wwgkd?

A BBC report on Sunday’s Russian elections reminded me of the famous George Kennan quip that “we will get nearer to the truth if we abandon for a time the hackneyed question of how far Bolshevism has changed Russia and turn our attention to the question of how far Russia has changed Bolshevism.” The reporter then substitutes the word “Democracy” for “Bolshevism” to make for a nice turn of phrase and pose what seems like a provocative question. . . but is it?

Should we eye the nominal change in Russian leadership through the Kennanic lens? Should we ask not how Democracy has changed Russia, and instead turn our attention to how Russia has changed Democracy?

At first blush, Kennan—an authoritarian at heart who once expressed dismay at the US entry into WWII—is an odd icon for a progressive to invoke. Kennan’s realism stands as a stark contrast to the Wilsonian idealism that envisioned a League of Nations extending peace and safeguarding basic human rights across the globe. Ask me anytime prior to 2001 which icon of “the American Century” spoke more to my heart, and I would have chosen Wilson over Kennan (and his realist disciple, Henry Kissinger), and done so without hesitation.

But a funny thing happened just after the close of the American Century, and though I really feel no more fondness for the likes of Kennan and Kissinger, I am suddenly a lot less sanguine about a Wilsonian world. (Note: no hero worship of Wilson is intended here, he was a problematic man and a problematic president, but this digression would require pages I do not at present have the time to write.) What happened in 2001? No, not the terrorist attacks of 9/11; I refer to the inauguration of George W. Bush as the 43 president of the United States.

I am not the first to cross-index Bush 43 with Woodrow Wilson, but now might be an interesting time to recall a story that comes up in a James Traub review of a Kennan biography from last year:

Back in the mid-1970s, Natan Sharansky and his fellow Soviet dissidents bitterly amused themselves by conducting mock trials of Henry Kissinger, the architect of the détente policy that left them feeling abandoned. Sharansky, as judge, would sentence Kissinger to exile in the Soviet Union without benefit of the Jackson amendment, which pressured the Soviets to permit Jews to emigrate. One can scarcely imagine the punishment he would have meted out to George Kennan (1904-2005), the diplomat-scholar who laid the foundations for the cold war policy Kissinger later executed. . . .

Americans, as Kennan was grimly aware, are enamored of their supposedly unique virtues and unique destiny. Indeed, Sharansky’s “Case for Democracy,” in which he tells the Kissinger anecdote, supposedly helped inspire George W. Bush to pursue a policy of democracy promotion, spreading those American virtues around the globe.

Kissinger believes that Wilsonian idealism is (and I guess that Kissinger would say “is wrongly”) America’s default foreign policy. While I am not sure I absolutely agree with Kissinger on this—the US seems mighty selective about when it gets all idealistic on the world’s ass, and when it shows realist “restraint”—the presidency of George W. Bush does make me question whether idealism should be the default.

So, ought we ask a Kennanesque question of contemporary Russia?

Vladimir Putin will likely come in for a world of criticism for the mockery he has made of a democratic election—and, in, dare I say, an ideal world, such criticism would be wholly deserved. Putin has done much to consolidate his own power and crush dissent. He has used the fight against “terrorism” for political ends and prosecuted a bloody war in a region where access to oil is not an inconsequential byproduct. And, he has gone to the ultimate ends to intimidate and constrain a free press.

But, Putin did not come to power in an ideal world. Indeed, he came to power in a post-Soviet Russia that was, in some ways, the victim of American idealism—or, at least, the victim of a faux-idealism. For, while Kennan’s containment might have kept the west from being overly disruptive of a militarist state’s fated devolution, the confusion of free-market capitalism with democracy by cold war idealists left a re-born Russia vulnerable to the worst kinds of abuses seen during the American gilded age. The lawlessness, privation, and economic chaos of the Russian 1990’s could make the authoritarian order of Putin’s decade seem more than a fair tradeoff to many who have been, as Sharansky might have put it, sentenced to live through it.

Perhaps, given where we find ourselves today, with America’s power and influence all stretched and stressed to the breaking point by our own fight against “terrorism” and bloody war where access to oil is not inconsequential, America should exercise a small degree of, if not Kennan’s “restraint,” at least Kennan’s introspection. For while Kennan’s realism made him all too comfortable with authoritarian regimes, it also made him, in the words of Traub, “unillusioned and often bleak [in the] assessment of America’s capacity to shape the world according to its wishes.” So, rather than talk of Russia, let’s bring the question closer to our home, and closer to our time.

For isn’t about time we took case studies like this weekend’s Russian election to heart, and asked a question about our own state of affairs? Granted, it would be wonderful to believe that the United States could simply serve as a shining example, and even more wonderful to believe it could act on our shining ideals to influence peaceful and positive change, but have we the prestige or the prowess left to play that role on as grand a stage as Eurasia? Likely, it is not just now so productive to ask how far Democracy has changed Russia—or vice-versa—as much as it might be beneficial to fully realize how far George Bush’s America has changed what we still so idealistically call “Democracy.”

Lazy reporting. Lazy legislating?

The problem is inherent in the opening paragraph. A front page article from Sunday’s New York Times reads this way:

MOSCOW, July 14 — President Vladimir V. Putin, angered by American plans to deploy a missile shield in Eastern Europe, formally notified NATO governments on Saturday that Russia will suspend its obligations under the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, a key cold war-era arms limitation agreement.

Before we go further, yes, the move by Russia to withdraw from the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty is a problem with some far-reaching consequences—but we have gotten to this point, in part, at least, because of an assumption so flawed yet so ingrained at this point that esteemed Times reporters and editors let it go without so much as a footnote or clarifying paragraph.

What has angered Putin so much as to risk such a theoretically destabilizing move as suspending a treaty (one that actually has no formal mechanism for suspension, it turns out)? Why it’s “American plans to deploy a missile shield in Eastern Europe,” of course. Except, one problem: There is no such thing as a missile shield.

Besides the fact that such a statement is just inaccurate on its face—the Bush Administration has announced plans to put some sort of radar monitoring bases in one former Eastern Bloc nation, and some missile launchers in another—it is so conceptually vacant as to be meaningless.

The “missile shield,” called The Strategic Defense Initiative by supporters and “Star Wars” by skeptics until the Bush/Rove/Luntz spin machine gave it a new, marketing-savvy name, has existed only in the minds and computer simulations of unhinged science geeks and greedy defense contractors for something like three or four decades. But, to be nothing if not painfully straight, here in the real world, there is no such thing as a “missile shield.” After all these years and billions upon billions of dollars, no real world test of any of the proposed systems has even come close to justifying further development, let alone a test case deployment.

And that part of the equations doesn’t even begin to answer nor even ask the question: What is the threat?

The Russians? Administration mouthpieces say absolutely not—they remain our friends. Rather, the Bush bunch would have us believe this “system,” nestled against Russia’s border, has been designed to protect Europe against some Mideastern missile threat, presumably Iran.

Do a little simple research—the kind that the Times, perhaps, couldn’t be bothered to do—and you will find countless articles debunking both the program and the threat. For the purposes of my point, here, I will just say that this “missile shield” is a nonworking solution to a nonexistent problem.

That point, it seems, is now lost on the New York Times—but it should not be lost on our congressional leaders. This Bush boondoggle, though completely fantastic, has factual consequences. To allow the administration to continue down a path of faux deployment in some cynical attempt to further provoke a stand off (or two) while further lining the pockets of defense contractor friends would be dangerous and, frankly, unforgivable.

Unforgivable, especially, when it can so easily be stopped. Unlike so many of the problems crafted by this administration that seem intractable while Bush and Cheney continue to occupy the White House, Star Wars, um, the “missile shield” can be stopped cold in its tracks with one vote—or even with one failure to vote.

Congress could decide today to defund this program. Kill the research. Cancel the contracts. Refuse to fund the construction of the European bases. It’s actually that simple.

Really.

Like, real world really.

Do so, and the threat Putin perceives and acts upon goes away. Treaties can remain intact, and this manufactured crisis can be disassembled.

It is incumbent upon the Democratic leadership in the House—those that control the power of the purse—to avoid the lazy “logic” of the Times and those that such thinking enables. This moment provides an accessible opportunity to show leadership on an issue that has far-reaching consequences—foreign and domestic. Failure to seize that opportunity would be, well, lazy, yes, but also almost as unforgivable as the folly itself.


(cross-posted from guy2k)

The food at the Kempinski’s terrific no doubt. . .

. . . so sang Ella Fitzgerald in her classic Berlinification of Mack the Knife—“the food at the Kempinski’s terrific no doubt”—but don’t tell that to George Bush. That would be George W. Bush, who, if we are to believe reports this morning, has a stomach that reacts to international banquets much like his father’s did. They just don’t fry bologna (or whatever the heck it is this guy considers “real” food) the way they do back home.

Yes, President GW Bush is playing hooky from the G8 this Friday—he says it’s on account of his stomach ache, but I say he’s playing at sick today because yesterday he just got played.

Vladimir Putin gave everybody a lesson on how to stand up to a bullying Bush by countering the American plan to abrogate the ABM treaty and destabilize yet another part of the world with a shrewd offer of his own.

The Bush Administration was angling to put early warning radars on Russia’s doorstep—in Poland and the Czech Republic—as part of the fantasyland boondoggle the guys who don’t believe in science call the “Strategic Defense Initiative,” but you and I affectionately remember it as “Star Wars.” Forget that Bush and his crazy mad brain trust want to risk reigniting the Cold War (can you do that—reignite cold?) on a multibillion dollar scheme that absolutely does not work, and let’s just focus on the not in the least bit accidental side effect that moving towards building this thing—or things that look like they would be this thing if this thing actually were a real thing—has produced: a face-off with a resurgent Russia.

Yep, always jonesing for regime change, no matter how foolhardy and brutally irresponsible, the neo-nut wing of the Republican Party is seeking to recapture the glory of the Reagan years by again beating back the red menace (that they have misread history and overestimated Reagan’s role in the downsizing of the Soviet Union goes without saying). And if you can do so while lining the pockets of your defense industry friends, then all the better!

They know that SDI won’t work—hasn’t to date, never will—but they hope that in rapidly developing it and pushing it right up against Putin’s backside, they can provoke another arms race that will bankrupt and/or destabilize Russia.

Can you imagine a more inaccurate assessment of the current situation?

Russia of the mid-oughts is not the USSR of the mid-eighties. For one, they’re leaner and meaner, with oil and gas reserves that are still underexploited at a time when Middle East oil is past peak and mired in the logistical nightmares of conflict. The wealth that is rapidly accruing from that oil and gas is not only available to fund its own military expansion, it is there to buy influence at a time when the US is strapped for cash. Maybe you can’t make friends with salad, but you sure can with oil.

Further, back in the 1980’s, the USSR was bogged down in an unwinnable conflict with Islamic insurgents—in Afghanistan—now, well, gosh, what a difference a day (or 20 years) makes.

Knowing that they know that we know that they know what we’re up to, the Bush Administration has decided, all-of-the-sudden-like, that this “missile shield” isn’t directed at Russia (how you direct a shield is another thing altogether)—no! Never! We’re doing this to protect ourselves. . . or Europe. . . or ourselves. . . wait, no. . . whatever. . . against the threat—the imagined threat—from Iran. Yeah, that’s it—Iran!

So. . . you’re deploying a nonworking system against a nonexistent threat?

Please ignore the man puking behind the curtain!

OK, where was I? Oh, right. . . So, President Bush thought it would be funny/a political coup to tell Putin to cool his jets because we can make our magic shield protect you Russians, too.

What’s that old Peanuts cartoon about playing chess with a checkers mentality?

Really, as if Putin didn’t likely have the situation gamed-out already, Bush’s bullying combined with his bogus offer really just laid it all on a silver platter. Russia leases an airbase in Azerbaijan that is perfectly placed for monitoring Iranian air-space—what could be easier for Putin than to offer it as a staging ground for the new extra-special x-band radar the US was going to put in the Czech Republic?

This is not meant to be all rah-rah Vladimir—by no means. I think Putin is a frightening figure—despotic, repressive, possibly expansionist, probably brutal—which is what makes the situation we see playing out in the Heiligendamm Kempinski all the more disturbing. The US simply doesn’t have the sort of quality leadership capable of going head-to-head with the Russian president.

Instead, the best we can muster, it seems, is a sort of bull in a china shop approach to our interests. Bush can completely dishonor his host, Angela Merkel of Germany, by derailing the climate change agreement that had been negotiated at lower levels for months, and he can posture about security while acting to make everyone less secure, but the administration is so ideologically constipated that it can’t show up at a high-powered summit with the stomach for the real hard work of international diplomacy. Global warming, nuclear proliferation, Islamic extremism, population control, globalization, immigration, food safety, disease control—just look at what needs to get done on a high-level, multinational scale!

But that’s not what does get done—not when George W. Bush is seated at the dinner table. Instead, time is wasted, face-saving proclamations become placeholders for action, the undemocratizing Russia is allowed to claim the title as grand master of statecraft, and the US president throws up his dinner—if not his hands.

Meanwhile, it is the rest of us that are left feeling ill.

(cross-posted from guy2k)