A Soldier's Perspective

A Study in Backup Stories

I read this article with great interest. Until I came to this paragraph:

There are many reasons for the chill but none greater than the regrettable wars both nations have launched: Russia's in Chechnya and the U.S.'s in Iraq. The wars have damaged prospects for what seemed attainable a decade and a half ago: Russia and the U.S. genuinely engaged in collaboration based on shared common values, spanning the old cold war dividing lines and thereby enhancing global security and expanding the transatlantic community.

Oh yes, I'm old enough to remember the Cold War. As a matter of fact, I listened to Reagan's great Tear Down This Wall Speech and was living in Heidelberg, Germany, when The Wall came down. I was born in 1970 and I lived most of my life under the fear of Mutually Assured Destruction. (That's just the more technical name for the Cold War)

Anyway, I am deeply offended by Time Magazine's willingness to publish an opinion piece that is full of such BS as what is quoted above.

I think Zbigniew Brzezinski (say THAT 5 times fast!) didn't do his research deeply enough. You see, before Putin even took office, there was this little incident called the Budyonnovsk Hospital Hostage Crisis. Hmmm, Putin took office (as an interim) in 1999. That hostage taking by Chechen rebels (or separatists) occurred in 1995. See, there were 2 wars, one in 1994 and another in 1999. Oh, you might say, "But AHA! Putin took over in 1999." He took over in DECEMBER. The Second Chechen War commenced in AUGUST. Terrorists. That's what the Chechens were and are.

I find it disingenuous of the author to try to lay increased tensions on the doorstep of both the Russians and the Americans wish to defend ourselves against terrorists. What Brzezinski twisted around in the article was that the President does support the fight against terrorism and so his support of Putin's fight against the Chechens is in no way contradictory or hypocritical.

There are many key Socialist/Communist/Progressive terms throughout that article. "Elite." "Oligarchs." "Imperialism." "Global Security." "International Legitimacy."

The Russians are trying to run a power play on us, yes, I agree with that. But it has to do with the fact that they have been quite friendly with the Iranians, the Chinese, the North Koreans, and all them other folks that worry us. And when we make an agreement with Europe to help them by installing a Missile Defense System component in their neck of the woods, the Russians are thinkin' that they might not have as much leverage as they thought. And by the way, I think covering Europe's heinie that is hanging in the wind is a bad, bad, bad idea. They harbor and cater to massive numbers of Muslims and we should not let our technological advantages anywhere NEAR them. They will "accidentally leak" secret information or even worse, not adequately defend the facilities against any storming-the-battlements ideas the Muslims may get in their heads.

Anyway, I guess I just had to get all of that off my chest. I read the article a couple of days ago and the indignation has been brewing in the back of my seedy mind for all that time.

The concluding paragraph of that original article "How to Avoid a New Cold War" should be parsed carefully:

But the U.S. should react firmly when Russia tries to bully its neighbors. America should insist that Russia ratify the European Energy Charter to dispel fears of energy blackmail. The U.S. should continue to patiently draw Ukraine into the West so that Russia will have to follow suit or risk becoming isolated between the Euro-Atlantic community and a powerful China. And, above all, the U.S. should terminate its war in Iraq, which is so damaging to America's ability to conduct an intelligent and comprehensive foreign policy.

That last line, the final thought that readers are left with, that is the money quote. We should all understand exactly where this gentleman stands. And we should dismiss this article as the piece of ill-researched and argued crap it is.