From Bob Barr:
Atlanta, GA — “George Washington long ago warned America against ‘entangling alliances,’ and he was right,” says Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate for president. “Russia and Georgia risk falling into a full-scale war in which the U.S. can and hopefully will avoid any involvement. But had Georgia been a member of NATO we would now be risking a full-scale confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia,” Barr observes.
“Obviously, America should encourage both countries to back down and resolve their differences peacefully,” explains Barr. But “the status of South Ossetia, as well as Abkhazia, another Russian-supported separatist zone within Georgia, matters a lot more to Russia, on which the two territories border, than to the U.S. Moreover, Washington itself set a precedent for Russia when it intervened in Kosovo a decade ago, attacking Serbia to win independence for the separatist ethnic-Albanian majority,” notes Barr.
“The purpose of alliances is to defend America,” says Barr. “We should not create or expand alliances where the U.S. does not have vital interests. If the Europeans want to defend distant countries like Georgia, they can do so—after all, the European Union has a larger population and bigger GDP than America, without any of Washington’s other global military commitments. It is time for Europe to accept responsibility for its own security.”
World War Two ended 63 years ago. The Cold War ended almost 20 years ago. It’s time for Europe to worry about Europe.
And if they’re not concerned, then we don’t need to be either.
August 13th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
We have interests in Europe that include keeping NATO alive and working. But, having said that, this fight isn’t ours.
August 13th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Bob Barr couldn’t be more wrong.
Had Georgia been admitted into NATO, Russia wouldn’t have dared try this.
August 13th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
No vital interests?
Thanks to the Democrat/ics and the environmental lobby, we loaded up on natural gas to generate electricity and not nuclear power. We couldn’t drill off shore or in ANWR… We can’t build wind turbines… kills the birds they say…
1 and one half percent of the world oil is traveling through that democratic/republic nation, and we have an obligation to spread our system of government throughout the world…
That’s two birds with one stone.
If anyone thinks for a minute that Putin isn’t trying to reestablish the old Soviet Union, and revert to their communist/socialist… or at best dictator for life status, they are dreaming!
Admit Georgia and the Ukraine to NATO!
Oh BTW… any one notice Iraq is a functioning nation now founded on democratic/republic principles? Interesting how many on the left kicked and pouted about making that happen as well….
August 13th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
STD: Don’t get carried away by Wilsonian rhetoric. We agree on much - but whoa here. We do NOT have an obligation to spread our system of government. Also, fyi, the Constitution of Iraq says it is based on the Koran.
August 13th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
DJ,
Admitting Georgia to NATO is a dumb idea.
The idea that an attack on Tiblisi should be treated like an attack on New York (which is, after all, what NATO stood for when it was relevant) is fundamentally absurd.
The United States has no vital national interests in the Caucusus. Just like Russia has no vital interests in Central America.
August 13th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
James,
Keeping NATO alive ?
For what purpose ?
The Cold War is over isn’t it ?
I’m all for alliances, but isn’t there an argument that this one has outlived it’s usefulness ?
August 13th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Doug: I wrote about this for the Army futures study I lead when the Soviet Union collapsed. The utility of the NATO alliance and our military alliance with Japan and South Korea is far beyond the former immediate threat that precipitated the relationships.
The economic, political, personal bonds built behind the military shield eclipse the military significance of the relationships that pull nations together on the three legs of liberal democracy, capitalism and Judeo-Christian culture (-Japan, less so more Christian Korea). These bonds create a zone of stability and security unparalleled since the Pax Romana.
Futhermore, there is a military utility for the alliance. The common enemy of NATO are the Islamists. (Now, it will get very complicated later this century when Europe becomes Muslim - if demographics alone reign) That is why NATO took on the mission in Afghanistan. This fight - which will go through this century - is plenty of reason to stay engaged in NATO.
Frankly, Russia and NATO have the same real enemy - the Islamists.
A few years ago I spend time with Romanian and Bulgarian officers who couldn’t be more precise and clear on their enthusiasm for joining NATO. It meant peace in Europe from their neighbors. Even it meant deploying to Afghanistan - and Iraq with the Americans to kick butt.
August 14th, 2008 at 7:39 am
James,
An excellent point. Which is why I think that, beyond diplomatic pressure and the kind of public statements that Bush made yesterday, we are unlikely to see any real American moves in relation to Georgia.
August 14th, 2008 at 7:46 am
Putin and his minions aren’t stupid. They know that Communism didn’t work and I’d seriously doubt for a second that they really want to return to the way things were pre-1989.
Russia is becoming authoritarian, but the truth of the matter is that Russia has always been authoritarian. The idea that democracy and individual liberty would suddenly bloom after the hammer and sickle went into mothballs was, I think, incredibly naive.
Moreover, I think it’s important to note that much of what Russia is doing now is similar to the way things were long before the rise of the USSR. They may not be a superpower any longer (although anyone with ICBM’s qualifies as a superpower in my book), but they are the dominant power on the Eurasian landmass.
What is happening now isn’t so much a re-emergence of the USSR as it is Russia returning to the regional power it had been for the 250+ years prior to the October Revolution.
August 14th, 2008 at 8:07 am
Doug: Correct. Russia has been governed by autocracy for 1000 years since they got free of the Golden Horde. They don’t have the institutions or political will to be anything but some variation on autocracy. If they become more democratic, it’ll take time.
See my posts on Deo Vindice. Russia is being Russia.
August 14th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Bob Barr and Doug are absolutely right. NATO is a Cold War relic and its expansion, which we promised we would not do btw, will only serve to drag us into other conflicts where we have no vital interests. Remember the guarantee Britain gave Poland pprior to WWII? It drug them into the war and look what happened to Poland anyway!!
We need to return to “original intent” in foreign policy, not only domestically.
August 14th, 2008 at 8:32 am
CATO: Isolationism is a guaranteed loser. NATO is the most successful alliance in history. It prevents wars more than it drags us into them.
August 14th, 2008 at 8:41 am
James & Cato,
There is an inherent value in international alliances to begin with, and that value is even more apparent in the face of the type of threats that the world is dealing with today.
The principal threat to world peace today is the rise of a form of Islamic fundamentalism that is expansionist in nature. If all these people wanted to do was create Islamic states inside their own borders, then, quite frankly, I say let them do it if that’s what the people want (don’t forget that the 1979 Iranian Revolution had the overwhelming support of a public that was fed up with the cronyism, corruption, and repression of the Shah). The problem comes when they want to spread their ideology beyond their borders.
In that respect, the United States, the nations of Europe, and, yes, even Russia and China (who are both dealing with Islamic insurgency problems of their own) have common interests that far outweigh any of their differences.
August 14th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Doug: Hooah.
August 14th, 2008 at 10:23 am
> “World War Two ended 63 years ago. The Cold War ended almost 20 years ago.”
And the First World War ended 90 years ago. All of Europe was deeply entangled in alliances then, which sucked them all into a disastrous war, in which most of them had very little real interests at stake, all over a minor assassination in a minor country which was basically none of their business. I can’t imagine any current thing more like that than:
> “But had Georgia been a member of NATO we would now be risking a full-scale confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia”
August 14th, 2008 at 10:27 am
tfr,
Exactly my point.
While I think alliances make sense, some alliances simple don’t. The system that existed before World War One was a perfect example of this. If it hadn’t been the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, then some other event would have likely set off the war simply because of the overlapping, sometimes mutually inconsistent, system of alliances and treaties that existed in Europe at the time.
From an historical perspective, the political fate of Serbia and its place in the Austro-Hungarian Empire was simply not an important enough issue to justify a war that lead to more than 10 million dead and 20 million wounded soldiers on both sides.
The same, quite honestly, can be said of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
August 14th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Absolutely and the NATO is the reason why Russia isn’t attacking the Baltic States and Poland and is instead attacking Georgia.
Having said that, I agree with most commentors and the author that this is not our fight and I even agree to a point with the Russians when they say Georgia provoked it.
August 14th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
“Russia wouldn’t have dared try this”
Dare what? Protect its own citizens when they shelled and bombed?
Just ask yourself: what would America do if it was in Russian’s shoes, huh?
We know what: after September 11 America invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.
And before that, America and NATO bombed Serbia and tore out its ancient part Kosovo.
Now look at the world map: where is America and where is Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan?
“NATO is the reason why Russia isn’t attacking the Baltic States and Poland and is instead attacking Georgia.
Neither Poland nor Baltic State attacked Russia!
That’s the reason!
And another point.
Messing up with Russia is VERY stupid and VERY dangerous policy!
You forget just one simple detail:
Russia is the only country in the world that can turn America to radioactive desert in a few hours, even if America strikes first, and vise versa.
You wanna die from radiation for Saakashvili or other puppet that cares only about himself, my friend?
I don’t!
Both American and Russian leaders MUST keep it in mind all the time!
America and Russia are responsible for this planet, not Georgia, Poland, Baltic States and other dwarfs!
August 14th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Kevin,
Not sure I agree with that because it makes it sound like we could have and should have “saved” Georgia by granting it NATO membership.
I think that’s a huge mistake, and I think NATO dodged a bullet when the Europeans balked at Bush’s idea to grant Georgia membership to NATO.
Even if you accept the idea that there’s a purpose to NATO in a post Cold War world — and I think there is — it is fundamentally stupid to expand the organization to the very borders of Russia herself, unless you’re going to grant NATO membership to Russia to.
There is a part of Russian history that includes a, for lack of a better word, paranoid fear of the nation being encircled. That’s why the Czar’s reached out beyond the borders of historic Russia to lay claim to areas like Georgia, and it’s one of the reasons Russia is acting the way that it is today.
August 14th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
We now see why Bob Barr wouldn’t be a good decision as leader. In the interest of pandering to the hard libs (libertarians) he’s gone a little John Birch. That’s not the direction the nation wants, we just want careful diplomacy backed up by strong actions when absolutely nothing else will work.
August 14th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Daltonsbriefs,
I fail to see what you mean.
Of all the candidates, Barr’s reaction to the Russo-Georgian conflict is the most sensible IMO.
August 15th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
JAB:
That’s a low blow saying that I like anything about Woodrow Wilson…
I disagree that the USA should promote the democratic/republic form of government world wide. We have to square away the planet before we begin colonization of the rest of the solar system.
What would be the futre of the human race if Putin were it’s boss?
If you were President of the USA, and you were capable of taking out their boomers, and suppressing the rest of their entire nuclear arsenal at one blow… would you take it?
August 15th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Allow me to clarify, the reason why the Russians are not throwing around their influence in Poland and the Baltic States is because of the NATO security umbrella (which there’s a good arguement for in those instances). More importantly, the US and Western Europe are in a position to defend those areas.
Whereas Georgia is indefensible just on geographic grounds alone.
Other than that, I do not diagree with your comments about the stupidity of extending NATO membership to Georgia, especially while its current ultra-nationalist leadership is in charge and the rest of your comments about Russia in general.
(Keep in mind, I’ve actually been arguing Russia’s actions are justified).