Ed FirmageNational Security
As we observe the fighting in Georgia, on the Russian border, we might remember just what NATO was all about. It committed us, by the treaty’s language at least, to an automatic trip-wire war with any state (read, the Soviet Union) that attacked any NATO member-state. The American Constitution gives the war power to the United States Congress. The only exception, an attack on the United States. Then and only then could our president respond, as Commander-in-Chief, even before Congress declared war. This automatic delegation of the war power to NATO, or now, the United Nations or NAT0, was why J. Reuben Clark, Jr., formerly the United States representative to all the arms limitation negotiations between World Wars I and II, and legal advisor to the Department of State, and later in the First Presidency of the LDS Church, was totally opposed to NATO, even as he was a staunch opponent of communism and the Soviet threat in Europe. He considered NATO, even then, composed as it was by Western European nations, a dangerous threat to our own national security by committing us to a war we didn’t want; or, now, to a war between peoples not even alive when the treaty was struck. Clark was called an isolationist. He wasn’t. He simply believed that the U.S. Constitution means what it says.
President Clark would feel confirmed in his opinion of NATO as we see the state of Georgia, directly upon the Russian border, seeking entry into NATO and this administration acting as if they already were in such a relationship with the United States and the West. Under no account would a sane administration go to war in Georgia on the border of Russia. Both Hitler and Napoleon know what happens to nations which invade that vast land of eleven time zones. Reverse the geography and we can better understand. If Russia, in alliance with Mexico and Canada, threatened us with war over a border dispute with either Canada and Mexico, the United States would feel hugely threatened. ( And a real role reversal would see the state of California, or Texas, breaking from our federation, and then border disputes between the U.S. and these former federated states, with Russia threatening to side with Texas or
California.) And geography would be on our side in case of war. But the point is, such a treaty would threaten our national security by, in effect, making war much more likely, rather than the maintenance of the peace.
We should look with great care as we encircle Russia with client states not even two decades from being in the federation of the USSR. Only by hubris beyond control would we promise to go to war over Georgia, or other states so recently under federation with the USSR. War should only be decided upon by the deliberation of the Congress of the United States. By no stretch of the imagination should a border dispute between a former state within the former Soviet Union and Russia be considered as if it was an attack on the United States. The Constitution forbids such foolishness.
Ed Firmage
Samuel D. Thurman Professor of Law, Emeritus; and the author of To Chain the Dog of War: a History of the Congressional War Power; and Zion in the Courts: a Legal History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, both published by University of Illinois Press.
August 17th, 2008 at 9:21 am
It doesn’t have to get more complicated than Washingtons’ Farewell Address, and his warning against foreign alignments and entanglements.
We cannot even get the major Nato players to go along with this foolish support of Saakashvili. They have signed energy contracts with Russia and have no interest in any disruption of supplies over some worn out phraseology about freedom and democracy. The bottom line is reality is taking precedence in the formulation of policy. Our “side” is being forced to see it, quite abruptly. Good thing too, speaks far better than rhetoric, tanks and air strikes that is.
There is no avoiding the fact that once again pressure in the US at the Federal level from Israeli and Jewish interests have been hard at work trying to get our big dummy of a country to destroy their enemies for them. In the case of Georgia, Israel companies would have liked nothing more than to have control of pipelines that provide gas and oil to Europe.
It hasn’t been going very well of late.
This pernicious influence is a severe problem in getting any evenhanded approach to any resolution of disputes in the Middle East and now in the greater Caspian basin. As I have told the more zionist motivated elements of the Israeli and Jewish people, if you trifle with Russia long enough, they have the means to vaporize your country. Think America will stand by you no matter what you do? Ask a Georgian.
It is not an idle thought. Russia has will and is not a patsy or complicit with western gaming in the region. The display of weakness in this last round of adventurism is so glaring as to embolden any with plans of ridding themselves of American influence.
The law of unintended consequences is taking hold fast, and it appears that no one that started out this mess in Georgia(neo-cons, a group full of dual passport American Israelis) looked any farther than past “victory” for their half baked schemes.
Watch for Hezbollah to apply themselves(the southern front in this “game”) now that the Anglo American, (with ankle biter, Israel) alliance is seen as weak and poorly led.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
“We are all Georgians now!”
Except for Ed Firmage.
August 17th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
One of the ironies of history is that the Soviet Union disappeared without ever attacking Western Europe, and NATO ended up doing things like policing the Balkans. The alliance went to war for the first time when the USA was hit by an enemy that didn’t even exist in 1949.
The Cold War is over for good. Russia and America ought to be strategic partners. NATO has outlived its usefulness. Georgian President Saakashvili screwed up royally, fell into a Russian trap, and now is going to have to allow self-determination to the people of Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Oh, and George W. Bush and his whole foreign policy team are screw-ups too, but we have known that for years. They should never have encouraged Saakashvili to believe he was a key U.S. ally.
August 17th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
I am comfortable enough with the idea that an attack on Norway, where my son now lives, or on Germany, where my more distant relatives live, should be considered as an attack on all the NATO countries, likewise for the U.K. and our traditional friends in Europe during the Cold War. Our cultures and economies are intertwined, and our destinies are linked, as they have been for over half a century.
I am not comfortable with South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Georgia being so treated. This has the feel of the Balkans and 1914, which is the last thing we need.
History will judge us poorly if we let the Cold War be rekindled over ethnic disputes in the Caucasus, about which we know so little, where our influence is highly limited, and where we have no vital national interests.
Russia could become a strategic partner, and we should work towards that goal as the opportunity presents itself. We certainly took our eye off that goal during the last several years. Provoking the Russian bear isn’t a particularly good idea. In fact, it could be disastrous.
August 19th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Hi friends Leo, Larry, cmwarnick and all. NATO ‘worked” during the Cold War in that the Soviets didn’t invade Western Europe. What the Soviets would have done without NATO we will never know. But the Marshall PLan helped already developed countries emerge from near total destruction from war.
This economic revival has been the real cement against Russian aggression. And as Leo noted, a common cultural and economic bond existed between most of the NATO partners.
Now, we have the chance for a much better world…much better than two hostile camps, both armed with nuclear weapons on the ready. Those weapons still exist. But the dangers of the Cold War no longer push nuclear states to go to war. Unless we blow this chance by thinking that military alliances trump education and political and economic well-being. That road leads to another version of the Cold War. Must we always have an enemy to define ourselves?
Again, in a multicultural world of today, I believe that economic aid to today’s hot spots in the Middle East will allow peace a chance. Build schools and medical facilities in those parts of the Islamic world in which we are now at war. This, world-wide, is more likely to bring peace, liberty, and democracy, in ways and with naturallly evolving versons of a democrratic state that the indigenous peoples will create. If we spent even 5% of our military expenses in Iraq and Afghanistan on their schools and their hospitals, our own national security and the quality of our own lives would be vastly improved.
Our world is no longer divided into two armed camps. We are not two scorpions in a bottle. Ours is not a zero-sum game, where harm to my enemy strengthens me. Much more likely a metaphor, in the world of nuclear weapons, or weapons of mass destruction of any sort, we are mountain climbers roped together. We don’t link up thoughtlessly. But in appropriate ways, we strengthen each other. All of us need good food, medical help, education. My security, and that of my own people, are strengthened insofar as peoples of the Middle East, and wherever else we have potential conflict, receive these fundamental necessities and political rights.
August 19th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Must we always have an enemy to define ourselves?
Yes Ed.
It has been clear to the elites that in order to exist as a parasite upon humanity and live high quality lives the underclass must be exploited. Not only does war fritter away the savings and dreams of the lower classes, it instills fear, the little death that brings total destruction, as is said in Dune.
Truly Ed, there is currently about no difference between the stance of Russia towards us now, than there was at any time during the Cold War. The only difference is the interconnected economy, and trade, all of which mean about nothing if nuclear war is engaged. Same as it ever was, just a few more bells and whistles these days for the underclass.
The continuance of Russia in fielding state of the art ballistic missiles, that cannot be stopped by any “missile shield” is well known to those who follow such things. The Topol SS-27 ICBM is such a device, and is now being manufactured and deployed in Russias’ arsenal. They have about 150, three nukes a piece, more than enough to charm any snake. The MIRV able warheads follow no ballistic path out of space, and the Russians themselves don’t know what path they will follow, they only know they will hit whatever target chosen. They are currently hiding mostly on giant ATV’s somewhere on the Steppes of Russia. Seeing as we only destroyed 7 of Saddams’ Scuds, out of 1500, it is pretty likely we have no shot at Russias’ Topols. We can’t fly over their country unchallenged like we did in Iraq.
Consider too Ed, that the elites are a bit perplexed about this problem of having 6-7 billion people on the planet burning through their resources. Depopulation is definitely in the plan of elites. Why foster economies when you really don’t want more people using stuff? War is an excellent way to control population while making a buck. If things are improved, they may well be improved for the wrong people, and that has consequences for our elites.
I refer to China, which our elites have had problems controlling, no reason for 1.5 billion Chinese to have a moped, or electricity? They are not environmentally friendly either in how they will go about this.
Hope this clears things up, if the last 35 (3500?) years hasn’t. War is endemic to the human species, any change in this would be unprecedented, and I too would welcome it. In the meantime, get ready, because it looks like the western elites are going to make just one more push, in attempting to take the resource hoard of Russia and the Caspian, most likely so China can’t get it. Russia, she has other plans, and is far better served by Putin, than we have been by our buffoons.
This is Brezinskis’ plan, as was the recent failure in Georgia, testing Russia so to speak. In addition, this will go on no matter who becomes our president, as Brezinski serves as mentor and foreign policy adviser to a one Barrack Obama. We know what to expect from McCain. Ponder that about Obama.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:26 am
All this talk of war with Russia is happening awfully close to our elections and Karl Rove seems to be suspected of involvement of some kind. I think we should drop the whole thing for a couple of months and concentrate on getting a Democrat in office as president. I’m mad at the Democrats for not fighting harder, but as soon as Obama is in office the entire face of the justice system will change. It’s obvious Bush has been packing the courts with high level attorneys of his choice and Karl Rove was involved there too. This has to stop right here and now. Republicans have no idea how to run a war or anything else.
August 20th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Larry, what you see in Georgia, is Obamas’ foreign policy under the direction of Brezinski. Clue in.
Forget about Rove, this affair is way beyond him, we done stepped in the Russian shitpile, and no one from any party is ready for that.
August 21st, 2008 at 9:55 am
Here is Brezinski in his own words. The freak almost sounds reasonable. He carefully avoids how he and others have carefully groomed Saakasvili to be useful idiot he became. We entering a much more dangerous time than dealing with “terrorists”.
This is Obamas’ foreign policy mentor, and adviser. He will run the show.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1832699,00.html
August 21st, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Yeah, I’m not happy that Obama is surrounded by advisers that will carry on some of the same policies of the last billion years, but I still think we’ll be much better off with a foot in the door then just having it slammed in our face for 8 more years.