I hate to say this, but on one point, John McCain is right when it comes to Georgia. We must be there for them in their time of need.
But before anyone gets too quick with the "whachu sayin'" comments, it is not for the reason that Mr. McCain states that we should aid Georgia. John McCain would like to paint this in particular terms (ones he is more familiar with, and feels safer in). This is the Cold War renewed in McCain's eyes. He's loving this. Stark and simple. Black and White. Russia = big bad bear. Georgia = small peon good guy. He begins his op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by saying something utterly ridiculous:
For anyone who thought that stark international aggression was a thing of the past, the last week must have come as a startling wake-up call
I'm glad to see he hopes that "stark international aggression" is a thing of the past. If he were somehow going to be president, I hope he holds to this standard and is not "starkly aggressive internationally." He won't of course. He believes in the standard IOIADI (It's Okay If America Does It). It doesn't matter how much our own actions utterly undermine when we call others to this standard. In any case, he continues his sad op-ed:
Some Americans may wonder why events in this part of the world are any concern of ours. After all, Georgia is a small, remote and obscure place. But history is often made in remote, obscure places.
Ironic that he would bring up "remote, obscure places." I argued just yesterday that we need to learn the lessons of another war that began with a "remote, obscure place." John McCain surely is old enough to have served in that war. He should have remembered...
As Russian tanks and troops moved through the Roki Tunnel and across the internationally recognized border into Georgia, the Russian government stated that it was acting only to protect Ossetians. Yet regime change in Georgia appears to be the true Russian objective.
Note what McCain says here. "Regime change." Later he uses other incendiary phrases like "ethnic cleansing." The Russians, ironically, have been quite tame and professional in this battle. Certainly if they wanted to take out Saakashvili, they had ample opportunities. And their actions, while aggressive, have been quite muted. But John McCain doesn't want you to know that. He wants Americans to have their blood boiling enough to muddle reasoning and sound judgment. And that's the point to all this. It doesn't matter what the opportunity cost is, or how much Georgia really matters to the interests of the United States.
But here is the problem. Here is where we actually have to do something to help the Georgians. We said we would. As sad as our foreign policy is, when our leaders make promises, they must keep them. We said we would aid the Georgians, and for our word to remain good, we must carry out that promise. If we don't, we effectively undermine and even destroy promises we made to other nations. Other nations might say, "the Americans are not helping the Georgians in their time of need even though they made a promise to do so. Will the Americans show up for us?"
Barack Obama is getting sidelined in all of this, and frankly that is very suspicious. Maybe someone else here has done a diary on this (I'll have to check), but it sure is curious that John McCain has strong contacts in Georgia; that Georgia's brash president acts quite idiotically, poking a stick at the Russian bear; that McCain is acting as a shadow government, sending his own delegates to Georgia; that McCain is all over the news---stupid comments nonetheless. Doesn't this sound fishy to anyone? If I find no one else has written about this, I'll raise this up tomorrow, because it sure is suspicious that the one country that attacked Russian positions happens to be the country that McCain has the strongest ties to, the one that brings him to his most comfortable positions, a US vs THEM scenario. McCain fails badly at the soft nuance of international diplomacy. He is more animated and gruff with US vs THEM. Anyone else see this as rather curious? [UPDATED]Looks like someone else did bring this up just this morning
I, personally, prefer that our foreign policy not be so intrusive on the affairs of other nations. I think we should be very judicious and limited in what we do around the world. However, if we make a promise, we must keep it, or it will be much harder for others to take us seriously in the future and in other places.
This is why it is vitally important that we elect leaders who are not driven by ideology, but by pragmatic, wise thought. To put it simply, if we are not ready and willing to get into a shooting war with Russia over Georgia, we probably should not make too many promises to Georgia.
This is the perniciousness and evil, vile nature of neo-conservative ideology. Hell, not just neo-conservatives. All conservatives. They WANT us to get into a shooting war with Russia. It fulfills their wildest wet fantasies. Just do a google search for "Russia" and "tribulation" or "end times" or "rapture" and see their wildest dreams come to life. They WANT war. They think it will hasten the return of Jesus. As a believer in Jesus Christ myself, I shake my head every time those fools pop up their heads and shout with glee every time war breaks out between certain players.
The sad part of this all is that, discredited as both neo-conservatives and evangelicals are in terms of foreign policy, their voices continue to blast through the loudest megaphones. We must be more pro-active against these, our domestic opponents. They will ruin America.