Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
THE MCCAIN/PALIN POLICY ON RUSSIA IS THE OBAMA/BIDEN POLICY.
I don't think people should go hyperventilating about ABC News reporting that Sarah Palin said "war may be necessary" if Russia invades another country. For one thing, Obama's own (irresponsible, in my view) position that Georgia should be let into NATO implies a military obligation to preserve Georgia's security. Personally, I don't think NATO should be in the habit of letting in little countries that have a habit of starting wars with bigger countries that they can't finish without assistance, but that's just my childhood in D.C. talking. In my experience, that last person you want to be friends with is the little loudmouth dude who likes to start fights.
But this is Obama's policy. There is little daylight between Obama and McCain on this issue. Palin was repeating what both campaigns have said, if less artfully. There's plenty that's wrong with the McCain/Palin ticket, but if you're upset about this, you should be upset at Obama too. This is a general problem with the politics of foreign policy, where belligerent reactions are seen as Very Serious. But a disproportionate response to Palin's statement on Russia will likely undermine future substantive criticisms, so people should really just chill.
I shouldn't end this post without noting that Palin wasn't able to answer a question from Charlie Gibson about what "The Bush Doctrine" of foreign policy is. When asked the question, she shoehorned like a high school student who just got caught not paying attention. In addition, she seems to agree with Obama on the right of the U.S. to hit high priority targets in Pakistan, although to be fair McCain's position on this doesn't make any sense given his enthusiastic and premature support of war in Iraq. Maybe Palin just needs some more time memorizing her lines. Even if she does, that doesn't mean she's thought seriously in any way about foreign policy, and the vice presidency is not a pop quiz.
-- A. Serwer
COMMENTS (6)
Anyone with even a passing interest in foreign affairs is familar with the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war and her not being able to answer shows that she was prepped with some set talking points and has no real inherent understanding of the issues.
She is not ready to be a heartbeat away from the leadership of the free world.
Posted by: The Other Ed | September 12, 2008 9:46 AM
I so agree with you on the Georgia/NATO issue, Adam. Personally, I'm furious we are sending $1 billion to Georgia. They nearly dragged us into a war with Russia.
Georgia doesn't belong in NATO. It's not even in the North Atlantic, for chrissakes.
Russia just let us know via Chavez, how irritating it can be to have a huge country with ideological differences and a fat military parking over in your neighbor's driveway. I don't like it, and I completely understand why Putin doesn't like us in Georgia. We need to back off that.
Btw . . . Palin will not be dictating any foreign policy. Unlike the Obama/Biden ticket, she wasn't picked to shore up foreign policy, so it is no surprise she isn't any expert there. If elected, McCain will handle that, as the President should, and she will learn very quickly how it works. She was brought onto McCain's ticket for other assets, primarily her understanding of energy issues and her commitment to ethical reform. She wouldn't be VP in a vacuum.
Posted by: Ace | September 12, 2008 9:56 AM
Btw . . . in the scenario where McCain dies and Palin is suddenly President, wouldn't that make Nancy Pelosi VP?
That ought to make Dems feel better and it scares the crap out of ME!
Posted by: Ace | September 12, 2008 9:59 AM
I have a friend, a Russian-born Israeli citizen, who is convinced that Georgia is an evil, bullying little terrorist state and that Russia's invasion was entirely appropriate and entirely justified. I'm not willing to go that far, myself, and it's good to note that Georgia did not technically start this war. Russia gave the South Ossetian breakaway government an unconditional guarantee of protection which encouraged the South Ossetians to violate their ceasefire agreement with Georgia. Georgia's retaliation, knowing that Russia was backing South Ossetia and that the US is on the other side of the world and fighting two wars, was stupid but hardly surprising.
The big issue with Georgia (and other countries, Colombia and Israel come to mind as well) is that we appear to be writing our allies blank checks and telling them to do their thing and we have their backs. This isn't how actual alliances are supposed to work. Allies determine their common aims and work together to achieve them. Simply guaranteeing support to a smaller power to pursue its own goals, whether it's the US and Russia with Georgia and South Ossetia or the US and Iran with Israel and Hamas is foolish.
If the United States wishes to make allies of other nations, it must make it clear that they won't support their allies when they do stupid, counter-intuitive, counter-productive things that put the US in a no-win situation.
I'm not a fan of Ron Paul, but compared to the Bush-McCain agenda and the somewhat sketchy notion of collective security long advanced by the Democrats, Isolationism might be the better choice. We either need real collective security, or to stop bothering to collect allies.
Posted by: Eclectic Radical | September 13, 2008 11:42 AM
No, Ace, there is a constitutional amendment allowing a sitting President with no VP to appoint their own (Nixon appointed Ford under it, Ford appointed Nelson Rockefeller) subject to full confirmation of both houses of Congress. So if something happened to President McCain and we ended up with President Palin, we would end up with whichever Republican was least offensive to Congress as VP. Pelosi's standing in the succession would only come into play if President McCain and Vice-President Palin were both killed before a new VP was appointed.
Posted by: Eclectic Radical | September 13, 2008 12:14 PM
How's this? President McCain dies in office. But Vice-President Palin is forced to resign on corruption charges when a new shocking scandal comes forth from her Alaska days.
Hello, Madam President. I assume Nancy Pelosi would, as Speaker, become President.
Before Republicans get too gleeful over Sarah, they'd better consider some scenarios like that.
Posted by: How's this? | September 14, 2008 12:33 PM