US Hawks as Warmongers

Did the Bush administration hawks push Georgia’s President into an armed confrontation with Russia? Up until now it’s only been a theory but a few indications point in that direction.

The world is full of conspiracy theories, one more outlandish than the other. A certain kind of informal “medium” accompanies the conspiracy theory. It’s usually presented as a sort of secret truth that’s being suppressed by official sources. In the past it often took the form of photocopied or mimeographed flyers.

The latest conspiracy theory has been making the rounds for a couple of weeks and has already attracted a few prominent supporters. Russian President Vladimir Putin says he suspects someone in the United States of having provoked the war in Georgia in order to “give one of the American presidential candidates a campaign advantage.” Could the Georgian war be an intricate scheme to help present John McCain as a battle-hardened commander-in-chief in waiting? Sounds reckless, but the theory is gaining momentum because the Internet is now an alternative and simultaneously a mainstream medium.

The beauty of conspiracy theories like this one is that on a case-by-case basis they may even be correct. In this particular case, that’s entirely within the realm of possibility.

Here are the facts: Georgia’s President Michael Saakashvili, despite his protests that he is an innocent victim, made a surprise attack against the breakaway Georgian province of South Ossetia where Russian troops were already stationed. Certainly, Russia had used imperialistic pressure and provoked Georgia. But ever since the 1992 ceasefire agreement and the stationing of peacekeepers in the disputed province, Russia has been an official observer by mandate from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSZE). An attack against these troops such as was ordered by Saakashvili was and is, regardless of the context, prohibited by international law. That starting point begs the question of what would posses the leader of a small, militarily hopeless country to attack the military forces of a heavily armed super power? Two answers are possible: He is either an idiot or he feels confident of help from another super power.

Saakashvili studied at Columbia University and has maintained good contacts in the United States. Among his closest allies in Washington are neo-conservative foreign policy people, close associates of Vice-President Dick Cheney, who now play major roles in John McCain’s presidential campaign. One of Cheney’s most experienced advisors, Joseph R. Wood, had visited Georgia shortly before the Georgian army attacked. Even the German newsmagazine “der Spiegel” suspected that Cheney had “meddled in Georgia as a favor to the Republican candidate for President.”

One of the shadiest figures in the drama is Washington lobbyist Randy Scheunemann, foreign policy expert and member of John McCain’s closest advisory team. Previously, he and his lobbying firm officially represented Georgia and had lobbied the State Department and Senators – including his future boss, John McCain – 49 times on behalf of his friend Saakashvili to promote Georgia’s acceptance into NATO. Scheunemann received nearly one million dollars for his efforts. He stopped working on behalf of Georgia when he became an official member of McCain’s election team, but the last installment of the million was given to him just a few weeks ago.

Scheunemann isn’t only a policy salesman threatened by the unseemly impression of conflicts of interest in his dealings. He also has long-term ties to neo-conservative circles as a known interventionist. As director of the Project for a New American Century, he played a central role in formulation of neo-con policies during the 1990’s. He also headed the “Committee for the Liberation of Iraq” which beat the propaganda drum for the invasion of Iraq. The traditionally liberal weekly “The Nation” published an article entitled “Georgia War: a Neocon Election Ploy?” And Time Magazine noted that the question of why Georgia would want to wage a suicidal war remained unanswered. The Magazine, however, backtracked somewhat in noting that the U.S. role in that conflict threatened to become somewhat exaggerated.

The fact is, Georgia is a major contributor of manpower to the war in Iraq and, in recent years, has practically developed into a satellite state of the USA. It’s difficult to imagine that Georgia would start a war with Russia without Washington’s go-ahead. 130 American “military trainers” are reported to have been working in Georgia at the time of the invasion. According to Russian sources, the United States even flew 800 Georgian troops from Iraq back to Georgia because Georgia was logistically unable to do it themselves.

Is any of this proof of a conspiracy? That’s a question of perspective. Even if the neo-conservative clique surrounding McCain and Cheney provoked the Georgians into attacking, that still doesn’t explain whether they did so out of cynical power politics or whether they saw Georgia from the neo-conservative view as a heroic outpost of the “free west” which should be defended by going on the offense – if necessary under the doctrine of preventive war. To the neo-conservatives, on the other hand, Russia represents a new despotism that, considering the new “rivalry of the superpowers,” must be driven back, according to McCain’s senior neocon policy advisor Robert Kagan.

That Saakashvili got a great deal of encouragement from Washington isn’t disputed. It’s only a question of how clear the signals were. Did they encourage him to make a very risky bet, or did he perhaps misunderstand?

That’s quite possibly the wrong question. In the final analysis it’s clear that Tbilisi and Washington are both on the same page, so there’s no need for a conspiracy. What appears to be a conspiracy from one side is seen from a different angle as reciprocal solidarity between allies who find that freedom must be defended against all despotic threat. They don’t do so in secrecy because they consider it to be honorable. The only thing hidden is the money trail, and sometimes not even that.

And however much they might try to put a sock in the whispers about who knew what and when, ever since Watergate and the conspiracy theories surrounding the French secret service’s sinking of the “Rainbow Warrior” one has become certain: conspiracy theories are only theories until they are proven.