The New Insecurity

This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.

The New York Sun

In the last few weeks, the world has suddenly become a much more dangerous place. Two events in remote countries have come to together to force the West to reassess its situation: the Georgian crisis and the fall of Pakistan’s president, Pervez Musharraf.

I call this change of mood the New Insecurity. It will have an impact on the domestic politics of every democracy, including America’s presidential election in November. Like other commentators, I believe that John McCain’s claim to office has been greatly strengthened in the eyes of many voters and that Barack Obama can no longer be considered the clear favorite. Last weekend’s TV forum showed up the difference in international experience very clearly.

But I predict the New Insecurity also will oblige many people, both in America and abroad, to reconsider their judgement on a man who is perhaps the most “misunderestimated” president in American history: George W. Bush.

The Russian rape of Georgia is already proving to be one of those turning points, like the fall of the Berlin Wall or September 11, 2001, which close one chapter of history and open another. It is too soon to say precisely what alarms and excursions this display of naked aggression may presage. But the fact that the emergency meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization this week did not end in mutual backbiting suggests that even the appeasers sense the seriousness of Europe’s predicament.

For the New Insecurity is rendered even more acute here in Europe by the normally repressed consciousness of military impotence. The European Union, the richest region of the world, is lacking in conventional defense to an almost ludicrous extent.

Unlike America, the E.U. is not only heavily dependent on Russian oil and gas, but also shares a land border with Russia. The Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, the former German province of East Prussia, lies right in the heart of Europe, straddling Poland and the Baltic states.

Were it not for America and the Atlantic Alliance, Russian forces could cross the borders of the E.U. with only a little less opposition than they encountered in Georgia.

Europe still matters more to Americans than most other parts of the world. But we should not overlook Pakistan: a nuclear power with territorial disputes of its own and a teeming population of 160 million Muslims who are becoming more radical all the time. Now its pro-Western president, General Musharraf, has gone. It is unclear who will emerge in his place, but the fissiparous nature of Pakistan’s politics does not bode well.

On a recent visit to London, a senior American official who had just returned from Pakistan painted a grim picture of the situation in the regions bordering Afghanistan, where the government’s writ rings hollow. I put it to him that he had made Pakistan sound like a failing, if not a failed, state. “You might say that. I couldn’t possibly comment,” was his reply.

The thought of what might happen if Pakistan’s nuclear weapons fell into the wrong hands is undoubtedly keeping experts like him awake at night. So it should. But there is precious little we can do about it.

No, the New Insecurity is not a temporary phenomenon, but is here to stay. The sudden chill must have made many Americans, and even some Europeans, secretly grateful that the man in the White House happens to be a strong, seasoned, and principled president — and not his weak and unprincipled predecessor.

Mr. Bush has said and done most of the right things in response to Russia, just as he did after September 11 and later when, faced with Iraq’s insurgency, he reversed course and followed the advice of General Petraeus and others to order the surge. He has been tough with Iran — though perhaps not tough enough — and he has stood by Israel.

Some say that history will judge him more kindly. I suspect that we won’t have to wait for history: by the time he leaves office, Mr. Bush will be seen very differently. Maybe he will never be popular, but he will be respected.

Right now, the president has an opportunity to set the seal on his legacy during his remaining months in office. The key to this is to capitalize on the traumatic effect of Russian militarism in Europe.

Mr. Bush is the only credible leader that NATO has, especially now that Tony Blair has left the stage, and he should bend all his efforts to rallying the alliance around the principle that Georgian sovereignty must be restored. If Russia won’t withdraw its troops from Georgia, it must be ostracized.

The other issue is naval supremacy. If President Medvedev carries out his threat to arm the Baltic fleet with nuclear missiles targeted on NATO countries, then NATO should consider blockading the port of Kaliningrad — where that fleet is mainly based.

At the least, a stronger NATO naval presence in the Baltic and the Black Sea is essential. Prime Minister Putin has promised to build a huge new fleet to challenge America. That cannot be ignored.

President Bush should be calling for a big new program of naval shipbuilding. Senator McCain would respond positively — but would Senator Obama and the Democrats in Congress?

Mr. Johnson is the editor of Standpoint.


The New York Sun

© 2024 The New York Sun Company, LLC. All rights reserved.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. The material on this site is protected by copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used.

The New York Sun

Sign in or  Create a free account

By continuing you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use