LA Times Article - Highlights GOP's Mixed Messages Re Georgia - What was McCain/Scheunemann's Role?

[Median Democrat]

Yesterday, I posted some background regarding the policy debates on Russia and Georgia with some articles preceding the conflict. The articles outline differences of opinion between Neocons who favor isolation and confrontation (as usual) and more realistic types who favor some diplomatic engagement:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6627405&mesg_id=6627405

Today, there is an interesting article in the LA Times on this subject that highlights these battles. Interestingly, it makes you wonder whether McCain's FP guru, Scheunemann, who is a Georgian lobbyist, is himself responsible in part for the conflict for giving Georgia the false impression that the West would back Georgia's offensive:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-usrussia13-2008aug13,0,7104516.story

/snip


Some conservatives believe the administration has not been tough enough with Russia. Frederick W. Kagan, a neoconservative scholar who has advised the Bush administration, praised Cheney's comment and faulted President Bush for failing to outline to the Russians the consequences of pressing their assault.

* * *

Some Bush administration officials are likely to press for kicking Russia out of the Group of 8, which includes the seven major industrial countries and Russia, and blocking its admission to the World Trade Organization. The U.S. also could pledge to rebuild the Georgian military and cut Russia out of discussion over the missile defense system in Europe.

A tougher stance would represent a significant shift for the administration, which recast its approach to Russia in Bush's second term. During Rice and Gates' March visit to Moscow, they carried a personal letter from Bush to then-President Vladimir Putin, now prime minister, that tried to strike a conciliatory tone on a variety of issues.

That was a contrast from the opening months of the Bush administration, when advisors pushed the White House to unilaterally pull out of arms control treaties and propose American military bases in former Warsaw Pact countries.

"There has always seemed to be a split within the government, so a consistent policy for dealing with Russia has been absent," said James J. Townsend Jr., who handled European relations at the Pentagon before joining the Atlantic Council of the United States think tank last year. "In the first term, there were a lot of hard-liners on Russia who did not look kindly on cooperation."

* * *

Other regional experts believe the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization should enforce a no-fly zone over Georgia to put a halt to Russian air attacks.

"At what point does the West do something meaningful? Having the president backslapping with Putin at the Olympics is not a serious attempt to deal with the problem," said David L. Phillips, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. "The Georgians, who took us at our word when we talked about a partnership, have got to be wondering what Bush is all about."

Pentagon officials have dismissed calls for NATO combat air patrols, but Phillips said that calculation could change if Russia began strafing Tbilisi.

"The last thing Russia wants is a war with the West. If they came eye to eye with NATO warplanes, they would retreat," Phillips said.

Administration critics said that the fight within the White House over Russia policy has been more than just a bureaucratic battle; they argue that it led to mixed messages being sent to Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili about the willingness of the U.S. to support Georgia in a war with Russia.

Robert Hunter, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO who worked to expand the alliance's relationship with Russia in the 1990s, said that although Moscow may have provoked Georgia into a fight, the fact that Saakashvili took the bait by moving his forces into South Ossetia last week is a clear sign that the Georgian president believed he would have Washington's backing.

"Saakashvili thought he had room to play," Hunter said. "I would have rather the Russians hadn't responded, but Saakashvili sure . . . did it, and he did it in the mistaken belief, I believe, that he had friends in court."

One U.S. government analyst who works on Russian issues noted that Rice was in Tbilisi last month promising NATO membership for Georgia, telling Saakashvili publicly, "We always fight for our friends."

* * *

But Phillips said he believed that even if the State Department was warning the Russians, the Georgians heard a different message.

"I think the State Department was assiduous in urging restraint, and Saakashvili's buddies in the White House and Office of the Vice President kept egging him on," Phillips said.

The administration's mistake, he said, was that the close relationship between senior administration officials and Saakashvili led the Georgian president headlong into the Russian army.

"The Bush administration was far too chummy with Saakashvili," Phillips said. "That allowed him to misinterpret the degree and depth of our support."

/snip

The key issue is to what degree was Scheunemann involved in these communications and to what degree did he help give Saakashvili the impression that he had the green light to launch and offensive. Also, since there were 150 US troops in Georgia and 2000 Georgian troops in Iraq, to what degree did the US know about Georgia's offensive, and acquiece in it? Was Scheunemann involved in such communications as Georgia's lobbyist?

[Median Democrat]

1. Updated - If The Message Was Not Mixed Enough...

John McCain is sending his own "delegation" to Georgia, and Georgia's president has been referring to John McCain, perhaps due in no small part to the fact that McCain's FP advisor is a lobbyiest for Georgia. So, lets just confuse Georgia a bit further, why don't we?

[FrenchieCat]

2. Dangerous shit by some amateurs, i.e., John McCain