Cold War Memes: More Propaganda in Slow Motion

The cauldron burning over Syria features two world powers exposes us to a dangerous paradox. The End Of History became a reality of which the apocryphal idioms have been exhausted describing this unprecedented condition. Nothing really ended of course. Rather many voices in power use rhetoric reminiscent of an era before History allegedly ended...the first time. These voices show a dull flair for bombast and a priori accusations. At first these voices layer many historical examples into their speeches, building a morally powerful narrative. But, a closer review of these voices reveal they are electric pedants delivering talking points. Or, in other words, they deliver the same propaganda repeated in slow motion.

Senator Tom Cotton (R) Arkansas cautions an audience at a speech he delivered to Hillsdale College:

A major preoccupation of foreign-policy elites over the past 25 years has been to forge a new “grand strategy” for the United States.  Scholars and practitioners tend to see a foreign policy adrift after the fall of the Soviet Union, when containment of Soviet expansion became obsolete overnight.  Seeing no major ideological or military rival, some believed the Owl of Minerva had taken flight, and the end of history reduced the need for strategic thinking.  Alas, that fantasy came crashing down along with two big towers fourteen years ago last Friday.  Again, foreign-policy elites searched for a new strategy, this time for the age of Islamic terror. [1]

Before he tells us what the "new 'grand strategy' should consist of he explains one historical precedent showing the importance of adopting a new strategy when conditions change:

Circumstances do change and foreign policy, often a matter of prudence, must change with them to achieve the same ends.  Alexander Hamilton, for example, invented our tariff system and Hamiltonians defended it for more than a century, yet today they’re the most ardent of free-traders.  So the effort to develop a strategy for our times is welcome. [2] 

Cotton's historical references should impress us. After all, a politician possessing so much historical knowledge should fill your nostalgic fix for Newt Gingrinch. More critically, it should prepare you for a thorough assessment and understanding of the underlying conditions warranting this "new strategy."

Instead, we hear a Senator throwing historical analogies around like the most superficial social climber drops their associations with names of seemingly important people:

And while a brooding auteur may in fact have strategic foresight, intellect, and prudence, no man is infallible, no matter how talented.  Napoleon, brilliant general that he was, still marched the Grand Armée across the Nieman River into Russia. Otto von Bismarck toiled for decades to unify the German states, only to see his fragile work undone a few years later by Wilhelm II’s militarism and adventurism. [3]

What do these historical examples teach us about the challenges facing those today conceiving of a 'new strategy?" Cotton believes these historical examples foreshadow tragic omens for Xi Jiping and Vladmir Putin. Cotton offers no concrete evidence for stating the two aforementioned current leaders are doomed by their militaristic exploits. None. The net result is that Cotton's speech reads like a mid-20th century civics lesson.

Layers of historical references provide verbal filler thereby allowing the speaker to sound smart while showing no firm understanding of current geopolitical realities. Listen to Senators McCain's and Cotton's views on the conflict in 2008 that erupted briefly between Georgia and Russia:

First, McCain during a Presidential debate versus then Senator Barack Obama unmasked the real Vladmir Putin for us:

McCain the decoder of the most diabolical core in mens' souls informed us that Russia is:

basically a KGB apparatchik run government  

And then McCain reveals what lies behind the facade of the Cold War's most dangerous retread:

I looked into Mr. Putin's eyes and I saw three letters: a K a G and a B

Next, six years later Cotton's rhetoric repeated McCain's Putin-attacked-Georgia narrative.

Cotton carries the torch for using antiquated rhetoric in a futile effort to appear statesmanlike, or dare I say Churchillian:

Putin is a KGB spy who views the world as a zero-sum game 

McCain and Cotton both assure us that Putin's pulling the wool over appeaser in chief-Obama's eyes doesn't erase the Mark of Cain on him....he was and remains KGB. Kind of like they probably still see Obama as a frustrated former community organizer. For some reason Obama in their eyes displayed weakness in 2008 when calling for Georgia to show restraint while being invaded by Russia. Facts tell us a different story to those who see these two Senators confusing sanctimoniousness with seriousness.

The U.S. elite showed no willingness to analyze actual conditions operating in Ossetia on the eve of Russia's supposed unprovoked military aggression. Rather, the U.S. supported Saakashvili's decision to invade Ossetia and Ahkazia in the summer of 2008. Hypocritically, the U.S. publicly condemned this brief combat action as a resurgent Russian Bear; meanwhile, copies of documents published by Wikileaks showed the U.S. blindly accepted Georgia's self-serving claims that Russian support to South Ossetians provoked this conflict, and that the U.S. Embassy staff in Tbilisi relied only on the claims coming directly from the Georgian government:

By 2008, as the region slipped toward war, sources outside the Georgian government were played down or not included in important cables. Official Georgian versions of events were passed to Washington largely unchallenged......The last cables before the eruption of the brief Russian-Georgian war showed an embassy relaying statements that would with time be proved wrong....

'Deputy Minister of Defense Batu Kutelia told Ambassador at mid-day August 7 that Georgian military troops are on higher alert, but will not be deploying,' one cable noted, as Georgian heavy military     equipment was enroute to the conflict zone....Mr Kutelia's assurance did not stand, even in real time. In of the few signs of the embassy's having staff in the field, the cable noted 'embassy observers on the highway' saw about 30 government buses 'carrying uniformed men heading north.'.....Still the embassy misread the signs, telling Washington that while there were 'numerous reports that the Georgians are moving military equipment and forces,' the embassy's 'initial impressions' were that the Georgians 'were in a heightened state of alertness to show their resolve.'.........

In fact, Georgia would launch a heavy artillery-and-rocket attack on Tskinvali, the South Ossetian capital, at 11:35 p.m. on Aug. 7, ending a cease-fire it had declared less than five hours before.The bombardment plunged Georgia into war, pitting the West against Russia in a standoff over both Russian military actions and the behavior of a small nation that the United States had helped arm and train. 

A confidential cable the next morning noted that Georgia's Foreign Ministry had briefed the diplomatic corps, claiming that 'Georgia now controlled most of South Ossetia, including the capital.' The cable further relayed that 'Saakashvili has said that Georgia had no intention of getting into this fight, but was provoked by the South Ossetians and had to respond to protect Georgian citizens and territory.'

Rather than emphasize the uncertainties, it added, 'All the evidence available to the country team supports Saakashvili's statement that this fight was not Georgia's original intention.' Then it continued: 'Only when the South Ossetians opened up with artillery on Georgian villages' did the offensive begin.

This exceptionally bold claim would be publicly echoed throughout the Bush administration, which strongly backed Georgia on the world's stage. The cable did not provide supporting sources outside of the Georgian government. Instead, as justification for the Georgian attack the previous night, a Georgian government source, Temuri Yakobashvili, was cited as telling the American ambassador that 'South Ossetians continued to shoot at the Georgian villages despite the announcement of the cease-fire.'

The cable contained no evidence [sic] that Ossetian attacks after the cease-fire had actually occurred and played down the only independent account, which came from military observers in Tskhinvali from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. [4]. 

Given the U.S. public, and Senators McCain's and Cotton's condemnation of Putin as the puppet master pulling the strings that caused this military aggression, and the subsequent revelation of Georgia's inability to provide credible and verifiable evidence of said military provocation, why has the U.S. continued its constant demonizing of Putin? Their false statements about Putin's Russia initiating military action against Georgia should encourage our exercising great caution when hearing today their condemnations of Russia's involvement in Syria.

Out of curiosity would Putin or anybody else look into McCain's eyes and see the letters I....S.....I.....S?

Anyways, Cotton's words show his historical observations provide no insight into understanding
current geopolitical conditions. His main objective is to articulate a set of crises that result from Obama lacking courage, vision, etc.....He claims a new U.S. foreign policy strategy is necessary while both he and McCain say Putin is basically a recycled KGB spy? Well at least one of these three men know the Cold War ended. The other two are John McCain and Tom Cotton.


[1]. Senator Tom Cotton. "Speech to Hillsdale College's Constitution Day Celebration." Sept 16, 2015. http://www.cotton.senate.gov/content/speech-hillsdale-college%E2%80%99s-constitution-day-celebration

[2]. Ibid.

[3]. Ibid.

[4]. C.J. Chivers. "State's secrets: a cache of diplomatic cables provides a chronicle of the United States relations with the world." The New York Times. Dec 1, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/world/europe/02wikileaks-georgia.html?_r=0