Toughness and bellicosity
The Philadelphia Inquirer Blog - American Debate
Toughness and bellicosity
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
When John McCain asserted yesterday that "I know I speak for every American...we are all Georgians," millions of Americans probably wondered, "What's he talking about? Did a hurricane hit Savannah or something?"
Over the past five days, McCain has been marketing his flinty response to the Russia-Georgia crisis as prime evidence of his commander-in-chief credentials. What better way to trump Barack Obama, he figures, than to exhibit how much tougher he would be when that red phone rings at three in the morning? The public already prefers McCain over Obama when national security is at stake - in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, he is viewed, by 50 to 41 percent, as more trustworthy to handle "an unexpected major crisis" - and Russia's invasion of Georgia would appear to be a golden opportunity to widen that margin. Indeed, McCain badly needs to accomplish that task; in the polls, he has virtually no other issue advantages over Obama.
So when Russia (run by the thuggish Vladimir Putin) invaded Georgia (a fledgling democracy) last Friday, McCain was quick off the mark to condemn the invader, and he has remained consistent ever since. Obama, vacationing in Hawaii, was initially more even-handed, calling on both nations to show "restraint," but in a series of subsequent statements he has toughened his language against Russia. In political/perceptual shorthand, McCain would appear to be the more decisive of the two men in this crisis, and therefore the winner.
But before McCain's campaign aides slap five in celebration, they might want to consider several caveats.
As I mentioned in passing yesterday, most Americans probably don't have the faintest clue what this crisis is all about (which means that McCain was quite presumptuous when he declared that "we are all Georgians"). It's safe to say that Americans are far more concerned about selling their SUVs at book value than they are about the dire territorial issues that have plagued Russia-Georgia relations since the latter broke away from the crumbling Soviet Union in 1991. Maybe McCain can exploit this crisis for campaign season advantage by effectively framing the situation as "Russia Bad, Georgia Good" - after all, we tend to like it when foreign complexities are reduced to bad guys and good guys - but that brings us to another caveat:
The role played by the Bush administration - with longstanding support from McCain - in precipitating this crisis.
For years, the Bush foreign policy team has tilted heavily toward Georgia in its ongoing disputes with Russia, clearly leaving the impression (at least in the minds of Georgians) that the U.S. would come to Georgia's aid if the two nations clashed militarily. Bush told Georgia, during a 2005 visit, that "the path of freedom you have chosen is not easy, but you will not travel it alone." Bush has sent American military advisors to build up the Georgian troops - who reportedly staged a joint exercise last month with 1,000 American soldiers. Bush has also urged bringing Georgia into NATO, a move long supported by McCain. The president has not been successful in fast-tracking membership, but here's the thing: Under the NATO treaty, members are required to defend other members. All for one and one for all. Which means that if Georgia was currently a member of NATO, we'd be warring militarily with Russia.
It gets more complicated. Georgia has long been in conflict with two breakaway regions, Abkhazia and South Ossetia - both of which want independence, both of which are supported by Russia. Georgia has sought to quell the separatist movements in those regions, and apparently assumed that the U.S. would come to its aid in any showdown with Russia. McCain has also fed that impression; last April, he got on the phone with the president of Georgia and expressed his solidarity - after a briefing with top foreign policy advisor Randy Scheunemann, a neoconservative whose private lobbying firm signed a contract this spring to provide Georgia with strategic advice.
Obama, it must be noted, has also supported NATO membership for Georgia; however, in July he publicly urged Georgia not to launch any military attacks in the breakaway regions. But Georgia, apparently fortified with what it viewed to be sufficient American solidarity, overreached late last week and launched a military attack in South Ossetia. Which in turn triggered the massive Russian response. Which in turn triggered McCain's outrage about "Russian aggression," and his warning of "negative consequences" for Russia (all of which was echoed by Dick Cheney, who warned darkly, "Russian aggression must not go unanswered"). Then, on the radio yesterday, McCain took his statements up a notch, declaring: "I think it's very clear that Russian ambitions are to restore the old Russian empire." Then, at a fundraising lunch today, McCain (who now says he speaks daily with Georgia's president) warned again that the Russians are thirsting for empire, and said that he is dispatching two of his top campaign surrogates, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman, off to Georgia.
Rhetorically, at the very least, a certain somebody needs to take a chill pill.
Maybe, in domestic campaign shorthand, McCain looks good by acting so tough. But is it wise, geopolitically speaking, for McCain to frame this crisis as the first manifestation of a new Cold War between east and west? Or to beat the drums about "negative consequences" when, in reality, there is very little (aside from diplomacy) that we can do to confront Russia in a region it views as a traditional sphere of influence - particularly since our own military is seriously overstretched, thanks to a disastrous Middle Eastern war, launched under false pretenses, that McCain promoted from the outset?
Maybe, on closer inspection, there is a thin and dangerous line between toughness and bellicosity.
This episode is actually very reminiscent of Poppy Bush's treatment of the Marsh Arabs after the Kuwait war - he encouraged them to rise up against Saddam, then did nothing while Saddam slaughtered them and drained the marshes. Though I have to say the Georgians should have had more sense than to think they could fight the whole Russian army and win.— yoda- yoda, brilliant statement, saying it was not the fault of America, it was the Bush administration. So I suppose when Obama says the United States will support democracy, he really means "I will support democracy". And when he says the United States will continue the war in Afghanistan, he is really saying "I will continue to fight the war in Afghanistan". And if Obama, as president, promises United States support for a fledgling Democratic, say Cuba, he really means "I, Barack Obama, will support a fledgling Democracy in Cuba". The president speaks for the nation. Just as I never supported Clinton, when he spoke for the nation as president, he was speaking for all its citizens and not just himself. Your statement puts you squarely on Obama's short list for VEEP, since his statements showed just as much intellectual acumen. To stop Russia in its tracks, NATO should fast track membership for the other Russian satellites wanting membership, such as Ukraine. Russia will not attack a NATO member.— tom - wilmington, de
- And on this NATO thing - you can say if, if, if all you like, but the fact is that Russia will never allow Georgia or any other Caucasian country to join NATO, or Ukraine or Belarus either for that matter. If it looked like it was going to happen they would find a pretext to rush in as they have in Georgia, but it would end up more like Czechoslovakia in 1968 and there would be no more democratic country to join NATO, just a Russian vassal state under new management. If you look into Putin's eyes you will see this - he was a colonel in the KGB, what more do you need to know about him to know he is evil to the roots of his soul?— yoda
- bon, your are too kind. BTW, enlighten me on "falcon boy." Even though an old timer, it's never too late to learn.— Djoko Pritza
- Tom, I don't quite understand your logic. First you say the president speaks for all American citizens, and in the same breath you say Clinton didn't speak for you. Are you Canadian or something? A new administration can change pretty much any policy its predecessor had, except for treaties and such, and anyone relying on the word of the American president ought to keep that in mind. This would be just as true for Obama's successor as it will be for Obama.— yoda
- YO BILL, I agree McCain would be too quick on the trigger, if his bluff didn't work. Plus, he's a total sell-out to the far right, who want one of their own as VP to replace him--as in sooner rather than later. Jan. 21 would work for them. Unfortunately, he's being forced to do or say anything to even have any shot at winning The WH. The upside is that he can be his own man after the fact, and the downside is that the far right won't allow that. It's more about running the country w/ the same thinking as the last 7 years, which is good for ONLY a certain section of the population: about 12% to 25%. It works for them, but not for me--no matter what fancy package you put it in. The only way McCain can build up the military is to be a one-termer, and bring back the draft for love of country. What say you, fellow debater?— Talvenada
- YODA: What Tom is saying is that BUSH speaks for all Americans, because he speaks for TOM. Clinton did NOT speak for TOM, because his policies are not what TOM approves of. Ergo, when Tom benefits, the president speaks for us all. Tom's way is the ONLY way. A lot of people on the far left and right exhibit similar thinking. That does not mean that TOM is an extremist, he isn't Hannitized.— Talvenada
- Well now, our friend Bon has revealed himself to be the arbiter of who the rational, thoughtful people are. How absolutely east coast, effete, and elitist of him...and UN-conservative! LOL!!!— JeffA
- Tal/yoda: I don't get your connection here. I re-read Tom's statement & I don't see that he claimed Clinton didn't speak for him, he just said he didn't support him. He clearly states that the President speaks for all Americans, & that is correct. Until 1/20/09, Bush speaks for us, even though we don't support him. Obama, not being the President at this time, can only speak for Obama.— yobill626
Comment removed.- Tal: McCain has certainly flip flopped on many issues, some for the benefit of the Far Right & some for the benefit of the Center. What he has never wavered on is the fact that he's a Hawk. I feel his comments are no less confrontational that what we've seen from Bush from 2001 - @2007. It even appears that it has finally sunk into the thick head of "C student" Bush that we have to use diplomacy & real consensus building with many countries to get real results. I just don't see where giving a strong Hawk like McCain, the job of POTUS at this time in our nation's history to be very wise. Oh, & if he's thinking about it, McCain has no chance in He!! of getting the Congress to re-instate the Draft.— yobill626
- YO BILL, I only went by what Yoda said to make my WRONG statement. Sorry, you're right on what he said. My apologies to Tom on that one, and he cannot beat me up as much as I beat myself up.— Talvenada
- yoda, please re-read my post and tell me where I said Clinton did not speak for me? What I did say was even though I did not support Clinton, when he spoke as President he spoke for all its citizens. Now, since I am a citizen, that means he spoke for me. What language are you speaking that you read something in my post I did not type?— tom - wilmington, de
- I admit to being a relentless Bush basher on this blog, but the cover story from this week's Newsweek (Fareed Zakaria) is titled "What Bush Got Right". Despite it running counter to my own views, it is an excellent article & one that makes some good points.— yobill626
- talvenada, see my post to yoda. You must speak the same language, since you also read something that wasn't there. You must be one of the unenlightened that were written about in the post today.— tom - wilmington, de
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
