Back to Clive Crook's blog homepage
Column: Washington remains hobbled by Iraq
August 18, 2008
So far, reaction in the US to Russia’s invasion of Georgia has been all Vladimir Putin could have wished. Exhausted in every way by its experience in Iraq (a failure not much mitigated by recent progress there), its authority and sense of purpose quite depleted, the US looked slower and less decisive than Europe in its initial response, and that is saying something.
It took repeated prodding from presidential contender John McCain to draw President George W. Bush’s attention from the Beijing Olympics to the fact that Russian forces were overrunning the territory of a US ally. Then, as the White House slowly geared up its rhetoric, dispatched the secretary of state to Tbilisi and began talking vaguely of repercussions, both the administration and the goading Mr McCain were accused of war-mongering hysteria by liberal commentators and even by some conservatives.
The remainder of this column can be read here. Please post comments below.
There is a Kiswahili saying: Wapiganapo tembo wawili ziumiazo nyasi. When two elephants fight, it is the grass that gets trampled. Much editorial ink may be spilled and many political speeches made about Georgia and South Ossetia, but no one can say that they are the elephants in this fight (or Oil Pipeline Great Game).
Posted by: algasema | August 18th, 2008 at 3:42 am | Report this commentClive Crook is the sharpest mind writing in the FT.
Posted by: RCS | August 18th, 2008 at 5:48 am | Report this commentObama, as usual, said nothing. I have to admit, I am developing a visceral dislike of him. Does he care about anything, apart from himself?
A few days ago it was reported that after his world-tour he repeated one of the most criticised lines of his speeches: this is the moment the WORLD has been waiting for. Seems to be impervious to attacks, or else his staff has kept him isolated from public sentiment. Neither possibility is a very good sign. Granted, McCain is not perfect, but at least he is not emotionally distant like Dr Spock of the starship Enterprise.
Posted by: RCS | August 18th, 2008 at 6:01 am | Report this commentRCS, with all of Barack Obama’s shortcomings, his brand of change would still be better for America and the world than anything we could expect from a Republican president, even if we were to have one named John McChange.
Posted by: algasema | August 18th, 2008 at 6:08 am | Report this commentObama, as usual, said nothing. I have to admit, I am developing a visceral dislike of him. Does he care about anything, apart from himself?
A few days ago it was reported that after his world-tour he repeated one of the most criticised lines of his speeches: this is the moment the WORLD has been waiting for. Seems to be impervious to attacks, or else his staff has kept him isolated from public sentiment. Neither possibility is a very good sign. Granted, McCain is not perfect but at least not emotionally distant like Dr Spock of the starship Enterprise.
Posted by: RCS | August 18th, 2008 at 6:13 am | Report this commentObama and McCain didn’t have to say anything, this is all Bush’s problem really, however Obama did the right thing and McCain did what Bush use to do, talk like a cowboy but even Bush has realized or finally see’s that Iraq is a bigger problem than he and McCain thought it was, even with the so called “surge” that took more troops away from going to Aphghanistan and now even Russia even if we thought about attacking. Bush now knows our hands or tied and McCain apparently doesn’t realize this. Oh and it seems America hasn’t had enough of the Cowboy shoot from the hip policies of Bush as half of America is for McCain…sad place.
Posted by: FLS | August 18th, 2008 at 1:10 pm | Report this commentFLS,
Why not give the Russian’s a carte blanche to take over their “near-abroad”, since “America has had enough of cowboy shoot from the hip policies”!
Posted by: RCS | August 18th, 2008 at 1:43 pm | Report this commentClive Cook writes: “The European Union is deeply divided over Russia. Its newer members from the former Soviet empire are intent on resisting any renewed Russian ambitions to intimidate them. Germany and others are fearful of offending Mr Putin – for instance, by speeding the accession of Ukraine and other ex-Soviet states into Nato and the EU.”
It’s a little more complicated than that.
Any extension of NATO’s common defence commitments to Georgia or the Ukraine must be both credible and responsible. Otherwise, the new NATO members won’t be helped and the alliance will be damaged.
To be credible, NATO would probably need a permanent military presence in these two countries. That might mean stationing US and Western European troops there, and strengthening their naval presence in the Black Sea. Would they be willing to do so?
To be responsible, NATO powers would have to be sure that both the Ukraine and Georgia would closely consult with them on their policies and actions towards Russia. NATO powers should not want to be dragged into any Ukrainian or Georgian offensive actions against Russia.
It appears that Georgia’s leader did not consult with the Western powers in launching his offensive or counter-offensive in South Ossetia. On the contrary, the US and the EU were taken by surprise, one of the reasons for their slow or uncertain response.
NATO needs to be sure that neither Georgia nor the Ukraine would act in such a way as NATO members. Moreover, Georgia would have to formally renounce force in its efforts to resolve the Abkhazia and South Ossetia issues.
Recently, the German foreign minister took steps to help resolve the Abkhazia problem. That would help to create the conditions for a responsible accession of Georgia to NATO.
Posted by: Edward S | August 18th, 2008 at 3:06 pm | Report this commentI’m not sure if Barack Obama’s circumspection will be carried over to his Presidency – if he wins that is. For all we know, it could be the result of his desire to not say anything wrong and upset the status quo prior to the elections, now that he is leading.
Posted by: Vinod Joseph | August 18th, 2008 at 6:00 pm | Report this commentEdward S offers excellent comments on the requirements for entry to NATO that have not been met by Georgia.
I agree with Clive Crook that John McCain was alarmingly militant in his response to the disaster in Georgia. I think McCain (and Randy Scheunemann) encouraged Saakasshvili to think he could launch a surprise attack in South Ossetia and succeed in recapturing control over the rebellious province by military means.
Posted by: James Canning | August 18th, 2008 at 7:20 pm | Report this commentIndeed, Mr. Canning, McCain managed to convince Georgia, a country that spent $1.2 billion last year on defence, to pick a fight with Russia, a country that spent $45.5 billion.
Posted by: Luis A. del Valle | August 18th, 2008 at 8:39 pm | Report this commentIn all fairness to Americans, the British Foreign Minister’s chastisement of Russia is as hollow as is McCain’s. Britain egged on the U.S. by either fabricating or passing on the sham evidence of Iraqi purchase of Yellow cake from Niger -and then dutifully supported Colin Powell’s baldfaced lie at the United Nations, before (again) invading a Muslim country that posed it no threat. Is Britain prepared to do anything but bluster?
Posted by: Roger Evans | August 18th, 2008 at 11:20 pm | Report this commentBritain and the US both knew that French intelligence had thoroughly investigated the question of whether Iraq could have attempted to obtain yellowcake uranium from Niger, more than once, and reported back to the US and the UK that there was no possibility of any such deal or potential deal (France controlled the entire production in Niger), long before Colin Powell lied to the UN.
That said, I think Russia is now overplaying its hand in Georgia, to its own detriment.
Posted by: James Canning | August 19th, 2008 at 6:33 pm | Report this commentRoger Evans,
“posed it no threat” could be disastrous assumption, considering that Iraq most certainly already had at least 550 tons of nuclear material and the announced intentions of using it.
I am somewhat bewildered that there is still some denial of a nuclear armed Iraq when we have known about this program since immediately after the 1st Gulf War. Since when is nuclear material in the hands of an rather testy dicator “no threat”?
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | August 19th, 2008 at 8:03 pm | Report this commentThe US and the UK learned in 1995 that Saddam Hussein had ordered the destruction of his nuclear weapons devlopment program in the fall of 1991. In 2002, the CIA ran an extensive intelligence operation involving close relatives of Iraqi scientists known to be connected to the former nuclear weapons program, and confirmed it had been destroyed in 1991 and not subsequently reconstituted.
Posted by: James Canning | August 20th, 2008 at 11:10 pm | Report this comment