On 60 Minutes, John McCain decides to double down on Palin's statement that war with Russia is worth NATO membership.
McCain: Any nation this is a member of NATO - there's a clause that says an attack upon - on one has to be responded to.
Pelley: And you support NATO membership for Georgia?
McCain: I do. And I support it for Ukraine. And...
Pelley: But the Russian reaction to NATO membership for Georgia is likely to be pretty sharp they just invaded that country,
McCain: Regrettably, regrettably. [continued]
Hmmm. Nope, he splits and doubles down -- That's Georia and Ukraine! He then continues to try to bail himself out by saying that a "respond" does not necessarily mean "war".
Maybe Senator McCain should read the NATO Charter.
This, in response to the question:
Pelley: One of the things that Governor Palin did say in her first interview was that our NATO obligations might require us to go to war against Russia in defense of Georgia. Is that a position that you share?
Now, immediately after replying that he did support NATO membership of Georgia and Ukraine, John McCain added:
McCain: But it doesn't mean that I am saying we are going to go to war with Russia. It does mean that we have to respond and it does mean that this kind of behavior on the part of the Russians is not behavior that we expect of a country that is a member of the world community.
Wait. So, if Russia attacks a NATO nation, we have to respond, but not necessarily go to war. Technically, that's arguable -- armed forces don't have to be committed if there's another solution. Article 5 of the NATO charter reads:
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
But what if actions other than war don't work? We saw how well it worked last time with Russia, in Georgia, right?
I hope that John McCain isn't trying to argue that, should diplomacy fail, that the US would NOT use armed forces against Russia to defend a NATO member.
What if it were Germany being attacked?
Once again, let's ask ourselves: Is defending Georgian democracy a cause worth going to war with Russia over?
That's a dangerous game of brinksmanship, since further conflict between Russia and Georgia is not just possible, but likely. And Ukraine? Public US support of Ukrainian membership into NATO would set Russo-American relations back two decades.
Did John McCain listen to the Secrataries of State on CNN? First, President Saakashvili of Georgia was at least a little bit to blame for stirring the pot. Second, before the U.S. goes to war, it's important to consider what US interests are being protected. The United States cannot be the world's police force -- nor does the rest of the world want it to be.
I finish with two thoughts. First, this is a very hawkish stance from a Presidential candidate. Provoking Russia should be the last thing on a President's mind. Nevermind their strategic arsenal and formidable military; Russia could be a valuable ally in countless ways -- against terror, for example. Or, say, trade.
And besides: what sane person would want to increase the possibility of an armed conflict between the United States and Russia?
Here is the full video of John McCain's interview:
And, just so that you can sleep afterwards, here's Barack Obama's interview on 60 minutes, which followed immediately afterwards. Unfortunately, the embed for the Obama interview isn't being accepted by DKOS. However, the link does work:
http://www.cbsnews.com/...
Transcripts of the interviews can be found here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/...