Quickhits
According to Juan Cole, this (in Arabic) says that Maliki has changed the team negotiating the SoFA from FM Zebari to Iraq security adviser Muwaffaq al-Rubaie. (This would be a huge change because Rubaie has been ridicuolusly pro-Bush administration.)
(NYTimes) Iraq Signs Oil Deal With China Worth Up to $3 Billion
(NYTimes) Putin suggests that the events in Georgia were orchestrated by the Bush administration to help John McCain.
And, in Pakistan, PPP presidential candidate Zardari has been placed under government protection out of fear of an attack. There was another potential US drone/missile attack in Waziristan, and the violence and chaos in the country continues.
(NYTimes) Iraq Signs Oil Deal With China Worth Up to $3 Billion
(NYTimes) Putin suggests that the events in Georgia were orchestrated by the Bush administration to help John McCain.
And, in Pakistan, PPP presidential candidate Zardari has been placed under government protection out of fear of an attack. There was another potential US drone/missile attack in Waziristan, and the violence and chaos in the country continues.
posted by mikevotes at
6:46 AM
12 Comments:
Putin suggests that the events in Georgia were orchestrated by the Bush administration to help John McCain.
Russian analysis of American politics has been lacking in insight for a long time.
If anything, Georgia makes the Administration look weak, and since McCain is tied to Bush (especially on foreign policy) it makes McCain look bad.
Does anyone seriously believe that there is even marginal support for a third major simultaneous war, this time with Russia? And with Iran still on the "waiting list"?
The more that McCain is perceived to be a "warmonger", the harder it will be for his campaign. And in light of his recent cryptic statements apparently supporting a military draft (He "doesn't disagree" with those advocating one), the more comfortable McCain shows himself to be with new conflict, the worse he looks to voters.
The more likely scenario with regard to Georgia is that elements in the Administration (i.e. Cheney) gave assurances to Georgian military and political leaders that they had no power to back up. If Russia would have backed down, they take the credit. If Russia didn't back down, it's no real loss. I doubt a more subtle agenda was at work.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 10:30 AM
I'm not so sure todd. There was something about McCain's quick response that suggests he, or his advisers, were in the loop. He was supposed to project the 'strong leader' image. Now the Russians are going to try to show the world (and American voters) how dangerous he is.
By
Anonymous, at 10:37 AM
Todd, that's not my interpretation. My interpretation is that Saakashvili made a horrible decision/calculation to launch it trying to force the issue and draw the US in for support. I don't believe the US would have wanted that now. But it is significant that this story plays with most Russians.
....
Anon, well, because of McCain adviser/Georgia lobbyist Scheuneman, McCain very likely was close to the loop although it may have come through Scheuneman rather than the White House, you know?
By
mikevotes, at 11:11 AM
There was something about McCain's quick response that suggests he, or his advisers, were in the loop. He was supposed to project the 'strong leader' image.
Okay, he has connections within the Administration. Does that mean the crisis was contrived for his benefit?
And there is a difference between 'strong leader' and 'warmonger'. McCain showed a scary inclination toward a major military confrontation as an almost knee-jerk reaction. So much for "judgement" and "experience". Any idiot can get us into a war; that's not 'strength'. Is Georgia worth a third simultaneous conflict with a power like Russia? That's what a leader has to decide, but McCain merely showed he's a hair trigger. Add a military draft and ask yourself if you are willing to die over Georgia. Is that anything near our "vital interests"?
By
Todd Dugdale , at 11:14 AM
Mike wrote:
Todd, that's not my interpretation. My interpretation is that Saakashvili made a horrible decision/calculation to launch it trying to force the issue and draw the US in for support.
Well, it's not the first time that you and I have disagreed, is it?
I see a pattern of "ginning up" our allies into conflicts that the Administration does not have the support to wage on their own.
Israel/Syria, Colombia/Venezuela, Baluchistan/Iran, Poland & Ukraine/Russia, and promoting internal splits within Venezuela and Ecuador all come to my mind.
Look at Saakashavili's "where are our friends?" response to the invasion. He clearly got the idea from somewhere that we would back him up, and I'm not talking about humanitarian aid, either. The Administration was willing to shake the dice on Georgia, as they have in so many other cases.
But honest men can always disagree.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 11:29 AM
I know what you're saying, and I've seen some anecdotal stuff about Neocons encouraging him, but that is different from the US government saying go for it. (even if it's Cheney.)
Saakashvili made the ultimate decision with no official guarantee that he would get help.
More broadly, I do see that pattern of raising tensions too. I don't doubt that Saakashvili was being encouraged to tweak the bear, BUT....
You're an army of 17,000 facing Russia. Would you make that decision without knowing for sure it was there?
There's a difference between people whispering in your ear that there's support and actually having support.
It falls on Saakashvili.
By
mikevotes, at 1:19 PM
Let's face it...we're just speculating. So is Putin. There's no hard evidence. Saakashvili should have got something on tape. That would be worth a few billion.
By
Anonymous, at 1:24 PM
Late to the party here, but no speculation is required, and most responsibility for the attack does not fall on Saakashvili.
Georgian troops were trained and armed by the US and Israel, and the incursion into South Ossetia was led by English-speaking advisors. 1,000 United States troops took part in joint military exercises, 'Operation Immediate Response,' during the last two weeks in July.
Georgia attacked Ossetia on August 7th. Saakashvili might be taking the fall for it now, but the attack was planned and was directed in real time by US personnel.
By
MarcLord, at 1:43 PM
You're an army of 17,000 facing Russia. Would you make that decision without knowing for sure it was there?
Agreed. I would not make that decision without a guarantee. That merely makes Saakashvili gullible, though. We provided him with significant armaments and advisers. We backed him up rhetorically. Those are not matters of speculation. Ultimately, as you state, it falls on Saakashvili's head.
My contention (or speculation, if you wish) is that Saakashvili merely "fell for it" while other leaders did not. Except Israel, and they now regret attacking Syria and have paid a relatively heavy regional price for it. I would also include the second invasion of Lebanon as another one of those cases where our ally believed we would back them up militarily, but we give Israel millions of dollars each day to be gullible.
I can only speculate that Georgia would not have made such an outrageous move without consulting with their strongest ally. The fact that they proceeded with such a brazen move speaks volumes.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 2:10 PM
I'll go with that.
But again, their decision.
By
mikevotes, at 2:21 PM
I don't know what we're arguing about. The US/Israel/Georgia connection is common knowledge now. The Georgians were getting arms and encouragement. BUT there is still no hard evidence of a direct connection between Saakashvili and the US administration.
By
Anonymous, at 2:21 PM
I don't know what we're arguing about.
I don't think we are arguing.
We disagree on relatively minor points. By blogging standards, this is a virtual love-fest.
Bottom line: if anyone thought this would help McCain, they were wrong. The polls bear that out. I certainly hear no clamour for war with Russia. Some people speak of some vague "action" to be taken, but the Administration has not proceeded with any such action. If McCain wants to make an issue of this, he will criticising the Administration more than anyone else. Thus, it boils down to bluster at best.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 2:41 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home