John R. Bolton has asked a “what if?” question, and has
discussed what he calls a pressing policy issue. He does that in an article he
published under the title: “NATO Is Still the Answer” and the subtitle: Obama's
floundering Ukraine
policy.” The article is published in the Weekly Standard issue of May 5, 2014.
Asking a “what if?” question and answering it is a literary
form that is in the genre of speculative fantasy. It was created to entertain
the readers who wish to take a flight of fancy into a parallel universe where
they experience an alternative reality. There, all that they ever wished for,
does happen; and all that they wish never happened, vanishes as if by magic.
Bolton tells the story of what happened in the year 2008 at
a time when President Bush proposed to bring the two former Soviet Republics ,
Ukraine
and Georgia on a path to joining NATO, and the Europeans rejected the proposal.
Thus, Bolton asks what if they had not
rejected the proposal. And he follows with the policy question: Should we try
again for NATO membership?
Because his aim is not really to entertain but to set-up a
new scene upon which he will argue in favor of the issue he says is pressing,
he begins the discussion by telling of an earlier scene that was played by good
guys and bad ones. The Bush people were the good guys, he says. And he wants to
make their dream come true even though it was rejected by the Europeans who
were the bad guys. These were bad guys, he says, because they used Bush's Iraq
war as excuse to argue against the NATO proposal. But that was a phony excuse,
he goes on to say, and the real reason for their rejection was that the
cowardly Europeans needed Russia's oil and gas, and they feared that country's
response to admitting into NATO two former republics of the old Soviet Union.
What happened after that, according to our fantasy writer,
is that “Moscow
understood Western [European] cowardice.” And so, Russia bombed “its tiny neighbor
[Georgia] and surged troops to within 30 miles of its capital.” But then,
fearing the arrival of the Bush cavalry – even if Bush never said he would send
it – Russia
decided to snatch no more than “the two provinces it most wanted to hive off.”
As you can see, even though the Bush people did nothing heroic, they continued
to wear the hats of the good guys bestowed on them by Bolton .
This done, there remains the matter of linking the old scene
with the new one for which Bolton has a
presentation to make. One of the bad guys in the new scene being President
Obama, he ties him to the old scene by making use of the fact that he was a
candidate running to be President at the time. This is how he does the linkage
by which ownership of the situation passes from the Bush hand to the Obama hand:
“Then-candidate Barack Obama initially called for both Russia and Georgia to exercise restraint.” Now
rendered immaculate, it is time for Bush to exit the scene gracefully: “With
its term waning, and facing a daunting economic crisis, the Bush administration
did little more for Georgia
or Ukraine .”
Goodbye lovely Bush, hello terrible Obama.
Upon this, Bolton unleashes
a litany of errors, he says, Obama committed. There was the unveiling of the
“reset” button with Russia .
The trashing of the missile defense sites in Poland
and the Czech Republic Syria . The debacle that followed Russia 's
support for the Libyan resolution at the Security Council.
He goes on to say that “Obama left Ukraine and Georgia to fend for themselves.”
And so, he suggests that “in the long term, joining the alliance is the only
strategy that can secure Georgian and Ukrainian sovereignty.” But is that
enough to motivate the American public to get involved in a European situation
where the Europeans themselves are reluctant to get involved? No, it's not
enough. What to do, therefore, to motivate that public? The answer is to start
a convoluted argument, and end it with a warning that WW III could result if America remained
aloof. This is how Bolton does it:
“Some argue that NATO should never have admitted ex-Warsaw
Pact members, or added former Soviet republics, because geography and history
relegated these countries to Russia 's
influence. [But] one could argue that Poland
is in Germany 's
influence. That kind of dispute is why Europe
saw two world wars. It is to prevent such wars, and further effusions of
American blood, that we bring countries into NATO.”
As can be seen in that tour-de-force, fantasy allows the
writer to create a fictitious situation (the dispute between Germany and Russia
about Poland,) talk about it as if it were real, then draw the conclusion that
it will compel you (America, Europe and NATO) to take measures having the
potential to lead to a frightening situation (World War III) which he says he
wants to prevent.
And there lies the contradiction because soon after saying
that getting these countries into NATO will prevent trouble, he says that:
“NATO membership of Ukraine
and Georgia
undoubtedly carries risks.” So the question: What situation is he aiming for?
The prevention of trouble or the invitation of risks? Still, the fact remains
that no one knows how the future will unfold, and he feels he must continue
motivating the West, or at least motivating America alone to take action.
He begins this part of the argument by answering the “What
if?” question: “The Europeans missed an excellent chance to reduce the risks in
2008...” and he begins the argument by which he unveils the policy question he
mentioned at the start: “...and now, of course, they are even more dependent on
Russian hydrocarbons.” He gives details by asserting that: “expanded trade
between Russia and the EU
has enhanced Russia 's
leverage , not Europe 's.” And so he argues for
the economic isolation of Russia
which, he says, can now be done given the new oil and gas discoveries in America .
But he laments that Europe
is timid and Obama is weak. Meanwhile “the stakes are high for Ukraine and Georgia … equally high for all the
former Soviet republics, which understand … they will not be far behind.” And
the matter does not end here, according to Bolton, because further afield China is watching, and it has made its own
territorial claims in Asia .
And so, the response he wishes for is that America prepare
itself militarily to stand up to the whole world alone if need be. Why is that?
Because the world is full of evil empires developing the potential to threaten America 's
national security. But what about the American public that had it up to here
being told this story for seventy years, and getting involved in adventures
that made that situation possible in the first place? Well, skilled
politicians, he says, will know how to sell the message to the public in the
upcoming campaign for the presidency of the United States .
The part of history that John Bolton is missing is that
following the Reagan buildup of America 's
military, someone remarked: “We borrowed a trillion dollars from the Japanese
and had a hell of a party.” That buildup may have contributed to the demise of
the old Soviet Union , which had the good sense
to realize it would be futile to fight a losing battle thus changed course. But
it also had the effect of contributing to the slow motion economic demise of America , and the simultaneous rise of China , Russia and a number of other
economic powerhouses.
The shoe is now on the other foot. Will America have
the good sense to realize it is futile to fight a losing battle, and decide to
change course before hitting bottom?