With all due respect and love, which I bear for GC, I have to ask, so let’s say we “let Bush be Bush”. What can he possibly do besides what he’s already mentioned in the Rose Garden speech? Sending Condi, doing civilian airlifts, and making speeches, etc.

Even the whole “kick Russia out of the G8″ — just how meaningful is that anyhow? As Victor Davis Hanson points out, Russia has farted all over Western pretensions of Soft Power, because it has not only hard power, but Power-Power, aka, Oil and Gas.

Do we really think that Russia is going to be lacking for customers for its oil and gas if kicked out of the G8 and the WTO and so on?

Let’s get real: we are not going to get into a direct military conflict with Russia. We can fight through proxies, but the day that Russian and U.S. militaries actually clash, we need to be thinking about the stockpiling cans of soup and digging fallout shelters.

Worse comes to worst, suppose some Russian fighter jock shoots down a C-17 that was flying in humanitarian aid into Tbilisi. Would we really retaliate militarily? We haven’t retaliated militarily to numerous Iranian “provocations” — all of which led to dead American soldiers. And we’re going to go tangle with the big bad Bear?

I don’t think it matters who is in office — Bush or Reagan or Leonidas the Spartan — we are not going to get into a shooting war with Russia. And when Russia wants to get into a shooting war with its neighbors, we are likely to sit back and let them.

JUST like if we wanted to get into a shooting war with Mexico or Venezuela, Russia is likely to sit back and let us do it. You just can’t mess with a significant nuclear power in its backyard.

What the Affaire d’Ossetia tells me is that the world really isn’t that different in 2008 from how it was in 1908, or in 1808, or in 1708. The strong do as they will, and the weak suffer as they must. Thucydides’s insight remains correct even today.

Americans need to wake up and realize that just because we have the Internet and the U.N. and so on does not mean that the old, tried-and-true ways of hard power are outdated. We need to understand that we need leaders who can play with the big boys on the world stage, instead of playing at cocktail-party politics with U.N. bureaucrats.

And that goes for not just the President, but for congresscritters as well. It does the country no good to have elected representatives who are deathly afraid of exercising American power on the global stage, thereby hamstringing the Executive at every turn.

Of course, a nation gets the leaders it deserves… so we’ll see.

-TS

I don’t know how that happened. Nothing was meant by it, as I didn’t mean to format things that way.

Sorry for the misperception there. Can I edit this myself or do I need a mod’s help here?

-TS

The thing about brinksmanship is that you have to show some willingness, some historical precedent, of going through with it.

If you were Putin, and Bush said to you, “We got SDI; you don’t” during a negotiation, thereby accelerating the whole thing to thoughts of nuclear exchange… would you believe Bush? Would you really think that Bush would have the cojones to launch ICBM’s over Georgia? This when he can’t even slap down Iran or Syria or Hezbollah?

Whereas if Putin said something crazy like, “We’re going to start bombing Poland next”, the world is likely to believe him after his Georgia adventure.

So realistically, all I’m saying is that our options are extremely limited, Bush or no Bush.

Thing about Great Powers politicking is that your credibility matters a great deal. America had re-established her credibility for a brief time after 9/11 when we went in a spanked the Taliban and went in after Saddam. But ever since then, thanks in large part to domestic opponents, we have had zero credibility in the world stage as someone actually willing to use power.

Under an Obama Adminstration, we can pretty much rest assured that our credibility will drop to below zero such that any rhetoric will immediately be taken to mean the opposite of what it actually says. But beyond just that issue, until we show ourselves to be perfectly willing to USE the power that we have, there is no reason for anyone, least of all another Great Power like Russia, to blink in any staredown contest with the United States.

-TS

I’m curious… what in the Russian response to date makes you believe that they think they cannot have Ukraine?

Is it the formal apologies?

Is it the adherence to promises made not two days ago to pull back to 8/6 lines?

I haven’t seen anything in the Russian response yet that makes me believe that our response has cowed them in any way, or reassures our allies in Eastern Europe in any significant way.

And I’m not making perfect the enemy of the good — because frankly, Bush doesn’t much matter. He’s a lame duck President who isn’t much beloved by his own countrymen.

What matters is what happens from here. Will the American people go down the road of soft-power nonsense? Or wake up and realize that the world is simpler (if more brutal) than that: the strong and the weak.

If Bush (or his successor) does take firm, strong action to respond to a suddenly more dangerous world, will the American electorate support him or go with the International ANSWER/Code Pink crowd and cry about how evil we are?

Finally, are we as a nation truly ready to get into a military escalation on Russia’s borders by stationing troops in the Ukraine and in Georgia? Having escalated, are we prepared to carry through with what that could mean should some unfortunate incident occur?

Basically, I’m saying this isn’t about Bush, about Russia, about Georgia, or about the Ukraine. It’s about the U.S. of A., and our national will.

Sure, in the dextrosphere, we’ll find opinions like yours, like Vegas Rick, and so on. What about the country at large?

-TS

One of my points, exactly.

Electing Obama = end of Pax Americana.

-TS

Let’s just say we agree in that I hope your vision of the future is the right one.

I would love to be wrong in this case.

-TS

I still don’t see anywhere in your posts, comments, or anywhere else on the web, dextrosphere, news reports, or anything else that would suggest that Russia has entirely given up on the Ukraine — specifically, Crimea, which has enormous strategic importance for the Russian navy.

Russia is not some third world country we can bully, especially if it comes to Sevastopol. Putin is not French; he’s a damn sight smarter, and a whole lot more ruthless in the exercise of power.

I would feel marginally better if we stationed a division or two in Ukraine, but… if you were Russia, would you really let that go?

This isn’t a “lack of faith in Bush” thing, GC. This is straight up, old-school power politics. In no world that I am familiar with can I imagine any major military power (and Russia is still one, even if far behind ours) allowing a rival to control its access to the seas.

-TS

Your focus is on support for Bush. My focus is on American Will. Would it satisfy you if I agree that I personally support Bush and everything he’s doing? I bear him no ill will at all, and think he’s a great president?

That doesn’t change the fact that Bush is extremely limited in what he can do, not because of a lack of resolve on his part, but a lack of resolve on OURS.

If my wishlist is too vague, let me be specific.

1. Send at least a division sized force to Ukraine, like next week. Dare the Russians to stop us. Let Ukraine know in no uncertain terms that either they let our force in, or we will absolutely abandon them to Russia.

2. Spank Chavez. If Russia can press for regime change in its ‘near abroad’, then so can we. First, tell him in no uncertain terms that he is to toe OUR line, or he’s toast. Second, when he fails to toe the line, send a carrier group or two and start interdicting Venezuelan oil. Put all proceeds into a trust fund for the people of Venezuela to be released once they have put Chavez behind bars or in the ground. Third, if he escalates, then let loose the dogs of war. Ignore all the domestic Code Pinkers and Euroweenies. They won’t speak up about Russian aggression; they ought to shut the hell up about ours.

3. Deal with Syria and Iran. Again, warn them in no uncertain terms that their adventurism in Iraq will not be tolerated. But this time, do it while building up forces in Iraq.

Syria — demand that they cease support for the Lebanese Hezbollah, various Palestinian terror groups, and turn over all intelligence to the whereabouts of the terrorists, or be damned with them. Revive the Bush Doctrine of “You are either with us, or against us.” Should Syria fail to comply, invade and replace the regime.

Iran — demand that they cease all support for terror groups, from Hezbollah to Hamas, turn over all intelligence, and immediate open all of its nuclear facilities to unconditional and invasive inspection. Upon failure, start knocking out its military, starting with the Iranian navy in the Persian gulf, the Iranian air force and air defenses, and start bombing refineries and military installations.

Do these three things and NO ONE will question American resolve. No one will question American will. Our word will have credibility once again. They might be pissed at us, scared to death at us, but they will not question our word.

Today, I’m sorry to say it, but our word is just that: words. Talk is cheap. Diplomacy is so much babble without the strength and the will behind the talk to back it up.

We can’t get into a shooting war with Russia or China. We just can’t. That’s the geopolitical reality. But we can spank the living crap out of the various dictatorships around the world who are openly defying us because they see America as a rotten, hollowed out paper tiger.

The problem with any of the above? The American electorate. Can you imagine the howl from the Left if he were do to even one of these things? Can you imagine the condemnations from the U.N., from the EU, from China, from whatever pipsqueak NGO that exists only by our grace and patience? Can you imagine the immediate proceedings for impeachment in the Democrat congress? I can.

BUSH might be trying to show resolve right now, but without the support of the American people behind him, he can only do so much.

That’s my point, and has been from the start.

American credibility is at an all-time low, even lower than during Clinton times, because of the division within us. Because of the rot within OUR national spirit, our national will. Not even during the Clinton years did we have the level of disunity and self-hatred we face today.

That Obama is a real choice in the minds of at least 45% of the American people is a clear symptom of the real problem: total lack of will on the part of Americans.

What matters support for Bush in this environment?

-TS

As I’ve already laid out what I would like to see done, I guess we’re good to go then?

What use is your rah-rah stance anyhow (or mine)?

The point is that we do not currently live in a nation that has the requisite popular will to deal with the likes of Putin’s Russia.

I would like to become a nation that does.

That act of self-transformation does not require — and indeed is largely unconnected to — specific anti-Russian acts.

We cannot force Russia to leave Georgia. We cannot force Russia to give back its gains in Georgia.
We cannot force Russia to do much of anything.

We can however change our own minds as a nation and as a people to actually have resolve, and to demand leaders who will carry out our resolve to resist aggression.

Once that is done, then and only then do we have a chance of forcing others to do what we want them to do without resorting to force. Because our WORD will mean something then.

Is that clearer?

-TS

It is apparent we’re all on the same warmongering side here. I happen to be pessimistic about American will; you and GC optimistic. Time will tell which of us right. For the record, this is an argument I would happily be wrong on — because if I’m wrong, then America and the world is a better place.

But all of us, I think, are united in WANTING a strong America, wanting an American electorate that will back up its leaders to wade forth into the dangerous world stage and unleash American power. All of us, I think, are united in wanting strong reaction and real substantive action against Russian aggression.

I don’t think I’m being self-defeatist, in the sense that I’m not resigned to a weak America. I might see one, but then wish to wake up my neighbors to the danger.

I’m dangerously close to going to volunteer for McCain’s campaign — and believe me, he was very far from my ideal candidate. I don’t consider that self-defeatist or self-fulfilling. That’s how namby-pamby socialist leftists talk.

-TS