Russia and Georgia: Old Patterns are Seen Anew
Never on the face of the earth have a more cowardly, racist and self-pitying bunch of bullies and strong-arm robbers been assembled as we now see gathered in the Kremlin. Russia lapses into its natural state, a modus vivendi characterized by insularity and self-aggrandizement. Georgia again plays with fire, nationalist sentiments arise, only to be beaten down, as in centuries past. It has all been seen before
Xenophobia is the lifeblood of the Russian regime. Peter the Great tried to force the Russia of his day into the modern world and was obliged to build an entirely new city on the Baltic, Saint Petersburg. He did so on the bones of hundreds of thousands of peasants, it is said, but he did not succeed in any meaningful way. Saint Petersburg is one side of Russia, the part we want to see, the wide European streets and fauborgs clever Gogol would describe, the dancer Balanchine, Dostoyevsky, Shostakovich, the treasures of the Hermitage and the like. But though the earnest glories of the Russian Revolution began in Saint Petersburg, the capital returned to Moscow in 1918 after two centuries of western influence, and in Moscow it has stayed.
America is so goddamned stupid. When we look at Russia, we want to see Saint Petersburg. The reality is Moscow, a low, dirty, hyperviolent den of thieves and the abode of tyrants for many centuries.
Bush is the quintessential manifestation of that idiocy: his fawning man-love for Vladimir Putin early on was revolting, all that talk about looking in his eyes and seeing his soul makes my gorge rise, and I have a strong stomach. But more importantly, Bush was incredibly naive, for those of us who have followed the mess in Chechnya for years know the Chechen Muslims are now appearing in odd corners of the world like Afghanistan and Pakistan, among our worst enemies.
Having seen a horror movie, a child might be unduly afraid of clowns. A competent therapist might take the child’s GI Joe doll and dress it in a little clown outfit, bit by bit, to show the little boy it’s just a costume, like the soldier’s uniform. The psychologist might even engage the services of a kindly clown, who would talk to the boy, explain the ancient and honorable traditions of the craft of clowning, culminating in making the boy up as a clown. The boy’s fear of a disguise would be overcome by meeting that kindly clown out of costume, come to understand his fear was based on a film-maker’s horrific perversion of a craft dedicated to silliness and laughter and the joy of life.
There was once a day when the USA was unduly afraid of the USSR. This fear crippled us, and this fear only fed the USSR’s power structure. Only when Nixon and to a larger extent Ronald Reagan stood up to the bully, faced him down, held up the Gulag Archipelago and declared the USSR the Evil Empire did the Russians finally get the point. We were no longer afraid. When the USSR collapsed in a steaming wreck, America went from paranoia to a uniquely American mania of condescending, believing the post-Soviet politicians were anything other than what they truly were. We so hoped the Russians would behave like the Germans and Japanese after WW2. We stupidly believed the USSR was merely Russia in clownface: surely the Russian leadership had changed its tune. Gorbachev’s idealistic overtures to the West must be an exhibition of decency. It was not: it was the rank capitulation of a bureaucrat run out of options, a long-dead corpse propped up in a chair.
America rejoiced at the fall of the USSR, a fall I had predicted in 1983. When I began issuing warnings of a future Russian tyranny, my Liberal cohorts scoffed. Oh, you’re just a recent convert to Liberalism, they would say, and it was true, I had only converted upon the treachery of Reagan’s dirty dealings in Iran and Lebanon and Nicaragua. Still, I darkly warned everyone: do not expect another Germany or Japan: we did not conquer the USSR. It collapsed from within. We had little to do with it. I told them then, as I tell you now, of the dichotomy of westward-facing Saint Petersburg and the Barad-dûr of Moscow. The Conservatives still in my acquaintance then scoffed even louder: Reagan’s Star Wars and his vigorous backing of the Contras and the Taliban had brought down the USSR.
The USSR failed, but not because it could not manage Russia. The reason is embedded in the story of the old Soviet national anthem the Internationale, a big, bloody, inclusive old ditty first written in French:
Debout, les damnés de la terre
Debout, les forçats de la faim
La raison tonne en son cratère
C'est l'éruption de la fin
Du passé faisons table rase
Foules, esclaves, debout, debout
Le monde va changer de base
Nous ne sommes rien, soyons toutC'est la lutte finale
Groupons-nous, et demain
L'Internationale
Sera le genre humain
Arise, wretched of the earth
Arise, convicts of hunger
Reason thunders in its volcano
This is the eruption of the end
Of the past let us wipe the slate clean
Masses, slaves, arise, arise
The world is about to change its foundation
We are nothing, let us be allThis is the final struggle
Let us gather together, and tomorrow
The Internationale
Will be the human race.
In translation from Russian, the Internationale comes out even more horridly:
Arise, you branded by a curse,
You whole world of the starving and enslaved!
Our indignant intellect boils,
Ready to lead us into a fight to the death.
We will destroy this world of violence
Down to the foundations, and then
We will build our new world.
He who was nothing will become everything!
In 1944, Stalin changed the national anthem to glorify himself, including this stanza:
Through tempests shined on us the sun of freedom,
And the great Lenin lit us the way.
Stalin brought us up -- on loyalty to the people,
He inspired us to labor and to heroism!
Upon Stalin’s death, those lyrics wouldn’t do, but nobody had a worthy replacement. Eventually only the tune was played. Putin was annoyed his athletes had nothing to sing on the podium, so he had new lyrics written in 2000: here they are in English:
Russia — our sacred stronghold,
Russia — our beloved country.
A mighty will, a great glory —
Your heritage for all time!Chorus:
Be glorious, our free Fatherland,
Ancient union of brotherly nations,
Ancestor-given wisdom of the people!
Be glorious, country! We take pride in you!
From the southern seas to the polar region
Spread our forests and our fields.
You are the only one in the world! You are the only one of a kind —
Native land protected by God!Chorus
A broad expanse for dreams and for lives
Is opened to us by the coming years.
Our devotion to our Motherland gives us strength.
So it was, so it is, and so it will always be!
Conclusion:
Russia is reforming around an ancient paradigm going back to the first Tsars. Forget all this talk of 1968. Russia’s incursion into Georgia is no different than the Tsars of old. Georgia served as a ready-made battleground from the Russians, Persians, Georgians and Armenians since the 1400s. Russia’s tsars first treated Georgia as a vassal state and Georgia was glad enough of that fealty. With a little prodding, Tsar Alexander I incorporated it into Russia in the early 1800s. Russia’s wars against Imereti, (a little kingdom of the 1400s) and the larger Ottoman Empire served to annex most of what the Georgians now claim as their own, especially Abhkazia, the only part of that wretched landscape worth contesting. But Russia’s always had issues with Georgia. Even Stalin, a Georgian himself, knew the score. Stalin was crueler to Georgia than anywhere else, for many Georgians had also fought for the Nazis.
There’s nothing new in this wicked world. Georgia has always been a pimple on Russia’s ass, but a most annoying pimple. For those who are interested in the history of Georgia and the Caucasus, I leave George Kennan’s Vagabond Life as an exercise to the reader. Kennan's grand-nephew, also George Kennan, would go on to write the Long Telegram, and was the best judge of the USSR. All who read him will be changed.
--
--
--
--
--
- BlaiseP's blog
- Login or register to post comments

Are there no ancient grudges being settled between Ossetia and Georgia? That relationship seems to have triggered this conflict. As I understand things, Georgina military went into the region last week and started killing people.
You can criticize George Bush, but with the coloured revolutions, he extended US influence further than any of his predecessors - right into Russia's backyard - without firing a shot. I thought it was much more clever than his dealings with Arab nations.
The old patterns seen anew are not terribly interesting. I'd like to see how the 'new patterns' play into this. I'm not sure how or why open hostilities in the region serve US interests, other than the obvious fact that it's better Georgians (the new allies) fight and die than Americans. I've read that before the Russian invasion, several nations at the UN including the US rejected a Russian proposal for non-violent resolution. Has the reasoning behind this been explained? I haven't been able to get a clear idea over the internet.
--Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just
- Login or register to post comments
)I left you the reference to the George Kennan's Vagabond Life, which covers a lot of that, and the matter of Abkhazia as further reading.
The current mess is an ethnic conflict. Ossetia is right next to Chechnya, where Russia has been fighting for many years, as it fought in the 1400's. Do you want a whole master's thesis on the subject before you'll find it interesting?
Here's how to think about that whole mess of the Christian Kingdoms of Georgia and the Muslims who overran them. It's just as true for the Balkans as it is for the Caucasus Mountains.
The winners write the histories. The losers write the songs.
There are no New Patterns. I would expect every educated reader of this essay to understand the patterns of conquest which led Muscovy south to the Black Sea, especially when I went to all that trouble to drag Peter and Catherine the Greats into the equation, and that business about Alexander the First, who gently nudged the last King of Georgia off his throne. Those patterns have not changed, right down to the mess with Ukraine. Muscovy and the Tsars of history were the locus of power from the Baltic to the Pacific by default. Russia has been invaded times without number, it's a deeply xenophobic regime. It only tolerates vassals and enemies on its borders: that's George Kennan after WW2.
American interests are irrelevant in the region. The relevant powers are Turkey, the Stans to the east and to a lesser extent Western Europe. Georgia kisses George Bush's ass, names the main street in Tblisi for him, and why? So Georgia can stick its finger in Russia's eye? Oppress other ethnic minorities?
There are no good guys here, I don't even have all the facts. Does everything have to be America's fault? Seemingly so. Georgia strutted around the playground, pushing over other kids, and now that someone's knocked him over, he's yelling and crying and trying to get his Big Brother to fight his battles. The USA isn't going to play that game. Nations don't have friends.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The 'new pattern' I mentioned was that the US is now training and cooperating with the Georgina military which attacked an ethnic enclave Russia's border. Evidently, I think the US has more a role in this than you do. I don't know what it was or why.
The hostilities you mention over the centuries were until recently referred to as "frozen conflicts." Was there any role of the US in defrosting them? Why did the US join others at the UN in putting the kibosh on the Russian resolution last week? Are these questions also irrelevant? Have I crossed some red line in asking them? Hasn't anyone in the press bothered to ask? I'm really curious about the lack of curiosity.
I don't know what all this 'nations have no friends' nonsense is. Americans made a commitment to Georgia, and now I read this repeatedly all over the place. And you call the Russians cowardly!
--Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The USA has contingents of SF in the Stans, too. Here's how to deal with claims and counterclaims of Attacks on Ethnic Enclaves: believe both sides.
Every time Russia lifts its boot off the Georgian neck, they start in bullying their own ethnic minorities. So who's worse, Russia or Georgia? And don't give me that hoo-hah about Democracy and Elections, democracy is often merely a tyranny of the majority. The Georgians keep trying to assert their primacy of their regime. Take a look at Georgian history, there were at least a dozen different little kingdoms in there. They got caught in the pincers of geopolitics, and when I started looking at how many battles had been fought there in the last few centuries, I threw away that whole section of my essay.
As in the Balkans with the death of Tito, the Frozen Conflicts melted into some pretty hot soup within days of the fall of the Soviet Union. The US presence in Georgia is nothing. We've got more people in Kazakhstan, where, may I add, the supplies for our precious International Space Station are launched. The US military is in well over 100 countries. America made no commitment to Georgia. What would we do? Start sinking the Russian Navy during the Olympics? Give me a break. The USA will take its time deciding how and when to give Russia a well-deserved slap. Russia lost its temper, and all who lose their temper reveal a weak spot when they do, and yes, they are cowards to attack a tiny country over a few dozen ethnic Russians being oppressed by a nationalist idiot like Saaskashvili.
Now here's what I think. Putin went off to the Olympics, got distracted and Medvedyev went off half-cocked. Now Putin's seat at the Olympics is empty, and I imagine Putin has some choice words and probably some stern slaps for his foolish underling, who went off half-cocked while he was in China.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Putin went off to the Olympics, got distracted and Medvedyev went off half-cocked.
Maybe I didn't make it clear in my two earlier posts. The Russians went to the UN with a resolution calling on the parties to stand down, and this was opposed not supported by the US. Is it American policy to oppose all such resolutions? Perhaps only those put forward by Russia? What do Americans hope to gain by this conflict growing worse? Does nobody have anything to contribute on this question?
About the size of the presence of the US in Georgia. I imagine you are correct that it is not so large. But I'm sure it's large enough that those inside can understand the situation in Georgia, and let the folks back in Washington know the score.
What would we do? Start sinking the Russian Navy during the Olympics?
I would not have expected the US to oppose a resolution at the UN for the parties to stand down. If the US was opposed to Russian intrusion, they chose a strange way of expressing it.
they are cowards to attack a tiny country over a few dozen ethnic Russians being oppressed by a nationalist idiot like Saaskashvili
Your confusion here may come from the fact that Russians believe that the Ossetians being oppressed are friends of Russia. Apparently you don't understand the concept of international friendship and this leads to mistakes stemming from the common assumption that others are bound to look at the world through your blinkered eyes. Maybe it's time to put down those Arabic texts and take up the study of Russian!
--Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Maybe it's time for you to learn a few new songs. Your current rendition of "Blame America" is getting a little old, and your voice isn't quite up to those high Cs and Ds in those last twelve bars.
The Russians are playing the same game they played in the Balkans. I seem to remember them rushing in "peacekeepers" when NATO began slapping their good buddies the Serbs. How can one party to a conflict put in "peacekeepers" ? Riddle me that. As for any confusion on my part, of course the Russians back the Ossetians, for the same reason we back the Kurds in Iraq and the Israelis: and if the Kurds oppress their Turkomen and the Israelis their Palestinians, well, that's awful, but it doesn't stopper up their support funding.
I learned enough Russian in the US Army to ask and get answers for a few pointed questions, such as "Stop", "Hands up", "where is your battalion" and the like. The Russians aren't abiding by cease fire agreements and the Georgians are firing on journalists. Spare me your nice tidy dissections, unless you have something useful to add from Russian which I can't find in languages I do read, you can cut way down on the snark, tovarisch.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I'm not blaming the Americans for anything. I'm simply asking, for the, what? fourth time now? Why did the US block the Russian proposal at the UN?
You're right about the Balkans, I'm sure you would find Russians and Serbs professing mutual friendship. That can explain a lot.
This notion of the lack of friendship is also illuminating and I have never given it much consideration. As you note, there are American troops in over a hundred countries, and you're probably right, Americans don't consider friendship as a reason to be there - in any of them. No wonder there is so much foreign policy failure. Iraqis are ragheads and sand niggers, not friends. We don't view friends with mistrust or contempt. Instead we are sympathetic. I know Americans are probably the warmest and most openhearted people in the world. This is a strength, not a weakness. An America burrowing full bore into defensive mentality, as I've seen, is not a winning strategy.
--Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The Russian proposal simply puts Russian troops into the contested regions. That's why it was rejected. End of story. Don't ask it again. You were told.
There are 17 American trainers in Georgia. They live in a hotel in Tblisi. We told the Russians which hotel, so they won't bomb it. So much for American Involvement.
As for your Ragheads and Sand Niggers remark, that's just another variant of "Blame America". You sing it constantly, Micky. It's really tiresome, and excuse me for noting nobody else around here would dare make a racist comment of that sort. After that, your condescending tripe about what you know about Americans, so warm and openhearted rings a little hollow. Let Americans speak for Americans.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )How did the Russian proposal put Russian troops into the region? They were already there as peacekeepers as I understand.
There were 17 marines in the hotel. Any idea if there were any American mercenaries in Georgia? Where were they? And what were they doing?
Well, I blame America for the Iraq fiasco, no question about that. With respect to Georgia, it seems clear that Georgia bears the greatest burden of blame. But after seeing the catastrophes in Iraq and Lebanon, I suspect that there may be some American role in the matter. I am a suspicious character.
I'm sorry if my comment rings a little hollow. But I meant it sincerely. Americans do speak for Americans here. Given the absence of Russians, Georgians, and just about everyone else here, Americans seem to speak for everyone. I don't worry about this sort of thing, and see no reason why you should.
I was curious to see these 'nations have no friends' comments sprouting up all over the place, the moment an ally gets into a fix. Pretty feckless, I thought, but on reflection, I realize that you are probably quite sincere. America has no friends, and has no need of friendship. This is an outgrowth of the 'American exceptionalism' I've read of from time to time, but never in connection with the notion of international friendship. Maybe it's not such a profound insight, but it does bear examination, and what's more, you read it here first!
I was trying to make a point that intervention in an area inhabited by people held in contempt is not likely to yield positive results.
--Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The US, Britain and some other member nations could not come to an agreement on Russia's three-sentence statement. You might as well ask why Britain blocked the Russian proposal. Why are you so in favor of the Russian statement without even knowing the full content of it?
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )without knowing the content, why are you against it? The only thing I read in the link I posted was that there was disagreement over the phrase renouncing the use of force. Why are you so dead set against that? Or I should say, why do you think it was a bad idea to renounce the use of force before Russia got involved, and a good idea afterwords?
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You and Micky were pulling the same stunts, so don't turn this around on me.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )How do you feel about McCain sending his own foreign policy team to Georgia? Is this presumptuous? Should Obama send a couple of his supporters to the region? How about Bob Barr?
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Whether you or I are for or against the resolution is beside the point.
I think it's safe to say that Russia simply bringing the thing before the UN carries with it an implied threat of violence, if, of course, they don't win the day and it is blocked. This is in fact how things turned out, after all.
Why was it blocked? I'd speculate that the US and UK were in favour of the Georgian gambit and hoped that a lightning strike would settle the matter quickly, once and for all. Perhaps there was also the feeling that the Russians wouldn't have the nerve to launch an international attack. I'm not trying to blame the US for this situation, as there are plenty of examples of misbehaving smaller states causing troubles. But running interference at the UN does have precedents - ie during the Lebanon conflict a couple summers ago. That was a short war that was extended a few days because of US efforts at the UN, fruitlessly it seems.
--Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I'm not necessarily in favour of the statement. As you say, I don't even know what it was, and even if I did, not being a diplomat, I would not understand its full implications.
So, let me rephrase it. Why did the UK oppose it? Here is as full account of the matter as I've been able to find:
11:09 p.m. -- Representing the Secretariat, Vijay Nambiar arrives, with umbrella still wet from the rain outside. And finally a UN TV official arrives. The Spokesperson's Office is still not manned, or woman-ed...
Update of 11:25 p.m. -- Finally a three-sentence Russian draft press statement has emerged, to "express concern at the escalation of violations in the zone of the Georgian - South Ossetian conflict." The intial reviews were positive: "now who could object to that?"
Update of 11:29 p.m. -- Bets are being taken which part of the three sentences will be objected to. One intrepid YouTuber says that "Georgian - South Ossetian" implied two separate sovereignties. Inner City Press' bet? The call "to renounce the use of force," something that Georgia has been resisting with regard to both of its breakaway regions. Call it the Trojan horse phrase...
Update of 11:36 p.m. -- amid wire reports that Georgia is bombing South Ossetia, at the stakeout UN TV is finally setting up its cameras. One cynical journalist snarked, blame the deaths in the last half an hour on them...
Update of 12:05 A.m., Friday -- as midnight passes, the three sentences are still being dissected in the Council's consultation room. From the Far East this complaint: is this any way to cut into 8-8-08 and the Olympics?
Update of 12:13 a.m. -- on the three little sentences, the Council is taking a break. And now we learn what the logjam is. The two Russian-draft references to calling "on the parties to the conflict," the U.S. and UK, on behalf of Georgia, want to change to "ALL the parties to the conflict" -- meaning Russia. Looks like a long night...
Update of 12:33 a.m. -- as Council reconvenes, Secretariat's Vijay Nambiar, with umbrella, heads out into the night. Inner City Press jokingly asks, "Not staying for the long haul?" Mr. Nambiar smiled. "No, we've done everything we have to do." But the closed door consultations continue.
Update of 12:51 a.m. -- And now the real problem, the Trojan horse (see above) has been identified. The U.S. and UK refuse to include a call "to renounce the use of force," which Georgia has been resisting. And so there will be no Council outcome. They move into the Chamber. And so it goes at the UN.
Update of 12:58 a.m. -- inside the Chamber, delay for lack of translators. UK's Karen Pierce jokes to Russia's Churkin, "You call more emergency meetings that we do," then refers to "vodka, gin and wine." The waiting continues, the lack of outcome already assured. The media question now is, will Georgia still hold its 11 a.m. press conference?
Update of 1:06 a.m. -- Secretariat staff are saying, "Can we go to another room?" The sound system in the Security Council is squeeling with feedback.
Update of 1:14 a.m. -- Somehow the audio system is fixed, and finally the meeting begins. Georgia is invited to the table. UN Peacekeeping's Edmund Mulet is in the house.
Update of 1:17 a.m. -- Churkin begins, denouncing "treacherous" actions by Georgia, and says, we told you so. Houses are in flames, he says. At 3 a.m. local time, he says, Georgia attacked with tanks and infantry. "The Security Council must now play its role," he says, and call for a rejection of the use of force. Fat chance...
Update of 1:23 a.m. -- Georgia's Irakli Alasania begins, emphasizing South Ossetian separatists started shelling Georgia villages, and evacuated 400 children. Multiple references to television interviews, Russian "media propaganda," Georgian restraint.
it goes on...
http://www.innercitypress.com/unsc1sossetia080708.html
--Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I went off to Wikipedia, to find "Debout, les forçats de la faim" translated as "Stand up, let's get a pizza". The lyrics you read now on Wikipedia are my own translation.
- Login or register to post comments
)All the sudden Russophilia on the left would be pretty creepy if it wasn't so ironic, since Russia is now run by a gang of bloated plutocrats that make the old Marxist cliches of the hook-nosed New York capitalist look like Che. But obviously the modern KGB has inherited many of its predecessor's Cold War PR contacts.
And a lot of the 'comments' on blogsites are being generated by Russian hackers, whose awkward English grammar gives them away. Russia, incidentally, unleashed a furious cyber-attack on Georgia weeks before they invaded.
Eyewitnesses in Gori now claim the Russian tanks are pulling back, even as ethnic cleansing proceeds under the South Ossetian 'irregulars'. Perhaps Bush's 'Berlin airlift' threat finally registered, since it put the ball back in Putin's court.
There's gonna be a lot of debate about all this over the next few months. My guess is the Ukraine will now be allowed to join NATO. I think the Turks are far less afraid of the Russians than most commentators assume--they are tired of the Russian sponsorship of the PKK--and the generals may use a weak response to Russian aggression (the Turks see the BTC pipeline as a vital interest) to instigate a coup against their Islamist government. Something they were on the brink of doing anyway two weeks ago. And no one has commented on the curious response of Belarus--the dog that didn't bark. Belarus, Russia's most slavishly devoted ally, has ostentatiously refused to release a single word of support for this Russian venture.
- Login or register to post comments
)A quick perusal of dKos and the Usual Suspects doesn't show much of that sort of thing. The current crop of Lefties are much annoyed to find our prestige and military power unable to stand up to Russia, no friend of the American Left. Russia's current leadership and fan base are skinheads in better suits.
Your views of the Left must be revised a bit. The current crop of Lefties is quite willing to fight in Afghanistan.
As for hacking the Georgian websites, it's very sad. dot ge is a tiny outpost on the Intertubes.
We'd better not let Ukraine in, not in its current horrible state of affairs. Speaking of the Ukraine, that part of the Intertubes is a nest of vipers and credit card fraud. Russia's overplayed its hand, the only party getting any boost from this is that idiot McCain, who is now trying to act all Statesmanlike. It's pathetic, to hear him declare Shaakashvili "Shash-ka-vili" to be his friend. Real friends learn to pronounce each others' names. It's especially stupid, because we used to have another prominent general of Georgian extraction: Shalikashvili on the payroll, you remember him, the guy who said we couldn't occupy Iraq with a handful of troops. Yeah, the one Bush fired, and McCain said nothing.
Turkey was at war with Russia for many centuries. The Ottomans sided with the Germans in WW1 for this reason: both the Kaiser and Turkey had common cause.
You correctly note Turkey's going to get a mortal case of the ass if anyone screws with the BTC pipeline. Shaakashvili tried to sucker everyone into his little rebellion by saying the Russians had bombed the pipeline, which was a lie. I have little sympathy for Shaakashvili, he's trying to revive Georgia's greatness, forgetting the intervening years between the Georgian Kings and Peter and Catherine the Greats. Russia is not to be messed with anymore, and it will no longer tolerate the oppression of Russian minorities anywhere. Ukraine had best sit up straight and quit picking its nose, because ethnic Russians have been treated horribly in recent decades.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )of 'anti-neocon' responses across the leftist blogosphere, not least of which was Huffpo's accusation that it was all a Republican plot to win the election. Plenty of accusations of Georgian ethnic cleansing (some of which may well be true), and a great deal of 'stay out of Russia's back yard' talk. Lots of 'Putin has faced down the cowardly Bush' memes, as well. That's all effectively pro-Russian, and its equivalent certainly wouldn't appeared anywhere except in underground newspapers during the Cold War.
And Russia does seem to have bombed above the pipeline (it's apparently underground) in at least 4 places.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )does not make someone pro-hurricane. To be appalled at the foolish incompetence of our current crop of neo-cons does not require either support for or admiration of Vladimir Putin -- although I find a measure of admiration in the sense I might admire a great white killer shark or a really big Category 5 hurricane.
Putin is very good at being a KGB predator and therefore fools such as Randy Schuenemann place us all at greater risk.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The Ossetians are basically terrorists, the Georgians were trying to emulate Serbia, and the Russians are what they have been for the past decade or two, a bunch of gangsters. I don't hold any affection for any of them.
What bothers me the most is that when it comes to issues that matter in geopolitics, they seem to effortlessly catch us flat footed. I get frustrated by an administration whose foreign policy has been one boneheaded error after another. So I'm not pro-Russian, but I realize the fact that in a battle of wits with them we're clearly outmatched. I think it's important to point that out so we don't select another President because he seems like a nice guy to have a beer with.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Is this 2008's version of the dismissal of any and all criticism of the invasion of Iraq as "objectively pro-Saddam"?
In your opinion, K. of course: I have a feeling that McCain and the Republicans are probably going to run with this very meme as an major part of their campaign strategy for the election. We can already, IMO, see the start of it in Straight Talk John's dog-and-pony-show "diplomacy" in Tblisi. Myself, I think it's a fairly pathetic clownshow: but since Russki-bashing in the service of Our Plucky Allies The Noble Georgian Freedom Fighters will probably be one of the McCain campaign's maajor fall themes, it's only to be expected.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )What have you seen?
As for Huffington Post, an onomatopoeic title if ever there was one, they huff and post all the live-long day. As for Republicans, never attribute to conspiracy what stupidity will adequately explain. Bush and Condi could have foreseen this: what did they expect after the secession of Kosovo?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )in one of the newspapers (sorry I can't remember which, might even have been the NYT) describing how stunned the US military advisors in Georgia were when all their troops disappeared to invade S. Ossetia. This really does seem to have taken everybody--except the Georgians and the Russians--by surprise.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Is evidence of nothing more than open eyes and ears, and common sense.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )never, ever to go to war against anyone.
And to characterize anyone who might see the necessity as evil.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...Neo Con is almost never used properly, or even understood, and hardly anyone in the left blogsphere correctly identifies Neo Cons, I wouldn't waste much time on this.
Dead ends and all that.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )What's your definition? And who qualifies as a neo con in your estimation? I'm eager to hear the proper usage.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The underlying substance is that Bush and Cheney have very seriously diminished America's ability to influence global affairs though a mixture of arrogance and incompetence.
Full stop.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Most of them were old pinkos like Irving Kristol.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...might be more apt.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )even more.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Sending in that idiot Bremer and platoons of Republican campaign workers. I kid you not, the first pass at the CPA was all campaign volunteers. Talk about a Bourgeois-Democratic Revolution!
Never mind that Iraq, like Russia, was going to hell in a hand basket, or that Stalin was scheming all the while to eat the idealists alive. They argued over conference tables, debating political theory like a bunch of goddamn college students while anarchy reigned supreme outdoors, Whites and Mensheviks still running around in the weeds.
It's really time the NeoCons owned up to their stupidity. Trotskyites seen the light? No, blinded by that light. There's always a Stalin in the weeds. Neoconservative philosophy and the whole Weekly Standard crowd are a bunch of undemocratic pinkos and they always were. The Neoonservatives, like the Marxists, were taken in by a bunch of political hooey, ginning up theoretical nightmares when genuine threats were bashing in the door. And the genuine Conservatives, true to form, were just too stupid and greedy to say anything while it happened.
Stalin dealt with his version of the NeoCons effectively. But nobody will put a pickaxe in Dick Cheney's head. He'll get away with all of it, the bastard, and all his cronies. And don't you get your nose out of joint to see me say such things. As Trotksy was a reasonably intelligent man whose fine rhetoric served as the springboard for tyranny and the death of millions, Irving Kristol's progeny have ruined the good name of the United States of America.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )They ran Georgia for a while, until 1922, when they were -- um -- repressed.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )is true of the NeoCons, then and now. Bill Kristol and the whole PNAC crowd are completely unrepentant. All this crap about workers and the proletariat, same old tired Trot rhetoric. The NeoCons, like Trotsky, understood the peasants were the building blocks of capitalism and did their best to back democratic principles such as the overthrow of dictators.
The NeoCons don't really have much of an economic philosophy, they're about self-determination and the right to work, that's about the extent of what the NeoCon says in domestic policy. The NeoCons get a bum rap, as did the Trots under Stalin, their philosophy rewritten by their enemies. But the NeoCons make the same error Lenin and Trotsky made in their time: the need for government doesn't diminish when the peasants are liberated.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )When you call "Bill Kristol and the whole PNAC crowd" Neo Cons -- you're only proving my point.
Sorry, I just don't have time for reindeer games right now, maybe Prancer or Vixen will have time to hash this out.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )for "Donna Dixon"!
--I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )is that they aren't conservative, they aren't liberal, and they aren't new.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )They like the idea of capitalism, but they were deadly serious about a large body of violent revolutionaries out to overthrow dictatorships all around the world. They thought capitalism could be reformed by playing footsie with the barons of industry, so do the NeoCons.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )they have an emotional need for a clear and present threat they can rally against. All the rest is just details.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Every member of PNAC is a neoconservative, by definition. You sound a bit like a Trot yourself, forever redefining your positions away from the failures of your ideology. Lord, it's a tough time to be a Conservative, as it was tough to be a Communist when that whole rotten edifice fell down.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )This is the kind of stuff that really should be against the posting rules. You get caught with your pants down spouting ignorant nonsense (again), and try to cover your mistake by saying I sound like a Trotskyite and I'm always redefining my positions.
It's childish bulls***, and it shouldn't be tolerated. Grow up dude.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Now listen close, Mac, because I do hate to make this point, and I shall put it as plainly as I can within the rules. You have said Neo Con is almost never used properly, or even understood, and hardly anyone in the left blogsphere correctly identifies Neo Cons, and that you wouldn't waste much time on this.
Continuing on, you say it's Dead Ends and all that.
Now I do know a thing or three about the Neconservatives, and I have plainly stated the NeoLibs are merely a reaction to their excesses and failures. It is absolutely within reason to say the Neconservative movement is exactly as I have described it. It is an intellectual failure which has led this country into pointless wars. In the name of overthrowing dictators, they have only served to replace those dictatorships with worse regimes. The current regime in Iraq is Hizb'allah speaking Iraqi Arabic, that is the plain truth.
Feel free to contest my definitions, if it suits you, Mac. Don't you dare sit around and smirk about what other people don't know about political science, calling it Dead Ends. Some people might find that offensive. I certainly know enough about Marxism, the Russian Revolution and Trotsky to have some grasp of one side of the comparison, and I have a subscription to the Weekly Standard for the other. Do you subscribe to Weekly Standard? I find the fit very good. Perhaps it's you who doesn't understand Trotsky, not me misunderstanding Neoconservatism. You have failed to convince me why I am wrong, and now your back is up. It's a bluff, all bluster. Put up some facts, for a blessed change.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Dick Cheney isn't a neo con. Bill Kristol isn't a neo con. Paul Bremer isn't a neo con. The Weekly Standard isn't a neo con publication. This is a complete waste of time because we aren't speaking the same language. It would be like me saying, "democrats are Stalinists". In that circumstance, I wouldn't expect my lack of discernment to be the foundation for a productive conversation. Why do expect me to see it differently when the shoe is on the other foot?
So perhaps instead of insulting me, you'd be better off trying to understand my original comment, and going off and finding out for yourself why most of the people you label as neo cons aren't, and that the label isn't any better a fit than 'democrats are Stalinists'.
Unfortunately, you're only underlining what I said to K. in the first place and making regret spending even this much time on it.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )way to go. Outdone yourself on this one. Bill Kristol IS a neo-conservative, the Weekly Standard IS neoconservative. The fact that _YOU_ view them differently puts you at odds with the accepted definition of a neo-conservative, and like it or not, the universe doesn't orbit Mac.
related publications and institutions section:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative#Evolution_of_neoconservativ...
What, don't like wiki?
From Irving Kristol, Bill's dad, published in the Weekly standard, and the self described 'godfather' of the nonconservative movement:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzm...
An article on the Weekly Standard and its role in the neoconservative movement:
http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_21/article.html
A right wing biography of B. Kristol:
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1254.html
On PNAC:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HK22Aa01.html
Just for my own curiosity, mind answering the question asked of you above: What is your (unique, apparently) definition of a neoconservative?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Leaving nothing but their smiles behind. Nobody's a goddamn Neo Con. Not any more, huh?
See, in the abstract, there's a good argument to be made for overthrowing dictators. The problem is, violent overthrow is a troubling thing: violence only begets violence. It doesn't matter what sort of bright shiny plans you might have, they never survive the first firefight.
The real problem with the Neo Cons was this: none of them had ever been shot at, with the exception of Colin Powell, who they wouldn't trust with anything sharper than a pen. The Bush43 Neo Cons had no early goddamn idea what a war looked like, when to start one, when to pause it, when to stop one. They climbed in Daddy's Big Humvee, floored it out of the driveway and seven years later it's wrapped around the goddamn tree.
So it's hardly surprising you'd say all these people like Kristol and Cheney and such aren't Neo Cons, despite signing the PNAC manifesto. That's what the Trots said, "Stalin isn't really a Communist"
You are not being insulted. A few of your precious and closely-held ideas are being demolished, and you can't deal with it. The Neo Cons were right about a great deal, and the Neo Libs will forget about the genuine threat of dictators. The Neo Libs are going to let Iran get away with getting the bomb. They'll cave to North Korea, to the Islamists, they're going to shine on a whole lot of evil in the name of Peace and Harmony.
Now if anyone ought to think their nose is out of joint, it's those Neo Libs talking all this brave nonsense about Winning the War in Afghanistan. The battle gear of every empire since the Persians is bleaching on those hillsides. The Neo Libs are pretending militant Islam isn't an antithetical philosophy to American Democracy, it's just those horrible Talibanseses. They're not going to stand up for human rights in Darfur, as Clinton didn't stand up in Rwanda. Genuine Liberal philosophy would look a whole lot more like Irving Kristol and Leon Trotsky than the banal, ignorant wickedness of a John Kennedy.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )oh goody.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Apologies, my prior post is stronger than I meant it to be.
However, I was serious about the main point. It should be against the posting rules to pull that kind of stuff.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )is fuzzy borderline stuff. Could be meant as a legit comparison, could be (probably in this case) meant as a barb; I don't see a way to make a rule that would make it possible to distinguish in all cases. Godwin's Law mostly gets rid of the Nazi thing, but nobody can talk politics without making analogies. "You keep redefining your position" is a staple of argumentation: not exactly polite but I don't see how we could outlaw such comments and still have anything to talk about.
About all we can do is engage where it seems worth our time, and encourage your dinner table standard of online accountability.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I believe Irving Kristol is the father of Neoconservatism.
This began with a sneer about what Liberals don't understand about Neoconservatives. I gave Mac my definition. Now if Forvm won't tolerate the insertion of the historical record, with the assertion that facts don't take sides, what is the point of busting my hump writing these essays?
Maybe Forvm is more about Bloodletting than Debate. I came back with what I consider a pretty good essay, only to find this whole effort goddamned hijacked by some irrelevant sneering about what Liberals Don't Understand. If you want me to stick around, you'll tell certain persons hereabouts to lay off the sneering and posturing and invocation of rules and write some substantive rebuttal. Christ, why do I stick around here? I'll tell you why, here and now, so someone will challenge my assertions. I'm sick to death of sneers and naysaying from people who think invoking Trotksy is fuzzy borderline stuff, that betrays a lack of education. Allow me to introduce y'all to a seldom-used idea hereabouts: history is yesterday's newspaper, and we can learn from the past.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )draw you into playing "guess what I'm thinking." Unless you want to play, of course. He's a master. Like Timmy. Prods you into spelling out your preconceptions without tipping his hand; very Socratic, minus the enlightenment part at the end. Brooks could take lessons. :)
Anyhow, don't let them toreador you around. It's Bush supporters who could stand some reexamining of assumptions. Today's Democrats *are* neocons (some more willingly than others). The people called neocons are Jacobin romantics.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I just meant you don't often explain your comments. At least not right away. Socrates always gets around to, eventually, spelling it all for you. Maybe I was being too clever for my own good. No offense intended, though as usual I can't tell if you're offended or just playing.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I don't seriously expect the mods to enforce it, or for it ever to be in the rules. It should be against the "rules", but it never will be.
No worries.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ):)
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I do tend to not want to waste time.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )"You're wrong but I don't have the time or desire to explain why" doesn't lead to very productive conversations.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )ever to learn anything if you repeatedly tend to not want to waste time defending your positions?
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )One can, I suppose, spend a lotta time refusing to waste time defending one's positions rather than actually defend them.
But isn't that a waste of time too?
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )being the chief characteristic.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )It's foolish and lazy to slather the 'never go to war' tripe on anyone who dares point out the intellectual bankruptcy of the neo-con movement. Hey. Next time? Question my patriotism. That's always effective. If similarly dim.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )than your original comment, no. I was merely pointing out there is another viewpoint in the matter.
I cannot tell you how foolish I think it is for Obama supporters like you to tie the tin-can of compliance to Russian aggression to his campaign bus. It sets up an easy Obama = Russia, McCain = Georgia paradigm for the Republicans to exploit. And they will.
And I'd like to remind you that I'm neither a 'neo' nor a 'con'. I'm an old-school 'Scoop Jackson Deomocrat' who finally has drifted out of his party in distaste. But my distaste for the opposition is equal.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )But you're avoiding your own comment and the reason for mine. You accused me and others of being in the 'never go to war' camp without a shred of evidence, and did so becuz we dared to disagree with you about a specific conflict. This is brain dead thinking no matter what ideology prompts it. I don't blame you for pretending you never said it. But let's not degrade discourse further by pretending the slur was a 'viewpoint.'
I thought you weren't going to write about politics any more.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )you were a nice guy and a friend here. Looks like we were both wrong.
As for what I wrote, I stand by it. 'Slagging neo-cons'--and the word 'slagging' has several meanings, some of them violent, does indeed arise from many impulses, not merely the ones you so generously imparted to yourself. Let's see: 'open ears and eyes and common sense.' Yes, your open-mindedness here is legendary. And your common sense should have caused you to avoid this particular set of slanders. Calling me 'brain dead' might have worked when you were a mod, but you aren't one any more.
Seriously, Harley, your take-no-prisoners attack-mode act here is getting stale--and I'm not the only one who thinks so. Unbend and stay human--that's the side of you we all like.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Which are fine with me, I want to be clear about what I objected to in the first place. Referring to folks as part of some 'never go to war' cabal based not on a factual basis of any kind, but the simple desire to insult. I am, of course, well familiar with the latter. But I would also suggest the original comment was inappropriate, and would hope that you might do better than 'stand by it'. Heck. You could withdraw it.
Or we could talk about those poll numbers instead.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )A few deep breaths before hitting "Post comment." The thread is getting heated. Don't make the mods have to get all billy club up in this place.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Damn, things settled down on their own. Well there are still 3 months to go.
--"That Sam-I-am! That Sam-I-am! I do not like that Sam-I-am!"- Dr. Seuss
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Cool. So no more rules? We can all act like third-graders when the teacher's gone?
Or is it just Harley who gets to?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Nah. I'm done and apologize for getting overheated. Can we talk about the poll numbers you distorted now? :)
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )And I apologize too.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I'm in no position to alienate anyone, particularly someone I respect. I also would hate to lose the overseas TV recommends.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I was just thinking of you the other night while I was watching the 'Green Wing Christmas Special'-- a sort of posted-on show they made instead of a season 3. Ever seen it?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Is that the one where Caroline floats into the air dangling from a bouquet of helium balloons?
I loved that series. Start to finish.
Finally got a hold of Life On Mars. Also pretty damn good. Did you get around to the sequel, Ashes to Ashes?
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )http://theforvm.org/diary/kierkegaard/russo-georgian-war-day-4-ceasefire...
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I was just betting with Blaise which one of Harley's surrogates would show up first--I said Nilsey, he said you.
You guys have a little email circle going? ;)
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I take exception to that too.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )And as a figment of Mac's imagination it would be impossible for me to have surrogates anyway.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Please, please go there, John McCain. (And it appears he is).
That is such a contrived nonsensical position, the only folks who will believe it are people who last week already hated Barack Obama.
On second thought, blind hatred of Obama amongst a core group of McCain-iacs shall only intensify while broader support for McCain is lost. Good for Obama in November but bad for America in a larger sense.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Steve Schmidt wisely pulled back on all the press avails, if only to cut down on senior moments and gaffes. But this crisis has put McCain back where he prefers to be, in front of reporters and cameras, offering his vast years of experience in the form of contradictory and/or flat-out nutty opinions.
We don't invade sovereign nations in the 21st Century.
We're all Georgians. Except we haven't quite figured out whose fault this mess is yet.
This is not a net plus for the McCain campaign.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )showed 59% of the American public blame Russia for the war. Emotive? Wrong-headed? Oldfashioned Cold War thinking? Maybe, doesn't matter. McCain is going after that group, not whatever group you imagine is the majority.
And coalitions of issues majorities win elections. I shouldn't have to be reminding Obama supporters of this, but apparently I do. This is an election, not a caucus.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The only poll I've found is from Rasmussen. 59 percent -- there's that number -- think the invasion poses a threat to our national security. This is wholly different from 'blaming Russia' for the war. It's also worth noting, from the same poll, that only 31 percent of the same respondents believe we should take diplomatic action against Russia.
At least get the numbers right while attempting to distort the current political landscape.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )phenomenon afoot. Now I am old enough to have seen my old anti-war peers of the 1970 era morph into what I call NeoLibs. Where once they said No More War, they now have no problem sending our troops off to that Graveyard of Empire known as Afghanistan.
Every empire ends up there, eventually. The British were stupid enough to try it twice. Three times if you count their involvement in the current anti-Taliban efforts.
War's a funny thing, for NeoLibs didn't fight in Vietnam. They were in college, avoiding that fight, maintaining their student deferments, like six-deferment Cheney and all the other NeoCons. They followed the cause-du-jour then and they do so now. They vaguely understand the Taliban is our enemy, but have no clear view of the Taliban as a symptom, not an etiology. Where they once clearly and correctly condemned America's long tradition of meddling in the Middle East and the ethos of anti-American hatred engendered thereby, now they attempt to parse away the Taliban pod from its Islamic plant.
Reagan's strong words were not matched with strong deeds: Reagan merely continued the madness of every administration before him, including Carter, who had first backed the Taliban.
The reality was clear to anyone who looked at the Middle East: a groundswell of generational rebellion in the Islamic world turned against the secular world and the aping of the Europeans. Its opening salvos were not in Palestine but in Egypt and Algeria. The NeoLibs do not understand the basic problem any more than the NeoCons did when they were in power.
I fear the NeoLibs even more than the NeoCons. The NeoLibs take up the cudgels for and against conflicts they do not understand. T