tijuana is akin to the current situation..
But that is NOT the situation so your comparison is of apples and alligators...
}}}}
2. Wounded who?! Is that now a sufficient evidence to invade territories and kill civilians?
{{{{{
It's sufficient evidence to indicate that it was the Russians who had the South Ossetian irregulars provoke the Georgian military into a response, to which the Russians could then "swoop in and save the day"...
}}}}
3. you do still insist though that Russian reaction was unjust and illegal?
{{{{
Simply because of the initial attacks, kidnappings and what have you committed by South Ossetia irregulars at the behest of the Russian government..
Michale.....
I have provided you with the evidence already, the very possibility of this system being used in conjunction with the first strike increases the state of insecurity for the nation by which borders such systems are deployed. (i would suggest you to actually read what had already been written)
Rouge or not rouge, your stylistic definitions are not changing the fact that when there is a sufficient reasons to be cautious (and having opponents armed to their teeth with nuclear weapons is such a reason) every nation will do everything possible to insure it's state of security by restoring it's strategic parity, that is just fact and is not going to change in any forseeable future.
Unsupported evidence procured from just one individual (whoever he may be) requires further verification (why bother you say) and can not serve as a justification for mass military action against largely civilian population, not today not tomorrow. Arguing the opposite is plane speaking inhumane and criminally irresponsiblet.
>>Simply because of the initial attacks, kidnappings....
First of all intelligent people would ask for some solid proof of that, and after getting one we'd like to take the opportunity to weigh in on it before concluding appropriate the destruction of hundreds of lives as the likely solution. So far all you offer is hot steamed words.
@BayAreaResident
}}}}
Let's clear up some BS here, the defense system can easily be a part of the offensive complex
{{{{
And your evidence to support this is.... What exactly???
}}}}
given the enormous proximity of it's location to the opponent's borders and thus increasing the successful possibility of a surprise attack. If you have a hard time understanding that just Imagine fully deployed Chinese ABM in Tijuana, and i hope you don't catch a migraine in the process.
{{{{
That's comparing apples and alligators.
}}}
Number two, you point out the "fact" that Georgia decided to attack only after the one sided "provocation" from South Osetia, however you don't offer a single evidence of that yet calling it a "fact",
{{{
I cited evidence that came from a wounded Russian Captain's own words..
If you don't take the time to read the links, well that is not my fault..
Michale.....
1. How is that "comparing apples and alligators"? Coherent arguments please.
2. Wounded who?! Is that now a sufficient evidence to invade territories and kill civilians?
3. Now that you clearly threw the legal action option out of the window, which isn't at all surprising, you do still insist though that Russian reaction was unjust and illegal?
@Bjarni
}}}}
I think you need to go study a little bit before you post rubbish. The history of conflict in that region is far longer than some shelling incident. You need to study the conflict between those two factions that date back to WWI.
{{{{
Oh jeeze, if you want to go back THAT far, then we here in the US might as well cede all our lands and homes to native Americans... :^/
The simple fact is, in THIS particular skirmish, it was the South Ossetian irregulars who instigated the conflict, at the behest of their Russian masters..
These are the facts.. Regardless of whether you accept them or not..
}}}}
Restoring South Ossetia and Abkhazia to Georgian control has been a goal of Saakashvili since he came to power.
He ballooned military spending in order to accomplish this.
When you talk about shelling from S. Ossetia into Georgia you fail to realise that Tskhinvali also came under mortar fire from the Georgian villages of Ergneti and Zemo Nikozi on August 1st, the same day as the first reports of two roadside bombs hitting a Georgian police vehicle on a detour road connecting Georgian-populated villages near the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali.
{{{{
Which was in response to shelling and kidnappings from South Ossetia.. etc etc etc...
No matter HOW you want to slice it, Georgia is legally, morally and ethically in the right here...
It's THAT simple...
Michale.....
Not really an equal comparison.
In 1990, as the USSR was nearing its collapse the longtime anti-Soviet dissident Zviad Gamsakhurdia was emerging as Georgia's first independent leader. In basing his campaign for the presidency on a nationalist platform, dubbed Georgia for Georgians, he projected ethnic Georgians, who at the time constituted 70% of the population, as the country's true patriots, to the debasement of South Ossetians as newcomers.
In late 1994, Georgia's Supreme Council ruled that the South-Ossetian autonomous region (oblast) be disbanded. The government in Tbilisi established Georgian as the country's principal language, whereas the Ossetians' first two languages were Russian and Ossetian.
Amidst rising ethnic tensions, a quasi-military conflict broke out in January 1991 when Georgian forces entered Tskhinvali; more than 2,000 people are believed to have been killed. The war resulted in South Ossetia, which has a Georgian ethnic minority of around one fifth of the total population (70,000), breaking away from Georgia and gaining de facto independence. After a cease-fire in 1992, Tskhinvali was isolated from the Georgian territory around it, and accounts of atrocities against Ossetians — rapes and grisly killings — circulated endlessly.
In the 2006 South Ossetian independence referendum, full independence was supported by 99% of voters, although ethnic Georgians living in the region did not participate. Georgia accused Russia of the annexation of its internationally recognised territory and installing a puppet government led by Eduard Kokoity and several officials who previously served in the Russian FSB and Army
Let's clear up some BS here, the defense system can easily be a part of the offensive complex given the enormous proximity of it's location to the opponent's borders and thus increasing the successful possibility of a surprise attack. If you have a hard time understanding that just Imagine fully deployed Chinese ABM in Tijuana, and i hope you don't catch a migraine in the process.
Number two, you point out the "fact" that Georgia decided to attack only after the one sided "provocation" from South Osetia, however you don't offer a single evidence of that yet calling it a "fact", but really, how could you offer any when instead of calling up (as they should have done) on the UN inspectors to document the "one-sided Osetian provocations" as well as (according to you) the already occurred partial deployment of non-UN Russian forces (again you site 58th army) in the region, Georgians in their trigger happy mode have decided to just go ahead and blast the crap out of S.Osetian civilians as well as Russian peacekeepers legally station in there while (R)elying on the best outcome ... and who cares about documenting the facts and some pro-Russian civilians right? Shoot em first and ask questions later?
I can smell the conservative values from miles away!
That word "conservative" is quite the oxymoron, isn't it.
Agree with Scheer. Am also Obama voter, and want new ideas, not Cold War II.
Gorbachev said the same things in the NYT recently: Georgia, with help from US probably, was the provacateur.
See
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/opinion/20gorbachev.html
Russia Never Wanted a War
By MIKHAIL GORBACHEV
Published: August 19, 2008
Well, you can listen to Gorbachev..
Or you can read the words straight from the Russian Military that was on the ground at the time..
http://virtualcollector.blogspot.com/2008/09/russia-started-georgian-war-analysis.html
It's clear that Russia was anticipating the Georgia response to the South Ossetia provocations and elements of the Russian 58th Army were already in South Ossetia to "respond" to the Georgia attack.
Note that the elements of the 58th are NOT the Russian "peacekeepers" that are normally stationed in South Ossetia..
Michale.....
It's called Russian "intelligence". You know, what you're insulting right now.
I totally affirm. Not to be disrespectful nor put too fine a point on it, but when you space things out like you do, it takes 600 pages to read all the comments. Thanks for the link and point of view! :)
We should trust President Obama's judgement that he will staff appropriately. We cannot assume that these cold war hawks will remain in that mode of thinking, solely based on their past behavior.
If it comes out of King George W's mouth, it's a lie. It didn't take me long to figure that out. It seems as if a lot of people still haven't learned.
Oh, you mean the Warhawks that are saying the Russia started the conflict with Georgia? The media is lying to us once more. Georgia started that skirmish and Russia responded. Read news elsewhere in the World and you will see. Our "news" is ignoring a lot of things that should be of concern. The International Red Cross and even Britain are starting to see the light. We're broke and flailing, yet Warhawks are still being listened to. Shades of the Roman and British Empires. And the same result will follow.
Actually, South Ossetia "started" the skirmish with Georgia at the behest of the Russian puppeteers...
Why else do you think that 5 battalions of the Russian 58th Army "just happened" to be standing by at the South Ossetia border, far from their home base.
Further, it is documented that the involved elements of the 58th were given marching orders days before the Georgia "attack"...
To those who actually know military matters, it's clear that the Georgia so-called provocation was engineered by Moscow.
Michale.....
All I know of you (which is too much) is that you are a lobbyist and apologist for the new FISA bill. Georgia threw the first punch. Russia countered. Deny that, Mr. AT&T.
Update: The EFF and the ACLU are going hot and heavy after the "retro-active" immunity the Telcos were given, so I'd be hesitant in spending that lobby money just yet.
You are mighty active asking questions but not really looking for answeres.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus_Frontier_2008 (Russian War Games in July 2008)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immediate_Response_2008 (NATO/US Georgia War Games in July 2008)
@Poboy
}}}}
Paranoid?
As if Russia doesn't know what's in its interest.
{{{{
Of course it's not in Russia's interest...
But, why should WE care what is in Russia's interests??
More importantly, should we let Russia's interests determine our actions??
I think not..
}}}}
Nothing threatening to Russia.
Obviously Russia thinks otherwise.
{{{{
Yea, and terrorists always think they are right as well. So what's your point??
}}}}
If you recall correctly, the missile defense system has never been PROVEN to work, whether inbound or outbound.
{{{{
Actually, the system has come a long way since those initial failures.. As with any complex system, it takes time.. The Manhatten Project was one failure after another. Nothing worked right. Until it did...
{{{{
The Czech Republic doesn't want it on its soil. They are having to prove themselves as members of NATO. Same with Poland.
}}}}
Assumes facts not in evidence...
}}}}
If the missile defense system is not aimed at Russian, then why is it aimed at Russia?
{{{{
It's not "aimed" at anyone.. It's a DEFENSIVE system which, by definition, cannot be aimed offensively..
Michale.....
How the conservative (london) Times reported the conflict the day after, 9th Aug 08:
"When is a victory not a victory? When it dents your country's image, scares your allies and gets you into an unwinnable war with a hugely stronger opponent.
That is the bleak outlook for Georgia this weekend, after what initially looked like a quick military win against the separatist regime in South Ossetia."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4488503.ece
"It looks, in retrospect, like a ruse that went badly wrong. After days of heavy skirmishing between Georgian troops and Russian-backed separatist militias.....
Just hours later his troops began an all-out offensive with tanks and rockets to “restore constitutional order."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4488803.ece
"Georgia’s main aim in its offensive in South Ossetia appears to have been a swift advance on the separatist capital Tskhinvali to seize Ossetian territory and achieve a fait accompli before Russia is able to respond."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4488802.ece
Sorry, this should be a follow on to the post below.
I've noticed reports of recent BBC & NYTimes stories with some amazement.
The BBC story merely confirms what we've been told all along by the UK media - Its not a new story in any way or form!
Why the US media reported this as a 'poor little Georgia' story at all is beyond me, but sadly consistent with US foreign news values. The indiscriminate mass bombardment of civilian, residential areas, was widely reported as an act of Georgian aggression over here. The "new" stories aren't new at all.
Sometimes I think American MSM is obsessed with reporting the world outside its borders as they wish it were rather than how it is. No wonder Americans so often have different world views from your allies.
Sorry, the links to the Times should've been placed here as backup to this post
Agreed. Willful ignorance runs rampant in this country.
The USA should not forget that Russia remains a great power just as it has always been for centuries. What defeated the USSR was not Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II or even the Gorbachev reforms. They all helped in their own way. No, what defeated the USSR is what has defeated all the Great Powers over the years: economics and costly imperialistic wars like the Russian experience in Afghanistan. The USA inow n an economic slump cannot continue its useless incursions in Iraq and Afghanistan which will only defeat us economically and morally. Russia has a right to secure its borders. We need an intelligent detente with Russia, not a Kissinger-Brzezinski-Gates let's "kick ass" policy. As to pouring more troops and money into that rat hole called Afghanistan, we should get out of theree sooner than we can run out of Iraq.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
