"a large historical and even philosophical matter at stake here"

I leave aside the matter of McCain and Obama, since I think the war in Georgia is primarily about the war in Georgia and not another excuse to chatter about the presidential campaign.

That sounds promising, but alas! -- the distinguished Jewish Statist and peretz-barrel sage cannot live up to his own insight. It turns out very quickly that the war in Georgia is really about ... well, I will let M. Léon von Wieseltier explain it to thee, Mr. Bones, since it is his moonbattery:

And then there is the use of that word "simply." As in: "For McCain, it's simply a product of Vladimir Putin's evil intentions." That little word does a lot of business. Coming from an intellectual, it is one of the cruelest insults. (...) Liberals ... have sagely grasped the limits of American force and the blandishments of soft power and the danger of flying too close to the sun--they pride themselves upon their complexity. They are not simply anything. There is a large historical and even philosophical matter at stake here. It has to do with the analysis of the motives of America's rivals and enemies.

M. Léon von Wieseltier

could be selectively quoted to make him out simply (ahem!) your average Joe, an honourary member of the Plain People of Ireland™ who can never remember exactly why the Divine Trinity is simpler than Divine Unity would have been. No way. We have already detected that M. von Wieseltier can not possibly be a Joe, since he aggressively fails to believe that the war in Georgia is about the war in Georgia. Naturally the war in Georgia is about "a large historical and even philosophical matter." (What else would it be about, Mr. Bones? I ask you!)

Setting aside the word "America’s" (for narrow Zionological as well as broad philosophical reasons), we find M. von Wieseltier analysing the motives of rivals and enemies:

Briefly, I see no reason almost ever to reduce their actions to [one’s own] actions. Yes, history is a bramble of causes and effects, direct and indirect, and our policies have consequences; but still our rivals and our enemies are autonomous historical agents. They have beliefs and interests and desires and fears that we did not give them, or provide the occasion for them to get. Is there anything at all that we know about Vladimir Putin, about his background or his worldview or his career or his way with power, that makes his invasion of Georgia surprising? Putin champions a particular vision of Russia and a particular vision of Russia in the world. That vision is indigenous to himself [1] and to the political culture over which he presides. It is a primary fact of the contemporary world. Not even the presidency of Barack Obama will rid him of it. You see, he does not wish to be rid of it.

(A sudden twinge in the Joe gland must have struck M. von Wieseltier at the end there, for he might just as well have keyboarded "Putin simply does not wish to be rid of it." [2] But onwards! M. von Wieseltier was about to explain the Peculiarity of the Putinian Vision:)

So Judis's comment strikes me as a robotic reiteration of the old left-wing view of the Cold War, here applied to post-Soviet Russia. It is just a matter of hours before Richard Falk writes the same thing. (It turns out that those who remember history are also condemned to repeat it. Bummer.) But I will grant Judis his question. Is this a new Cold War? Truly I hope it is not. But whether or not it is a new Cold War, in Gori--and tomorrow maybe in Tbilisi--it is a hot war. Whether or not it is a new Cold War, it is an old war of authoritarianism against democracy. So what exactly are we supposed to tell our friends, the besieged Georgians? That we are tired? That they should have provoked Putin before 2003, or before 2001? That we have re-read Niebuhr?

Wrong again! Unless we rather gratuitously suppose John Judis to figure apocalyptically or allegorically in the Putinian Vision, it cannot have been the P. V. that M. von Wieseltier was hastening to expound. As far as I can see -- and seeing usually comes in handy with visions -- the P. V. never gets properly expounded at all. It does, however, get labeled or classified. M. von Wieseltier is kind enough to call the Vision of Putin ‘authoritarianism’. That is undoubtedly a step in the direction of intelligibility, so let us not be ungrateful, Mr. Bones! On the other hand, let us not kid ourselves that we know for sure what a M. von Wieseltier means when he says ‘authoritarian’. Thee will recall that this was a terminus technicus in the political theology of Neocomrade Ambassador Dr. J. Kirkpatrick. At the other extreme from the Kirkpatrician seminar-room narrowness, a user could use -- many users actually do -- the word ‘authoritarianism’ to signify no more clearly distinguished a Vision than "not democracy." That, it seems to me, is all that one knows for sure that M. von Wieseltier means by it. Probably the sage means quite a bit more, but there is no way of telling what the other bits are like from the immediately available evidence. (Or from my rather hazy recollections of previous intellectual encounters with M. Léon von Wieseltier.)

The Statist himself seems to be preoccupied with a personal problem: what is he to tell his "friends, the besieged Georgians? That [I am] tired? That they should have provoked Putin before 2003, or before 2001? That [I] have re-read Niebuhr?"

Well, M. von Wieseltier certainly should not tell anybody that he has reread Niebuhr unless he really did so. That much is plain. Plain and simple, even. "Honesty is the best policy," don’t thee know, Mr. Bones? (Despite the lack of tones of voice and gesticulations, I get the distinct impression that M. van Wieselthier has not in fact reread his Niebuhr and has not the faintest intention of doing so any decade soon. Evidently Niebuhr is the sort of author that would appeal to Mr. Judis.)

After his phoney-baloney simplisme about a war is a war is a war, even in Georgia, I am surprised that M. Léon von Wieseltier does not just go simplistic and tell his friends at Tiflis what he really thinks, presumably that if it were up to him and to other celebrated Jewish Statists and cracker-barrel sages, Georgians would find Uncle Sam’s cavalry rushin’ to bail them out even as we keyboard, but that in fact other persons with diferent views presently control the foreign and invasion policy of the United States, and so they and their M. de Saakashvili are more or less on their own, most likely.

Showing up personally with a Kalashnikov or two would be an excellent idea, it seems to me, but only if M. Léon von Wieseltier were the very first (renowned) Friend of Georgia to rally to her. A multiplicity of Lords Byron would reduce all of them to the level of commoners in no time. In light of that stringent condition of priority, naturally he owes his ideobuddies of the Rosy Revolution no apology should he decide not to come at all. There is no way for him to be certain in advance that he would be first celebrity to rally, whereas he can be quite sure that if he arrives second, or thirteenth, or 146th, his shtik will be worth little to those intended to get the benefit of it. Despite that misfire, such a shtik would of course be equally expensive and inconvenient for the hero personally, no matter when it happens.

Though I keyboard merrily, Mr. Bones, as befits a Silly Season topic like M. Léon von Wieseltier, thee may mark that Rancho Crawford is indeed in rather a wieseltierisch kind of jam over Georgia. With Team Aggression, however, there is no back-up, nobody in sight as an alternative, or even a supererogatory, second or thirteenth or hundred-forty-sixth comer. If AEI and GOP and DOD and USIP and all the vast Coalition of the Willful® do not take action, action will not be taken. [3]

"Action will SIMPLY not be taken," one might even venture to say . . . .


___
[1] Huh?


[2] How comes a M. von Wieseltier at TNR to be privy to Mr. Putin’s innermost wishes at Moscow Centre?

An excellent question, Mr. Bones. I have not the faintest notion how stage performers do their telepathy tricks. Can a celebrated sage and Statist really do more than thee and I can, which is but to infer from the fact that Mr. Putin actually did so-and-so, that probably Mr. Putin wanted to do it?

Stilll, thee must admit it would be a little fantastic to suppose that Mr. Putin truly aspires to be more like Prof. Dr. Albert Schweitzer or Mohandas K. Gandhi, but continually finds that the wicked world prevents him from advancing in the preferred direction. Thee would be feigning entites praeter necessitatem to believe something like that, Mr. Bones.



[3] The grand and glorious CoW

has been slightly depleted as regards its original intent by these untoward human events in the Caucasus:

Administration officials said military options were almost certainly off the table, but the United States did airlift Georgian troops stationed in Iraq back home , answering a plea from the Georgian government and prompting a sharp response from Russia.

(Why should the Muscovites offer any ‘response’? Was there a stimulus?)

Still, the CoW does not live by its original willfulness alone. Team Aggression fans are bound to consider that their Rosy Rev ideobuddies will still be fightin’ for the same good cause at home as in the former Iraq. As M. Litvinov formerly remarked, "Peace is indivisible." Until the whole world has been certified 105% safe for AEI-GOP-DOD-USIPism, why, obviously the struggle must continue!

It’s really as simple as that, Joe. (Isn’t it?)