« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Fire Robert Gates NOW!
From the AP:
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in Washington he saw no need to invoke American military force in the war between Russia and Georgia but warned that U.S.-Russian relations could suffer lasting damage if Moscow doesn't retreat.
"The United States spent 45 years working very hard to avoid a
military confrontation with Russia," said Gates. "I see no reason to
change that approach today."
Advertisement
Comments (46)
While I don't agree with you on practically anything, I do agree that we should do put boots on the ground, if no other reason than Russia would be a lot more reluctant to do anything in Georgia. Russia has already figured out that the only allies we'll do something about are the ones with their own U.S. Army/Navy bases. We have plenty of fellows in the surrounding regions to move a brigade or two into Georgia. Most of us lefties (and I note this is a general problem for many of us) like to give the benefit of the doubt to anyone the Neo-Cons don't like, but Putin has made it pretty clear what his intentions are towards the Post-Soviet Democracies/Kleptocracies (admit it, a few of them are fairly corrupt).
August 14, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the point, stand up to them and they will back down. Bullies always do.
August 14, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not so much that the bully will back down, but rather that the Russians also want to avoid a shooting war with the United States, because even Putin knows that if we start shooting at one another, nobody will win. We'll bomb the shit out of parts of their country, they'll invade Alaska (they can keep Ted Stevens as far as I care), and general chaos will emerge until some jumpy dumb shit launches the first nuke, then its bye bye birdie.
August 14, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looks like Mr. Putin has been taking a lesson from American Sphere of Influence Doctrine!
How does one say Sauce For The Goose, Is Sauce For The Gander, in Russian.
The Monroe Doctrine is a U.S. doctrine which, on December 2, 1823, stated that European powers were no longer to colonize or interfere with the affairs of the newly independent nations of the Americas. The United States planned to stay neutral in wars between European powers and their colonies. However, if later on, these types of wars were to occur in the Americas, the United States would view such action as hostile. President James Monroe first stated the doctrine during his seventh annual State of the Union Address to Congress, a defining moment in the foreign policy of the United States. Most recently, during the Cold War, the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine (added during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt) was invoked as a reason to intervene militarily in Latin America to stop the spread of Communism.
August 14, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dog: You do realize, don't you, that Robert Gates is not speaking off the top of his head here?
The whole administration has had a few days to ponder its options -- and concluded that militarily there are none.
Gates is trying to tell McCain, you and all the other hotheads that the U.S. simply doesn't have any more boots to put on the ground.
You'll have to vote in John McCain if you want to blunder into World War III.
August 14, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, we do have boots. We might have to pull some from bases where, let's face it, we haven't been needed for almost two decades, but we have boots. Hell, if we were so inclined, we have the boots to put on the ground in Georgia and Darfur. (You all remember Darfur, right?)
August 14, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just humor him. He is the same age as McCain.
Consider the source.
Cranky old bulldog barking at the kids on the lawn.
August 14, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oy.
August 14, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You do realize, don't you Bulldog, that you are certifiable?
August 14, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, I'm insane. It's crazy to stand up for democracy and protect our allies.
August 14, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oy, indeed. A warhawk troll post.
August 14, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh ..... I feel like I've wandered into the wrong room or something. You mean the original post (by CleverBulldog) wasn't satire?
Well, there is probably a more accurate term but you know, the humor where you take a ridiculous position and exaggerate it to show just how ridiculous it is. What Stephen Colbert does all the time.
Seriously, I was rather charmed and clicked on comments to say "Good job -- well done -- way to point up how innane, and insane, the hot-heads are being." I mean, Gates' quote had me wanting to salute him!! But the poster was criticizing him????? Are you sure?
August 14, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Click on the name to check the profile page for BullDog and read the other stuff.
August 14, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I take protecting democracy, keeping our word, and standing up for what is right seriously. I think we should have stopped the slaughter in Rwanda, we should stop it in Darfur, we should protect Georgia and the other former republics that are trying to be free democracies. I'm sick of this 'what is our interest' BS, we should be interested in doing what is right.
August 14, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wouldn't you agree that all these things must be done within the context of international relationships so the cost isn't born by the United States alone?
If NATO agrees to tackle the problem as a group, I am all for it. If some of our Asian allies kick in, that is even better. This go-it-alone tactic costs way too much in lives lost and revenue expended on wishful thinking.
When did we stop being strategic in our thinking? I'd say it was when Reagan decided to "out-spend" the Soviets vice building on the tactics that had been working for 40 years - diplomacy and shared prosperity.
History shows America has always been way too paranoid with respect to the Soviets.
August 15, 2008 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do not want to leave the security of the world and the reputation of the US in the hands of limp wristed European socialists.
August 15, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have you been in the modern military, say within the last twenty years?
I have been on exercises and operations with the NATO military. They are way more capable than the caricature you offer. Every military in NATO is our equal militarily.
This is why progressives think republicans are clowns, when our party gave birth to green at the turn of the previous century. One of our party's icons inspired the achievements of their greatest president.
The GOP is in desperate need of re-branding and the republican faithful in desperate need of a history lesson.
August 15, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not referring to their soldiers, but to their leaders. European leaders have always preferred appeasement to confrontation.
August 15, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
You avoid the question. Our leaders aren't so hot, either, so why leave it up to them to go fight foreign wars?
Our leaders led our soldiers to Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Have they shown some particular skill at war that I missed? We haven't had a real military leader in this country since Ike.
Did you somehow forget that Europe had some of the longest-lasting global empires?
August 15, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Abu Ghraib! You've got to be kidding me! I can guarantee you that far worse things happen in a typical prison here in the US, and certainly far worse in the prisons of just about every arab/muslim country. AG was more like frat hazing than a gulag, and Gitmo is like a Club Med. And none of that has any bearing on standing up to aggression vs appeasement.
August 15, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
We weren't talking about prisons. We were talking about military leadership. I have recent actual experience with America's imperial use of our military. I am still friends with people who only recently retired.
You don't seem to have much relevant information with regards to the modern geopolitical environment. Appeasement is a term from another era of warfare and a totally different state of world affairs. It was thrown out in the face of an actual existential threat.
If you are saying Russia going into Georgia is the same as Hitler invading Poland, you are stretching an out-dated metaphor in seeming longing for an enemy who makes more sense than the chimeras offered by our own "leaders" these last 20 years.
August 15, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm saying Russia going into Georgia is the same as Soviet tanks going into Czechoslovakia in 68, when the west responded with nothing. Same as Hungary in 56. Germany into Sudetanland, etc. All were examples of appeasement, of ignoring the tiger and hoping you'll be eaten last. It is no less relevant term today than then.
August 15, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are certainly stuck in the past and not even the relevant past. Good luck with that as you try to negotiate a completely new reality.
(For the record, we aren't actually in charge of any of those countries you mention. Are you looking for another World War? Nothing you advocate makes the least bit of sense and has never been US policy. We only pick on people who can't fight back.)
August 16, 2008 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bulldog and whose Army to defend Tbilisi?
August 14, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
If we can't defend Tblisi, will we defend Kiev? Or Warsaw? Or Paris? Where do we finally decide to oppose tyranny? It would take only a token force to bring this to a halt, the Russians will not fire on US troops.
August 14, 2008 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, will we fire on theirs? What if some misunderstanding, as can easily happen when forces face each other, causes blood to be accidentally spilled, then what?
Would you really risk an escalation that might produce the extinction of all life? Why, because you believe that Americans have some self-appointed and self-righteousness responsibility to unilaterally police the entire world? Here's an idea, let's also send some troops to Tibet and call China's bluff while we're at it?
August 14, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is the point of making treaties, alliances, etc. if in the end you are not prepared to confront aggression? Georgia is recognized as an independent country, it is a member of the UN, it is applying to join NATO, it is a democracy, it is not comparable to Tibet. It was just invaded, Tibet was not. We can use diplomacy and trade to help Tibet, but Georgia is under attack right now.
August 15, 2008 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Treaties and alliances have more than one set of signatures on them.
August 15, 2008 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't Robert Gates realize that as Secretary of Defense, it's not up to him to implement the policies of the current administrations, but to report to the not yet Republican nominee for President?
August 14, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Putin offered Ossetia like a poison pawn.
August 14, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
If that's the case, then maybe Georgia should consider concocting some kind of poison pill defense (to change metaphors) in light of Russia's hostile takeover bid.
August 14, 2008 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The situation is far more complicated than the majority of leftist posting here seem to think. Yes, more often than not, bulldog is unrestrained psychopath (no offense). But he's right here. This can't be allowed to continue. Russia's invasion was provoked, but Russian tanks going into Gori and further south can't be blinked. Russia is just as corrupt and greedy as ever. The guys running the show are ex-KGB for Pete's/God's/fuck's sake. I'm a socialist and I know that the USSR was about as evil as governments get, and modern Russia is no different.
Everyone criticizing the notion of defending a sovereign nation, particularly a nation that is one of our own allies, needs to think very carefully about how far the Russians can be permitted to push before we retaliate. Ukraine? Poland? Iraq? Putin may be shortsighted in some respects, but he isn't a moron. If we punish him in a significant way for the any infraction, he'll stay in line. But if we don't respond by defending Georgian soil, you can bet this won't be the last time we see a Russian invasion of a former soviet state.
August 15, 2008 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
It must be a joint effort or we are just pouring gasoline on the already smoking husk of our military.
America must stop taking on these enormous global challenges alone. Our arrogance to think that is our right keeps us from solving anything. From George Washington to Eisenhower, presidents have been warning us not to fight foreign wars and to make treaties with great care.
If we can't force the United Nations to live up to its charter (might help if we pay our dues) or shame NATO to live up to its ideals, the United States needs to keep our troops out of it.
August 15, 2008 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's pretty clear cut with respect to Poland: if Russia attacks Poland, there will be a war (involving us). That's guaranteed by the NATO treaty. the same goes for the other NATO signatories.
Russia should be punished, but not with an armed response (which wouldn't be in anyone's best interest). There are significant things we can still do. I'm sure Poland agreeing to be part of a US missile shield was not a happy result for Russia either.
The US admin was pushing hard for Georgia to join NATO, but the Europeans shot that down for this sort of reason (it being too antagonistic to Russia).
I think this is more of Russia playing a holier than though tit-for-tat wrt Kosovo. Additionally, it was probably talked about in the Kremlin as "The United States cannot be allowed to plant NATO allies, and a missile shield around or borders...we must respond somehow".
Morally, i think the Russians blew it when they invaded and occupied Georgia proper.
Do not misunderstand me: I'm not defending Russia's action. Additionally, i do not see a strong parallel in Kosovo. The fact that they're letting S. Ossetian irregulars carry out mob violence is inexcusable.
The Bush admin inviting every east european country into NATO has not been helpful. I think the Russian's fear of even more former Soviet republics and satellite states joining NATO is putting pressure on Russia to act. They have to act now before they join NATO to put (or encourage) friendlier governments in those states because if they act later it will be a declaration of war on NATO.
Imagine if Russia started a NATO like organization and invited Mexico in and put an antimissile shield there? Or, if they allied with Cuba and based missiles...oh...wait, that's already happened once. The US at the time, if i recall correctly, viewed the action as a *very* antagonistic and provocative act.
One idea would be to say to the Russians, look we promise not to extend NATO any further as long as you allow the former Soviet republics to remain sovereign. There could be a possible treaty to this effect. Is that rewarding bad behavior? Yes, but the alternative of playing the stern parent would be costly given Russia's strengths.
I'm not at all sure this is a reasonable or good idea. I'd have to learn a lot more about the stuff going on there and hear other folks thoughts on the issues.
August 15, 2008 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
here:
I hadn't read your post prior to submitting my own. You've covered my points and more throughly than did I. Could have saved myself some typing.
August 15, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
And I'm not saying that the Russians should be punished militarily either. There are other sorts of punishments that can be put in place, including expulsion from the G8. And I completely agree that a coalition should be built. But during those opening days a lot of Russian aggression could have prevented with a brigade or two of American boots on the ground. Just the threat of actual all out war with the United States can be a very powerful deterrent for all but the religious fanatics of the world.
For the record, I like the thought of having a large and well armed military because, quite frankly, even if the other nation's army could still deal America a lot of damage, we'll still be able to beat the ever living hell out of who ever we're fighting. I also think that the army should be the last resort. But sometimes, like when a nation as large as Russia with the sort of track record Russia has invades a nation like Georgia, There is no time for other resorts. American boots would have made the Russians play the game much more conservatively (meaning they wouldn't have occupied Gori).
August 15, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see problems with issuing countries around Russia human shields in the form of American troops which can then be used by the governments of those countries to act militarily with impunity towards Russia.
I would also see putting troops on the ground in moderate numbers as a provocative act towards the Russians.
It would involve us in numerous regional/ethnic hot spots which i do not believe we have any business being in. We would suddenly have to have an opinion and policy on a whole host of regional issues that do not directly involve us. It's the sort of thing that turned WWI from an international incident into a WW [don't hold me too closely to that comparison though].
Any United States' actions in this should have preceded the start of shooting. There was ample time and ample warning: this war did not suddenly just happen. Unfortunately, it was vacation week for Condi and George.
August 15, 2008 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Yes, more often than not, bulldog is unrestrained psychopath (no offense)."
LMFAO!
August 15, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Georgia situation reminds me of the provocations which lead to the Cuban missiles crisis. If I recall correctly, what prompted the Russians to try and place missiles in Cuba was our placement of missiles in Turkey. In fact, what defused the whole situation was that Kennedy secretly agreed to remove those Turkish missiles.
Bush is trying to tighten a strategic circle around the Russians by wanting to bring Georgia into NATO, and today we hear he's got a deal to place a missile base in Poland! Of course the Russians feel threatened.
Look, the Russians are brutal. But let's stop pretending that our own actions are innocent. Bush is playing with fire (and our lives) by provoking a re-start of the cold-war. But to what purpose? Its seems stupid and unnecessary.
August 15, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Russians do not feel threatened, they are not acting because we did anything to them, they are doing what they always do - exploiting weakness to expand their empire. I guarantee that if S. Ossetia and the other rebel province are allowed to leave Georgia, they will be absorbed into Russia, they will not be independent countries. Then their independence movements will be treated like Chechnia's. This whole episode was to test the US (we failed) and Europe (they failed), and to intimidate other former client states (success). Once again the West proved they will back down from Russia if pushed. We never learn.
August 15, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that I am an unrestrained psychopath is what qualifies me to understand Putin. It takes one to know one.
August 15, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dog,
I've come to the conclusion that you are not some kind of troll and that you are completely sincere, which I respect. But, I don't see how you come to the conclusion that the Russians don't feel threatened by Bush's eastern europe policy.
Could you clearly explain why the Russians shouldn't feel threatened? It would help make your argument.
August 15, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Russia has always been intent on expanding their empire, they have invaded and subjugated numerous countries to build the Soviet empire, and they are not happy that those countries are no longer in their sphere of influence. Remember that the USSR allied with Hitler to expand their empire. Their actions have always been based not on fear but on greed. Why would a limited BMD system in Poland frighten them? They could easily overwhelm it, and it is a defensive system anyway. No, it doesn't scare them, it makes them mad, because they see it as weakening their ability to intimidate Poland, same as Ukraine in NATO. There is no fear that NATO is going to launch an attack (it's hard to imagine them even defending themselves let alone attacking), they just don't want to lose the ability to dominate Ukraine, to use their ports, etc. Poland is insisting that these systems be manned by US troops for precisely that reason - they feel that an attack would be less likely if it killed US soldiers. Which is why I felt we should have sent troops into Georgia. Russia does not want war with us, they want to intimidate and bully their way to getting what they want.
August 15, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I do not want to leave the security of the world and the reputation of the US in the hands of limp wristed European socialists."
So .......... I gather you'd rather leave it in the hands of thoughtful, intelligent, far-sighted and wise people like George W. Bush and John McCain????
You know, it's not just a matter of rolling over, closing your eyes and letting the bully have his way -- or --- charging in with guns blazing and threatening all sort of consequences if they don't do as we say they should do -- right now! (Otherwise, I gather, we'll hit them with all the overpowering might of ..... ooops, better skip that part since our "might" seems pretty thin and scattered right now). There are leadership models that are stronger than Neville Chamberlain and more, well, "nuanced" than Atilla the Hun.
I believe it's people like Gates (from what I know of him and what he said in your quote) and Obama (certainly) who are going to actually deal with the complexities to find that middle way.
You want to see a strong push-back to Russia that doesn't involve missles and bazookas and lines drawn in the sand? Read Joe Biden's op-ed in the Financial Times this week. That's going to have more effect than all the challenge and posturing of a McCain.
August 15, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nuance is lost on people being crushed by a Russian tank. When your ally is being invaded by Atilla the Hun, you better not plan on responding with a 'strongly worded resolution' if you hope to save that ally. Silly responses like exclusion from the G8 social club, or not conducting joint military exercises, or refusing to buy their oil/gas (which the west needs more than the Russians need the cash) is only going to make them laugh. If it is true as liberals claim that our military is so weak we can't have a limited war in Afghanistan and a police action now in Iraq and be able to defend our interests elsewhere, then why are they not screaming to increase defense spending and enlarge the military significantly, like to the size it was before Clinton cut it in half?
August 15, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many folks from many quarters (including the left) have been screaming for an increase in the military (to the extent of wanting to restart the draft).
I would welcome a no-exceptions universal draft (and/or mandatory service).
The Bush administration has pushed extremely hard to keep their most-excellent Iraq adventure from inconveniencing the common (rich) folk.
They invaded with fewer troops than many military planners thought was necessary to take and hold the country. They did not ramp up manufacturing to support the war effort. They lowered taxes instead of funding increases. They were in denial of any insurgency until it became such a obvious problem they couldn't deny it in press-conferences and had to actually do something about it. They did not provide the troops with the necessary arms and equipment (up-armored vehicles, body armor). They solved force-level problems by digging into less-prepared National Guard and reservists and forcing people to remain in the military past their obligation. They increased tours of duty to the point of breaking people mentally and financially.
If you're looking for limp-wrists, you've found them: cheney, wolfowitz, rummy, et al., don't even have the balls to confront the american people and ask them to sacrifice. Rumsfield and his new-and-better battery-powered military doctrine failed and failed hard.
August 15, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment