Barack Obama picks up the phone. "Georgia? What do the Russians want with Atlanta? We need to step back, remind ourselves that there are two sides to every story, examine our own role in provoking the Russians to this incursion and in the meanwhile treat our Russian guests with mutual respect. This no doubt reflects our broken immigration process; I want everyone to remember I attempted to fix the immigration bill by trying to add an amendment to reinstate unlimited family-chain preference over those unfair Republican efforts to prioritize on individual merit criteria of job skills and experience."
Of course, I'm spoofing Obama here. First of all, it is not my intention to politically exploit the tragic circumstances of Russia's unprovoked invasion of its smaller neighbor. Russia is providing a sham justification for its invasion, arguing "genocide" against citizens of one of its breakaway provinces (South Ossetia and Abkhazia). [Charges of mistreatment of purported citizens have precedence for justifying military action, e.g., Germany's rationale in initiating WWII.] Pro-Western Georgian President Saakashvili had been baited for weeks by Moscow-backed Ossetian rebels raids and artillery shelling and launched a crackdown in the provinces. Within hours of the Georgian forces overtaking the South Ossetia capital, the Russians countered with a massive troop invasion and air combat, not only routing the Georgian military out of the South Ossetia but opening up another front in Abkhazia and an incursion into Georgia proper, all but cutting Georgia into two. It's clear from the nature and extent of the Russian response that this invasion had been planned for some time; the Ossetian rebel activities served as the bait for the Russian trap.
The real story is that Russia has been unnerved by Saakashvili's overtures to the European Union and NATO and Georgia has alternative Black Sea ports for energy pipelines. It has increased defense spending , has taken strong exception to what it sees as EU/NATO expansion into its traditional sphere of influence, in particular anti-missile bases in Poland, and is unhappy over Western support for Kosovo independence vs. its traditional ally, Serbia. Russia is more direct in taunting Washington with its use of Cuba as a fueling station for its military.
However, the way that the three leaders, McCain, Bush, and Obama, have differently approached the Georgia crisis is instructive.
President Bush once again got caught off-stride with a deer-in-the-headlights moment that Michael Moore captured in his propaganda film, Fahrenheit 9/11, and inexplicably repeated in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. How in the world can the President remain at the Olympics, even while Prime Minister Vladimir Putin scurried home to man the crisis just in case the tiny Georgian military outmaneuvered the overwhelming Russian military and decided to march on Moscow [sarcasm intended]? The President has not been well-served by his public relations and political advisers; unlike the Democrats, they seem clueless about public perceptions and political spin.
The reason why President Bush's reaction here is relevant is there are striking similarities with Obama in terms of lack of prior military and foreign policy experience, and to a certain extent, they even share projections of interpersonal dynamics into international relations. For example, Bush was once quoted as saying he had looked into the eyes of Putin and saw in his soul a "straightforward and trustworthy" man.
On the other hand, McCain, during the Republican primaries, noted, "I looked into Mr. Putin's eyes and I saw three things - a K and a G and a B." (a rather blunt reference to Putin's past in the brutal Soviet intelligence agency). Unlike Obama, McCain has been to Georgia before and has met with Saakashvili in person. He's reacted to the threat for exactly what it is, insisting on a tough response with our European allies to Cold War-style Russian domination and intimidation of neighboring countries, equally aware of Russia's unilateral claim to vast oil and gas properties in the Artic Circle and European dependence on Russian-produced energy.
Obama's initial response had two curious missteps. The first was his curious statement: "Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full-scale war." This is rather odd given: (1) Russia invaded Georgian territory; (2) the disproportionate nature of the Russian response.
The second was an odd echo of the Obama campaign with a Russian criticism of McCain's chief foreign adviser, Randy Scheunemann, whom was a past lobbyist for Georgia, implying a vested interest and anti-Russian bias. This seemed to be a rather obvious "divide-and-conquer" Russian play on US politics. For years, the Democrats have attempted to use the term "lobbyist" to imply undue influence by business on GOP lawmaker opinions, while not using the same term to describe representatives of their own special-interest groups. It doesn't work against McCain whom has made "straight talk" and no earmarks distinctive characteristics of his political persona. The fact of the matter is that John McCain has been a consistent, longtime supporter of Georgian democracy and independence and has been to the region and met with its incumbent president on multiple occasions.
