Dangerous

by hilzoy

John McCain "My friends, we have reached a crisis, the first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War."

Steve Benen:

"Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. has fought (or is fighting) two wars in Iraq, a war in Afghanistan, and two conflicts in the Balkans. There have been multiple crises in Israel. There was a burgeoning nuclear crisis with North Korea. There is, and has been, a crisis in Darfur. There have been multiple, shall we say, tense moments between Pakistan and India, nuclear powers both. One could make the argument that the attacks of Sept. 11 were, themselves, a serious international crisis.

And yet, there’s John McCain, describing a regional conflict between Russia and Georgia as the first “serious crisis internationally” since the end of the Cold War. Do the other crises simply not count? Or does McCain not remember them?"

Two days ago, when McCain said that "In the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations," I dismissed it as a lapse. Since then, however, he's said similar things: a couple of days ago, for instance, he wrote a WSJ editorial that began: "For anyone who thought that stark international aggression was a thing of the past, the last week must have come as a startling wake-up call." Coming on the heels of those rather extraordinary statements, his claim that this is the first "serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War" makes me wonder: has something about the war in Georgia simply erased Iraq, Afghanistan, and 9/11 from his mind? What's going on?

I can think of a number of possibilities (which are not mutually exclusive):

First, it could be that McCain has some sort of policy analog of Attention Deficit Disorder: he focusses on one thing, but when something else comes along, it distracts him and he forgets about the first thing entirely.

Second, it could be that McCain's mind is stuck in the Cold War, and so for him the only crises that really rate are conflicts that involve the US and the Soviet Union Russia.

Third, it could be that McCain does not see anything we do as a crisis, an unprovoked invasion, etc. When he says "In the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations", he believes it, and Iraq doesn't register because, well, we invaded Iraq. Likewise, nothing we have done could possibly count as "stark international aggression." And while Iraq and Afghanistan are challenges, they are not crises: problems people need to figure out how to respond to, lest everything go to hell in a handbasket. Other people cause crises; we simply do what has to be done.

It should go without saying that any of these traits would be a complete disaster in a President. A President has to be able to hold a number of things in his head at once; to pursue objectives with patience, over years; to keep his various objectives in mind, and see how what he does in one area affects another that is of importance to him. A President with Policy ADD would not be able to do any of these things, and that would be really bad. A President whose mind was stuck in the Cold War, and who saw Russia as our great strategic rival, would be, well, wrong. Russia is a declining country temporarily buoyed by oil and gas revenues. It is not anything like as much of a challenge going forward as China, or the problem of dealing with failed states and underdevelopment. We need a President who can see these challenges and respond to them; not one whose mind is stuck decades in the past.

But the third might be the worst. We badly need a President who will try to reconstitute our moral authority in the world, and to undo the damage of the last eight years. To do that it is essential that that President be able to see the US as other countries see it, and understand how our actions appear to others. A President who simply assumes, without even noticing that he's doing so, that the rules that apply to others do not apply to us would not be able to do this.

This is serious. I'm not trying to score political points here. One way or another, the next President will have to deal with our shattered reputation abroad and the challenges, predictable and unpredictable, that the next eight years throw at us. We cannot afford to elect another President who really doesn't get these things. Anyone who thinks that the war with Georgia is the first serious international crisis since the end of the Cold War, or who can say, without apparent irony, that "In the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations", is just not up to the job.

***

UPDATE: Matt Y notes:

"It was just a little while ago that McCain was giving speeches about how “the threat of radical Islamic terrorism” is “transcendent challenge of our time.” Now Russia seems to be the transcendent challenge. Which is the problem with an approach to world affairs characterized by a near-constant hysteria about threat levels and a pathological inability to set priorities."

Josh Marshall:

"One of the great threats we face is the personal sense of grandiosity of the lead foreign hands who shape the course of our role in the world. Not national grandiosity, but personal grandiosity. Because if you're a foreign policy hand or political leader your own quest for greatness is constrained by whether or not you live in times of grand historical events.

There's a lot of this nonsense floating around today by pampered commentators who want to find a new world historical conflict to write bracing commentary about before we're done with the one from last week. But John McCain might be president in six months. And whether it's his own shaky judgment, temperament or just the desire to find a campaign issue, this loose cannon is a real threat to this country."

Comments

[Sebastian]

Dealing with Russia is like dealing with a nasty oil spill after the tanker is empty. Yes there is a lot of damage that can still be done, and things can be ugly if you fail to take the proper steps, but it is mostly mitigation.

China is much more dynamic, both for good and ill. But my bet for really dangerous is still all along the India/Pakistan border.

[publius]

I vote #2 - stuck in Cold War. I actually wrote a post and then saw you had beat me to the punch. But it's basically an elaboration on #2. And I completely agree with the ultimate implication -- it's very very dangerous.

In fact, all the other silly campaign stuff aside, this really gets to the heart of what's at stake this fall.

[cleek]

i think it's mostly option number one.

he's not that bright, he's easily distracted, and he's got WWF* which makes him go hyperbolic about the importance and urgency of anything that looks like it could involve guns.

and it's unbelievable that he still gets a pass from the press on this.

--

* WWF = Wingnut War Fever

[hilzoy]

publius -- post it anyways, or make it a long comment. I'm curious. ;)

[hilzoy]

My choice, incidentally, is "all of the above."

[Doctor Science]

All of the above, but the really dangerous part IMHO is #3, because that's the most widely-shared of his delusions. It's OK If American Does It.

[publius]

"all of the above" sounds about right too. but i think #2 and #3 feed each other. it makes you think you're at war with some evil hitler type force, while simultaneously blinding you to your own flaws (which continues feeding the good/evil, etc).

he also some really dangerous people in his foreign policy orbit (that suffer from these same flaws)

[ThatLeftTurnInABQ]

OK, I’m going to push back against the consensus here. I think there is a much simpler explanation for McCain’s choice of words. It is comprised of two parts:

1 – He assumes that the US really does need to (or will be forced to) confront Putin’s Russia, in a serious way which contains the potential for escalation to war.

2 – This is indisputably the first such confrontation since the end of the Cold War between two major powers who both posses large nuclear arsenals.

In other words, what has been lacking up to this point is a crisis which contains the potential (however small), of getting us all killed. And this one does have that potential, if it gets out of hand.

[ThatLeftTurnInABQ]

China is much more dynamic, both for good and ill. But my bet for really dangerous is still all along the India/Pakistan border.

what Sebastian said.

I'd throw in the Afghan/Pakistan tribal areas, and the Central Asian Great Game 2.0 (this time it's the oil!) as a bonus.

[(The original) Francis]

If you're willing to extend the frame a little and look 20-30 years out, I think that H2O resource wars as the Himalayan glaciers melt could prove really kind of exciting.

(for some value of the word "exciting". Avoiding water wars among nuclear powers will take deft management.)

[jm]

I think in one respect, it is an attempt to shape the dialogue on the issue. For one, by adding a sense of gravitas to it, he paints himself as the strong and forthright leader who we can "trust" in International Affairs. In turn, it then allows him to characterize other positions as "irresponsible" or "weak."

[Michael Drake]

"the first probably serious crisis...since the end of the Cold War..."

As distinguished from the *actually serious* crises.

[Nell]

Third, it could be that McCain does not see anything we do as a crisis, an unprovoked invasion, etc. When he says "In the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations", he believes it, and Iraq doesn't register because, well, we invaded Iraq. Likewise, nothing we have done could possibly count as "stark international aggression." And while Iraq and Afghanistan are challenges, they are not crises: problems people need to figure out how to respond to, lest everything go to hell in a handbasket. Other people cause crises; we simply do what has to be done.

This is not unique to McCain. I would argue that it is a point of view shared by virtually all members of the U.S. foreign policy elite, including most of those advising Sen. Obama's presidential campaign.

I'd be surprised (pleasantly) to learn that any members of the U.S. Senate have referred to our invasion of Iraq, at the time or in the five-plus years since, as "aggression", stark or otherwise.

[Ugh]

What Nell said.

[now_what]

Do the other crises simply not count?

McCain's wording was bad, but I agree with him here. This is a much nastier crisis than any of the others mentioned above, and the only one on the list that even begins to rise to the same level is India/Pakistan.

Comparing this to the excellent adventure in Iraq, for example, is just silly. The war in Iraq is dumb and damaging to America's image and military, but it holds no possibility of getting the world blown up.

[hilzoy]

Wow, I think Iraq is much more serious.

[now_what]

Care to explain why? What scenario do you see where the Iraq stupidity leads to a nuclear war?

I can see that happening in the situation with Russia. The US doesn't like what Russia does in Georgia, and takes advantage of that to close a deal with Poland on hosting weapons. Russia warns that installing the weapons systems is a provocation. The West ignores Russia.

That much has already happened. We're now about two stupid moves from finding out if NATO means anything.

What comparable scenario do you see with the Iraq mess?

[cleek]

This is a much nastier crisis than any of the others mentioned above,

no way.

this is like Falkland Islands crazy.

nd the only one on the list that even begins to rise to the same level is India/Pakistan.

they're both have nukes. it'd get seriously crazy, real fast if either one of them tried an actual invasion.

[bad Jim]

Iraq: perhaps on the order of a million dead, two million internally displaced, two million in exile. The only actual uses of nuclear weapons in warfare to date were substantially less lethal.

[Dan S.]

"Which is the problem with an approach to world affairs characterized by . . . a pathological inability to set priorities."

You know, the last 8 years of executive dysfunction disorder on a national scale (executive, indeed!) really has been enough.

[russell]

China is much more dynamic, both for good and ill. But my bet for really dangerous is still all along the India/Pakistan border.

Earlier today I would probably have agreed with you, but not now.

Thanks -

[Reality Man]

"This is indisputably the first such confrontation since the end of the Cold War between two major powers who both posses large nuclear arsenals."

What about the whole China spy plane incident and Taiwan's Chen Shui-bian almost dragging us into a war with China by trying to declare de jure independence?

There is a difference between broader US-Russia relations and the conflict in South Ossetia.