First woman president? McCain plays "Babe Card"

We see the vice presidential picks of of Obama and McCain as moving to produce a high voter turnout by energizing their "bases."

Obama tacks back to the traditional blue collar Democratic base with Sen. Joseph Biden. McCain tacks back to the right wing conservative Republican base with Gov. Sarah Palin.

(Examine a fascinating photo gallery of Gov. Palin's life.)

The message is clear. Traditional blue collar union Democratic types who were more comfortable with Hillary Clinton than with Barak Obama need not sit out this election. Evangelical right to life conservatives suspicious of John McCain need not sit out this election.

Nothing too much new here.....except John McCain has played this traditional card with a woman.

McCain plays his right wing "politically correct" hand with a charismatic, tough, rifle shooting "Babe." Obama plays the traditional union left appeal with a smiling, smooth talking, shirtsleeve Irish Catholic guy.

Is McCain's "Babe" competent or ideologically appropriate to lead the country if McCain "bites the dust?" That is another matter.

Never forget:

McCain's high stakes gamble will also energize into voting for Obama all those who think Sarah Palin as the nation's first woman president could be a disaster.

What is new here is the emergence into the political spotlight of what is quite "common" in America today: the right wing woman.

Ah yes. If McCain wins, we could have our first woman president, a right wing woman. Finally we "break the glass ceiling."

No, Virginia, not all American women went to Wellesley.

No, Virginia, not all American women are liberals.

Yes, Virginia, lots of American women can shoot.

No, Virginia, the liberation of women does not necessarily move America Left.

Would it not be ironic if the move to make "Hillary" the first woman president ended by making "Sarah" the first woman president?

Yes, Virginia, "breaking the glass ceiling" is not necessarily "a good thing."

War, media, and politics: "the first casualty is truth"

The preliminary casualty reports coming out of Georgia by human rights groups such Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch indicate relatively few casualties and no massive atrocities from the Russian invasion.

This could change.

Still we must raise the possibility cable news with its graphic content and the public relations strategies of the Georgian President Mikheil Saaskashvili, as well as the Russians, have grossly exaggerated the severity and scale of this war.

It is far from clear whether this was a brutal rape or a relatively careful punitive strike. Or a foggy mixture of something in between.

A grim propaganda war of videos alleging looting appears on YouTube. Some of the footage is BBC and CNN. Others is of unidentifiable origins, uploaded to YouTube by partisans of various stripes (be sure to check the emotional nationalistic comments posted with these videos). Here is one pro Russian YouTube upload claiming CNN used the wrong video to give a false impression Russian forces had occupied the Georgian city of Gori.

The propaganda war on YouTube appears aimed at youthful computer-savy viewers around the world.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch refrain from charging massive human rights abuses but point out Georgian civilians in occupied areas are vulnerable to abuse even after the current ceasefire.

Amnesty International has warned of continued dangers for Georgian civilians in Russian occupied areas and Human Rights Watch published a photo essay on looting and other trials of Georgian civilians.

The war may, indeed, be significant for its long term implications both in the region and on American politics. -- even though relatively minor in terms of human suffering. Time will tell.

"War, media, and politics"

We know that in the age of cable TV the presence of cameras can make even isolated violence appear as universal.

Conversely massive violence hidden from cameras and reporters makes it appear to have never occurred.

Taking a page from China: Russia teaches a "lesson"

When the US and the Czech Republic agreed July 8 to establish an anti missile program, Russia's Putin warned he would push back.

Now we have what is in some ways a quickly over "proxy war" between the US and a resurgent Russia. More fundamentally Russia's invasion of Georgia is a familiar great power tactic to ensure predominance in "its region" and send its rivals a message.

The expansion of American power into Russia's backyard after the end of Cold War made some kind of Russian reaction almost inevitable -- once its neighbors began to gravitate toward NATO and NATO pushed a dynamic move east to undermine Moscow's influence in the traditional sphere of Russian power.

A resurgent Russia under Putin decided when the time was ripe.

So now we have a Russian "punitive expedition."

Putin sent his message to Washington by invading this tiny American ally on Russia's border. Every nation bordering Russia must take notice.

The lesson is clear: don't mess with Russia, don't taunt a Putin, don't "Bait the Bear."

Beware of fooling around with the Americans. They cannot protect you. Especially when they are deeply involved with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ironically the weakened Russians have taken a page out of China's book. In February 1979, in a much more violent 29 day war covered by this writer, Deng Xiaoping invaded Vietnam to "teach a lesson" to that country that it could not depend on Soviet support for protection. A resurgent China sought to teach the Soviet "hegemon" a lesson.

Washington had pressured the Georgian leader Mikheil Saaskashvili (above) not to invade breakaway regions now aligned with Russia.

He did it anyway.

Giving Putin what he may have wanted: a "casus belli" to teach Georgia and the "West" a lesson. (See an article "Georgia, Russia took a path of belligerence and bluster" in the Los Angles Times on the origins of the war.)

Mikheil Saaskashvili, democratically elected. A brilliant, emotional, "in your face" man educated in America, the "darling" of several American politicians. Contemptuous of Putin. His army is American trained, parts of it assigned to Iraq.

Apparently confident his bond with the US would protect him, he launched his attack.

**************

Punitive expeditions are a well established great power tactic in dealing with defiant neighbors or troublesome governments in strategic locations. Especially if one's power is predominant in a region -- or not deterred by the power of another.

Smaller powers sometimes carry out punitive strikes, but it is the mark of a large or great power to claim the right and have the power to do this.

The trick of a successful punitive expedition is to make the point, inflict enough damage to deter future provocations -- but keep one's costs limited.

In the last few decades this has been a great challenge for both Russian and American policy makers: how to punish, intimidate -- without getting bogged down in maintaining a costly empire or military occupation. Or get involved in the costly enterprise of "nation building."

America is a frequent master of the punitive strike: from Panama to oust Manuel Noriega (1989); to Iraq to liberate Kuwait (1991); to Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban (2001); again to Iraq to ousts Saddam Hussein (2003). All were aimed at leaders or governments who dared to thumb their nose at the United States.

You don't mess with the Uncle Sam.

Look at some other examples:

Soviet expeditions to Hungary to oust Imre Nagy (1956); to Czechoslovaka to oust Alexander Dubcek (1968) -- then into Afghanistan to contain Islamic extremism (1979).

The Soviet expeditions went hand in hand with the costly enterprise of maintaining an empire.

The Russians haven't had a successful punitive expedition since 1968, although in the 1990's they did "win" two wars against rebellious Chechyna. Their ten year Afghan adventure ended in defeat in 1989.

China used a punitive invasion to teach Vietnam a lesson in 1979, with mixed but potent results. In 1962 China had launched another lesson against India when Indian armies marched north into region of Ladakh.

China's 1950 intervention in Korea as American forces moved toward its borders established there would be a steep price to pay when Americans played in Beijing's backyard. It was a lesson Americans listened to -- creating US caution in the war for Vietnam.

*******************

Punitive attacks often, but not always, lead to "regime change."

Regime change also is a well established great power tactic in dealing with defiant neighbors or troublesome governments in strategic locations. Especially if one's power is predominant in a region -- or not restrained by the power of another.

When Americans do regime change they justify it by accusations of corruption, human rights violation, irresponsible aggressive behavior. When Soviets did it they charged counterrevolution.

Now we have the interesting phenomenon of Putin using "Western" justifications in highly personal attacks on Georgian leader Mikheil Saaskashvili: that Georgia is carrying out genocide against its minorities, attacking peacekeepers, etc. Much the same arguments that Presudent Bush used to justify the invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

Russians have called for trying Saashkashvili on genocide and war crimes charges.

We now have the irony of Washington, so often using regime change against its own enemies, castigating the Russians for possibly attempting this in Georgia.

Aside from Saddam, the US did regime change against Manuel Noriega in Panama; sought to do it against Fidel Castro in Cuba; did it numerous times during the Cold War, for example against Jacobo Arbenz Guzman in Guatemala (1954); and against Mohammad Mosaddeq in Iran, 1953.

A controversial American regime change was its support of the coup which killed South Vietnam's Ngo Dinh Diem in 1963.