Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

U.S. Debates Russia’s Ambitions

(Inter Press Service) Just days after the outbreak of war between Russia and Georgia, the debate in Washington over how to view the crisis historically has become nearly as...

(Inter Press Service)

Just days after the outbreak of war between Russia and Georgia, the debate in Washington over how to view the crisis historically has become nearly as contentious as the debate over how to respond politically.

Prominent neoconservatives and other foreign policy hawks have portrayed Russia’s offensive into Georgia as an echo of 1930s Nazi expansionism—an interpretation that has been hotly contested by a number of liberals and conservative realists.

But the question of what sort of concrete action the United States should take in the Caucasus has proved far messier, as both camps remain split about the proper response to the Russian offensive.

Since August 8, when Russia sent troops into the restive Georgian region of South Ossetia, neoconservatives in the United States have analogized Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler, and the Russian incursion to Germany’s 1938 annexation of the Sudetenland.

"The details of who did what to precipitate Russia’s war against Georgia are not very important," began a Monday column in the Washington Post by prominent neoconservative Robert Kagan, a cofounder of the Project for a New American Century. "Do you recall the precise details of the Sudeten Crisis that led to Nazi Germany’s invasion of Czechoslovakia?"

British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s famously unsuccessful attempt to appease Hitler by ceding the Sudetenland in the 1938 Munich Agreement has become a central reference of neoconservative foreign policy doctrine. "Appeasement," "Munich," and Chamberlain’s name itself are often taken as code words signifying the ineffectiveness of compromise and diplomacy—and the necessity of military force—in dealing with U.S. enemies.

Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) also seemed to be alluding to the lessons of Munich in an August 12 speech. McCain claimed that the United States had "learned at great cost the price of allowing aggression against free nations to go unchecked."

McCain is advised by Kagan and has joined him in proposing a “League of Democracies” to counter powers such as Russia and China.

At a panel held August 13 at the right-wing American Enterprise Institute (AEI) in Washington, the Munich analogies were plentiful.

Frederick Kagan, brother of Robert and a military scholar who helped formulate the Bush administration’s "surge" plan in Iraq, complained that Western governments and media viewed Georgia as "a far off place of which we know little." Kagan’s comment was a reference to Chamberlain’s description of the Sudeten crisis as "a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing."

Ralph Peters, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and prominent foreign policy hawk, mocked the Tuesday peace agreement between Russia and Georgia brokered by French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

"President Sarkozy has landed in Paris holding in his hand a piece of paper guaranteeing peace in our time," Peters said to widespread laughter from the audience. Once again, the reference was to a statement of Chamberlain’s following the Munich conference.

Peters ended his remarks by making the Putin-Hitler analogy all but explicit.

"We are faced with a resurgent major power with imperialist megalomaniacal ambitions, led by the most effective leader in the world today," Peters said. "Ladies and gentlemen, I find this terribly reminiscent of the 1930s."

Hitler and Chamberlain analogies have long been staples of neoconservative rhetoric, but their application to the situation in Georgia has been met with a growing backlash.

Dimitri Simes, president of the Nixon Center, advocated U.S. assistance to the Georgian regime in the National Interest, a journal that is known as a bastion of foreign policy realism. But Simes urged policy makers to "disregard the hysterical diatribes of [Georgian President Mikhail] Saakashvili’s American champions, who protest too much—perhaps because their irresponsible encouragement of the Georgian president was a contributing factor on the road to the war."

Despite the intensity of the debate surrounding the Nazi analogy, there has been little agreement on either side about what would constitute an appropriate response to Russian aggression.

At the AEI panel, Peters was blistering in his criticism of the U.S. response to the war but stopped short of calling for direct military action. He recommended measures such as expelling Russia from the Group of Eight and World Trade Organization and revoking Russia’s right to host the 2014 Winter Olympic Games.

Many—both inside and outside the neoconservative camp—have argued for Georgia to be granted immediate membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as a bulwark against Russian power.

But NATO membership has its skeptics, including among those typically identified with neoconservative foreign policy. Writing in National Review, classicist and military scholar Victor Davis Hanson claimed that "NATO was given a gift in not having made Georgia a member," since the organization would have been unable to respond, "effectively destroy[ing] the Potemkin alliance."

Max Boot, a Council on Foreign Relations scholar and McCain advisor, has been one of the few advocates of direct U.S. military assistance to Georgia. In an August 12 Los Angeles Times column, Boot conceded that the "Nazi analogy may appear overwrought" but saw echoes in Putin’s statements of "the excuses that Hitler used to swallow Czechoslovakia and Poland."

Boot pushed for the United States to send Stinger and Javelin missiles to the Georgian military for use against Russian tanks and planes.

For now, the debate may have been put on hold by President George W. Bush’s August 13 announcement that the United States will send humanitarian assistance to Georgia and that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will travel to Paris and Tbilisi to help resolve the conflict.

The Bush administration has received a great deal of criticism from hawks for its perceived inaction up to this point. At the AEI panel, Peters went so far as to venture a different historical analogy.

"Bush," he said, "looks strikingly like Jimmy Carter when the Russians invaded Afghanistan."

Daniel Luban writes for the Inter Press Service.

Citations

Analysis by Daniel Luban, "U.S. Debates Russia’s Ambitions" Right Web with permission from Inter Press Service (Somerville, MA: PRA, 2008). Web location:
https://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/4944.html Production Information:
Author(s): Right Web
Editor(s): Right Web
Production: Political Research Associates   IRC logo 1310 Broadway, #201, Somerville, MA   02144 | pra@publiceye.org

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks, and one of the prime vacillators among Republicans between objecting to and supporting Donald Trump.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and has deep connections to the Republican Party and the neoconservative movement.


The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute is a rightist think tank with a broad mandate covering a range of foreign and domestic policy issues that is known for its strong connections to neoconservatism and overseas debacles like the Iraq War.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a far-right pundit known for his hawkish policies and opposition to an Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians.


Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and considered by some to be a future presidential candidate.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share