Preparing for WWIII
Russia has invaded Georgia in a display of imperialism that hasn’t been seen since the USA invaded Iraq. We helped create this problem with the Russians by acting like we were the only power on the block for the past 7.5 years, but no matter. There are great dangers for the world in a Russia that thinks that it can act with impunity, just as our acts of aggression endanger us. Paul Krugman generally points out some of the similarities between the pre-WWI world and our own in his current column “The Great Illusion,” but he doesn’t go quite far enough.
In The Guns of August, Barbara Tuchman posited the following errors which led to WWI. Consider, if you will, the way in which these evaluative errors still exist today. Analysis by wikipedia:
Economic miscalculation. In Tuchman’s view, both European intellectuals and leaders overestimated the power of free trade. These individuals believed that the interconnection of European nations due to this trade would stop a continent-wide war from breaking out, as the economic consequences would be too great. However, this assumption was incorrect. For example, Tuchman noted that Moltke, when warned of such consequences, refused to even consider them in his plans, arguing he was a “soldier,” not an “economist.”
We are still listening to people who believe that the economic integration of the World will be sufficient to curtail any rush to war. But consider what has happened in Georgia with the Russian invasion, in Tibet with the Chinese intervention, and in Iraq with the U.S. invasion. Economic considerations don’t seem to have curtailed the violence. If anything, the fight for scarce resources has and will continue to be the cause or partial cause of several of these conflicts.
Unfounded belief in quick warfare. Except for a very few politicians (who were at the time ridiculed and excluded because of their views), all the leaders of the major combatants believed the war would be concluded in a matter of weeks, and by the end of 1914 at the absolute latest. Tuchman recounted the story of a British statesman who, after he warned others that the war might last two or three years, was branded a “pessimist.” This false assumption had disastrous effects, especially on logistics.
The idiotic idea of the quick and easy war is still current in the world. Look at the way the United States jumped into Iraq with the idea that there would be a quick victory and a successful conclusion. We have learned in the ensuing years that quick victories just don’t happen. The Russians will learn shortly that their foray into Georgia will not lead to a quick end to their problems.
Over-reliance on morale and the offensive. Tuchman details, in depth, how the leaders of the major powers, before the war, developed a philosophy of warfare based almost entirely on morale, a constant offensive, and retaining the initiative. Joffre, in particular, refused to consider going on the defensive - or even to slow the offensive - even when the realities of the battlefield demonstrated that this approach was not working.
This may no longer be applicable, but if we look at the march to Bagdad and the expectation of the rapid victory, it may in fact have guided out actions in the beginning of the Iraq War.
Failure to consider political backlash. Many war planners did not take into consideration the political and treaty-based consequences of their offensive actions. As Tuchman argues, the German leaders in particular refused to consider the consequences of moving their armies into Belgium, despite that country’s neutrality. Despite Moltke’s concerns, German generals insisted on moving through Belgium because they needed to maneuver. They failed (or refused) to realize that by invading Belgium, they effectively forced Britain to declare war because of existing treaties and national honor.
Here we have a classic that still applies. After Russia went into Georgia, the Poles signed a quick treaty with the United States that virtually guarantees that we will jump in to defend the Poles if they are invaded. The Poles, quite reasonably given their history with Russia after WWII, don’t trust their neighbors. We also have a treaty with the Czech as well. We may anticipate that the Western World will be choosing up sides in this matter and that could lead to War.
Outdated forms of wartime etiquette. Although the technology, aims, methods, and plans of World War I were drastically different from earlier wars, military leaders continued to insist upon a form of martial etiquette from civilians which increased resentment between the countries. To illustrate, Tuchman regularly quotes from the diaries of German generals who commandeered the homes and supplies of civilians. One recurrent theme within their diary entries was that they simply couldn’t understand why the property owners refused to fully cooperate, in line with past wartime courtesy. In a somewhat comical passage, Tuchman even quotes from a general who criticized the master of a Belgian house for failing to sit with him at dinner and observe proper mealtime etiquette, despite the fact that the Germans had violated his country’s neutrality, taken over his house, and stolen or destroyed much of his property.
This might not seem to apply today but we now have private quasi military contractors who kill people with impunity and without consequence in Iraq. Our arrogance in Iraq is at least equal to the behavior of the Germans in Belgium.
All things considered, the Western World is now in a situation very similar to what presented itself in 1914. The Russians are acting insanely nationalistic, as are the Chinese and the Indians. In Russia’s case, they were the second great world power for over half a century and they want their power position back. In the case of the Chinese and the Indians, both those countries missed the boat in becoming world powers, much the way the Germans had lagged in becoming a world power in the late 19th Century, and they are seeking to make up for lost time.
Economic integration will not prevent war and it is high time that we begin to respond appropriately. We need to rethink our entire World View, and we need to do it now. We cannot support the independence of Kosovo in the same year that we object to the independence of the two Georgian separatist regions, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. An inconsistent foreign policy could lead us into a new Cold War with the Russians, or worse! All told, this administration is going to leave a load of self-created problems for the new administration in January, 2009.
15. August 2008 at :
Joel,
I’ll give you this much. The way we approached Iraq in 2003 was idiotic. Our leaders sought a quick offensive, done on the cheap. The only goal was regime change. Instead what we got was a power vacuum, rushed to be filled with every jihadist and Islamic power broker in the Middle East. This was very, very poorly planned and we have lived with the consequences from 2004 through to 2007.
In 2007, we realized we screwed up and sought a change. Thus the surge and the immediate gains on both the battlefield and within the government. We are now at point of probably withdrawing from Iraq in 2009 (regardless of who wins the Presidency) and mostly likely effectively out of the country by 2011. We will maintain a military presence there, (regardless of who wins the Presidency) because we’ll want to ensure stability in this unstable part of the world.
But to say this is imperialism, well I disagree. Keeping permanent military bases in a country does not an imperialist nation make. If so, then I suppose we have imperialist intentions in Japan, Germany, Italy, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Philippines, among others. You and I could probably engage in an academic argument about whether or not military bases meant to extend influence are imperalistic or not. But I don’t want to stray too far from the main argument here: Russia.
Russia’s invasion into Georgia is motivated by two factors. One, Russia’s imperialist desires reaching back to the beginning of the 18th century. Two, Russia’s desire to rebuild the former Soviet Union to former a trading bloc.
Now we must examine why Russia would seeks to achieve these two ends. Again, I cannot recommend enough Peter Hopkirk’s Great Game books. Particularly today, it will fill in your knowledge gaps of what motivates Russia to expand its borders. Rather than say Russia is either a) motivated by the US to restart its imperialist agenda or b) threatened by the US because of defense contracts in Poland, I argue Russia has been provoked, and then coddled, by the misbegotten ideals of a Pan-European government. I argue that it is not the United States, but rather a liberalized Europe which is causing the great Bear to feel squeezed.
Yes, this idea runs contradictory to your main idea (the US is to blame), but hear me out. Where once its satellites buffered communist USSR against a free trading Western European bloc, today, the likes of Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia are members of the European Union. The European Union seeks, among other goals, to establish a single market for goods and services to flow free of tariffs and other trade barriers.
This free trade has been a boon to the European economy as a whole. Notice it is not the EU members picking fights with one another. It is rather a Russia that wishes to extend its economic influence (read: trading partners) to once subjugated nations.
This is one of the major reasons Russia first sought to expand into the nations of the Caucasus, Central Asia, far Eastern Europe, and the Pacific Rim (again, Great Game books). In the 18th Century, Russia sought to fight against England’s growing economic influence in India and increasingly Central Asia. In an unchecked England, Russia saw a nation building a world of trading partners, opening up its goods to new markets, which in turn would funnel money into its military machine. To counteract, Russia opened up new markets for its own goods. Markets such as Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Ukraine and Georgia. Eventually, czarist Russia crumbled into the USSR, which through military might maintained this large collection of nations and markets for centrally produced goods. One could argue the Soviet Union was nothing more than a closed trading bloc. Since it was so large and diverse, this is why it was able to exist as long as it did. That is until the rest of the world pulled together trading partners and created economies far superior.
Next, you say that the US signing a defense treaty with Poland is a bad move, and likely to provoke Russia to a greater degree. Further, you say this defense treaty would mean the US would jump to the aide of Poland in the event of Russian aggression. You are more incorrect than correct on this one. The missile defense treaty is a secondary treaty. Poland is a member of NATO and as such, would be guaranteed protection by the entire defense bloc should Russia attack, not just the US. And Poland is actually has a buffer between its borders and Russia (Belarus). One could argue Russia feels more threatened by the NATO inclusion of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, which border Russia, and Turkey, which controls the Bosporus and Russia’s outlet to the Mediterranean for its fleet in the Black Sea.
Plus, the United States missile defense shield is meant to protect Europe against projectiles flung from the likes of Iran.
Thus, it would seem in your desire to denounce US foreign policy, you have missed the most obvious causes of Russia’s aggression. Russia is not being egged on by the US, but rather is feeling encroached upon by the EU and NATO. It is the expansion of free trade and military defense contracts of European orientation that have angered and provoked Russia, not the US.
15. August 2008 at :
Thanks for your comments, but please consult my comment earlier this week from the movie “The Westerner,” regarding trusting rattle snakes. I have never trusted the Russian Bear and will never trust the Russian Bear. That country would have turned on us no matter who was the president, but the actions of this administration didn’t help our foreign policy objectives.
I don’t believe that I blame the US for creating this situation with the Russians, although we did unilaterally abrogate the ABM treaty early in the Bush administration, which was a slap in their face. What I hoped to point out in the comment was the degree to which the ideas and ideals current in Western Europe and America are wrongheaded to the same degree that the ideas in those areas were wrongheaded at the beginning of the 20th Century.
The major idea that is dead wrong, is that currently, especially in the US there is extant the idea that all people want to be democracies rather than autocracies or oligarchies. The Russians do not want a liberal democracy as their form of government and neither do the Chinese. Those are countries, or aggregates of what were once many different countries, that want strong autocratic leadership. We in the West are childish to think that our chosen form of government is wanted by every other country. This is one of the major failings of this administration; its leadership thinks that every nation wants to be a republic like the United States. It ain’t so!
As to your discussion of the defense shield and the Russian opposition to it, I must say in all candor, F–k the Russians. I like the idea of the shield, but not to protect us against the Iranians. What I had hoped to point out with my comments was that the action with Poland was almost certain to aggravate the Russians, which it succeeded in doing. What is most interesting is that we have finally gotten around to offering something to the Poles. When they had a revolt in 1956 the US, under IKE just sat on its hands and let the Russians do whatever they wanted to the Poles. We also sat on our hands when the USSR invaded Hungary to put down their revolt against Communist rule in 1956. Happily, we now have a pact with the Czech’s, whose Prague Spring of 1968 under Alexander Dubcek was crushed by the Soviets. I am waiting to see what we can do to make amends to the Hungarians.
The upside of all of this Russian bluster is that they are basing most of their new found strength on their oil reserves; when we go to alternate forms of energy they will be left with nothing to sell. They still haven’t learned to manufacture anything but those little wooden dolls that fit one into the other. That and their Vodka is all they produce (good vodka thought)
Russia is not all bluster however, as you point out, since Peter the Great and Catherine the Great the Russians have fought with just about every country that was on their border and defeated them. They may want Georgia because they won it long ago and want it back to secure their complete access to the Black Sea and through it the Mediterranean. Incidentally, we didn’t buy California, we took it from Mexico, as we did Texas, which means that almost 40% of our population lives in places we conquered. I don’t think that they did all this for economic reasons. They want power, plain and simple and they want to control other peoples. That doesn’t sound nice, but it is true. If you look at Russian history, which is very confusing to say the least (ask Matt about that) you can see that there is more than economics in conquest.
As to the Europeans aggravating the Russians, well, we get along pretty well with the Europeans so let them aggravate the Russians. Still, I wouldn’t count on their backing us too far since they use all of that Russian Oil.
Remember this, the Russians weren’t going to help us with the Iranians no matter what we did in the Middle East. The Russians are out for themselves and only themselves. They have no grand illusions of making the entire World over in their image.
As to the rest of your points Eric, I don’t really disagree with you. Sorry about that, I know how you like to fight.
15. August 2008 at :
All this Russia talk has ensured that the “Find a Russian beauty” ads will have a permanent place on American Madness.
16. August 2008 at :
Dad, Paul, Eric, are we all forgetting something here?
The Soviets gave us theKalashnikov, that’s not something you just sweep under the rug, so show some gratitude.