CNN/Politics‘ Chris Cillizza makes the typical error of holding a variable constant as he panders to Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) from back in the latter’s more ambitious days:
A decade ago, Mitt Romney went on CNN and made a statement that was widely perceived as a major mistake.
“Russia, this is, without question, our number one geopolitical foe,” Romney, who would be the Republican presidential nominee in the 2012 race against President Barack Obama, told Wolf Blitzer in March of that year. “They — they fight every cause for the world’s worst actors.”
Obama and his team pounced on the comment, insisting that it showed Romney was hopelessly out of touch when it came to the threats facing the US.
In the third presidential debate between the two candidates in October 2012, Obama went directly after Romney for that remark. “When you were asked, ‘What’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America,’ you said ‘Russia.’ Not al Qaeda; you said Russia,” Obama said. “And, the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.” …
But today, after Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered Russian troops into eastern Ukraine, Romney’s comments look very, very different. And by “different,” I mean “right,” as even some Democrats are now acknowledging.
The typical error is often seen in the remarks of folks complaining The military prepared for the last war, not the next war! Well, besides the fact that the military spends a lot of time and energy trying to understand the next war, the fact that the military prepared for the last war is no small thing, and does not go unnoticed by adversaries – ours and others, today and yesterday. There’s a reason why wars change, and it’s not just losing the last.
But the maker of the error doesn’t realize Action -> Reaction.
So when Romney was condemned for his remark, what was the two situations? Russia was still reeling from the collapse of the Soviet Union, and then the collapse, in all but name, of the successor democracy. Where it was going looked like nowhere.
Meanwhile, a collection of terrorist groups had managed to destroy the World Trade Center and then bring war to the countries of the Middle East, with what turned out to be the goal of creating a new country from the remains of old countries. When someone starts to build a new country on the territory of established countries, and does so successfully, it’s wise to take the threat seriously, especially when they spend their spare moments chanting Death to America! and call themselves The Caliphate, a name linked to Islamic empires. Add in the random nuclear power stations and bomb making facilities, and anyone in a position of governmental responsibility must have been quite concerned.
And then let’s ask how we treated each power.
The Caliphate? Bombed. Destroyed. A classic case of taking care of a problem early, before it became intractable.
Russia? Nothing much. Oh, some sanctions when Russia annexed Crimea. And that hurt Russia, but not nearly enough.
If a similar question were asked today, it’s far more valid to answer ‘Russia,’ in my mind, although I think a stronger case could be made for China. I’m no foreign policy expert, but it seems to me that Russia has become a hollowed out husk. Its population is, and has been for decades, shrinking, it has significant public health issues (alcoholism), and the Russian oligarchs are a pus-leaking sore on the side of a badly wounded economy.
China, on the other hand, has a different economic model, an ambition that recognizes the importance of the digital world to an extent greater than the United States. They’re highly organized, from education to research to manufacturing. Yes, I think their political system is also a drag on their society, but it’s unsettling how they can sometimes get around that. They do have other huge problems, such as pollution and clean water. But I don’t care to bet against them, while with Russia I would put down a tenner against them.
But it’s an argument, at least. Cillizza is focused on the events of today to the detriment of analysis of events since the fateful question was asked, and that leaves him with an unnaturally inflexible world view.
