Will Obama follow the advice of Lord Roberts?

Will Obama bog down as the Soviets did with

their decade of occupation in the 1980's?

Or will he, like Britain's General Roberts'
expedition to Kandahar in 1880, push in
to "defeat" Taliban allied with Al-Qaeda;
then safely withdraw? Perhaps do

battle from "offshore?"

Is Obama the "imperial" Disraeli--

or the "moral" Gladstone?
Or somewhere in between?

Henry Kissinger joins the debate
Explore a diplomatic exit
Kipling's allegory: Ford O' Kabul River

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

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is reported warning that an increasingly powerful Taliban is gaining the upper hand.

In response the U.S. is changing its strategy in the eight-year-old conflict by increasing the number of troops in heavily populated areas like the volatile, historic southern city of Kandahar, the former capital of the Taliban and the present insurgency's "spiritual home."

(The same Kandahar General Roberts relieved back in 1880. See a "soldier's letter to a mother at home," penned from Kandahar before the days of email, for a vivid picture of just how brutal Afghan fighting could be.)

Lord Roberts' memoirs on the internet give a most graphic description of the challenges of defeating Afghan nationalists.

******

Hopefully Americans can refine their skills at targeted assassination, pinpointed drone bombings, even negotiating with potential Taliban allies.

American war aims, it is said, are limited: to destroy Al Qaeda, and kill and capture its leaders.

Yet this could become a "quagmire."

Let us hope for the best, but not be surprised by the worst. Sometimes, even the "the worst case scenario" becomes real.

So let us consider the alternative proposed by columnist George Will: to withdraw and target and kill enemies from offshore.

Knowing full well that great powers seldom scale down their objectives -- until after they "bleed."

******

This commentary by former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer suggests the current American strategy may be even more complicated than it seems.

He has warned that Americans may be tempted to follow the disastrous Soviet occupation policy of the 1980's rather than the successful conquer and then withdraw campaign waged by Britain's Lord Roberts in 1880.

Scheuer could turn out to be dated, totally off base. He could be right on target.

Obama must determine if there are alternatives to a costly "quagmire" of occupation and a massive expeditionary force designed to take the Taliban out.

******

Yes, General Roberts pulled back.

The move coincided with election as British prime minister of that Scottish moralist, William Gladstone, arch enemy of the man he defeated, Benjamin Disraeli, author of Britain's "forward strategy" in Afghanistan.

In his famous Midlothian election campaign Gladstone had rejected the "forward strategy." After warning of the dangers of entrapment and defeat as during the First Afghan War of 1839, he preached the Christian virtues -- and railed against the reprisal burning of Afghan villages for attacks upon British soldiers.

Afghan women and children, he intoned, also are human and should not be left starving in the snow.

******

Taking on proud Kandahar-based Afghan Nationalism

An Aljazeera correspondent on the road to Kandahar

US in Afghanistan: bearing "gifts" for other nations?

CBS' Lara Logan (above) reports on growing military challenges

******

U.S. Marines (above) pursue an elusive Taliban

We can expect several countries to, at least privately, welcome a growing U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan.

For some golden gifts may lie ahead.

Partly because escalation may help keep Islamic extremism from spilling into other countries.

Partly because escalation may help contain American "hegemony," unilateralism -- if the United States gets bogged down, "bled," overextended, "trapped" in Afghanistan.

Indeed the more "overstretched" the U.S. becomes, the more it could be forced to rely on co-operation with other nations -- and the less on unilateral supremacy.

Each nation which potentially benefits has the long term objectives described below. Whether American escalation actually brings such results remains to be seen.

There can be a downside if American pressure in Afghanistan and on Pakistan encourages Islamic extremism to destabilize Pakistan.

Growing fundamentalism in Pakistan could undermine an American/Pakistani alliance -- and even cast a threatening shadow over Pakistan's nuclear weapons arsenal.

Let's take a look at some possibilities:

******

1) In general, as the U.S. Goliath extends itself in another costly war, it will need to be extra sensitive to the needs and requests of a variety of nations around the world.

European countries may gain increased leverage over the U.S. as American military forces are stretched. The U.S. may need to make concessions on a variety of issues to secure allied support on military transportation and basing.

******

2) If Islamic jihadists flock to Afghanistan to defeat the U.S. there, that could mean fewer guerrilla and terrorist attacks in other parts of the world. With the U.S. largely footing the bill for battling the extremists in Afghanistan.

Jihadists flocked to Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union in the 1980's. They flocked to Iraq to fight the U.S. after the American invasion. Now they may flock back to Afghanistan.

******

3) Anti-American forces around the world, including Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Kim Jong-il in North Korea, can welcome stepped up American fighting in Afghanistan. They can take comfort in the reduced capacity of the U.S. to intervene in other parts of the world.

******

4) China may benefit from seeing a militarily extended U.S. less able to project power into the Pacific in support of American interests such as defending Taiwan.

China would also benefit if stepped up American action against the Taliban reduces the likelihood Islamic extremists can help Islamic separatists in China's Xinjiang province.

******

5) Russia could also benefit because the U.S. would be less likely to actively oppose Russian actions against rebellious nations such as Georgia and the Ukraine.

The U.S. may even need Russian cooperation against the Taliban. Hence the possibility of a less provocative policy toward the Kremlin, with less emphasis on tying former Soviet satellites into Western political and military alliances.

Russia also may benefit because U.S. action against Islamic extremists in Afghanistan could limit a spillover of Islamic extremism into Russia or other states on the Russian border.

The Russians cannot be very happy about an American presence in Afghanistan so close to their borders.

But they can take comfort since the U.S. intervention keeps Americans tied down and "bleeding" -- much as the Americans kept the Russian occupation in Afghanistan "bleeding" in the 1980's.

Putin will be happy if American power declines.

******

6) Iran may benefit because a larger Afghan war may leave the U.S. less free to commit attention and forces to contain Iran's efforts to build nuclear weapons.

U.S. efforts to secure international support in Afghanistan may limit its leverage to secure international support against Iran.

Washington may need to work extra hard to avoid war with Iran if it is to succeed in Åfghanistan. The Americans may be more inclined toward limited accomodation with Iran if that helps American operations in Afghanistan.

******

7) Iraq may benefit if it feels greater freedom to set its own policies even when opposed by Washington. This could include closer bonds with Iran. Fewer U.S. forces in Iraq as deployments shift to Afghanistan will mean less American influence in Baghdad.

An American effort to secure a friendly allied client state in Afghanistan may thus loosen the U.S. grip on its newly created client state in Iraq.

******

8) India can welcome stepped up fighting between Pakistan and Taliban, as increased US operations in Afghanistan drive more Taliban across the border into Pakistan.

Fewer Pakistan forces will be available to counter India if Pakistan is forced to deploy more troops against the Taliban in Pakistan.

******

None of these considerations is absolute or certain. All can be tempered or modified.

The big guy on the block: a recipe for eternal war?

It is the nature of defense establishments to conjure up enemies to justify healthy funding of military budgets.

Still every so often a real enemy does appear. If not, history shows, governments go out to make one. There is nothing like an external threat to justify a buildup of national power.

Fortunately for our military, America is the big guy on the block. "We" have plenty of enemies to challenge our power, to shelter our terrorist enemies, to develop nuclear weapons to oppose us, to thumb their noses in our face.

No need to make up enemies, as the above images of fighting in Iraq show.

Indeed it may be wise to avoid more shooting wars, for example against Iran and/ or North Korea....

Afghanistan and the remnants of Iraq should do nicely.

At least for now.....

While it can be great to have a weak enemy, such as Cuba under Castro or Panama under Noriega, four toughies at once can be a bit much.

Who knows? If we use our heads, two more wars might just be avoided. Some enemies can be isolated -- or even enticed into a dialogue.

But maybe not.

Being the world's only superpower can be a recipe for eternal war.

Tiananmen : seeing close how distant people hurt

The suffering at Tiananmen was brutal.

But limited compared to the vast violence and sufferings of China's people both before and during communism.

Still it was the first time the technology of modern international media made China's suffering so immediate, so close, so graphic. Perhaps it was the first truly globalized, video enshrined human rights tragedy.

And now, some 20 years after the "Tiananmen Square Massacre," both the US and China struggle with similar problems.

America's rust belt finally crumbles some ten years after China's uncompetitive state industries were put out to pasture.

China's pensioners were unpensioned...amid fresh competition from the coastal special export zones and the blooming of private hinterland industry.

Ironically the American auto industry finally collapses as free enterprises threatened by overseas competition seek a hope of rebirth under bankruptcy and government bailout.

America returns to regulation as China struggles with the consequences of letting the capitalist tiger out of its cage. China, too, has its re-regulation to do.

Despite its rapid modernization, China is plagued by unemployment, uneven development, uprooting of established communities, migrant workers, poor medical services, an aging population, corruption and environmental degradation. Not exactly a mirror image of the U.S., but with problems hardly unfamiliar.

Both nations boast an expanding gap between the rich and poor. Both pump in their "stimulus packages." Both face growing political instability if deep problems stay out of control.

Two nations locked in a needy financial embrace. Wealth, growth, boom and bust. And how to deal with possibly explosive frustration, discontent.

China bails out the American budget deficit by investing in U.S. bonds even as the prospect of declining American demands for Chinese imports potentially threatens China's economy. Even as each prepares for possible cyberwar against the other.

The United States is dragged down by its overseas military campaigns -- and by its runaway deficit expenditures, in part to please unhappy voters.

China rises as a world power but seems determined not to follow the American example of entanglement in costly military adventures.

Determined not to follow the path of decline set by Gorbachev's liberalizations and the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991.

The United States has its free and increasingly wild media which encourages a fiery exaggeration of every nuance of difference. Whether it be on internet, TV or radio screaming is the order of the day.

China keeps cracking down on free expression, keeping the lid on public argument. To damp down the resentments which massive change can exacerbate. America's model of polemical media has little appeal to an insecure government sitting on a mountain of potential public discontent.

Tiananmen Square's victims -- they died in part because China's government was determined to protect itself from the spread of both American and Soviet diseases.

Yes, in today's world "no nation is an island." We see how other people hurt.

And viruses still tend to spread.

Mouthing off - or well lawyered in the digital age?

The unsolved problem with newspapers weakening is who produces credible, costly content with some standards? And, who sues for "freedom of information" and does the investigative reporting? Who gets tough against the greedy -- as opposed to just mouthing off a cheapy opinion?

Despite the explosion of information and videos in new media, yes with everyone a "citizen reporter," without aggressive, well lawyered newspapers, the way opens for lots of governmental abuse.

Even a strong multi media web based Fifth Estate cannot easily do what a tough and ambitious well lawyered Fourth Estate could do.

On the other hand how many newspapers are well lawyered and truly aggressive? How many are simply into going along? Sending out reporters to keep things quiet, to give free publicity to local newsmakers, to local personalities of note?

Still it was interesting to see the BBC on line and on cellphone reaching out to "citizen reporters" in the Swat Valley of Pakistan and Srilanka for email feedback on military assaults there.

Everyone a reporter may sometimes shine a flickering candlelight on brutal armies.

We will soon see how all this plays out in Afghanistan.

So far we have no "citizen reporting" from underneath a drone --- or from a wedding party where a missile mistakenly takes out the bride and groom.

Empire's price: goodnight my friends, goodnight

This one needs little introduction. Say goodbye to some fifty of the American dead in Iraq, 2007. Remember those who survive:

Rediscovering the oh so obvious: the "empire" is us

For many years I have studied the expansionist hungers of America....and become convinced that it is a deep, sustained dynamic even when the men who lead it seem mature, civilized.

I believe my early 1960's Oberlin College education hid this, glossed over it. For in the "Cold War" were we not a democracy at war with the Soviet empire?

I learned of American expansion on my own, as a correspondent in the field and as a private scholar well outside of the establishment.

Long before the century turned -- and my 1960's University of California professor Chalmers Johnson discovered the obvious in his own "mavericky" way.

Going all the way back I felt a certain spiritual kinship with George Kennan, the moody, introspective diplomat and Soviet expert who functioned partly as a journalist.

A listener and a thinker, he gained wisdom from chatting even with "whores" on Berlin's streets when a diplomat there in the 1930's. After World War II he helped devise a strategy to "contain" the Soviet Union.

Then at some point he saw the military expansion so strong in postwar America -- and with his 1950's proposal for American Soviet military "disengagement" -- climbed off the train. For shelter in the embodiment of established, non frontier America, Princeton University.




Ah yes, the fist was often gloved, when the nation was weak or there was no need to show it.

But when challenged, the vengeful, expanding warrior came out. More than once there was "war without mercy."

And then the answer was often swift and violent -- as with Japan and Germany, as in Vietnam, as today in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Reagan drove the train all the way into the station in his bid to destroy the Soviet "evil empire."

He supported savage proxy wars in Central America and Afghanistan to "bleed" the Soviet Union.

For Reagan was a child of the heartland, even in his movies at peace amidst the savagery of American expansion and Indian resistance on the the frontier.

Deep in the American psyche has been a constant refrain.

To destroy those "evil empires" -- and be instead the white shining empire on the hill.

Moderation sometimes, but so often that dream born in religious zealotry, driven by financial greed, fueled by a sense of superiority, sometimes restrained by checks and balances. Often opposed by intellectuals and religious idealists.

How convenient to see Andrew Jackson and the Cherokee as an exception, the Mexican War as an aberration, the Spanish American War as an isolated product of "yellow journalists."

But a genius of America is that it is a democracy which can go all out when the need arises, to kill, to quickly move into the field vast amounts of men and weapons, open new overseas bases, to call the shots, to rebuild the world in its own image, even, God forbid, to torture.

Democracies can be expansionist.

Nothing wrong with that. Go for it, if you can.

Do not be surprised if it does not last forever. "Blows back" to bite.

Still, what emerges in its place might not be completely bad.

"Second Image Reversed:" fiction tells Afghan story

Peter -- Interesting that your 1978 article The Second Image Reversed on the impact of international politics upon domestic politics appeared while I was a journalist covering China. Both far removed from our days as college students at Oberlin College, class of 1963

I dimly perceived coming conflagrations as international politics spilled into nearby Afghanistan and into far away El Salvador, Nicaragua.

In our last century the domestic has rarely been separate from the external. War and its consequences have been the fire that so often blows back into the societies and lives of individuals. So it has often been with international financial cycles.

Intriguing that it took your well noticed article to drive such a simple point home to the erudite political science/international relations academy.

This century appears no different.

The impact of international rivalries on personal lives and national politics is beautifully illustrated by the Afghan emigre Khaled Hosseini.

It is no secret that the Soviet American Cold War rivalry devastated the people of Afghanistan.

Then that devastation "blew back" to turn American society into an aggressive militarized fortress after Al-Qaeda based in Afghanistan took down the Twin Towers in 2001.

Novelists are unconstrained by the sometimes rigid classifications of political scientists, historians, and journalists. They must be guided by experience, but also let their imaginations soar like kites.

Thus it was Harriet Beecher Stowe who broke the story on slavery and Charles Dickens who functioned as an investigative journalist poking into the dark shadows of class. And of course Mark Twain classically chronicled race in America.

Let us look now to the disintegration of Afghanistan as international competition turned it into a battleground of armies and guerrillas. Let us look now at a novelist's version of your "Second Image Reversed."

The film of Khaled Hosseini's The Kite Runner (Hardcover, Oct. 4, 2007) was partly made in Kashgar, Xinjiang, China -- my old stamping ground -- and the gateway to Afghanistan to the West. Equally illuminating of this part of the world is the same author's A Thousand Splendid Suns (Paperback, Nov. 25, 2008).



Cashing In: time to begin again, my sweetest friend

With the circle unbroken, home keeps moving on. But, yes, there is always time to begin again "a brand new dance between old friends." June Carter Cash and Johnny Cash.

Yes, there is always time, but sooner or later God's Going to Cut You Down. In the meantime, as "the outlaws" put it in The Highwayman, "I am still alive."

Hurt: "But what have I become, my sweetest friend? Everyone I know goes away in the end."

Riding the inauguration train: into a boring future?

Brooke,

I must sent you a birthday greeting, as your mother informs me you are riding your Special Train for your Inauguration into your 30th year.

The 30th can be historic, a jumping off point for growth, triumph, conquest, spanning continents, hunting buffalo, harvesting grain, mining gold.

I remember my own. It was 1871 -- and amidst the confused triumph of a great war ended there was a new century of hopeful unity ahead, grain to be planted, a racially liberated South to be reconstructed, a West to be settled as the Iron Horse spanned the continent and belching coal replaced the glittering clippers on the world's trade ways. Just years before the first trans Atlantic undersea cable ushered in a new age of Globalization.

There was even talk the US might take colonies abroad as it grew its gunboats and turned its attentions outwards.

Still, back then, few shared my concerns that a newly aggressive America might collide with a newly aggressive Japan over Hawaii and the Philippines in the 1890's and lead to global war 70 years in the future.

Your time is more predictable, no doubt with less change ahead.

As a gentleman from the old school I can only hope it will not be boring.

Happy Birthday

Fred

Thank you, Barack...Sarah, job well done!

Yes, it is true. I (born in 1941), who participated in the 1963 "March on Washington", used to call the tumultuous 1960's the "Second Civil War."

For our generation (whose civil rights activities helped begin the end of the Civil War) this election seems especially symbolic. It does also reflect the changing composition of the country, new voters, young faces. high tech networking, and the skills of a Chicago community organizer. And, yes, this is a grand, but not final step beyond 1865.

This is also a challenge to the "Black Community" to move onward, to move beyond being victims -- at a time where it is very difficult to rise up whether you be Black or White.

In observing those on the bottom here in North Carolina, whether it be Black or White I see repeatedly the "sacred threes:" poverty, self destructiveness, and trouble with the law.

The "saving grace" of those on the bottom has been perseverance, hard work, courage, humor, and an ability to manipulate the system's "welfare" benefits. At a time of economic decline switching from that to rise up WITHIN the system will be a major challenge.

There is a potentially deep conflict between uncontrolled Hispanic immigration and the poor already here -- even though for now a coalition of Hispanics and Blacks seem to have been key Obama supporters.

But low wage Hispanics are part of the globalzation threat to Americans on the bottom, already weakened by lack of unions and export of jobs....and no one dared talk about this in ths campaign.

Without some control on the importation of low wage immigrants (which transforms them from union busters to equal competitors) conflict lies ahead.

That will be an important political challenge for Obama --- because so many people benefit from cheap Hispanic labor, including Democrats who seek to buy their votes.

Lastly the next few years will depend heavily on interaction with the outside world, which is only marginally controllable.

Obama's intelligence may help protect him in the recurring patterns of power politics where good intentions often backfire. Still enormous challenges lie ahead.

History often honors American optimism --- but it is not in the nature of life to escape from future tragedy.

As one tragedy heals, we can expect others along the way. History may cheer, but there are always tears ahead.

Lastly, while we can praise the many changes which combined with economic meltdown to make this landmark possible, let us also give credit to Sarah Palin.

The prospect of this talented but flawed politician in the White House with her "First Dude" may have done as much as anything (aside from Obama's organizational brilliance and McCain's eratic behavior) to put a non Afro American "half white" Afro American in the White House.

Thank you, Sarah. Job well done.

America's "gift to the world:" just a bit of anarchy

Except in time of war or perceived external threat, the American tradition is quite often to go easy, to err on the side of anarchy.

It goes all the way back to the overthrow of oppressive British rule, to the tradition of no holds barred self reliance on the wild frontier.

This despite well established practices of regulation in areas of public health and food and consumer safety.

To err on the side of anarchy is a grand American tradition.

Right on up from the often dysfunctional family, the out of control schools, the polarizing passions over abortion and evolution, the loose regulation of assault rifles, the marginally regulated banks and mortgages, the out of control credit card expansion and the now notorious lack of regulation of high risk investments, derivatives of sub prime rate mortgages.

Anarchy in America is alive and well. Now it has been shared with the world.

American anarchy and opposition to regulation are grand components of today's global economic downturn.

Many products now bear on them the label "made in China."

Today's move toward global downturn bears the label "made in America."

For a time, at least, much of the world must view America as a big part of the problem -- no matter how much Americans prefer to see themselves as the solution.

For now in America no one seems to be in charge.

But other countries around the world are beginning to push for more
order in the US -- and for global co-operation to reduce the spreading
of American anarchy to other parts of the world.

Now, that's a switch......

"Change we can believe in?" -- Alexis meets Bob

In 1831 French writer Alexis de Toqueville visited the United States as a journalist to cover the McCain -- Obama presidential race.

He discovered too late that he arrived too early -- but decided to file his observations anyway.

They appeared in Democracy in America, 1835.

Since then, in the words of aging but ever wise rock star Bob Seger, "It's still the same" (click to listen). There has been little change we can believe in. Indeed, in America change seems to come "Against the wind" (click to listen). What will it take to "Turn the page" (click to listen)? "The answer's in the question" (click to listen).

Chapter XVIII

WHY AMERICAN WRITERS AND ORATORS
OFTEN USE AN INFLATED STYLE

"I have frequently noticed that the Americans, who generally treat of business in clear, plain language, devoid of all ornament and so extremely simple as to be often coarse, are apt to become inflated as soon as they attempt a more poetical diction. They then vent their pomposity from one end of a harangue to the other; and to hear them lavish imagery on every occasion, one might fancy that they never spoke of anything with simplicity.

"The English less frequently commit a similar fault. The cause of this may be pointed out without much difficulty. In democratic communities, each citizen is habitually engaged in the contemplation of a very puny object: namely, himself. If he ever raises his looks higher, he perceives only the immense form of society at large or the still more imposing aspect of mankind.

"His ideas are all either extremely minute and clear or extremely general and vague; what lies between is a void. When he has been drawn out of his own sphere, therefore, he always expects that some amazing object will be offered to his attention; and it is on these terms alone that he consents to tear himself for a moment from the petty, complicated cares that form the charm and the excitement of his life.

"This appears to me sufficiently to explain why men in democracies, whose concerns are in general so paltry, call upon their poets for conceptions so vast and descriptions so unlimited.

"The authors, on their part, do not fail to obey a propensity of which they themselves partake; they perpetually inflate their imaginations, and, expanding them beyond all bounds, they not infrequently abandon the great in order to reach the gigantic.

"By these means they hope to attract the observation of the multitude and to fix it easily upon themselves; nor are their hopes disappointed, for as the multitude seeks for nothing in poetry but objects of vast dimensions, it has neither the time to measure with accuracy the proportions of all the objects set before it nor a taste sufficiently correct to perceive at once in what respect they are out of proportion. The author and the public at once vitiate one another.

"We have also seen that among democratic nations the sources of poetry are grand, but not abundant. They are soon exhausted; and poets, not finding the elements of the ideal in what is real and true, abandon them entirely and create monsters.

"I do not fear that the poetry of democratic nations will prove insipid or that it will fly too near the ground; I rather apprehend that it will be forever losing itself in the clouds and that it will range at last to purely imaginary regions.

"I fear that the productions of democratic poets may often be surcharged with immense and incoherent imagery, with exaggerated descriptions and strange creations; and that the fantastic beings of their brain may sometimes make us regret the world of reality."

After filing on the McCain -- Obama race, de Toqueville decided to visit a Walmart.

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.