-
It's that time of year again - our ISP is asking for money. If you have some spare change, please click the Donate link... Thanks!
- About Us
- Search
- Need Help?
- Donate
- Login/Register
Latest Entries
Actions Menu
Blog Roll
- 4F Facebook Page
- Turn Up The Night with Kenny Pick
- Stephanie Miller Show
- The Tim Corrimal Show
- The Rachel Maddow Show
- Angry Americans with Paul Rieckhoff
- Thom Hartmann Program
- Turnips! Fans of Turn Up the Night Facebook Page
- Snopes.com
- Factcheck.org
- Official White House Page, if you must.
- The Brad Blog / Green News Report
- The Poorly Written Political Blog (Joe Santorsa)
Weaving Iron into Drapes
Author: BobR
Date: 08/20/2008 12:32:49
For those old enough to remember, we were once engaged in a "cold war" with Russia (then - in combination with other countries such as Georgia - known as the USSR). There were no missiles fired, no battlefields but for those of ideology and politics. The division between East and West was referred to as the Iron Curtain, coined by Goebbels, popularized by Churchill, and symbolized by the Berlin Wall. When the wall fell about 29 years ago, it was cause for worldwide celebration.
One of the darkest symbols of the cold war was the constant threat of nuclear anihilation. There was a constant tit-for-tat build-up on both sides creating an enormous military-industrial complex that was always coming out with newer better missiles, bombers, and fighters. Russia finally blinked (financially) and the rest is history. This - and the war in Afghanistan - broke Russia's back and bank.
The iron curtain was maintained by a paranoid political machine in defense of its ideology, and reinforced with brutality and fear. It's demise brought hope for a kinder, gentler world where people could disagree with their (or other) governments and not worry about retribution. When the curtain fell, however, the curtain rod remained behind, and now it seems that the U.S. is trying to create a new set of drapes to hang there.
This time, things are different.
This time, we are the one's pushing to create a hostile atmosphere. This time, we are the one's on shaky financial ground. This time, we are the ones going broke with a war on foreign soil, and exhorbitant spending on military hardware.
Russia, on the contrary, seems to be flush with money:
When the news broke of a Russian invasion of Georgia, it was naturally seen as an unprovoked act of aggression by Russia. Facts have a way of slipping out though, and we've come to learn that the CIA and the Mossad were the instigators, pushing Georgia to act militarily against a region that is largely populated by Russians and sympathetic to Russia. Russia in turn felt it had to protect "it's people".
With their newfound wealth and confidence, Russia, as Tony Karon writes, has stopped retreating:
NATO has tried to step up by suspending "business as usual" with Russia, but it rings hollow, and reeks of the desperation of poker player down to his last chips trying to bluff his way out of bad hand. In a reckless attempt to show strength, we signed a "missile defense" deal with Poland.
Does anyone remember Reagan's "Star Wars" initiative? It was predicated on the notion we could shoot down approaching Russian missiles, thereby creating a "missile defense shield" around the U.S. It was never clear how we would defend against the radiation floating through the atmosphere. Regardless, this has always been the "Magic Pudding" for which we continue to strive:
So here we are trying to recreate a bad situation from a position of weakness. The real question has to be: why? It's been suggested that since terrorism has lost its "cachet" as a boogieman to scare the masses, perhaps they can go back to an old reliable one - nuclear holocaust from a superpower. Or - perhaps they know this military action will be ending and their buddies in the military-industrial complex will need a raison d'etre for their bloated contracts.
Whatever the reason, the Bush administration is clumsily kick-starting the loom and trying to reweave an iron curtain with snips of old thread, and held together with post 9/11 paranoia. They haven't much time before the election. Here's hoping they fail.
One of the darkest symbols of the cold war was the constant threat of nuclear anihilation. There was a constant tit-for-tat build-up on both sides creating an enormous military-industrial complex that was always coming out with newer better missiles, bombers, and fighters. Russia finally blinked (financially) and the rest is history. This - and the war in Afghanistan - broke Russia's back and bank.
The iron curtain was maintained by a paranoid political machine in defense of its ideology, and reinforced with brutality and fear. It's demise brought hope for a kinder, gentler world where people could disagree with their (or other) governments and not worry about retribution. When the curtain fell, however, the curtain rod remained behind, and now it seems that the U.S. is trying to create a new set of drapes to hang there.
This time, things are different.
This time, we are the one's pushing to create a hostile atmosphere. This time, we are the one's on shaky financial ground. This time, we are the ones going broke with a war on foreign soil, and exhorbitant spending on military hardware.
Russia, on the contrary, seems to be flush with money:
What is certain is that Moscow is afloat in petrodollars; there are more billionaires in Moscow than in any other city in the world. More than New York, London, or Dubai. Millionaires are as common as pigeons. Together the rich and mega-rich constitute a social class who were loosely called New Russians when they first appeared in the 1990s. Half of them are survivors of industrial shake-ups like the "aluminum war" of ten years ago, when executives were killed left and right. Half have discovered that starting a bank is more profitable than robbing one. Half are young financial trapeze artists swinging from one hedge fund to another. (You can have three halves in Russia.)
When the news broke of a Russian invasion of Georgia, it was naturally seen as an unprovoked act of aggression by Russia. Facts have a way of slipping out though, and we've come to learn that the CIA and the Mossad were the instigators, pushing Georgia to act militarily against a region that is largely populated by Russians and sympathetic to Russia. Russia in turn felt it had to protect "it's people".
With their newfound wealth and confidence, Russia, as Tony Karon writes, has stopped retreating:
President George W Bush has long proclaimed Teddy Roosevelt as one of his heroes, but he seems to have missed a crucial piece of advice bequeathed by the swashbuckling president of a century ago: “Speak softly and carry a big stick.”
All of last week, Mr Bush loudly berated Russia, accusing it of bullying little Georgia and demanding that it withdraw its forces. “The people of Georgia have cast their lot with the free world,” Bush intoned, “and we will not cast them aside.” He promised a “robust and ongoing” military mission to deliver aid in Georgia, implicitly warning the Russians to stay out of their way. He repeatedly used the phrase “We expect Russia…” as if to convey authority. Russia, added his Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Friday, would face “consequences” for its action.
Despite the tenor of his statements, it was plain to see that there was no stick in Bush’s hand. No answer to an “or else what?”. In case anyone got the wrong idea – as did the Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili, pouncing on Bush’s aid announcement to boast that the US military was coming to take charge of Georgia’s air and sea ports – the US Defence Secretary Robert Gates made clear that the aid mission was far more limited than Bush’s language had suggested, and that the US military had no intention of putting itself between Russian and Georgian forces.
Mr Bush on Friday continued to proclaim Georgia a “courageous democracy” under attack from its bullying neighbour. But the view even from his closest allies in Europe was dramatically different: “Both sides are probably to blame for the conflict,” said Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel.
The disconnect between the Bush administration’s rhetoric and its actions was highlighted on Friday, when Condi Rice flew to Tbilisi to make it clear that Georgia had no choice but to sign a cease-fire whose terms had, essentially, been dictated by Moscow. Mr Saakashvili’s open reluctance to sign, and his lashing out at Western betrayal even as Ms Rice stood beside him, reveal just how little leverage the West had managed to bring to bear on Russia.
NATO has tried to step up by suspending "business as usual" with Russia, but it rings hollow, and reeks of the desperation of poker player down to his last chips trying to bluff his way out of bad hand. In a reckless attempt to show strength, we signed a "missile defense" deal with Poland.
Does anyone remember Reagan's "Star Wars" initiative? It was predicated on the notion we could shoot down approaching Russian missiles, thereby creating a "missile defense shield" around the U.S. It was never clear how we would defend against the radiation floating through the atmosphere. Regardless, this has always been the "Magic Pudding" for which we continue to strive:
It’s a novel way to take your own life. Just as Russia demonstrates what happens to former minions that annoy it, Poland agrees to host a US missile defence base. The Russians, as Poland expected, respond to this proposal by offering to turn the country into a parking lot. This proves that the missile defence system is necessary after all: it will stop the missiles Russia will now aim at Poland, the Czech Republic and the UK in response to, er, their involvement in the missile defence system.
The American government insists that the interceptors, which will be stationed on the Baltic coast, have nothing to do with Russia: their purpose is to defend Europe and the US against the intercontinental ballistic missiles Iran and North Korea don’t possess. This is why they are being placed in Poland, which, as every geography student in Texas knows, shares a border with both rogue states.
They permit us to look forward to a glowing future, in which missile defence, according to the Pentagon, will “protect our homeland … and our friends and allies from ballistic missile attack”; as long as the Russians wait until it’s working before they nuke us. The good news is that, at the present rate of progress, reliable missile defence is only 50 years away. The bad news is that it has been 50 years away for the past six decades.
So here we are trying to recreate a bad situation from a position of weakness. The real question has to be: why? It's been suggested that since terrorism has lost its "cachet" as a boogieman to scare the masses, perhaps they can go back to an old reliable one - nuclear holocaust from a superpower. Or - perhaps they know this military action will be ending and their buddies in the military-industrial complex will need a raison d'etre for their bloated contracts.
Whatever the reason, the Bush administration is clumsily kick-starting the loom and trying to reweave an iron curtain with snips of old thread, and held together with post 9/11 paranoia. They haven't much time before the election. Here's hoping they fail.
