The View From 1776

Global Pressures Outpace Military Funding
By Jeff Lukens

As the leader of the free world, the United States has a responsibility to lead. This has been our reality as a nation since the 1940s. As such, we need a well-funded military. Today, however, our military forces are desperately in need of recapitalization and modernization. We have been on a “procurement holiday” since the end of the Cold War, and catching up will be expensive.

During the 1980s, the active duty Army had 18 combat divisions. Since 1994, there have been only ten. In that same time, the number of tactical air wings in the Air Force has fallen from 37 to 20; and the Navy has been reduced from 600 ships to less than 300 today.

Our defense budget hit a postwar high of 14.2% of GDP in 1953 during the Korean War. At the height of Vietnam in 1968, it was 9.5%, and it was 6.8% in 1986 at the height of the Reagan buildup. In 2000, defense spending reached the lowest point on 3.0%. Today, seven years into the Global War on Terror, we are still spending a paltry 3.7% of GDP on defense.

Our procurement needs will, if anything, grow in the years ahead. For example, our primary air-supremacy jet, the F-15, is old, metal-fatigued, and coming apart. Stress cracks from age and overuse are causing them to crash. Many were built before the pilots flying them were even born. Now, one-third of all F-15s are either grounded or headed to the scrap yard.

The Air Force consists of roughly 6,000 aircraft, and is replacing approximately 60 piloted aircraft per year. You don’t need to be a math wiz to figure out that it will take 100 years at that rate to modernize our air fleet.

The need for increased military funding, however, does not stop there. Long term, we may need to station 30 to 50 thousand troops in Iraq as we have done in Germany, Japan and Korea. Yes, we are going to be there a long time, and it is vitally necessary no matter what Democrats are saying. When a quarter of the world oil flows through the Persian Gulf, we need to be there to take care of business when things go haywire.

The entire world economy rests precariously on the flow of oil out of that region. That part of the world is already a hotbed for extremism, and Russia and China are meddling there too. Deploying troops overseas in large numbers is expensive, but it is vitally necessary we have a presence there. Moreover, we need a larger Army to ease the deployments of individual soldiers to manageable levels.

Iran in particular is a problem that no one wants to face, but hasn’t gone away. Contrary to last year’s National Intelligence Estimate, Iran did not stop its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Instead, they are working overtime to make a nuke, and when they have one their tone will noticeably change. Tehran will then be able to threaten its neighbors, including Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Iraq, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may finally be able to carry out his promise to annihilate Israel.

With our commitments around the globe and the rising strength of would be adversaries, our Navy could soon be stretched beyond its capability as well. Trans-Pacific trade surpassed trans-Atlantic trade in the 1990s, and will continue to grow in the years ahead. US Naval strength is essential along key trade routes to keep world peace.

The Asian export powers - China, Japan and South Korea - all are among the top economies in the world. In each case, however, their dependence on energy and other raw material imports, and access to overseas markets for their exports, have grown beyond their military reach. The need for secure resources and market access drive them, and especially China, away from their natural inward focus toward a more proactive international involvement.

And, still, our military challenges keep coming. Russia may be slipping back to the bad old days of the USSR. Washington’s challenge, in sum, is to transition our alliances and military capability to meet these ever-changing economic realities and military threats of the 21st Century. One thing for sure, current budget limitations severely restrict the Pentagon in meeting these needs.

The United States will be hard pressed to make up the lack of funding of its military since the end of the Cold War. With the growing pressure of entitlement spending on the federal budget in the years ahead, restoring military funding to adequate levels becomes an even greater challenge.

Naturally, our resources are limited and must be used wisely. Although our NATO allies would rather push responsibilities off on us, perhaps we should step back in places like Kosovo and other places in Europe. The Cold War is over and they can handle these places for themselves.

Korea is probably another place that needs a plan for a drawdown of ground troops as well. In recent years, Korean defense policy and capability has seen a significant shift with South Korean forces taking a larger role in defense of their peninsula.

Perhaps the current economic stimulus check we are receiving courtesy or the US Treasury should be spent for more ships, planes, and tanks—and for more troops. At least then, our country would have something to show for it. But such is the lack of foresight in Washington. Seeking votes long ago replaced responsible governance for most politicians.

When we inadequately fund our military, we plant the seeds of future conflict. Strength begets peace just as weakness begets war by would-be aggressors. When the inevitable crisis comes, we may be forced to pay in blood and treasure many times over what we could have paid today with sufficient military funding.

Jeff Lukens is a Featured Writer for The New Media Journal and a Staff Writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc., a non-profit (501c3) coalition of writers and grass-roots media outlets. He can be contacted at http://www.jefflukens.com

Tom Emerson, a professor at Carnegie-Mellon University, sent me the following information, which appears to be authentic.  The author of the commentary is unknown.

You can check Defense Manpower Data Center for your self.


Whatever your politics, however you lean, however you feel about the current administration, this report should open some eyes. 


Military losses, 1980 through 2006


As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the following statistics: 
 
The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006: 



1980 .......... 2,392 (Carter Year)
 
1981 .......... 2,380 (Reagan Year)
 
1984 ........ 1,999 (Reagan Year)
 
1988 .......... 1,819 (Reagan Year)
 
1989 .......... 1,636 (George H W Year) 

1990 .......... 1,508 (George H W Year)
 
1991 .......... 1,787 (George H W Year)
 
1992 .......... 1,293 (George H W Year)
 
1993 .......... 1,213 (Clinton Year)
 
1994 .......... 1,075 (Clinton Year)
 
1995 .......... 2,465 (Clinton Year) 

1996 .......... 2,318 (Clinton Year)
 
1997 ............ . 817 (Clinton Year)
 
1998 .......... 2,252 (Clinton Year)
 
1999 .......... 1,984 (Clinton Year)
 
2000 ..........1, 983 (Clinton Year) 

2001 ............ . 890(George W Year) 

2002 .......... 1,007 (George W Year)
 
2003 .......... 1,410 (George W Year)
 
2004 .......... 1,887 (George W Year) 

2005 ............ . 919 (George W Year)
 
2006........ ...... 920 (George W Year)
 
2007........ ....899 (George W Year)

 

Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,000 deaths 


 
George W years (2001-2006): 7,932 deaths 
 


If you are surprised when you look at these figures, so was I. These figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Bill Clinton’s presidency; when America wasn’t even involved in a war!   

And, I was even more shocked when I read that in 1980, during the reign of President (Nobel Peace Prize winner) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities!  I think that these figures indicate that many members of our media and our politicians will pick and choose the information on which they report.  Of course we all know that they present only those ‘facts’ which support their agenda-driven reporting.  But why do so many of them march in lock- step to twist the truth? Where do so many of them get their marching-orders for their agenda? Obviously there is one shared agenda, and I believe it is clear it comes from the most powerful Democratic family of the decade.   

Do you want further proof? Consider the latest census, of Americans. It shows the following FACTS about the distribution of American citizens, by Race: 


 
European descent .......... ....... ........ 69.12%

Hispanic ............ ........ ....... ......... .. 12.5% 

Black ............ ........ ....... ......... .......12. 3% 

Asian ............ ....... ....... ......... ........ 3.7% 

Native American .......... ....... ............ 1.0% 

Other ............ ........ ....... ........ ........ 2. 6%


Now… Here are the fatalities by Race; over the past three years in Operation Iraqi Freedom: 
 


European descent (white) .................. 74.31% 

Hispanic ............ ....... ....... ........... 10.74% 

Black ............ ........ ....... ......... ....... 9.67% 

Asian ............ ....... ....... ......... .. .....1.81%
Native American .......... ....... ............ 1.09%
Other ............ ........ ....... ......... ....... 0.33% 



I was surprised again. . .until it became clear to me that the point here is that our mainstream media continues to spin these figures (for political gain). Nothing more.
 
It’s all about politics and some politicians, are now famous for turning American against American for a vote.  (Consider Slick Willy and his comments just recently made about South Carolina, Jesse Jackson, and the ‘blacks’ voting for the ‘black’ candidates); or Hillary’s stump speech after her Super Tuesday ‘victory’ stating that the current administration does not ‘listen’ to anyone and continues the war costing precious American lives. Yes, I might even agree with her, but she should be made to acknowledge her own husband’s administration, without having an actual war, sent more soldiers to death during his regime-while also forcing the military to release Osama when we actually had him detained.   

I hope that during the time between now and November, that intelligent Americans can decipher the facts from the spin and the spinners from the leaders; those who seek even more power from those that seek justice, the dividers from the uniters.   

Read Obama’s War, by Peter Wehner, on the Commentary Magazine website.

In addition to the variance between the facts and what Senator Obama repeatedly proclaims in his campaign, there is much reason to question his judgment.

A couple of metaphors spring to mind. 

Senator Obama, when details of his record are examined, turns out, like the Great Oz in the Wizard of Oz movie, to be not a great and powerful figure, but just an ordinary little man with a big megaphone.  Another image is the chameleon changing its coloration depending upon the circumstances in which it finds itself.

Moscow Update: Russia Resurgent, Robust, or About to Go Bust?
By Robert W. Stapler

Three things have recently brought Russia into sharp focus.  First is the rising price of oil and Russia’s growing importance in the supply chain, second is Time Magazine proclaiming Putin ‘Person of the Year’, and third (for me personally, and most intriguing) is an oil-investment company alleging Russia is deliberately driving up the cost of oil.  Few of us give much thought to Russia these days, so my initial reaction to this last item was ‘these guys have got to be exaggerating to push a sale’.  Russian market manipulation can’t be as much a factor as dwindling OPEC production, hurricane damage, and that Chavéz clown.  But, what if it’s even partly true, I thought.  This aroused me to revisit our old adversary; wondering what new tricks (or old) they may be up to.  To evaluate Russia and Russians (and why they drive us so crazy) requires an understanding in five parts: Russian character (culture), politics, global & local economics, foreign-relations, and military capacity.  These are significantly interlocked, making analysis of one dependent on the others.

Aspects of Russian Culture

Key to understanding where any one participant may lead is how willing their base is apt to follow.  The most effective leader, in any country, is one who takes his people exactly where they wish to go.  In the case of Russians, this is clouded by conflicting political desires and tensions.  Mainly this tension is between Russians demanding Westernization as against a spiritualized variant of nationalism.  We westerners have always been critical of our leaders, and second guessing them has become our national sport.  In Russia, criticism remains far more veiled (both from long habit and governmental discouragement), excepting Russians are free to agree and rally behind their leaders.  This results in top-down policies with all the appearance of grassroots support (does have enough support to be sustainable for long periods), despite setting goals that are often unrealistic, xenophobic, nationalistic, contradictory, and/or renegade.

Whereas rule of law and reciprocal dealings are articles of faith with us, in Russia (where rules abound, and everything is subject to bureaucratic interference), rule-of-law is held in contempt while highly fluid ethical codes are deemed a matter of justice.  Russians are conditioned (through centuries of absolutism) to look after themselves and immediate circle first, leaving it to others to look after themselves (despite long touted collectivist rhetoric and ideals to the contrary).  These explain how, in the 1990s, during the breakdown of order, so many ordinary Russians readily adopted Mafiaesque behaviors.  This is the same national characteristic we saw in the Soviet Union’s earlier dealings with us; and remains a trait in Russia’s dealings with other nations.  Not that we (Westerners) don’t share these traits; only our society is more relaxed, conditioned by a long tradition of liberty.

Andrew Kuchins at CSIS describes the political culture thus: “Russia today is a hybrid regime that might best be termed “illiberal internationalism,” … From being a weakly institutionalized, fragile and … distorted proto-democracy in the 1990s, Russia under Vladimir Putin has moved back in the direction of a highly centralized authoritarianism, which has characterized the state for most of its 1,000-year history. But it is an authoritarian state where the consent of the governed is essential. Given the experience of the 1990s and the Kremlin’s propaganda emphasizing this period as one of chaos, economic collapse, and international humiliation, the Russian people have no great enthusiasm for democracy and remain politically apathetic in light of the extraordinary economic recovery and improvement in lifestyles for so many over the last eight years. The emergent, highly centralized government, combined with a weak and submissive society, is the hallmark of traditional Russian paternalism.”

It is natural to think all that was oppressive in Russia under the Soviet Union was an expression only of communism, and that its modes of thinking would be swept away without it.  But, what if that is only partly true and a good deal of what we perceive as behaviors ascribable to an ideology was, in fact, part and parcel of the Russian psyche, impressed on Russians through millennial conditioning.  Perhaps we have it backwards, and Russia co-opted communism as an ideology already conformable to Russian notions of governance.  If so, we must go farther back to learn how Russians perceive us, changes to their way of life, and likely reactions.

http://www.und.edu/dept/lang/russian/162/culture.html
http://www.russian-victories.ru/ - example of Russian chauvinism
http://englishrussia.com/?p=1137 – versus more realistic portrait of Russians

History

Russian history, outside oral traditions, is not as old as the rest of Europe and consists mainly in standing in the path of invasions, competing with neighbors for resources, and struggling to maintain cohesion.  Russia has been successively invaded by Huns, Goths, Moslems, Vikings, Cossacks, Mongols, Poles, Tatars, Lithuanians, Turks, Germans, French, and Nazis.  Russia lacks easily defended or well defined borders, and is surrounded by historically hostile neighbors.  It is not the most invaded nation, but it is the most invaded nation aspiring to super-power status.  This background is critical in shaping Russian thinking, with the obvious conclusion Russians, whenever able, will seek to extend their borders, assert their identity, and increase their reach.

Politics, Policy, and a Return to Party Domination

Heritage Foundation’s take (Dec-07) is Russia is moving away from constitutional democracy and the rule of law and is increasingly anti-American; and, there appears to be considerable agreement between both conservatives and liberals this is the case.  The current elections are a sham with a controlled outcome that leaves Putin in charge beyond his legitimate term.  Russia’s heir apparent, Medvedev, is a hand picked Putin crony, with no independent base from which to operate, who must remain loyal on Putin.  Additionally, Medvedev, may remain Gazprom’s chairman, perpetuating the corruption Putin builds on.  Other indicators of this shift include a number of politically motivated beatings and murders, surge in ‘nationalist’ groups, breaking-off arms talks, threats to U.S. allies regarding defensive weapons, new restrictions on the press and sources of information, and changes in election laws that make a mockery of representation. 

Russian democracy enthusiasts generally view the shift with disapproval, but little real concern.

Lack of dialog with the West may partly be our distraction with terrorist, but is also deliberate policy by the Kremlin signaling a sea change in our relations.  For its part, Russia blames us for the breakdown in talks over of our unwillingness to sacrifice space-based and anti-missile defense systems on the alter of arms-negotiation, a capability Moscow still regards as a threat despite access to the same technology and manifest inability of these devices to more than rouse a devastating response.  This is the same complaint made by the USSR in the late 1980s and has no greater validity today.

United Russia Party, with Putin at its head, has taken the lion’s share of representation and is the second most strongly socialist party in Russia.  It is packed with corrupt former Communist-Party operatives, who have made fortunes since the breakup, and now wish to consolidate their positions. Despite the strong association with communism, United Russia’s elite might be better compared to pre-Nazi Germany’s Industrial Junkers.  Hereafter, Duma deputies (representatives) will be chosen from party lists in proportion to votes cast rather than individually elected as before.  Many smaller parties and all independent candidates are excluded from running by exclusionary restrictions and state-run vote-fixing.  This not only invalidates the purpose of voting by denying direct representation, it ultimately undermines legitimacy through reduced voter involvement.  Soon (and this is the point of the policy changes), the small parties will be absorbed or disbanded until there is once again one party rule.  It is not fueled by the old ideology, but it is the same tendency to state-rule.

Russian Economy Too Dependent on Oil & Gas

The Economist reports a mixed picture for Russia. 

Russia, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan have agreed on construction of a gas pipeline intended to circumvent the EU’s efforts to diversify its energy sources.  In a bid to reinvigorate investment, bidding of oil and gas fields may be opened back up to foreigners, but Putin’s recent track record is still discouraging many from taking the plunge without sufficient safeguards.  Foreign investment since 2004 has significantly declined from a combination of shrinking return on investment, heavy taxation of production, and asset seizures.  Growth in domestic demand remained strong in the 4th-Qtr 2007, despite tighter liquidity, probably due to strong private consumption slowing the decline in investment.  Real GDP growth has slowed to just over 6% per year, an indication the Russian boom is peaking and growing imports (with only moderate export growth) are likely to reduce current-account surplus to 2.6% of GDP by 2009.  Inflation is at 10% and increasing; with high energy prices, strong capital inflows and fiscal loosening fueling the inflationary pressure.  Industrial output growth has slowed to 4.7% year on the year in November 2007 while Consumer prices increased by 1.1% in December, pushing up end-2007 annual inflation to 11.9%—a significant increase on inflation of 9% at the end of 2006.  Public spending is at its highest in 18 years. Russian businesses have generally become less competitive, probably a result of Kremlin influence.  Economic relations with the West have also deteriorated as a byproduct of Russian foreign policy and military ventures. The global credit squeeze is also having some impact on Russia.

Energy accounts for 25% of Russia’s GDP, with 4/5ths representing exports and a positive trade balance.  This makes Russia extremely dependent on oil and gas for economic viability.  While the oil and gas last, Russia can act the tiger, but what will happen once production wanes and ordinary Russians see a return to scarcity?  Already there are indications Russia has been over-producing and cannot sustain present levels.  Moreover, the Kremlin is making claims to Arctic oil beneath international waters in what may be a desperate bid to stave off crisis.

Russia and Its Neighbors

Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia and Turmenistan ( http://www.cfr.org/publication/12327/russias_energy_disputes.html ) have all been subjected to strong-arm tactics (election interference, military maneuvers, assassinations, and gas disruptions in a Kremlin controlled maneuver to squeeze higher energy revenues out of its trading partners.  All four countries have been forced to restructure existing contracts, doubling the previous price of natural gas they receive and cutting the prices they charge Russia for gas transmission.  Belarus is now paying $100/1,000 cubic meters of gas following a Russia threat to cut off its mid-winter gas supply, much as it did to Ukraine last January.  This tactic has elicited some international protests, but does little to thwart Russian economic aggression.  Belarus did threaten Gazprom’s use of its pipelines in retailiaton (20 percent of Russian natural-gas flows through them to Western Europe), leading Russia to temper its demands.  Additionally, Belarus has conceded a 50-percent share in its state-controlled pipeline network to Gazprom.  Ukraine conceded a 5-year contract for gas at $95/1,000 cubic meters.  Much of the gas delivered to Ukraine originates in Turkmenistan, which is cheaper but is transited through Gazprom controlled pipelines.  Russia accused Ukraine of siphoning off its Europe-bound gas and succeeded in wresting guarantees from Ukraine against future siphoning.  Turkmenistan has some the world’s largest reserves of natural gas.  Russia and Turkmenistan have just signed a three-year deal to continue Turkmen gas deliveries via Russia, but Moscow worries a new Turkmen regime may diversify its energy routes other than through Russia (e.g. Iran, China), weakening a virtual Russian monopoly.  Georgia had a price dispute with Russia wherein Gazprom threatened to cut off its supplies, but reached a settlement of $235/1,000 cubic meters. Other incidents include the arrests of four Russians for spying and a Russian boycott of Georgian spirits.  Gazprom’s price hikes have prompted both Ukraine and Georgia to seek alternative gas suppliers.

Russian activity
in the Middle East is, once again, becoming a concern for the U.S.  Russian arms sales to Iran and Syria and its efforts to legitimize Hamas made U.S. efforts to broker an Israeli-Palestinian settlement more difficult.  Russia’s delay in supplying Iran with nuclear materials and its willingness to consider sanctions against Iran can be read either as U.S.-Russian common interests or a gesture to Arab states unhappy with a nuclear-Iran.  Russian-Israeli relations are at their lowest since the mid-1980s as a result of Putin policies, including arms sales to Syria (much of them used by Hizbollah in its 2006 war against Israel), supplying a nuclear reactor and SAM’s to Iran, and support for Hamas (an organization dedicated to Israel’s destruction).  There has been a drop-off in Arab support of Chechen rebels that can only be a result of Russia’s support against Israel and in keeping the U.S. off balance.  Putin has put considerable effort toward strengthening commercial ties, including securing Arab investment, with a number of Middle-Eastern countries.

Russia’s economic integration with the EU has stalled and is frustrating Russian big-role aspirations.  Russia has been encouraging its former republics to drop out of NATO agreements and is intimidating former European satellites to drop their defense plans it views as a threat.  The EU has become heavily dependent on Russian oil and gas, but is understandably reluctant to trust a humiliated but still unabashedly aggressive Russia.  Some, however, are more concerned how Europe may react than how far Russia may push the envelope.

Russian Military and Weaponry

Military estimates:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/intro.htm, http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Russia/index_5148.html http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/russia/weapons/gendevs.htm

Russia has significantly increased defense spending since 2002,
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mo-budget.htm

and has begun asserting itself within its old spheres of influence.  Both its former internal and external clients are under pressure from Moscow to give way to Russian interests and demands.  Russia, as a fraction of former Soviet Union, may now have as much spending capacity as in 1990, the year prior to economic collapse.  Military spending has jumped 600% since 2002.  While this is far from the SU spending levels of the mid-1980s, it is more sustainable as a percent of Russian GDP.  So, the question becomes, is Russia rebuilding its military and to what purpose?  Not all are convinced this is enormously significant; including some who believe Putin is on the way out.

Even so, all recognize Russia is pushing for a larger role.

In ‘Russia steps up bomber exercises near Alaska’, ‘Is Russia back to Cold War mind-set?’ Military Times notes an increasing number of challenges by Russian aircraft reminiscent of the cold war, and in ‘Russian Navy Turns Up Heat’ NewMax describes combined naval/air exercises with the principle objective of demonstrating Russian capabilities and reestablishing Russian presence in the North Atlantic (also see Russian bombers to Test-fire Missiles in Atlantic). http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL2235954320080122?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews

Moreover, Russia is developing a new generation of smart-missiles with the stated purpose of evading American anti-missile defenses; as well as some new mobile strategic ballistic missile systems. 

A little saber rattling may not mean much.  However, the Kremlin has been increasingly belligerent regarding the placement of anti-missile defense systems among its former clients, and has threatened to take military action against them.  Just how far they’ll push this is yet to be seen, but it has already caused the Czech Republic to have second thoughts.  Since the mid-1990s, Russian doctrine has been to use nuclear weapons only in self-defense.  Putin has now reinterpreted this doctrine suspiciously similar to Soviet doctrine wherein nukes were to be used extraterritorially, preemptively, and defending allies or interests.  The question then arise, against whom and why now?  If this not just about the missiles in Poland and Czech Republic (entirely defensive and no threat to Russia), then what is the objective?  The way Russia will interpret this doctrine is very different than we’d prefer it interpreted; including a right to intimidate former clients into granting concessions as it has done in Georgia, Ukraine, and Belarus.

– Bob Stapler (rstapler@aceweb.com)

Alternate and Outdated Analyses – But Well Worth Reading

Putin’s Decline and America’s Response, Aslund Jan-05
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/9010-2.cfm Jan-05
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/9229-18.cfm Aug-05
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/9227-23.cfm Aug-05
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/2007-224-23.cfm Oct-07
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/2007-261-5.cfm 20 Dec-07
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/2007-264-33.cfm 26 Dec-07
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/2007-264-34.cfm 27 Dec-07
Russian Resurgence, Mar-07
Russian Parties are Inching Forward, Jan-03
Russia the constant colonizer – call by a Russian to ‘recolonize’ lost territories
Assessment Russia is assertive, manipulative, and actively undermining American security, though not a direct threat, 1Qtr 07
Russia’s near future can be no worse than under Czar Nicholas I - opinion Putin has been both lucky and inept; assessment, Nov-07

Additional Readings and Background Information

Dec-2000 - Russian demographic trends

Russia Watcher - numerous articles

Putin policies are killing investment

Jan-08 – Russian News Agency, reprint of Daily Telegraph analysis discussing Russian military policy

Jul-07 where Russia may be heading

Politics_of_Russia & Russian_politics

List of recent political murders, attempted murders, and suspicious deaths:
Andrei Kozlov, Alexander_Litvinenko, Anna_Politkovskaya, Roman_Tsepov, Boris_Berezovsky, Altynbek_Sarsenbayev, Anatoly_Trofimov, Paul_Klebnikov, Aleksey_Pichugin, Sergei_Yushenkov, Yuri_Shchekochikhin, Ivan_Safronov, and Three Whales Corruption Scandal (possible victims).
Recent Assassinations Shake Confidence in Putin’s System

Comments on what motivates Russian culture/politics (by a Russian)

Soviet writer worldview, 1927

As the odds increase that Senator Barack Obama will become the Democratic presidential nominee, we should take a serious look at his announced foreign policy tactic of no-preconditions, personal meetings with the leaders of Iran and other enemy states.

This diplomatic summitry, so much in vogue with liberal-progressives, is another example of what British socialist Graham Wallas called the liberal fallacy.  Liberals, said Mr. Wallas, reflexively assume two fallacious things: first, that their intellectual analysis leads to the only rational conclusion on issues, and, second, that once explained to the rest of the world, everyone else will readily endorse liberal-progressive positions.

Thus Senator Obama, whatever he personally believes, plays boldly to the liberal-progressive faith that all international conflicts can be amicably settled through personal meetings of national leaders.

That approach is unlikely to be recommended, even by the liberal-progressive apparatchiks of the State Department.  The intransigent problem is that national interests often present zero-sum games in foreign relations. 

For example, if Iran desires to dominate politics in the Middle East, it cannot allow the United States to stabilize Iraq and to maintain a strong military presence there.  If the United States and much of the rest of the world have a literally vital interest in maintaining full access to Middle Eastern oil, they cannot permit Iran to dominate the Middle East and pull neighboring Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait into their sphere of influence.

In such situations, only the credible threat of economic and military retaliation provides sufficient leverage to negotiate effectively with jihadists.  Abandoning that threat and walking into a summit conference with only a sweet smile and the promise of “change” is likely to be unavailing.

Michael O’hanlon, in an op-ed article published in today’s Wall Street Journal, explains more fully why that is so.  Mr. O’hanlon, by the way, is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a left-leaning DC think-tank.

For additional background discussion, read:

“Sensitivity" in Foreign Policy

Dipomacy is Not a Popularity Contest

Foreign Policy Realism

Liberal Foreign Policy Laid Bare

Misunderstanding Alliances

In medical practice, failing to diagnose an illness correctly will make curing the illness a matter of chance and may doom the patient.

By the same token, political leaders and commentators who doggedly dismiss the inherent nature of Islam as the motivation for jihad are imperiling our national survival.

Read Christopher Geisel’s City Journal review of Faith, Reason, and the War Against Jihadism: A Call to Action, by George Weigel.

Some quotes:

I recently attended a briefing by a U.S. Air Force colonel who declared that the current terrorist threat had “nothing to do with Islam.” Such well-intentioned statements appeal to political correctness at the expense of meaningful understanding…

In Faith, Reason, and the War Against Jihadism: A Call to Action, Catholic theologian George Weigel presents the War on Terror as an existential and generational conflict between the free world and radical Islamists—representatives of “jihadism,” a militant branch of Islamism that seeks “nothing less than a global Islamic state.” Weigel rejects the claims that jihadism is the result of American foreign policy, Third World poverty, or actions taken by the state of Israel. Instead, he identifies the historical and theological roots of jihadism in the early Muslim world, providing a brief summary of Islamic history from the early days of Muslim expansion and the development of political Islam through the birth of Wahhabism and the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood right up to Osama bin Laden’s “global jihad.”

Weigel sharply criticizes professionals in government, the media, and the academy who trace modern notions of democratic freedom to secular influences, and who therefore believe that the solution to Islamist extremism must be the secularization of Muslim societies.

Visit MoveOff Network Members

In the “Best of the Web” feature of the Wall Street Journal, James Taranto writes:

Jimmy Carter’s Lust and North Korea’s Nukes


On Wednesday, we linked to the famous quote from Jimmy Carter’s November 1976 Playboy interview, in which the soon-to-be-president admitted, “I’ve looked on a lot of women with lust.” This line is still good for a laugh after 32 years, but reader Gayle Trotter read the longer quote and had a thought-provoking insight:

I’m too young to have remembered the Playboy interview the first time around. I had always thought he was just being humble and the press had blown it out of proportion.

When I read the interview for the first time this week, I was struck by how the roots of his current accommodationist philosophy were evident even in 1976.
In the interview, he takes his own presumably slight failings in one area (lust) and uses that as an excuse to justify antisocial behavior by others. He says, “But that doesn’t mean that I condemn someone who not only looks on a woman with lust but who leaves his wife and shacks up with somebody out of wedlock. Christ says, don’t consider yourself better than someone else because one guy screws a whole bunch of women while the other guy is loyal to his wife.”

Doesn’t he do the same with North Korea, et al., today? We, the U.S., have slight failings in certain areas (pick one of the liberals’ favorite causes like “social justice"), and because of our failings, the North Korean dictators have the justification to continue to develop nuclear capabilities, starve their people, and suppress religious liberty and the free press. Where is the prophetic voice condemning the terrible behavior? Carter is too busy making sure he doesn’t condemn anyone.

Time reported contemporaneously on the interview under the assumption that Carter was simply pandering to the kind of man who reads Playboy. Yet it really does seem to shed some light on Carter’s worldview more broadly, and on liberal sanctimony more generally.

Carter focuses on one particular sin--pride--and suggests that it is more problematic than lust or even adultery. In this telling, we all are subject to lust, even Jimmy Carter. Some of us succumb to it, and some do not. If you are one of those who do not, it is a sin for you to think that makes you a superior man.

So far, so good. But the Carter of the Playboy interview does not measure up to his own standard. He begins by acknowledging his own lustfulness, but then describes a hypothetical man who “leaves his wife and shacks up with somebody out of wedlock” and one who “screws a whole bunch of women.” Carter’s protestations notwithstanding, there is no escaping that this comparison is highly favorable to him.

Why does Carter feel it necessary to contrast others’ reprobate behavior with his own relatively innocent conduct? Not, he asserts, because he thinks he is better than anyone else, but precisely because he thinks he isn’t. Not only does he live a sexually upright life, but he isn’t proud of it. He wants everyone to know that he has risen above the sin of pride. But that proves that he has not.

Carter’s formulation of morality is entirely self-centered. For his purposes, the adulterer and the lothario exist only as instruments, enabling him to display his own ability to be nonjudgmental. What does not figure into Carter’s equation at all is the wife and children the adulterer betrays, or the string of women the lothario uses. It is a morality in which intention counts for everything and consequences for nothing.

This is where the analogy to a certain kind of liberal foreign policy becomes clear. The idea is that America (or another Western country, usually Israel) is not perfect, and therefore has no business passing judgment on the affairs of its adversaries. All nations, like all men, are predisposed to sin, and the greatest national sin of all is for a dominant power to exhibit pride. By this reasoning, it is morally worse for an American leader to call (say) the regimes of North Korea, Iran and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq “evil” than it is for those regimes to undertake actions that deliberately hurt or endanger innocent people.

When applied to public as opposed to private morality, this kind of above-it-all attitude, this self-regard masquerading as humility, provides an excuse for inaction in the face of evil. To be sure, sometimes inaction is a wise course, because available actions would only make matters worse. But this is a practical question--one of consequences, not intention.

To make the perfect the enemy of the good, to make a principle of responding to evil with inaction, is a dangerous way to approach the world. That should have been the lesson of the Carter presidency. It is a lesson American voters would do well to keep in mind as November approaches.

The devastating stagflation of the 1970s gave us the highest rates of inflation in the nation’s history, coupled with high unemployment.  The cause was Presidents Johnson and Nixon opening the Federal deficit-spending spigot for the liberal-progressive Great Society in the mid-1960s and keeping it open into the 1970s.

As gasoline prices soared to compensate for inflation, President Nixon imposed price controls in 1971.  President Carter left them in place. 

We got record-high gasoline prices and shortages of gasoline.  People were compelled to sit in sometimes hours-long lines at gasoline filling stations, hoping to reach the pumps before the station ran out of gasoline.

Not until President Reagan took office in 1981 were price controls lifted.  The Federal Reserve, with Reagan’s backing, curtailed the money supply and finally halted inflation.  That brought world oil prices back down and ended our gasoline shortage.

The message is that oil prices go both ways: up and down.

For the past couple of years we have endured a somewhat similar surge in oil and gasoline prices, induced this time by inflation and dollar devaluation, together with growing demand in China and other Asian markets and the threat of Al Queda and Iranian terrorism in the Middle East oil production territory.

Russia, as a major oil producer and exporter, has enjoyed a resurgent economy, supported hugely by high prices and high demand for oil.  The danger is that, when oil prices next collapse, Russia’s economy may crater.  If that happens, there could be a return to the iron-handed dictatorship of the Soviet era.

In that regard, read City Journal’s review of Collapse of an Empire: Lessons for Modern Russia, by Yegor Gaidar.