Ukraine: U.S. hawks regain their voice

By Bill Schneider
March 21, 2014

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression is having an unintended effect on U.S. politics. It is generating a backlash against America’s retreat from world leadership.

That retreat was itself a backlash against President George W. Bush’s overextension of U.S. military power in Iraq and Afghanistan. Putin’s actions spotlight the consequences of America’s world wariness. Internationalists in both parties are expressing alarm about the shrinking U.S. role around the globe.

Republican hawks, long on the defensive after the war in Iraq and the missing weapons of mass destruction, have found their voice again. They are attacking President Barack Obama as weak and feckless. Even some Democrats are calling for a tougher response.

They point to Ukraine, where there is no evidence that U.S. sanctions are forcing Russia out. To Syria, where the Obama administration drew a “red line” and then had to back down. To Egypt, where the United States seemed powerless to influence events.

“There are no consequences when you defy what Obama’s telling you to do,” Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on CNN, echoing a growing chorus of criticism.

Last month, Obama warned the Russian government, “There will be costs for any military intervention in Ukraine.” Russia intervened, the United States imposed sanctions and Russians responded with mockery. “I think the decree of the president of the United States was written by some joker,” Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dimitry Rogozin tweeted.

When there is no direct threat to the United States, Americans fall into a pattern of complacency. That’s what happened in the 1990s — the interwar period between the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the 9/11 attacks in 2001. When Obama threatened missile strikes in Syria last fall, the public rose in revolt and Congress effectively blocked military action. Now Russia threatens the post-Soviet order in Europe. But Americans see no communist threat and no threat of radical Islamic terrorism. “There is still a path to resolve this situation diplomatically,” Obama said on March 17.

The problem is not Obama. Bush responded with similar caution after Russia invaded the former Soviet Republic of Georgia in 2008. In fact, the sanctions that Obama has now imposed are stronger than those imposed by Bush in 2008. And Russian troops are still in Georgia. The problem is that, after two unpopular foreign wars in the last decade, Americans are wary of military involvement abroad.

Foreign policy was Obama’s strong suit in 2012 — in part because of the raid that took out Osama bin Laden. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney got no traction when he argued in the third 2012 debate, “Nowhere in the world is America’s influence greater today than it was four years ago.” Russia’s aggression in Ukraine appears to back up Romney’s criticism. And encouraging others to denounce U.S. weakness.

During the Cold War, hawkishness was bipartisan. A Democratic president, Harry S. Truman, committed the United States to an activist policy of world leadership after World War Two. The Truman Doctrine was devised in 1947, at the beginning of the Cold War. Washington pledged to lead the free world in containing the spread of communism — using military intervention if necessary.

By the 1960s, the Truman Doctrine had become Democratic Party orthodoxy. When it led to the tragic blunder in Vietnam, however, the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party rose up and repudiated it.

The Reagan Doctrine of the 1980s went beyond containment. It committed the United States to “rolling back” communism — using military intervention if necessary. It worked. But when the new threat of Islamic radicalism emerged in 2001, a Republican president over-extended U.S. military commitments. The country rose up against the war in Iraq. Reckless interventionism began to be criticized even by the right. After all, big war means big government

Not all Republicans are worried about diminished U.S. influence in the world. Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) responded to the Ukrainian crisis by saying, “Some on our side are so stuck in the Cold War era that they want to tweak Russia all the time, and I don’t think that is a good idea.”

But hawkish Republicans are harshly critical of Obama. “Putin is playing chess and I think we are playing marbles,’’ House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) said on Fox News. “They’ve been running circles around us.’’ These Hawkish Republicans are just as critical of right-wing isolationists.

When congressional conservatives held up a package of military aid and sanctions, Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) exploded in outrage. “Don’t call yourselves Reagan Republicans,” McCain declared. “Ronald Reagan would never — would never — let this kind of aggression go unresponded to by the American people.”

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton, Obama’s former secretary of state, put some distance between herself and Obama with her strong denunciation of Putin. “This is a clash of values,” Clinton said, “and it’s an effort by Putin to rewrite the boundaries of post-World War Two Europe …  If he’s allowed to get away with that, you’ll see a lot of other countries either directly facing Russian aggression or  . . . transformed into vassals, not sovereign democracies.”

A perfect echo of the Truman Doctrine.

Neither Clinton nor McCain has called for U.S. military intervention.  There’s no need to “be rattling sabers, that’s not useful,” Clinton said. McCain issued a statement saying, “There is a range of serious options at our disposal at this time — without the use of military force.”

Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Bush were too quick to use force.  Obama and Paul are now facing criticism for being too quick to rule it out.

Is there a third way? Yes, there is.  It’s called deterrence.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is the most successful military alliance in history. Since 1949, it has succeeded in deterring first Soviet and now Russian aggression against member countries. Neither Georgia not Ukraine is a member of NATO.  If Russia were to attack a NATO ally, like Latvia or Romania, can we be certain that Washington would fulfill its treaty obligations and respond militarily?

Actually, we can’t.  But here’s the point: The Russians can never be sure what we would do.

Deterrence works because of uncertainty. The United States cannot respond to every international crisis with military intervention. But we can never rule it out either.

There has to be real uncertainty about the U.S response.  That’s what deters aggression.

 

PHOTO (TOP): President Barack Obama pauses while answering a question about the situation in Ukraine, following remarks on the budget at Powell Elementary School in Washington, March 4, 2014. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

PHOTO (INSERT 1): President George W. Bush looks down during a meeting about Iraq with current and former secretaries of state and defense at the White House in Washington, May 12, 2006. From left are Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney, Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

PHOTO (INSERT 2): President Harry S. Truman. Courtesy of LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.

PHOTO (INSERT 3): Ukraine’s Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk (L) meets with Senator John McCain in Kiev, March 15, 2014. REUTERS/Andrew Kravchenko/Pool 

253 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

Howdy! Do you know if they make any plugins to safeguard against hackers? I’m kinda paranoid about losing everything I’ve worked hard on. Any recommendations?|

Thank you for every other great article. Where else could anyone get that kind of info in such an ideal method of writing? I’ve a presentation subsequent week, and I am at the look for such info.

Hello! I just want to give you a big thumbs up for the great information you have got right here on this post. I’ll be coming back to your web site for more soon.|

Thank you for sharing superb informations lotopyeer. Your website is very cool. I am impressed by the details that you have on this site. It reveals how nicely you understand this subject. Bookmarked this website page, will come back for more articles. You, my friend, ROCK! I found just the info I already searched all over the place and just could not come across. What a great web site.

Great looking internet site. Think you did a great deal of your very own html coding.|

What’s up i am kavin, its my first time to commenting anyplace, when i read this post i thought i could also create comment due to this sensible paragraph.|

Test Your Equipment

Hey there! This post couldn’t be written any better! Reading through this post reminds me of my good old room mate! He always kept chatting about this. I will forward this article to him. Pretty sure he will have a good read. Thanks for sharing!|

I know this site provides quality based posts and additional information, is there any other web site which presents these stuff in quality?|

Please let me know if you’re looking for a writer for your site. You have some really good articles and I feel I would be a good asset. If you ever want to take some of the load off, I’d really like to write some articles for your blog in exchange for a link back to mine. Please send me an email if interested. Kudos!|

I love reading through a post that can make men and women think. Also, thank you for permitting me to comment!|

Hello very nice blog!! Man .. Beautiful .. Wonderful .. I’ll bookmark your web site and take the feeds also? I’m happy to seek out so many helpful information right here within the put up, we want work out extra techniques on this regard, thanks for sharing. . . . . .|

I think this is one of the most important information for me. And i’m glad reading your article. But wanna remark on few general things, The website style is great, the articles is really excellent : D. Good job, cheers|