{"id":110093,"date":"2017-12-02T19:13:00","date_gmt":"2017-12-02T19:13:00","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2023-01-08T10:57:42","modified_gmt":"2023-01-08T10:57:42","slug":"somewhere-colonel-mccormick-is-smiling","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/2017\/12\/02\/somewhere-colonel-mccormick-is-smiling\/","title":{"rendered":"Somewhere, Colonel McCormick is Smiling"},"content":{"rendered":"<div style=\"margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;\" class=\"sharethis-inline-share-buttons\" ><\/div><h3 class=\"post-title entry-title\" itemprop=\"name\"><\/h3>\n<div class=\"post-header\"> <\/div>\n<p>If they have Internet access in the afterlife, the late <em>Chicago Tribune<\/em> publisher (and legendary isolationist) <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Robert_R._McCormick\">Colonel Robert R. McCormick<\/a> must be a very happy spirit, indeed. Reading the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.realclearpolitics.com\/articles\/2007\/06\/who_lost_russia.html\">latest column from Pat Buchanan <\/a>would  bring a smile to the old Colonel&#8217;s face, for it sounds like something  straight out of the America First Committee, the McCormick-led movement  to keep America out of World War II.<\/p>\n<p>But then again, Buchanan has  long been a fan of America First, citing the organization&#8217;s  &#8220;monumental&#8221; achievements in postponing our entry until after Germany  attacked Russia. Because of that, Buchanan writes, Soviet Russia, not  America, bore the brunt of the fighting, bleeding and dying to defeat  Nazi Germany.&#8221; Never mind that a better prepared&#8211;and armed&#8211;America,  entering the war sooner, might have saved Eastern Europe from 40 years  of Soviet domination. In Patrick J. Buchanan&#8217;s 1940 World View, it was  preferable to let the Russians fight the Nazis, whatever the long-term  consequences might have been.<\/p>\n<p>Similar thoughts are on display in  his new column, entitled &#8220;Who Lost Russia?&#8221; Buchanan begins by  contrasting the current chill in U.S.-Russian relations with the heady  days of Reagan and Gorbachev, fresh from their agreement to eliminate  intermediate range weapons in Europe. He remembers the two leaders  walking in Red Square, being congratulated by throngs of ordinary  Russians:<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 85%;\">They had just signed the  greatest arms reduction agreement in history &#8212; eliminating all Soviet  SS-20s targeted on Europe, in return for removal of the Pershing and  cruise missiles Reagan had deployed in Europe.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 85%;\">&#8220;Bliss  was it in that dawn to be alive, But to be young was very heaven!&#8221;  wrote Wordsworth about his first hearing the news of the fall of the  Bastille.<\/span><br \/><span style=\"font-size: 85%;\">Many of us felt that way then. <\/span><\/p>\n<p>Since  then, he contends, successive U.S. administrations have squandered the  relationship forged between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. And,  Buchanan places much of the blame on the Bush White House, for  &#8220;interfering&#8221; in matters on Russia&#8217;s doorstep. A few sample  observations:<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 85%;\">&#8212; When the Red Army  went home from Eastern Europe, the United States, in violation of an  understanding with Moscow, began to move NATO east. We have since  brought into our military alliance six former members of the Warsaw Pact  and three former provinces of the Soviet Union: Lithuania, Latvia and  Estonia<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 85%;\">&#8212; Anti-Russia hawks  are now pushing to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. If they succeed,  we could be dragged into future confrontations with a nuclear-armed  Russia about who has sovereignty over the Crimea and whether South  Ossetia should be part of Georgia. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 85%;\">&#8212;  After Moscow gave us a green light to use the former Soviet republics  of Central Asia to base U.S. forces for the Afghan war, the United  States has sought permanent bases there. Russia and China have now  united to throw us out of their back yard. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 85%;\">[snip]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 85%;\">&#8211;Are  these vital U.S. interests worth risking a war? Why are we moving a  U.S.-led military alliance into the front yard and onto the side porch  of a country with thousands of nuclear weapons? Would we accept any  commensurate Chinese or Russian move in the Caribbean? <\/span><\/p>\n<p>Apparently, Pat is channeling Charles Lindbergh these days. But I digress.<\/p>\n<p>Truth  be told, the U.S. didn&#8217;t &#8220;lose&#8221; Russia as much as Russian democracy  lost its own way under Vladimir Putin. As John O&#8217;Sullivan writes  (ironically enough, in the <em>Chicago Sun-Times<\/em>), Mr. Putin&#8217;s government has:<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 85%;\"><span style=\"font-size: 100%;\">&#8220;&#8230;<\/span><\/span><span style=\"font-size: 85%;\">imposed  a tight control on political life, allowed the state seizure of private  assets held by political opponents, threatened to cut off energy to  former Soviet satellites, blockaded the Estonian embassy in Moscow, and  refused to cooperate with a British police investigation into a murder  committed by Russian agents in London.&#8221; <\/span><\/p>\n<p>Mr. O&#8217;Sullivan  notes that President Bush has an historic opportunity to confront  Russia&#8217;s recent threat-and-intimidation campaign, by fashioning a  &#8220;stable, long-term Western response to Russian aggressiveness.&#8221; He  advocates using money and soft power to promote democracy in eastern  Europe, while showing Russia that it also has a place in this  trans-Atlantic economic union.<\/p>\n<p>As for Patrick J. Buchanan, he  seems to prefer that Russia remain on its present course, so Putin can  anoint a successor who will attempt undermine pro-western regimes in  Tiblisi and Kiev; launch cyber-wars against a Baltic State, and  modernize its nuclear arsenal in response to deployment of a missile <em>defense<\/em> system.<\/p>\n<p>Buchanan  is correct when he notes that Moscow&#8217;s internal politics are its own  affair. But when those politics manifest themselves in policies that  pose a threat to the west, the U.S. has an obligation to respond. The  &#8220;NATO expansion,&#8221; which Buchanan describes in such ominous terms is more  an economic and political construct that a military redeployment. <a href=\"http:\/\/formerspook.blogspot.com\/2007\/05\/new-arms-race.html\">As we noted recently<\/a><span style=\"font-size: 85%;\"><span style=\"font-size: 100%;\">,  the planned U.S. military presence in Eastern Europe will be almost  minuscule, even with the proposed WMD basing in Poland and the Czech  Republic. If that&#8217;s not a deferential nod to Russia, I don&#8217;t know what  is.<br \/><\/span><\/span>Likewise, President Bush has been equally  cordial in his overtures to Mr. Putin, inviting him to join the western  economic alliance and even cooperate on missile defense. But the Russian  leader wants none of that, believing that the spread of political and  economic freedom represents a threat to his country&#8217;s power and  influence. Lest we forget, Vladimir Putin learned about politics in the  ranks of the KGB. Given that background, it should be little surprise  that he would adopt a perspective&#8211;and the bullying tactics&#8211;of a  Soviet-era leader, while accusing the U.S. of re-igniting the Cold War.  Talk about chutzpah.<\/p>\n<p>As for Mr. Buchanan, that trip down Memory  Lane and into Red Square omits one important fact. The intermediate  range arms treaty came about only because the west&#8211;behind the  leadership of Ronald Reagan&#8211;was willing to take on the Soviet Union,  using all available resources to counter its influence and military  might. Gorbachev agreed to dismantle his SS-20s because Mr. Reagan made  good on a promise to deploy cruise missiles and Pershing IIs in Western  Europe. The Russians understood that Reagan meant business and wouldn&#8217;t  be intimidated by Soviet threats.<\/p>\n<p>It&#8217;s an example that Pat Buchanan has apparently forgotten, and George Bush would do well to emulate.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>If they have Internet access in the afterlife, the late Chicago Tribune publisher (and legendary isolationist) Colonel Robert R. McCormick must be a very happy spirit, indeed. Reading the latest column from Pat Buchanan would bring a smile to the old Colonel&#8217;s face, for it sounds like something straight out of the America First Committee, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110093"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=110093"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110093\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=110093"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=110093"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=110093"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}