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."

Comments

[mjc]

Our good guy image is always presented as the face of a strong, perhaps the strongest, military and a belief in American might always makes right. Great article Mr. Scheer, as usual. Yes, the military-industrial alliance that Geo Washington worried about and Dwight Eisenhower warned of has become reality. Brzezinski was on the Jim Lehrer show with Brent Scholcroft yesterday evening and of course the whole warning of both men, both hawks, was of Iran. How the US could not ever allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. The only difference it seems was what particular path could be taken to keep that from happening. The premise was never questioned because as one of them said if Iran got nuclear weapons, the Saudis would have to, Turkey would have to, etcetera. The fact that Israel already has nuclear weapons, and Pakistan and India and others, that is dismissed as irrelevant. Of course the US is the only country...­.so far.....th­at has used its nuclear weapons; so much for deterrents. I don't hold out much hope that Obama will be different than the crew he has surrounded himself with.

[CandideinNC]

Look at what Obama is doing. Stories are leaking about how he plans to let Bush's wars continue unabated "for a while" in Afghanistan and Iraq. He hires on Nunn, one of the nastiest Democratic hawks in history, to lead his Defense team. He begins his peresidency shaking a big stick at Russia instead of offering an olive branch. Tough talk against Venezuela and Iran.

Maybe he thinks if he starts out as a hard liner, he will be in a better position to arbitrate matters later. That is the most positive spin I can imagine. The alternative, which I really fear, is that we have another belligerant on our hands, and foreign policy will be no better in the next four years than it has in the last eight.

[Michale32086]

Or there is another possibilit­y..

Obama is continuing Bush's policies, because they are the correct course of action.

You can't discount a possibility simply because you find it personally distastefu­l..

It's not allowed..

Michale...­..

[Romulus]

I can't read Obama's mind but if I were in his position I would not want to start off my administration giving the right wing any ammunition to call me weak on defense. Four years from now the economy should be on an even keel (although maybe not completely recovered) but it will still be a dangerous world. Being perceived as weak on defense would probably derail Obama's re-election.

[Michale32086]

Yes, Georgia attacked South Ossetia which gave Russia it's excuse to go in..

But what you DON'T say is that the Georgia "attack" was simply a response to the 6-days of shelling, attacks and kidnappings by South Ossetia irregulars backed up by forward elements of the Russian 58th Army.

The only thing that Georgia was "guilty" of was responding to protect it's citizens.

Michale...

[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.
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.

[ljwaldron]

Where is the US media on this story? The BBC has been reporting for days about it.

[Michale32086]

Considering the source (The BBC) it's more likely that there ISN'T any story..

Michale...­..

[Tubalcain]

Michale, this is exactly your problem. Though far from truly free, the BBC is by far way more credible and objective than the idiot mainstream news in the U.S.A which regurgitates one sided talking points by unknown experts. Mr. Scheer is correct, however he did fail to mention the strategic importance of Georgia with regards to pipelines Azerbaijan & Central Asia. This is why they are considered a U.S. Ally and why it is heavily militarized and trained by us. These were Clinton policies not Bush. According to the WSJ, the Russians believed that Bush encouraged Georgia to attack to play up on John McCain's national security experience during an international crisis. Prior to the "shelling" the Georgians did indeed provoke Russia and it was a long time coming, check the history from credible sources.

The BBC was probably the only news that covered the 2000 & 2004 election thefts, the U.S. MSM called the stories duds and were scared to touch them even with overwhelming evidence. Have you seen any mainstream U.S. documentaries about Israel and its 200 nuclear weapons or even critical of them? Of course not because here, there is no story.

[wallyone]

The question is would we be better off if either Russia had never invaded Afghanistan, or if they had been successful in their occupation. No doubt we would have been better off in either case if Afghanistan had stayed the way it was. And is it a given that the Russian misadventure in Afghanistan was totally responsible for the break up of the Soviet Union? Many think it was on the road to self implosion regardless of external forces.

I am dismayed that Russia threatens to put missiles on its Polish and Czech borders, so now Obama can not withdraw our SDI plans there without looking as if he is caving in to Putin and company. Sad that they did not see that. They are still acting in the heavy handed soviet style from our point of view.

[Poboy]

The US should simply not put the missiles in Poland, a clear provocation to Russia.

The US should withdraw those plans for missiles in the Czech Republic. The people there don't want those missiles to provoke Russia. They say they are doing it for the US.

NATO is supposed to be a defensive organization, not an offensive one. Maybe it's time to rethink the NATO concept.

Common sense must prevail, and those people who have a vested interest in a new cold war should be pushed aside.

[Michale32086]

}}}}
NATO is supposed to be a defensive organization, not an offensive one. Maybe it's time to rethink the NATO concept.
{{{{

Uhh... The missile system being put in place IS a Defensive system.

Ergo, it's completely in keeping with NATO's concept..

Michale...­..

[Chelkov]

Thank you!
I Saw the BBC documentary. It took them a while, but they finally got there. In the Russian papers there have been some articles warning us not to have too much hope concerning Obama's policy towards Russia. I hope they are wrong and that he can stay as independent as he was when he voted against the invasion of Iraq. Please send him this article!

[Yermammy]

Good one Chelkov! I think Mr. Obama was very wise to have operations in Chicago to get a "step back" perspective on everything. Sure, the obstructionists are going to muddle up his policies, but if he can run this Country HALF as well as he did his primaries, we can be somewhat optimistic. Barack has good instincts. Ask the Clinton's (if they'll talk to you).