Suddenly we have a very different picture of the sort of political leader that we need. The world is not the same place that it was when the four main players on the Anglo-American political scene came on to the field.
Barack Obama and John McCain began their contest in an atmosphere of relative security and prosperity. David Cameron emerged at a time of such general contentment that work-life balance seemed like the most urgent question facing the nation. (Remember that?)
When Gordon Brown took office he was immediately presented with a series of what seemed at the time to be testing crises that he surmounted with stoical authority: now the floods, the amateurish terror attacks and the brief revival of foot-and-mouth disease seem like flea bites.
Where is he now that we are facing the most genuinely terrifying international confrontation in a generation? This is the man who has reminded us repeatedly (and rather plaintively) of the triumphal opening chapter of his premiership, implying that he would like nothing more than another opportunity to display Courage Under Fire. And he is missing in action. Gone AWOL? Hidden deep in his bunker surrounded by reassuring aides? Paralysed by the collapse of relations with his own Foreign Secretary? Hunched over his plans for a great autumn relaunch? Who knows?
Mr Cameron, meanwhile, cleverly filled the vacuum by taking himself off to Georgia to utter an uncompromising message of defiance to the Russians - and to deliver an unambiguous message to the British media that he wasn't just a politician for the soft times. He may have the luxury that Heaven bestows on opposition politicians of being powerless and therefore not encumbered with the problem of actually having to make anything happen, but his statements were unequivocal enough to commit him to a course of action in office - which is brave enough.
So in Britain we have seen a startling role reversal: the man billed as a brusque but resolute presence who came into his own in times of danger and anxiety has disappeared from the scene. And the one who was supposed to be cuddly and consumed with lightweight lifestyle issues is bestriding the world stage handing out ultimatums to an aggressive superpower.
In the United States, the story is taking a more predictable but no less riveting course. John McCain was always going to be the net gainer in a foreign crisis. Not only does he have precisely the experience - both personal and political - of coping with war and international threat, but his manner and his presence seem designed to be both reassuring and inspiring. This is a man who endured horrific torture as a prisoner of war but refused to be released earlier than the men who served under him, and who has had the political fortitude to put his own moral principles above partisan loyalty.
So if you are looking for a guy to stand up to the Russians - or anybody else, for that matter - without blinking, you are probably going to give McCain the benefit of the doubt over the very young, very untried Obama, whose experience on the world stage consists of a whirlwind series of speaking engagements.
Last Saturday night, the two contenders appeared on a platform together for the first time - not to engage in a formal presidential debate which would have been improper since neither has been formally nominated as yet, but to participate in a novel format staged by the Saddleback Church, one of the largest evangelical congregations in America.
Saddleback is a moderate outfit and its pastor, Reverend Rick Warren, is a famously benign and tolerant figure. He called his event a "civil forum" and stated specifically that his intention in chairing it was to restore civility to political discourse. He was scrupulously fair and courteous to both presumptive candidates, to whom he put the identical questions in separate interviews (out of each other's hearing). It was, as the commentator Charles Krauthammer said afterwards, a brilliant "controlled experiment" in which both men were subjected to identical examinations in identical conditions. I stayed up to watch the whole two hours of it between 1am and 3am. It was as illuminating as any political event I have ever witnessed.
Mr Obama came first. He was, as we have come to expect, articulate, engaging and very relaxed ("comfortable in his skin", as is often said). He responded with charm if some ambiguousness to the tricky questions that arose on the evangelical heartland issues, most notably abortion, on which he is pro-choice. But the most interesting aspects of his performance (especially in retrospect when we had heard McCain) lay in what he did not say.
Asked whether he thought that evil existed and, if so, what should be done about it, he replied that it did and that we had to confront it "on our streets". The only international reference that he made in this answer was to Darfur. There was no mention of al-Qaeda, Russia or Georgia. In another answer, he described the most significant moral failing of the United States as not getting to grips with domestic poverty, racism and sexism. Asked to define the "rich" whom he has said should pay more tax so that government can improve society, he offered a figure of $250,000 a year. His performance was attractive and fluent in its own terms.
But within moments of McCain appearing to face the same queries, the Obama poise looked positively laconic and the Obama answers insubstantial. Where he had glided through the session with glib personableness, McCain electrified the hall. His answers were direct, detailed and full of the personal anecdote that his life experience has to offer.
Asked the question about evil, he cited al-Qaeda and Islamic extremism. (He would, he said, pursue Osama bin Laden to the gates of Hell if necessary.) America had a moral obligation to defeat genocide wherever it occurred, and he was "very saddened by Russia's re-emergence as an empire". Georgia had achieved democracy and deserved our support. On the definition of "rich", he said that he did not want to raise taxes for anyone in tough economic times. He made it clear, too, that he supported education vouchers to allow poor children greater opportunity.
Both men answered the question, "What is worth risking lives for?", with the word "freedom", but it was McCain whose memories gave it force. Ironically, the man whose age is thought to be a liability seemed more energetic and robust than his rival, whose cool sophistication looked somehow inappropriate for the times.
Posted by: john frum ||
08/18/2008 10:01 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
In the various statements made about Russia in Georgia, only one sounded better to me than McCain, John Bolton.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
08/18/2008 12:56 Comments ||
Top||
#2
If "David Cameron and John McCain are best suited to defy Russian aggression"
When the Cold War ended, there was a great sense of euphoria in the West and in the non-Russian republics of the Soviet Union. The nuclear sword of Damocles had been lifted, democracy had prevailed, peace dividends could be taken.
The non-Russian republics of the erstwhile union seized the opportunity to obtain their independence from Russia: the political map of eastern Europe, the Baltic, central Asia and - particularly - the Caucasus changed radically.
The end of the Cold War exposed the futility and pretence of the ideology which had underpinned the Soviet Empire - and also the falsity and pretence of the allegedly unified political construct that was the Soviet Union.
In the West, there was an element of triumphalism, which could only have caused resentment in Russia.
Inevitably, the euphoria in the West was not shared by Russia itself, which then went through a difficult and uncertain transition from Communist authoritarianism to a fledgling democracy and market economy - against a background of a sense of humiliation, loss and having been worsted.
Was the West as generous towards its former opponent as it might have been?
I believe more could have been done to welcome the new Russia into the international fold, to reassure Russia that it still maintained its very important standing as a permanent member of the Security Council and as a major actor on the world stage.
The break-up of the Soviet Union was anything but a simple matter - not least because large numbers of Russian nationals had made their homes and livelihoods in the old constituent republics of the Union.
When their boundaries became the borders of new sovereign states, the Russian nationals overnight found themselves minorities in a foreign country - a situation to which Moscow is extremely sensitive.
These Russian minorities are but one dimension of the Russian perception that what it calls the "Near Abroad" - the countries bordering Russia - are strategically vital to its security.
Moscow does not forget the searing experiences of being invaded over centuries through the Near Abroad. The outcome is grave Russian concern that many of these Near Abroad countries have become, or wish to become, members of Nato and the EU.
Rightly or wrongly, Russia sees this as a zero-sum game: Putin has criticised Western leaders for being still locked into a Cold War mentality, but the reverse also seems to be true - at least in part.
The post-Cold War history of the Balkans and the break-up of Yugoslavia have a lot to do with these perceptions and attitudes.
Nato took military action, over Kosovo for example, against Slobodan Milosevic's Serbian regime without the authority of a UN Security Council resolution, in Russian eyes riding roughshod over Russian concerns for its Slav and Orthodox links with the Serbs.
Nato relied for its justification on the emerging doctrine in international law that the prevention of humanitarian disaster - of ethnic cleansing - being perpetrated by a government on its own people can be more important than sovereignty itself. Whether we like it or not, this is precisely the justification advanced by Moscow for its intervention in Georgia.
The unscripted arrival of a relatively small Russian force at Pristina airport just before KFOR's advance into Kosovo in June 1999 was fundamentally a political act rather than a military one. In my judgment it was not an act designed to threaten KFOR, but rather to provide a political signal to the West that Russia should not be ignored, but be taken fully into account as a major power.
This was the essence of my disagreement with General Wesley Clark, then Nato's supreme allied commander. He seemed to see the drama in Cold War terms, which was not my perspective.
In the event, we were rapidly able to defuse the situation on the ground by treating the Russian contingent as part of KFOR - which was always the original intention.
The politics of it seemed to me to be particularly important when it is remembered that only a few days before it had been Viktor Chernomyrdin, the former prime minister of Russia and Moscow's special envoy to Belgrade, who - together with president of Finland Martti Ahtisaari - made it clear to Milosevic that the game was up.
Georgia is a sovereign democratic state that, like many others, gained its independence in the aftermath of the Soviet Union's collapse.
Strongly supported by the West, it aspires to Nato and EU membership. It also has to contend with two regions - Abkhazia and South Ossetia, both with Russian minorities - that did not, and do not, wish to be part of Georgia.
South Ossetia, in particular, has an independence movement not averse to the use of illegal violence; it is worth bearing in mind that by agreement with Georgia, Russia had deployed so-called peace-keeping forces in south Ossetia long before the current crisis.
Did Russia encourage the South Ossetian rebels to provoke the recent Georgian military action, thereby providing Russia with a casus belli? Did Georgian forces use excessive force in South Ossetia? Did Georgia wrongly calculate that in the face of Western support for Georgia, Russia would not react?
I do not know the answers, but I am clear that the problems arising from minority enclaves in such circumstances are fundamentally political, rather than purely military.
I write not to excuse the Russian actions and behaviour, but rather to explain them. For the West, the challenge is to find the right answer to Lenin's question: "What is to be done?"
Putin is determined to rebuild Russia's stature, and he is being much helped in this by the surge in energy prices. There is also evidence that after a decade and more of decline, the Russian armed forces are starting to rebuild and modernise.
For me, the right course for the West - without compromising its own position and values - is to show a greater understanding of why Russia behaves as it does, to accept more willingly Russia's concerns for its Near Abroad.
While there are actions that we cannot condone, Russian perceptions exist and will take time to change.
This is the challenge for politicians and diplomats: strategic military hostility and confrontation must remain a thing of the past.
Sir Mike Jackson served as Chief of the General Staff
Posted by: john frum ||
08/18/2008 09:55 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"... is to show a greater understanding of why Russia behaves as it does, to accept more willingly Russia's concerns for its Near Abroad."
AKA appease them. What is it with the Brits that their first response is appeasement? Is this something they teach over there?
Understanding is fine but ultimately pointless. It is actions that have to be dealt with.
Okay poor old Russia has these mental problems so we have to understand why they invaded the Ukraine again. But what do we do about it?
#3
His point was that in the past we may have prevented the present (certainly almost always true to one degree or another).
And understanding one's opponent is a surer path to victory than force of arms alone.
Without a doubt Russia's current actions can not be condoned, and our actions must make that fact clear. However, without understanding our old adversary we are doomed to an escalation without a winner. I grew up during the Cold War, I remember the "Duck and Cover" drills when they were "live" in the public schools, and I have have no desire to return to that mentality.
Azerbaijan(sp?) boarders Iran. And the way Iran is heading we wll be at war with them very soon (as in between 2 Nov 08 and 21 Jan 09). Russia already leans far towards supporting Iran, I consider their actions in Georgia possibly as clearing a path to support Iran.
#4
AlanC, if you understand why a player does things you then have foreknowledge of when they may do things in the future. It does not always mean appeasement.
#7
I think it was the Instapundit that said this: the best way to refute the Russian apologists is to let them have their say. Their arguments are self-refuting.
Posted by: Mike ||
08/18/2008 12:24 Comments ||
Top||
#8
We don't need to start the next world war. Plenty of others are chaffing at the bit.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
08/18/2008 12:53 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Several of you are missing the last half of that sentence.
"...to accept more willingly Russia's concerns for its Near Abroad."
I'm all for understanding even though I think that it is over-rated. It's the willing acceptance that's indicates the appeaser mind set.
There really isn't all that much to understand in foreign relations like this anyway. It is trivial to identify who did what to whom and when. All you need to understand is the desire for power; greed by another name.
While understaning may help with tactics it doesn't do much for strategy cause when all is said and done it is the actions that must be dealt with not the psychology of the performers.
What they want is important; why they want it? Not so much.
#10
"For me, the right course for the West ... is to show a greater understanding of why Russia behaves as it does, to accept more willingly Russia's concerns for its Near Abroad Lebensraum."
Really, Neville?
Color me not surprised. >:-(
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
08/18/2008 14:16 Comments ||
Top||
#11
"the problems arising from minority enclaves in such circumstances are fundamentally political, rather than purely military."
I think he's saying that Mexico should not invade Southern California until all diplomatic efforts have failed.
#12
Everyone is worried about upsetting Russia and starting WWIII. There are 3 nuclear weapons states in NATO, in addition, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey all host nuclear weapons on their territory. I say contain russia. If they don't like it, tough squat. They are a broken empire that is rapidly slipping into oblivion despite their newfound petro dollars witch have a minimally distributive effect on its economy.
#13
An excellent demonstration of why Britain is struggling to be a second rate power. Jackson may not be representative of the average Brit, but he is representative of the British establishment. And he can do a mean moonwalk.
#14
I think he's saying that Mexico should not invade Southern California until all diplomatic efforts have failed.
Telegraphing that concept is not a good idea as Foreign Secretary Arthur Zimmermann once found out in the end. One way to get America involved in a World War by a dying empire.
#18
AlanC, you're right, i missed that last sentence. My point stands but you are right in saying he seeks appeasement. It does sound that way to some extant.
#19
Again, IMO Russia may covertly be using their conflict wid Georgia as PDeniable cover to contain/isolate NUCLEARIZING IRAN = RADICAL ISLAM [States + Militants-Terror Groups] IN ITS CENTER, + AMBITIOUS OVERPOPULATED NUKE-ARMED CHINA ON ITS FAR EAST. BOTH THE MUSLIM WORLD + CHINA HAVE HIGH BIRTH = POPUL GROWTH RATES, WHILE RUSSIA IS DEMOGRAPHICALLY DYING = GETTING OLDER.
* KOMMERSANT/OTHER > IIRC by 2020, FOR EVERY 1000 RUSSIANS OVER 800-plus OF THESE WILL BE POST-MIDDLE-AGED IFF NOT QUALIFIED SENIOR CITIZENS, + NON-WORKING RETIRED OR ABOUT TO RETIRE.
Russia > Population forecasted to shrink down to 135Milyuhn, + be a mostly GERIATRIC SOCIETY IN HIGH DEMAND FOR GOVT-BASED PUBLIC/ELDER ASSISTANCE.
IOW, RUSSIA > A NUKE-ARMED, GIANT "FLORIDA" = RETIREMENT COMUNITY-HOME, surrounded by YOUNG, ALSO NUKE-ARMED, MUSLIM/CHINESE-ASIAN HIPPIE YIPPIES OR "BOYZ IN THE HOOD", ETC.???
It would not be the first time TSARIST RUSSIA nor post-IMPERIAL/ROMANOV COMMIE USSR USED MIL AGGRESSION AS A COVER FOR LT OR PERCEIEVD STRATEGIC WEAKNESS.
Dying empires leave dangerous legacies. Rome gave way to darkness. As the Spanish empire declined, so did Spain and the post-Imperial history of the Spanish colonies hardly vindicated Bolivar's hopes. Admittedly, the Monroe doctrine ensured that however chaotic it became, Latin America was not a cockpit of super-powerrivalry, until the little matter of the Cuban missile crisis.
Apropos missiles, the most dangerous moments since 1962 have occurred in the former British empire, when India and Pakistan were confronting each other. Although we British pride ourselves on the skilful way in which we dismantled the empire, the sleep of reason in formerly British Africa has already brought forth monsters, with a lot more to come. Even the first British empire was no exception. First, the Americans seized their independence before they learned to play cricket, so that they still regard rounders as a suitable game for grown-up males. Second, the ambivalences about federalism and slavery in the 13 colonies led to a civil war, and have still not been fully resolved.
More recently, there was also Austria-Hungary, with the Balkans; Ottoman Turkey, with Iraq; France, with Algeria and more African failed states. Now, we have Russia and the Caucasus. A week ago, there were grounds for cautious hope. It seemed possible that the Russians were planning a mere Bismarckian war; clear objectives, overwhelming force, a brief timetable, a limited expenditure of blood and treasure and no uncontrollable threat to international order (Bismarck was not to blame for 1914).
As regards Georgia, this now seems over-optimistic. Admittedly, events may still settle down in that direction, but for the time being a fiery curtain of confrontational language stretches from the Caucasus to the Baltic, while a new problem has emerged which is far graver than Georgia; Ukraine, the Crimea and Russian naval facilities. In the 1850s, we blundered into a pointless war in Crimea. It had only one merit; a limited scope.
That might not apply to the Crimean missile crisis. Within a few months, we will probably have forgotten whether Ossetia is a place or a type of caviar. We will not be able to forget the Ukraine. It would help if we knew what the Russians wanted and what sort of society Russia will become. But that is not possible. How could it be? The Russians themselves do not know the answer to those questions. Everything depends on four related developments: the Russian economy, the growth of the middle class, the development of civil society and the passage of time. They all provide reasons for wary optimism.
Given its natural resources, Russia is bound to prosper. Its people will continue to enjoy the previously unimaginable luxury of being paid on time in a worthwhile currency. This will lead to the expansion of the middle class, which is the foundation of social stability. Despite difficulties in recent years, a society run by the middle classes will inevitably become a civil society.
Nor is there any reason why Messrs Putin and Medvedev should impede the growth of a democratic culture. Why should they, when they would have no difficulty in winning free elections? The passage of time will ease the pain of post-Soviet trauma. Many older Russians resent the loss of the Soviet Union. As they gave the best years of their lives to its service, this is hardly surprising. But political self-pity among older Russians is a major contributory factor to the fall in life expectancy. This does not affect the rising age groups. The more their elders sink into nostalgia and vodka, the quicker they will take charge.
Mr Putin comes from the transitional generation: career rooted in the old order, but young enough to adapt. Although much has been made of his KGB past, this was not necessarily adisadvantage. The KGB had one asset denied to ordinary Russians: information. A KGB operative stationed in the West and tasked with upholding the superiority of the Soviet system must have felt like a member of the Flat-Earth Society on a round-the-world cruise.
Nor should we assume that all KGB men were ideological fanatics. You are a young Russian in the 1970s. Like almost everyone in the world, you assume that the Soviet system will outlast your lifetime. You are not the stuff from which heroes are made (Vladimir Putin does not look heroic). You decide, therefore, that the KGB offers an interesting life with lots of travel plus good pay and rations.
A few years ago it seemed as if Mr Putin had no regard for old Soviet methods. He appeared to believe that the previous economic system had no merit and that the answer to reform lay in markets. He also seemed ready to think that there might be a link between markets and democracy. Although he may not have understood either markets or democracy, he did seem convinced that Russia had to change.
It may not be too late to revive that conviction. We in the West have to persuade Mr Putin that it is possible for him to be a patriot who believes in a strong Russia without coming into conflict either with us or with his immediate neighbours. This creates a dilemma. How can we avoid the danger of a crisis over the Ukraine without giving the Russians the impression that they can do what they like in that country?
This is an urgent task which is not assisted either by reverting to Cold War rhetoric, or by NATO expansion into the former Soviet Union. As soon as peace has been restored in Georgia, the West should launch a major diplomatic offensive with the object of creating a new system of collective security in which disagreements could be resolved. This will only work if it is presented as an overture to Russia and not as a diplomatic offensive to unite Russia's neighbours against her. It would help if we announced that the negotiations would lead to the Treaty of Moscow.
It would also be foolish to exclude Russia either from the G8 or the World Trade Organisation. We all want to see a Russia which aspires to belong to those bodies not a great power which pursues a nationalist course with the constant threat of conflict.
If only our diplomacy could be conducted in secret, without any need to appeal to the West's electorates. We need diplomats who are the intellectual heirs of Castlereagh, Kissinger, Metternich, Salisbury and Talleyrand; with the temperaments of Peter Carrington or Douglas Hurd, steeped in experience, wisdom, realism and cynicism.
We do not know whether it was wisdom or cynicism which has prevented Gordon Brown from deploying his diplomatic skills. It was an extraordinary absence. An international crisis is usually good for prime ministers. As they uphold the national interest in weighty discussions with foreign leaders, they can put a distance between themselves and the opposition leaders. They can speak and act for the whole country.
Not Mr Brown: he has been far less interested in Georgia than in Milibadev's attacks on Gordia. There is only one conclusion to be drawn from his unwillingness to involve himself in great events, and it is not a new one. This man is not fit to be Prime Minister.
Posted by: john frum ||
08/18/2008 09:54 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Given its natural resources, Russia is bound to prosper.
I think that is QUITE debatable, on several grounds.
Its people will continue to enjoy the previously unimaginable luxury of being paid on time in a worthwhile currency. This will lead to the expansion of the middle class, which is the foundation of social stability. Despite difficulties in recent years, a society run by the middle classes will inevitably become a civil society.
Youd think that China has shown that such inevitablity either does not exist, or at least does not kick in securely till much higher standards of living. Theres also considerable evidence that the link is much weaker in petrostates.
Nor is there any reason why Messrs Putin and Medvedev should impede the growth of a democratic culture. Why should they, when they would have no difficulty in winning free elections?
1. They win so easily in part because of the undemocratic steps they have already taken.
2. They are quite aware that the economy will not be golden for all time, and that times change. They dont want to lose power then.
The passage of time will ease the pain of post-Soviet trauma. Many older Russians resent the loss of the Soviet Union. As they gave the best years of their lives to its service,
A very odd phrasing, to be sure.
this is hardly surprising. But political self-pity among older Russians is a major contributory factor to the fall in life expectancy. This does not affect the rising age groups. The more their elders sink into nostalgia and vodka, the quicker they will take charge.
But Putinesque self assertion may make it harder to break the cycle.
Mr Putin comes from the transitional generation: career rooted in the old order, but young enough to adapt. Although much has been made of his KGB past, this was not necessarily adisadvantage. The KGB had one asset denied to ordinary Russians: information. A KGB operative stationed in the West and tasked with upholding the superiority of the Soviet system must have felt like a member of the Flat-Earth Society on a round-the-world cruise.
Nor should we assume that all KGB men were ideological fanatics. You are a young Russian in the 1970s. Like almost everyone in the world, you assume that the Soviet system will outlast your lifetime. You are not the stuff from which heroes are made (Vladimir Putin does not look heroic). You decide, therefore, that the KGB offers an interesting life with lots of travel plus good pay and rations.
Point missed. Its not that Putin is a believer in Marxism - leninism. Hes not - and yeah, I suspect there were few true believers his age in the KGB. Thats not the point. He DOES seem to be a believer in authoritarianism. He has an outlook that seems to predate 1917.
A few years ago it seemed as if Mr Putin had no regard for old Soviet methods. He appeared to believe that the previous economic system had no merit and that the answer to reform lay in markets. He also seemed ready to think that there might be a link between markets and democracy. Although he may not have understood either markets or democracy, he did seem convinced that Russia had to change.
he clearly thinks markets are jim dandy for agriculture, retail, tech, etc, etc and doesnt want to go back to USSR communism precisely because it would weaken Russia. He wants govt control over natural resources, esp hydrocarbons, cause those are the tools Russia will use to dominate other countries, and because it enables him to finance the state without relying on taxes difficult to collect with a corrupt society and weak bureucracy.
It may not be too late to revive that conviction. We in the West have to persuade Mr Putin that it is possible for him to be a patriot who believes in a strong Russia without coming into conflict either with us or with his immediate neighbours. This creates a dilemma. How can we avoid the danger of a crisis over the Ukraine without giving the Russians the impression that they can do what they like in that country?
This is an urgent task which is not assisted either by reverting to Cold War rhetoric, or by NATO expansion into the former Soviet Union. As soon as peace has been restored in Georgia, the West should launch a major diplomatic offensive with the object of creating a new system of collective security in which disagreements could be resolved. This will only work if it is presented as an overture to Russia and not as a diplomatic offensive to unite Russia's neighbours against her. It would help if we announced that the negotiations would lead to the Treaty of Moscow.
If we reward Putin for invading Georgia, I very much doubt that will moderate his behavior. Unless you think whats he done is a reaction to what weve done, which, I dont believe. Weve tried to integrate Moscow for years, looked the other way at their behavior in Ukraine, Estonia, and even London, their diplomatic blockage on issues from Iran to Zimbabwe.
It would also be foolish to exclude Russia either from the G8
Why exactluy does Russia belong in the G7, an org that does not include China or India?
The G7 was formed as a place for industrialized, market, democracies, which were also tied by other alliances, to coordinate first economic, and then political policies. Russia isnt an equivalent economy, its not a democracy, and its not an ally. It was invited in basically to prop up Yeltsin, which didnt work out all that well. It was questionable if they belonged in BEFORE Georgia. NOw its absurd.
or the World Trade Organisation.
Thats why we only SUSPEND their application, till we see how they behave.
We all want to see a Russia which aspires to belong to those bodies -- not a great power which pursues a nationalist course with the constant threat of conflict.
But Russia is BOTH - they want the goodies of integration, while ALSO threatening conflict where it suits them. We must make it clear they cant have both.
If only our diplomacy could be conducted in secret, without any need to appeal to the West's electorates.
Democracy sure is a pain, isnt it? Source of sympathy for Putin identified.
We need diplomats who are the intellectual heirs of Castlereagh, Kissinger, Metternich, Salisbury and Talleyrand; with the temperaments of Peter Carrington or Douglas Hurd, steeped in experience, wisdom, realism and cynicism.
More cynicism than realism here, I think.
We do not know whether it was wisdom or cynicism which has prevented Gordon Brown from deploying his diplomatic skills. It was an extraordinary absence. An international crisis is usually good for prime ministers. As they uphold the national interest in weighty discussions with foreign leaders, they can put a distance between themselves and the opposition leaders. They can speak and act for the whole country.
I think it was the combination of his own internal weakness, plus the need to defer to France which IS the president of the EU now.
Not Mr Brown: he has been far less interested in Georgia than in Milibadev's attacks on Gordia. There is only one conclusion to be drawn from his unwillingness to involve himself in great events, and it is not a new one. This man is not fit to be Prime Minister.
#5
FREEREPUBLIC > Russia is reportedly considering giving NUCLEAR MISSLES to SYRIA, + emplacing in BALTIC REGION [Kaliningrad].
COVERT/SUBTLE EVIDENCIA > RUSSO-GEORGIAN CONFLICT IS NOTSOMUCH "USA VERSUS IRAN", BUT MORE "RUSSIA VERSUS IRAN" [future NUKULAR IRAN/ISLAMISM]???
Think ROMAN EMPIRE VERSUS "BARBARIAN HORDES" [Goths, Huns, etc.] > PRO-ROMAN/NEUTRAL LATTER MOVING INTO ROMAN SPACE + ATTACKING ROME = BYZANTIUM AS DUE TO OVERWHELMING FOREIGN/EXTERNAL MILITARY PRESSURES AGZ THEM FROM THE ASIAN STEPPES.
RUSSIAN HISTORY > Local SLAVS + GERMANIC-NORDIC TRIBES versus MONGOLS + TARTAR, etc. INVASIONS.
#6
I could still be wrong, but my nose is telling me RUSSIA covertly wants the US-NATO to set up in the CASPIAN-BLACK SEA REGIONS, as a "just-in-case" agz future NUCLEAR ISLAMISM/JIHAD-TERROR + ambitious China.
* CHINA = EVERYBODY WANTS TO SEE IFF CHINA CAN MODERNIZE AS QUICKLY + POTENTLY AS JAPAN DID.
CHINA > FAILURE OF REFORMS > either a GIANT NUKE-ARMED "JAPAN"; versus A GIANT NUKE-ARMED STARVING NORTH KOREA [Massive Overpopulation + Enviro Desertifications], versus GIANT NUKE-ARMED "ISLAMIST CHINA" versus WEAK DIVIDED CHINA WID NUKE-ARMED ISLAMIST CHIN ENCLAVES = FORMER CHIN TERRITORIES???
Thusly, RUSSIA NEEDS THE US-NATO/ALLIES TO COVER ITS BACK IN EURASIA???
OVER the weekend, photographic proof emerged that the Russians used murderous Chechen mercenaries to do their dirtiest dirty work in Georgia: The ragtag unit in question is so vicious that, last April, Chechnya's Russian-installed "president" demanded it be disbanded.
War snaps taken by Russian photojournalist Arkady Babchenko have been circulating among intelligence personnel. The shots reveal far more to the West than Babchenko realized.
Amid photos of the horrors of war, grateful South Ossetians and triumphant Russian troops, one series leapt out at me as a former intel officer: Bearded irregulars riding atop Russian-built armored vehicles (old BMPs, for the military-hardware buffs). The vehicles had been splashed with white lettering.
What did the scrawls announce to the world? These thugs proudly proclaimed that they're Chechens serving in the Vostok ("East") Battalion commanded by Badrudin Yamadaev - who shares a reputation for gangland violence with his brother, Ruslan.
Last spring, mercenaries from the Vostok Battalion indulged in a bloody gangland shoot-'em-up in the city of Gudermes, near their home turf. The mafia-on-steroids brutality was too much even for the Chechens (which is quite a standard). The province's puppet president publicly begged the Kremlin and its generals to disband the unit.
The generals refused. At the time, their stubborn support for the outlaw Yamadaev Brothers seemed baffling - a quiet Chechnya was a longstanding Russian goal. But last week, it all made sense: Putin's military, which had been planning the invasion of Georgia for many months, intended to unleash the worst criminals in uniform it had on the Georgian people.
Why?
Two reasons: First, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin wants the Georgians to suffer - to really suffer. And Chechens are the world's subject-matter experts in atrocities.
Second, this gives the Russian army itself a veil of deniability: When Putin's spokesmen insist that the Russian military isn't involved in the worst savagery in Georgia, they're technically telling the truth (if we don't count air attacks and artillery bombardments), since the Chechen thugs on their payroll are on the job.
But why would those Chechens paint up their armored vehicles to tell the world they'd arrived in Georgia? First, they're proud of their fearsome reputation. Second, they didn't want Russian regulars to mistake them for the enemy and pull the trigger.
The result?
Contrary to Russian claims that "volunteers" from the North Caucasus rushed in to aid their South Ossetian brethren, we now have proof that the Kremlin sent in hired guns. It's no accident that Putin's code-name for this operation is "Scorched Earth."
And there's plenty else to be outraged about - not all of it Russia's fault. Images of dead and disfigured Georgian soldiers show them wearing US-surplus canteens, boots and helmets, or equipped with antique US anti-tank weapons. After the Georgians did all their tiny country could to support us in Iraq, all we gave them was cast-off junk - thanks to Congress and the State Department.
Our military was only allowed to train the Georgians for peacekeeping, anti-terrorism and small-unit tactics. The Georgians gave us all they had, and we gave them crap. The Bush administration should hang its wobbly head in shame.
Meanwhile, Chechen rapists and butchers are celebrating - and picking over the US gear the Russians captured and didn't even want.
#1
Georgia is set to profit handsomely from this Russian disaster. Had the Russians acted slowly, and with any degree of finesse (Russians? Hah!), they might have infiltrated Georgia and migrated it back into their sphere of influence.
But now everyone around every border with Russia is on alert, fully remembering all the brutalities and rapine inflicted on them over the years. And Georgia is now their leader--the first to fight the bear. A hero to all, and an ally as fast as it can be arranged.
Georgia will thus remain free. But it will also soon have real arms delivered to it. Peoples they know little about will soon be giving aid and support to their country. They have had all obstacles in their path to join NATO stripped away, and other alliances are waiting in line to approach them for membership.
Georgia will have lost both Ossetia and Abkhazia, but they have both be gone in a de facto manner for years. This makes their loss de jure. And like Germany and its stolen East, they may now mourn their loss, and retrieve grand compensation for it.
Ukraine, especially, is now in love with Georgia, for it is their spiritual twin. But North Europe, the Baltic States, eastern Europe and Ukraine, Armenia, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, other ex-Soviet states, and Mongolia, all have cause to join with Georgia in any way they can.
#2
Our military was only allowed to train the Georgians for peacekeeping, anti-terrorism and small-unit tactics. The Georgians gave us all they had, and we gave them crap. The Bush administration should hang its wobbly head in shame.
Weapons cost money and you have to prioritize. Sure we could have given them heavy tanks and $100k javelins but could they or we afford to do it while we're spending billions on our own wars.
I saw a LAW photographed, it's still a deadly weapon. I don't know why the US is to blame, it wasn't their intention to fight the Russian Army, but to fight the separatists or terrorist. I saw plenty of fresh m16/m4 that the Russians captured too.
#3
I think we did let them down. But it happens, nobody expected the Russians to go on a rip like they did. The good part is now Germany, Ukraine, and other nations are standing up and taking some part in this too, not just us. The other good thing is that even though they made a hell of a mess out of the place, it wasn't a total massacre, apartments and bridges can be rebuilt, the port is already operating again, the bulk of the people will be returning to their homes. And its never too late to do what we should have done in the first place and temper their actions to their military abilities.
#4
one series leapt out at me as a former intel officer...
I think that the same series would have leapt out at anyone who knows Cyrillic & can - by some prodigious mental effort - read the words 'Chechnya' & 'Vostok' on the sides of those APCs.
This fellow should really check his facts before letting rip like this. If the Russian press is to be believed (hmmmm...) Badrudi has been out of loop since April, hunted as a fugitive by Kadyrov's people. The commander of the Vostok (East) Battalion, Sulim Yamadaev, was apparently purged just before this whole thing kicked off. I'm not sure that Vostok are any more brutal than any other group of Chechens 'soldiers' (not that you'd ever want to meet them in the dark), the campaign for their disbandment is orchestrated by Ramzan Kadyrov & has nothing to do (AIUI) with their cruelty, instead it has a lot to do with the fact that they supposedly answer to the GRU, not a certain Mr Kadyrov. As for the confront in Gudermes even the St Petersburg Times was blaming that on provocation by Kadyrov's people, despite Ramzy being strongly backed by Pooty.
#5
If Russia had invaded the breakaway provinces, pushed the ethnic georgians out but did not themselves cross the border they would have gotten everything they wanted and avoided the worst of the world's anger.
Much like Saddam. If he had grabbed the Kuwaiti oil fields and not the city of Kuwait both General Powell and Schwarzkopf said they would have fought the administration about going to war.
I feel sure that a debate is going on between the hawks and doves in the Kremlin. I am confident of that because such debates always do exist. There must be equally patriotic Russians, in senior official positions, who see the Georgian campaign as part of Vladimir Putin's restoration of Russian self-respect or as dangerous adventurism. In times of crisis, decision-makers inevitably divide into hawks, regarded by critics as reckless warmongers, and doves, regarded as cowardly appeasers.
Such divisions exist in the EU and in the US. In Russia, there is no doubt that the hawks are in the ascendant. The leading hawk is Mr Putin, the Prime Minister. One should remember that all politics is ultimately domestic. Mr Putin wants to impress Russia's neighbours with its power and armed might. But he also wants to impress the electorate.
The hawkish leaders refuse to accept Russia's humiliation at the time of the break-up of the Soviet Union. Their policy is popular with Russian public opinion. This naturally strikes fear into former Soviet countries, such as Ukraine or Georgia. No one now will lightly challenge Russian power; the Russian people like that.
We do not know who the doves in the Kremlin may be, although President Medvedev uses more moderate language than Mr Putin.
So far, the hawks have been winning the argument. The Russian people feel that they have been treated with disrespect for too long. Their military action in Georgia has been a rapid and decisive victory. The Georgian President, Mikheil Saakashvili, never popular in Russia, has been taught a sharp lesson in the realities of military power.
Nevertheless, the doves in the Kremlin also have strong arguments. Russia is a major nuclear power, comparable with the US. Russia may be the only nuclear power with the capacity to obliterate the US. Yet this would lead to the total destruction of Russia itself. That does, however, mean that Russia understands the reality of the situation.
The Russians have a sophisticated knowledge of their own vulnerability to nuclear attack. Like the Americans, they know that they cannot afford to go to war with the other nuclear superpower. This was established over 40 years of the Cold War. A certain level of nuclear capacity actually limits a major power's freedom of action.
In the time of Russia's greatest strength in the mid-20th century, between victory in Europe in 1945 and the death of Stalin in 1953, Russia still had a powerful Marxist-Leninist ideology that attracted support around the world and even conquered China.
Stalin believed Marxism-Leninism to be a scientific explanation of history that was bound to prevail against capitalist imperialism. He devoted substantial resources to promoting international revolution. Even his more moderate successor, Nikita Khrushchev, warned the West that we will bury you.
Russia is no longer a Marxist-Leninist society, although there is some popular nostalgia for the old days. Socialist idealists of the Third World no longer look to Russia as a model society, or even an attractive one. Marxism-Leninism had a strong appeal to political militants. That no longer exists. For better or worse, Russia is now just another capitalist country, and not a particularly efficient one.
The price that Russia is paying for the invasion of Georgia is increased isolation. The major regional powers of the modern world are the US, China, the EU, Russia, India and Japan. Since the Georgian invasion, Russia has had strained relations with the US and Europe, and no major friends. Russia is a large Asian power, stretching to the Pacific Ocean, but the three most important Asian powers, China, India and Japan, do not have close or trusting relations with it.
Of the six world powers, or groups of powers, Russia is seen as the least reliable, the least friendly. President Franklin Roosevelt felt that the US in the 1930s had become alienated from the South American countries; to correct that, he established the good neighbour policy. Russia is increasingly isolated from its near abroad. To Georgians, Ukrainians or citizens of the Baltic states, Mr Putin's Russia appears to be following a bad neighbour policy. For the Russian voter, Putinism may appear to be reasserting Russia's position in the world; to its neighbours, Russia is now an ugly threat.
The West, particularly the US and Europe, has tried to prevent Russia's isolation by inviting the Russians to come into the tent. This policy was not consistently pursued; there are still Western anxieties from the Cold War, just as there are similar Russian anxieties. But the general policy was clear and was symbolised by inviting Russia to join G8 meetings.
Russia has essential interests in common with the West. Global trade, a stable European market for oil and gas, resistance to Islamic terrorism, avoidance of military conflict, investment in modernisation. It was hoped that Russia and the West could build on these interests to cement good relations and strengthen the global economy.
The first European reactions to the invasion of Georgia showed that Europe hoped to protect this co-operative policy. Had Russia limited the Georgian operation to the protection of South Ossetian refugees, but kept troops out of Georgia proper, a co-operative policy might have been maintained. Instead, there has been broad Russian aggression against Georgian territory.
The delay in the ceasefire and the extension of the invasion far beyond the boundary of South Ossetia has created a very different climate, made worse by threats to target nuclear weapons against Poland and, it appears, Ukraine as well.
In a world of global trade, Russia cannot afford to be isolated. No doubt the Kremlin hawks are riding high now. Yet as Sir Robert Walpole said of a mid 18th-century war: They now ring the bells, but they will soon wring their hands.
Posted by: john frum ||
08/18/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This kindergarten analysis would not go amiss for priming MSM deciders but offers nothing concrete about thinking at the Kremlin.
#2
NET > VARIOUS > seems RUSSIAN MARKETS may had dropped/lost US$7.0Bilyuhn at the height of the Russo-Georgian fighting over South Ossetia-Abkhazia, and still counting. MARKET RUSSPERTS > RUSS MARKET LOSSES [all causes]WILL LIKELY RUN INTO THE TWENTIES BILYUHN AT END OF THIS WEEK OR END OF AUGUST.
#3
Clearly I'm slower than usual today. How does not agreeing with the posted article make one an EU/NATO apologist, SOC? And what difference would it make if lotp were, when the parties in the conflict are Georgia and Russia? The EU and NATO are not yet involved in any besides talking.
#4
My apologies, Sean - you did indeed provide a list of links at the bottom of your post. It would be easier to verify exactly what you claim out of each article if they were hyperlinked within the long analysis but they are indeed there.
#5
Clean up. This is happenening with increasing frequency
We've got a troll who bops in under various proxy IP addresses and uses regulars' nyms. He seems to enjoy spewing trash here and wants to drive regular people away.
#9
My darling mother-in-law is Quebecois, and she's wonderful. But then she doesn't think much of the current generality of French Canadians, either. On the other hand, she spells beautifully.
#11
trailingwife: not agreeing with the article makes one an EU or NATO apologist in the same manner that not agreeing with the picture painted by the media earns one the label of Soviet or Russian apologist, despite the fact that the article points out a key Russian disinformation example from the later stages of the conflict used to stir up trouble with the Ukraine...
There recently was a death of a 98 year-old lady named Irena. During WWII, Irena, got permission to work in the Warsaw Ghetto, as a Plumbing/Sewer specialist. She had an 'ulterior motive' ... She KNEW what the Nazi's plans were for the Jews, (being German.) Irena smuggled infants out in the bottom of the tool box she carried and she carried in the back of her truck a burlap sack, (for larger kids.)
She also had a dog in the back that she trained to bark when the Nazi soldiers let her in and out of the ghetto. The soldiers of course wanted nothing to do with the dog and the barking covered the kids/infants noises.
During her time of doing this, she managed to smuggle out and save 2500 kids/infants. She was caught, and the Nazi's broke both her legs, arms and beat her severely. Irena kept a record of the names of all the kids she smuggled out and kept them in a glass jar, buried under a tree in her back yard.
After the war, she tried to locate any parents that may have survived it and reunited the family. Most of course had been gassed. Those kids she helped got placed into foster family homes or adopted.
Last year Irena was up for the Nobel Peace Prize ... She was not selected.
#1
This is sad in so many ways. To be passed over for Al Gore and his ilk is another insult to the victims and survivors of the holocaust. I recently read two accounts of the holocaust, Maus II and Night, we rush to forget as a people and are still subject to the 'siren calls' of fanatics, be they Hitlers or Gores. Different messages, same playing to our collective fears and lack of any sense of self reflection. I pray for Irena and weep for the world.
Posted by: Total War ||
08/18/2008 15:05 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Wasn't it Churchill that said, those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it .
#3
You can visit the Irena Sendler Project here. Well worth the time.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/18/2008 17:03 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Those who've received the Nobel Peace Prize in recent years are not the kind of company this wonderful lady should keep. Yad Vashem, the Holocaust museum in Israel, recognized Mrs. Sendler as a Righteous Gentile; she was also recognized for her valour by the United States, Poland, and the Pope. Four American schoolgirls wrote a play about what she did, which has been performed over 245 times since then. The life and memory of Irena Sendler have indeed been for a blessing, and an example to us all.
#5
The Nobel Peace Prize has become a political correctness award in recent years. I'm certain this lady wouldn't care about such an award. She has knows in her heart she did the right and moral thing. Screw the Nobel Piece Prize.
Posted by: Bill Shusorong1219 ||
08/18/2008 20:24 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Of course she didn't qualify. She showed honor, courage and dignity, which are all something the Nobel committee wouldn't recognize if you beat them upside the head with a 2x4.
Rest in peace, Ms. Sendler.
Posted by: Swamp Blondie in the Cornfields ||
08/18/2008 23:40 Comments ||
Top||
#3
A most excellent rant; full of seething and bitterness. Certainly better than the thin gruel they serve up in North Korea these days.
I like the way it starts out with " I have it on good authority..." This from the political crew that advocates quesioning authority. Ah, the Irony is strong in this one, Obi-wan!
My favorite part is this: The above mentioned Jews were mandated to fan the flames of hateful passion against the Illinois Senator using demagoguery and nefarious spin of the Reverend Wright issue to toxify the American voters.
Toxify the American voters? Those wiley Jews are attempting to sap and umpurify our precious bodily fluids! Still you have to admire the cunning bastards if they can trick Obama into hanging out with Rev. Wright for a couple decades, knowing that association will eventually become poison when the Messiah (hey, they started it with the crucifixion theme!) runs for president.
#4
The quote is from a speech the retired Reverend Wright gave to the NAACP in April. When exactly was Candidate Obama shocked to discover his pastor and mentor's beliefs?
Whoa. My morning news perusal has brought me several stories discussing Obama's hair color, and the very important debate about whether he has a little Revlon secret.
New York Magazine posted two images of Obama from Getty; the one on the left is from July 27th, and the one on the right is from yesterday. Their synopsis:
"Barack Obama has begun talking about how he's 'going gray' lately, and it's true -- the man's hair is going silver faster than you can say 'Anderson Cooper with a tan.' So fast, in fact, that we have to wonder at the legitimacy of it. Just last month, Obama's longtime barber said he'd never dyed Obama's hair darker -- implying that the candidate's youthful color is stress-resistant.
But within the last week, the candidate has mysteriously gone nearly fully gray. Look at the above pictures. We hate to call the effects of age into question, but doesn't it look like he's dying his hair to look more distinguished?"
#1
The blog entry goes on to quote a photographic expert saying the apparent difference is due toan artifact of -- in the right hand, greyer photo -- a shorter haircut, harsher overhead lighting, and less colour saturation in the print. Note also the difference of skin tone in the two photos. Finally, while darkening grey hair is very straightforward, lightening to silver-grey is exceedingly difficult, not to mention needing to be touched up at least weekly if the subject doesn't want distressing roots to appear.
#1
Interestingly, Moore's sixth step was to denounce Michael Moore.
For those of you who possess a logical mind, let me help you here. Realizing that he is a fat, weird, anti-American, opportunist scumbag, MM is aware that the only avenew to success is to denounce the scumbag.
We all denounce him, and we are right sometimes. So, one step out of six is unquestionably correct.
#2
So Barack, by denouncing me, you can help McCain get elected. Because when you denounce me, it's not really me you're distancing yourself from it's the millions upon millions of people who feel the same way about things as I do. And many of them are the kind of crazy voters who have no problem voting for a Nader just to prove a point.
Million and millions of folks love Mikey.
No one else matters. Not the millions who hate him; not the millions who don't care, and not the billions who have no idea who he is.
Posted by: Bobby ||
08/18/2008 13:00 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I urge you all to send this to your best progressive friends. 'Tis from from the mouth of the great Michael Moore, so it has to be true. Some progressives wont realize that the big MM is satorizing here.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
08/18/2008 13:14 Comments ||
Top||
#4
It's funny, but even Michael Moore doesn't seem to realize that there's a reason Michael Moore would never dare run for office. He's exactly the wrong person to be handing out advice in his blow-hard manner on how to conduct an election.
Ten days before Russian tanks and infantry invaded the democratic and pro-Western Republic of Georgia, the federal governments Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) terminated all Voice of America (VoA) radio broadcasts to Russia, The Washington Examiner has learned. This means that throughout the still unfolding international crisis, a key communications tool that helped win the Cold War for the United States has been mute.
VoAs strategic importance cannot be overstated. The Heritage Foundations Lee Edwards, who spearheaded the drive to erect the Victims of Communism Memorial on Massachusetts Avenue, recalls that Polish Solidarity Movement leader Lech Walesa was asked at a conference in Washington about the impact VoA had on Soviet dissidents: Would there be the Earth without the sun? Walesa replied.
Two years ago, the BBG decided to eclipse that sun by terminating Russian broadcasts and shifting resources to the Internet. On the surface, there is logic behind such a move, but the reality is that few people living outside Russias big cities have online access. Worse, its much easier for Russian censors to shut down Web sites, which they have reportedly already done in Georgia, than to silence VoA broadcasts. The BBG decided to eliminate harder-to-block shortwave radio transmissions, cutting off millions of Russians and Georgians from official U.S. news and analysis.
Tim Shambles, president of the union that represents VoA employees, confirmed that BBG announced termination of the broadcasts in early in July and calls the Kremlins decision to invade Georgia less than two weeks after the airwaves went dead a strange coincidence.
Even after the invasion, pleas to the BBG by VoAs Russian experts to go back on the air fell on deaf ears. Two remaining surrogate services that employ foreign journalists sound like the Kremlins mouthpiece, according to an e-mail from a Russian listener.
VoA employees are still working overtime to broadcast to Georgia, but they have also been informed that their mics will go dead Sept. 30. Dismantling such a proven means of communication with people trapped inside hostile regimes is so astonishingly stupid, it makes one wonder what planet members of the BBG board have been living on. And its not for want of funds, since Congress reversed the boards proposed cuts in its markup of the agencys 2009 appropriations bill just last month. Two years ago, when the cuts were first announced, a Russian TV camera crew showed up at VoAs Washington headquarters with a sign in Russian that read: America without a voice.
It makes little sense to hold Kashmir's separatists back
As the situation in Jammu & Kashmir spirals out of control over the land for Amarnath pilgrims issue, it is worth revisiting the Government's attitude towards the State. For too long has the Government tiptoed around the Kashmiri separatist leadership rather than having a clear direction and purpose. As a result the separatist-driven agenda has often dominated decision-making and policies rather than the Government robustly supporting nationalist voices and integrating Jammu & Kashmir into the national mainstream. Instead of stopping the Hurriyat-led separatists' "Muzzafarabad chalo" march to Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, the Government's response should be far simpler: For those who are so desirous of going to Pakistan-controlled territory, let them go.
For too long has India played along with the Hurriyat leadership's double game -- fully enjoying the liberties and amenities of staying in India while vigorously supporting the cause of separatism and Pakistan. Few countries would treat those advocating separatism as VIPs, but this indeed has been the attitude of the Government for decades. All this is done on the premise that it is necessary to "win over" the separatists via appeasement, not realising that this has created a constituency in Kashmir that thrives on blackmailing the State.
The protests in Jammu are ultimately not about Amarnath -- it matters little whether 97 acres of land is transferred to the shrine board to provide facilities for pilgrims or whether those facilities are directly provided by the State Government. Ultimately the protests in Jammu are an emotional outlet to the pent-up feeling that policies of appeasement have constantly favoured separatist interests over nationalist interests and Kashmir over Jammu. The protests in Kashmir, on the other hand, have taken a predictably separatist tone.
The Hurriyat manages to pull this off because it claims that a sizeable section, perhaps even a majority of Kashmiris, would rather be part of Pakistan if given the choice. That this may be true is actually the lingering fear behind the Government's policies of appeasement. Though the Hurriyat has demonstrated rabble-rousing street-strength, some of which flows from the gun, this claim of preference of a majority of Kashmiris for Pakistan over India remains unverified.
To march forward the Government needs to shed its ambivalence. Jammu & Kashmir is an integral part of India. There is no question of parting with land. If there are indeed people who would prefer the repressive, militarist, undemocratic, economically declining set-up and failing state of Pakistan to the far brighter future that India is marching towards, they are welcome to choose Pakistan. Kashmiris in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir have even less democratic freedom and fewer human rights than people in the rest of Pakistan, which itself is hardly a shining example on this account.
The people of Kashmir are not fools. Neither are the vast majority of them Islamic fundamentalists. When push comes to shove, their concern is and will remain their economic well-being and personal liberty. However, those in Kashmir who fuel separatist tendencies should be shown a very clear path.
We need to get rid of our diffidence and be confident of the vast gulf between the Indian model and the Pakistani model. Few people in their right minds would choose the latter over the former. This includes the Hurriyat leaders who enjoy Indian hospitality while rooting for Pakistan.
The guns of our troops should be facing outwards not inwards. Rather than being worried by those who want to march to Pakistan, or intimidating them into staying back, we should facilitate their passage. There is only one caveat. We should make it clear that this is a one-way road and those that freely cross over in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir will no longer enjoy the privilege of Indian citizenship. The rest of the people of Jammu & Kashmir can then live in peace, co-equal as Indian citizens, neither less nor more than any other.
Posted by: john frum ||
08/18/2008 08:13 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
Some elements have given preface to their own interests rather than the nation. False allegations were filed against me and they tried to turn truth into lie and they tried to deceive the people. They never felt these things that they probably could succeed against me but that the nation would have to pay a price they never thought about.
To impeach is parliament's prerogative and to answer it is my right. I believe in myself and I have faith in my god, Allah, that no charge sheet can stand against me. Not a single charge can be proved against me because I never thought about my own being. Whatever I did was Pakistan first. That was my motto.
JUSTICE
After consulting my legal advisors and closest political supporters and listening to their advice, in the interest of the nation, I resign from my post today. I want to hand over my future to the peoples' hand and let them be the judges and let them do the justice.
I am going with the satisfaction that whatever I could do for this nation, for the people, I did it with all my honesty and integrity. But I am also a human being. It is possible I might have committed mistakes, but I hope that this nation and the people will know those mistakes with this belief - that my intentions were true.
'HEARTFELT SORROW'
Now I am satisfied, but at the same time I am sad - and in pain as well - that Pakistan is sliding down very fast. This is my heartfelt sorrow, I am very sad. And I hope that the government will think about the people's problems and will make efforts to improve things, that the government will check this downslide with success, and that the government will work for the people of Pakistan.
I am pleased to say that I am leaving a vibrant media, and I hope that the media will enjoy the same level of freedom and independence, and with responsibility.
'GOODBYE'
There are lots of my supporters and well-wishers, and there are lots of opinion polls, that say I should stay in power. I know that there are many well-wishers and supporters that were telling me to do something else, but I would like to tell them, please accept this truthful decision for the nation and in the people's interest.
Finally, goodbye to Pakistan. God protect Pakistan. God protect you, Pakistan forever. Long live Pakistan.
Posted by: john frum ||
08/18/2008 07:37 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
Today the sole super power finds itself stuck in the quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan from where it cannot exit. Had USA been able to subdue any of the occupied countries, Syria might have been axed by now. This is notwithstanding that Iran remains US-Israeli most sought prey. Although USA has for all practical purposes lost the war but egoism refrains Bush to admit it. He and his team of neo-cons are too proud of US military might and still believes that everything is achievable through use of force. While they are putting up a brave front and continue to live in world of fancy that USA is winning the war on terror and express their resolve to taking it to its logical end, the ground realty speaks otherwise. Having spent huge amounts and used massive force killing millions, it has utterly failed to subdue the few thousand ragtag Muslim militants fighting under colossal logistical, technical and operational constraints for the last seven years.
The Republican regime led by Bush has come under extreme censure of the Americans since their falsehood to justify Iraq invasion has been fully exposed. Despite using massive force and killing about million Iraqis, injuring another million and displacing millions the country has not been tamed. Over 4000 American soldiers have lost their lives and 30,000 wounded and their prestige shattered. The army has got afflicted with physiological and mental ailments and incidents of suicide are rising. Americans want US troop withdrawal from Iraq at the earliest. Suffering from acute frustration and humiliation, the US leadership is in a terrible mood. To cover up their failing, crisis in Lebanon were created which to their bad luck backfired and the Israeli forces had to suffer a humiliating defeat at the hands of Hizbollah. Iranian nuclear threat was then blown out of all proportions as yet another distracting maneuver to deflect the attention of the home audience from its failings in countries of occupation.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: john frum ||
08/18/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
They promoted this man to the rank of brigadier general? His father must have had very good connections.
#2
What troubles me is the vast majority of Pak ex-military types who write columns appear to be somewhat crazy.
Assuming that reading the Pak mainstream media, particularly the English medium media which targets the Pak elite, gives one a snapshot of the Pak officer corps, the picture that emerges is not comforting.
Posted by: john frum ||
08/18/2008 7:26 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Trailing Wife, just a reminder that this is Pakistan. As in many other countries, advancement in the military is on political merit, not military merit. This ranting, unfortnately, works in Pakistan.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
08/18/2008 8:31 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Someone led the Pakistani armies to their losses against India in the 70s and earlier. Sometimes a retired General is retired for a reason.
#5
why would one expect someone chosen for his skills in say, marshalling artillery in the Kashmir, and managing a brigade of Pakilands finest, to have any deep insights on international politics.
As for them being loony, thats a legacy of the Zia al Haq regime and the Islamizing of Pakis military. Its supposed to be partly fixed now, I wouldnt count on it though.
Stop talking. Stop all development aid. Walk away. See what happens.
The Kashmir problem has been with us for 60 years. It consists, at the core, of the unshakeable belief amongst around 1 per cent of Muslims in the Valley of Kashmir -- not the entire state -- that they are not Indians but Kashmiris.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: john frum ||
08/18/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Ditto, for "Palestine". The war will not end when Arbs love their children more than they hate Isrelis, the war will end when Palestinains have to earn their bread, when every Kassam built will mean everyone has to tighten his belt not to mention having to pay for damages caused by the Kassam in case it hits something. Then and only then there will be peace. Stop aid to Palestiaians, NOW!
#2
I'm not a game theory person, but I think I follow this. If I understand it correctly, we have these two perpetual wars because of outside support. Cut the outside support and those who most benefit from it will need to do something else. How do you convince these outside interests, in both regions, that it is no longer in their interest to continue this madness? Castrating the suppliers seems like it would be an effective deterrent, but how do you go about that? Seriously, with the modern intelligence capibilities, wouldn't it be possible to assinate some of the arms and money individuals? Nothing puts a damper on things like sharing your bed with a missle. I know that I've read that the Israelis found that going up the food chain of sucicide bombers, and killing the planners and plotters was more effective at reducing the bombing activity than just trying to stop the bombers themselves. We've used that same strategy successfully in Iraq. But maybe that is what is happening for Palestine. A couple of bigwigs in Syria have gotten knocked off by someone iun the last year. Don't know for sure who did it, but the others managing the Iran-Palestine connection are probably a bit more cautious now
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
08/18/2008 8:25 Comments ||
Top||
#3
In the case of Palestinians the people funding their terrorism are the western and, specially the american taxpayers. It is our money who allows them to build Kassams instead of feeding their children.
The following exchange took place in the comments thread of a posting over at Tim Blair's place:
Can I assume that all of you far-right nuts who love the war in Iraq are either in the military or are preparing to join. Or is it someone elses job to fight and die so you can have cheap oil. If you say you support a war but are not willing to join the military then you are all nothing more than cowards. Peter Jones of Rathmines
Thu 14 Aug 08 (05:17pm)
- - - - - - - - -
Richard Sharpe replied to Peter Jones
Thu 14 Aug 08 (09:32pm)
Do 15 years and three operational tours overseas (soon to be four) count, or does that make me an indoctrinated automaton brainwashed by the Military Machine? I tend to agree with a lot of the people here because Ive been to some of the s**tholes you talk about in coffee shops, and given the alternative, we are doing what is right for the people who live there. I dont think any less of those who post in here who havent served in the military, sometimes you dont actually need to put your hand in the fire to know it is hot. I do have a problem with poseurs who waltz in and make sweeping generalised statements about the courage or lack thereof in others without knowing anything about those they are insulting.
What about you hotshot? Do you hold the courage of your convictions? Did you volunteer for the Red Cross or MSF or any of a multitude of other organisations who send people into the same sorts of places we go to? Did you feel so strongly for the plight of the Iraqi people that you gave up your skinnychinos to work with UNICEF in Baghdad helping orphans? Did the plight of the Afghani people so move you that you decided to leave your loved ones behind to teach reading and writing to the little girls of Kandahar who for so long had been denied an education?
Let me guess; you went to a few rallies, wrote a nasty letter to your local member, and waged righteous cyber-war on nasty little conservatives with the audacity not to share your utopian (read totalitarian) worldview.
No soldier loves war. We are far too close to it to be caught up in the idea of romantic heroism. We do what we do because there are some real bad people out there. There are also good people who need our help. We are not saints. There will always be someone who spoils it for the rest. Most of what we do we do for each other. The bigger picture really only snaps into focus in an instant and gets just as quickly buried under the minutiae of operational life. Those brief moments though, the kid smiling as you drive past, seeing a school open for the first time in years, watching the women walking to the markets safe from murder and rape, help you understand why it is sometimes necessary to inflict violence in order to prevent it. You also gain an understanding of why it is the free western democracies on which this burden falls, not out of an imperialist drive to subjugate lesser peoples, but to give them the chance to strive for the way of life that people like you take for granted.
If some people here reached those conclusions without having to see some of the things Ive seen, that makes them a whole lot smarter than you.
- - - - - - - - - Apparently, Mr. Sharpe's eloquence was a little much for his debating partner.
Peter Jones replied to Peter Jones
Mon 18 Aug 08 (12:41pm)
Well Richard Sharpe,
I can only hope that you are blown up by a roadside bomb.
I would just like to see the US take on someone that can fight back (just once).
- - - - - - - - -
Peter Jones replied to Peter Jones
Mon 18 Aug 08 (12:54pm)
Richard Sharpe,
How many people did you kill this week JERK.
- - - - - - - - - Another commenter has Mr. Sharpe's back:
Jack Lacton replied to Peter Jones
Mon 18 Aug 08 (01:52pm)
Peter,
I hope that he killed hundreds and hundreds of really bad people of the type that blow up innocent Iraqis going about their daily business only to be struck down by women wearing suicide vests or cars with children in them being detonated next to large crowds.
I assume you think its OK to let them live.
And by the way, I think youll find that Iraq is a less cruel place now that Saddam Hussein is gone.
Not that you care about that.
Posted by: Mike ||
08/18/2008 12:14 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Nice 'debate'. Did Peter Jones reply to Peter Jones because he was the only one who would listen?
Posted by: Bobby ||
08/18/2008 12:52 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
