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 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

John Bolton is Donald Trump’s national security adviser. The controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, Bolton— Trump himself—has been criticized even by leading neoconservative hawks with whom he has long been aligned.


Charles M. Kupperman is a former Reagan official with strong ties to the defense industry and militaristic organizations.


Nominated for the post of attorney general by Donald Trump, William Barr held the same post under George H.W. Bush, and established a reputation as a staunch conservative and supporter of executive authority.


Pundit Charles Krauthammer, who died in June 2018, was a staunch advocate of neoconservative policies and aggressive U.S. military actions around the world.


Former Weekly Standard editor and current Fox News commentator Bill Kristol is a longtime neoconservative activist who has been a leading right wing opponent of Donald Trump.


Jon Kyl, a hawkish conservative, served in the Senate from 1996-2013 and again in 2018, and helped guide Brett Kavanaugh through his confirmation process.


Paul Ryan (R-WI), Speaker of the House from 2015-2018, was known for his extremely conservative economic and social views and hawkish foreign policies.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The same calculus that brought Iran and world powers to make a deal and has led remaining JCPOA signatories to preserve it without the U.S. still holds: the alternatives to this agreement – a race between sanctions and centrifuges that could culminate in Iran obtaining the bomb or being bombed – would be much worse.


With Bolton and Pompeo by his side and Mattis departed, Trump may well go with his gut and attack Iran militarily. He’ll be encouraged in this delusion by Israel and Saudi Arabia. He’ll of course be looking for some way to distract the media and the American public. And he won’t care about the consequences.


When will Mike Pompeo realize that his ideological proclivities against Iran and disregard for people’s desire to live freely and in dignity are no substitute for regional progress?


As this past week began, with the shutdown of parts of the US government entering its third week, Republicans, desperate to force the Democrat’s hand, decided to play the “Israel card.” The effort failed.


National Security Advisor John Bolton is bringing reinforcements into the White House to bolster his push for war with Iran.


President Donald Trump’s sudden decision to pull troops out of Syria has given hardliners reason to celebrate, even as they prepare for the next battle with what they believe are US-supported jihadist forces.


Although a widespread movement has developed to fight climate change, no counterpart has emerged to take on the rising danger of nuclear disaster — yet.


RightWeb
share