McCain and Saakashvili
October comes early? Sen. John McCain and Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili.

Let me also point out that this fellow Michael Klare is a third rate hack who has been peddling the oleaginous counterpart to the millenium bug for some years. It is contra-analytical, factually challenged, monocausal analysis like this that has reduced the left to its present irrelevance. Here is Robert Scheer on the neoconservative connection, the kind of details that the ‘left’ would much rather turn a blind eye on, but even he shies away from mentioning the Israel connection.

Is it possible that this time the October surprise was tried in August, and that the garbage issue of brave little Georgia struggling for its survival from the grasp of the Russian bear was stoked to influence the U.S. presidential election?

Before you dismiss that possibility, consider the role of one Randy Scheunemann, for four years a paid lobbyist for the Georgian government who ended his official lobbying connection only in March, months after he became Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s senior foreign policy adviser.

Previously, Scheunemann was best known as one of the neoconservatives who engineered the war in Iraq when he was a director of the Project for a New American Century. It was Scheunemann who, after working on the McCain 2000 presidential campaign, headed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which championed the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

There are telltale signs that he played a similar role in the recent Georgia flare-up. How else to explain the folly of his close friend and former employer, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, in ordering an invasion of the breakaway region of South Ossetia, an invasion that clearly was expected to produce a Russian counterreaction? It is inconceivable that Saakashvili would have triggered this dangerous escalation without some assurance from influential Americans he trusted, like Scheunemann, that the United States would have his back. Scheunemann long guided McCain in these matters, even before he was officially running foreign policy for McCain’s presidential campaign.

In 2005, while registered as a paid lobbyist for Georgia, Scheunemann worked with McCain to draft a congressional resolution pushing for Georgia’s membership in NATO. A year later, while still on the Georgian payroll, Scheunemann accompanied McCain on a trip to that country, where they met with Saakashvili and supported his bellicose views toward Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

Scheunemann is at the center of the neoconservative cabal that has come to dominate the Republican candidate’s foreign policy stance in a replay of the run-up to the war against Iraq. These folks are always looking for a foreign enemy on which to base a new Cold War, and with the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime, it was Putin’s Russia that came increasingly to fit the bill.

Yes, it sounds diabolical, but that may be the most accurate way to assess the designs of the McCain campaign in matters of war and peace. There is every indication that the candidate’s demonization of Russian leader Putin is an even grander plan than the previous use of Saddam to fuel American militarism with the fearsome enemy that it desperately needs.

McCain gets to look tough with a new Cold War to fight while Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, scrambling to make sense of a more measured foreign policy posture, will seem weak in comparison. Meanwhile, the dire consequences of the Bush legacy that McCain has inherited, from the disaster of Iraq to the economic meltdown, conveniently will be ignored. But the military-industrial complex, which has helped bankroll the neoconservatives, will be provided with an excuse for ramping up a military budget that is already bigger than that of the rest of the world combined.

What is at work here is a neoconservative, self-fulfilling prophecy in which Russia is turned into an enemy that expands its largely reduced military, and Putin is cast as the new Josef Stalin bogeyman, evoking images of the old Soviet Union. McCain has condemned a “revanchist Russia” that should once again be contained. Although Putin has been the enormously popular elected leader of post-Communist Russia, it is assumed that imperialism is always lurking, not only in his DNA but in that of the Russian people.

How convenient to forget that Stalin was a Georgian, and indeed if Russian troops had occupied the threatened Georgian town of Gori they would have found a museum still honoring the local boy, who made good by seizing control of the Russian revolution. Indeed five Russian bombs were allegedly dropped on Gori’s Stalin Square on Tuesday.

It should also be mentioned that the post-Communist Georgians have imperial designs on South Ossetia and Abkhazia. What a stark contradiction that the United States, which championed Kosovo’s independence from Serbia, now is ignoring Georgia’s invasion of its ethnically rebellious provinces.

For McCain to so fervently embrace Scheunemann’s neoconservative line of demonizing Russia in the interest of appearing tough during an election campaign is a reminder that a senator can be old and yet wildly irresponsible.

3 Responses to “Georgia War a Neocon Election Ploy?”

  1. Freeborn Says:

    Much of the soft left commentary on the recent conflict in Georgia has focussed on the US foreign policy angle.Coming to the fairly obvious conclusions that:
    (a)Russia was unduly provoked by a US-backed regime into its aggressive counter-attack
    (b)The US overplayed its hand and needs to go back to the drawing board because it has just lost a major round in the fight against its imperial competitor(Russia to wit)over who controls energy security

    However one can’t wondering what happened to the British in all this?

    The image of the passive poodle meekly following the
    US that was cultivated by left commentary during the Blair years obscured the far more aggressive impulse that has always characterised British defence and foreign policy elites.

    Few commentators noticed the way the British led the US in its drive to inflict a major Vietnam-like reverse against the Soviets in Afghanistan.Indeed few acknowledged that the whole idea of a US Arc of Crisis strategy across Eurasia as a whole came from British foreign policy elites before it was embraced by Albright and Brzezinski as key to their Grand Chessboard strategy.

    The Arc strategy evolved into the Zbig’s Rimlands strategy to penetrate and dominate Central Asia by a policy of fomenting tension in the Caucasus,and to manipulate the political evolution of such post-Soviet states as Ukraine,Belarus,Moldova and Georgia.

    The war in Georgia has its roots in the deadly Great Game of pipeline politics involving Central Asia,the Caspian,Afghanistan and the Balkans initiated by Albright and Zbig during the Clinton years.

    The Bush core foreign policy team and Cheney-protected neo-con network like Zbig before them is connected with its long-standing ties to Big Oil(esp.BP,Chevron) has taken up the reins of the same Anglo/Zbig global strategy.

    Yet,ingeniously the British hand in what has recently transpired in the Caucasus and brought us, according to some commentators,to the brink of WW3 remains nigh invisible.

    Thus it seems taboo to mention in polite circles that Gordon Brown’s current Sec.Gen.of the FCO Lord Malloch-Brown is a fairly conspicuous ally of the Soros OSI network that not only installed Saakashvili in the first place,but pretty much controls Democratic Party finance in the US as well.

    The British role in destabilising the Caucasus and promoting a US/Russia stand-off is mirrored further east in the role played by British intelligence and security elites in supporting the Xinjiang separatist groups in order to weaken China.

    The Islamist ETIM separatists are regarded by China as particularly threatening during the current Beijing Olympics.The group like many other Islamist groups has close links to British intelligence circles.

    Clearly the aggressive role that British foreign policy and financial elites have taken with regard to Russia and China might be a more fruitful field for analysts to mine than has hitherto been the case.Such elites have often led US administrations in foreign policy directions they have might have avoided as not being in America’s best interests had they given them more careful consideration.

    The current failed nuclear bluff against Putin in Georgia seems to have left Bush with egg on his face while the role played by Brown,Malloch-Brown and Soros in its instigation seems to have escaped any real analytical attention whatever.

    The focus on

  2. ladymae Says:

    The reason I found this article was in researching a link between Obama, malloch-brown and soros. Even more interesting is the CHANGE used in campaigns for Soros buddies when they have no intentions of any change other for themselves of more power and money. See piece from the article below. Mark Malloch Brown is a friend of Georgia’s President Mikheil Saakashvili and Obama frequently calls upon malloch brown and considers him a friend and George Soros creates McCain had something to do with this? How far will the left go to destroy the world and the people in it for greed? I haven’t quite figured out all the sources and reasons why this may have been done during election time to help Obama but I will. Maybe because Obama felt if he told them to play nice and make up they would and Obama would be the great unifier? It didn’t work did it?

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/562

    In February 2006 Mark Malloch Brown, then the UN Secretary General’s chief of staff, was interviewed by Claudia Rosett at the UN, and found himself increasingly furious at the line of questioning about his housing arrangements in New York. Malloch Brown had caused controversy with his decision to live on the smart country estate of George Soros, the financier who forced Britain out of the ERM in 1992, and a major donor to left-wing causes.
    One of the Brown government’s key selling points–part of its ‘change’ message–


Leave a Reply