[Peace-discuss] Georgian war & US politics

[C. G. Estabrook]

[There's probably much more that should be said about Russia -- and US policy 
towards it since the collapse of the USSR -- but this is about us.  --CGE]

	Neocon Crybabies
	by Steven LaTulippe

Although the unfolding drama in the Caucasus has been a tragedy for its innocent 
victims, the response by America’s political and media elites has been an 
entertaining and delusional farce.

To recap events, the government of the former Soviet Republic of Georgia 
launched a surprise invasion of South Ossetia (an autonomous republic within 
Georgia that has been functionally independent since the break-up of the Soviet 
Union). On the night of August 8, the Georgian military – armed and trained by 
America and Israel – stormed through South Ossetia and overran the region’s 
putative capital city (leaving it a smoldering ruin). Thousands of Ossetian 
refugees poured northward to Russia, bringing harrowing tales of Georgian 
brutality. As the Georgian army swept through the countryside, they encountered 
groups of Russian peacekeepers, who had been stationed there years ago to 
monitor a previous ceasefire. Several of those Russian soldiers were killed by 
the advancing Georgian forces.

As anyone with a remote understanding of Russian history (and human nature) 
should have been able to predict, the Russians reacted rather badly. Before the 
Georgians could consolidate their "victory," the Russians unleashed a 
devastating counterattack [even though -- thanks to their US paymasters -- the 
Georgian army was technically superior, e.g., in communications --CGE].

All in all, the Russian operation was a fairly impressive combined arms campaign 
that involved tactical air support, armor, mechanized infantry, and naval 
assets. The Georgian air force was destroyed on the ground, and the Georgian 
navy was sunk or neutralized. Russian forces quickly retook all of South Ossetia 
and seized critical chokepoints along Georgia’s highway system, effectively 
cutting the nation into three parts.

The smoke had barely cleared when the Bush Administration, the neoconservative 
pundits, and our lapdog media started crying foul. Russian leader Vladimir Putin 
was, inevitably, likened to Adolf Hitler. Georgia was portrayed as an innocent 
victim of unprovoked aggression. The Ossetian victims were quickly relegated to 
the Orwellian memory hole.

Although I am not a fan of Vladimir Putin (he is certainly not a libertarian), 
it’s hard to garner much sympathy for the Georgians. The Russian 
counteroffensive merely gave the Georgians a stiff dose of precisely the same 
medicine they were planning to give to the Ossetians.

All in all, it was a humanitarian tragedy, but hardly a heartrending tale of 
Georgian victimhood.

But America long ago ceased to analyze events with anything remotely resembling 
an objective moral standard. Nowadays, the only yardsticks our imperial elites 
understand are power and self-interest.

Over the past seven years, the Bush Administration strove to "contain" Russia by 
establishing Georgia as a regional proxy. This was quickly followed by the 
now-familiar horror-show of Washington special interest groups. The petroleum 
lobby wanted to control a vital pipeline that transports Caspian oil to the 
Mediterranean. The military coveted Georgian territory for "lily-pad" bases. The 
arms industry saw Georgia as a lucrative market for its new geegaws and gizmos.

It was a wonderful little playground, and everything was going swimmingly until 
Putin came along and kicked over the apple cart.

But from all the whining in the media, you’d think it was the Russians who 
actually started the war.

The most telling example I’ve seen of neoconservative bellyaching was published 
by Leon Aron (a Russia scholar at the neoconservative American Enterprise 
Institute) in the August 13 edition of USA Today. Most of his article consists 
of ad hominem attacks on Vladimir Putin and petty ethnic slurs against the 
Russian people, but the real meat of the piece involves Aron’s description of a 
newfound menace he calls "Putinism."

"Putinism" is, he claims, a dangerous crypto-fascist ideology that is engulfing 
contemporary Russia. In the article, Aron lists the main tenets of "Putinism," 
and, in the process, reveals more about himself and the American Enterprise 
Institute than he does anything about Russia or its leaders.

There are, according to Aron, five major characteristics of "Putinism":

    1. The intensely personal system of power in which the "national leader" 
rather than democratic institutions rule.
    2. The state propaganda themes of loss and imperial nostalgia.
    3. The idea of the besieged fortress Russia surrounded by cunning, ruthless, 
and plotting enemies on every side.
    4. Spy mania
    5. The labeling of political opposition as the "fifth column" traitors.

To the wearied libertarian ear, this newly discovered ideology should sound 
eerily familiar.

In truth, each and every one of these principles has already been embraced – and 
even glorified – by the very neoconservatives who now so viciously denounce Putin.

Take the first tenet, for example. The intensely personal system of power in 
which the "national leader" rather than democratic institutions rule.

Haven’t the neocons been claiming that our president reigns supreme in times of 
war, and that he is free to discard the constitution’s limitations on his power 
as he sees fit? Haven’t they supported policies that allow the president to 
finger anyone as a "terrorist sympathizer" – a designation that permits our 
government to imprison suspects without access to a lawyer or a court? (Or, even 
worse, to "rendition" detainees to overseas dungeons for a healthy dose of 
"enhanced interrogation techniques"?)

As for the part about "state propaganda," didn’t the Pentagon get caught paying 
pundits to plant pro-war op-ed articles in American newspapers? Haven’t the 
neocons been glorifying war as a necessary and desirable strategy for American 
"benevolent world hegemony"?

As for the part about "spy mania" and fomenting paranoia, can anyone rival the 
neocons in that department? It was the Bushites – not Vladimir Putin – who 
gutted the Fourth Amendment with a massive telephone and email wiretapping 
program – all executed without court-approved warrants. And what about the 
endless stories of grandmothers and handicapped people being roughed-up and 
strip-searched at airports because we are allegedly "surrounded by cunning, 
ruthless, and plotting enemies on every side"?

And what about the Putinesque strategy of "labeling political opposition as 
traitors." I vividly recall, during the run-up to the Iraq invasion, that anyone 
who disagreed with the administration’s war plans was promptly smeared and 
driven from public life by packs of slobbering neoconservative pit bulls. (Has 
anyone heard from General Shinseki lately?)

And let’s not forget some of the other memorable moments on the Bush II 
highlight reel.

Did Vladimir Putin suggest to his cronies that they should paint Russian 
warplanes with UN colors and buzz Georgian cities (thus providing a convenient 
casus belli if the Georgians should shoot one of them down)? Did Vladimir Putin 
sow fear among his people with stories of an imminent attack by fictitious, 
chemical-spraying drones?

Given recent history, the rest of the world must be watching Washington’s 
anti-Russian hissy fit with slack-jawed disbelief.

Although the reptilian nature of our ruling class long ago ceased to amaze me, 
there is one question that still piques my curiosity: When our elites write 
articles like this one in USA Today, are they aware of their hypocrisy? Are they 
totally deaf to the screams of their own irony, or are they coldly cognizant of 
their actions?

To put it another way, when the doors are closed and the cameras are turned off, 
do the neocon pundits kick back in the paneled AEI smoking room, light up a few 
cigars, and laugh at how stupid they think we all are? Or does some massive wall 
in their psyche prevent them from gaining true insight into their own nature?

Either way, I agree with Leon Aron about precisely one thing: Putinism – as he 
defines it – IS a dangerous and destabilizing ideology. But he needn’t go all 
the way to Moscow to find it.

August 18, 2008

Steven LaTulippe is a physician currently practicing in Ohio. He was an officer 
in the United States Air Force for 13 years.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/latulippe/latulippe89.html