
One question of the American electoral race has been answered. Two members of the US Senate, the Republican John McCain and the Democrat Barack Obama, will compete for the right to run America. Now, it is time for policy-makers and newspapers alike to wonder what sort of course of action the next President of the United States of America will pursue. One of the most influential media outlets, the Wall Street Journal, refrains from forecasting domestic policy, but, expects little change in the foreign strategies of the White House. According to the Wall Street Journal, neither of the presidential contenders called for an end to the war on terrorism or said that today’s vision of antiterrorist action failed to meet the mark of modern policy-making. Hope for updated foreign strategies is sure to give way to disappointment. Since the Wall Street Journal is a mouthpiece of powerful circles within the American business community and political élite, reading it is worth the effort.
John McCain, who advised his country to keep fighting in Iraq, even if the fighting goes on for a hundred years, made a live confirmation to the pessimistic forecast of the Wall Street Journal. His anti-Russian statements tie in well with his call for continued warfare. Senator McCain would like to expel Russia from the G-8 Club and replace the United Nations with a League of countries obedient to Washington. His anti-Russian statements may, in good measure, judging by all indications, be a product of the superhawks’ efforts. The superhawks nest on the extreme right of the Grand Old Party. They have made a substantial contribution to the negative record of the Bush Administration and their new leader is surrounded by equally disoriented rednecks, ardent advocates of what they describe as new Americanism.

Far be it from me to overestimate the impact of anti-Russian diatribes. Ronald Reagan, who described the Soviet Union as the “evil empire” in the course of his presidential campaign, paced Moscow’s Red Square arm-in-arm with Mikhail Gorbachev, in May 1998. The author of these lines met with him in the Oval Office of the White House days before he paid his memorable visit to Moscow. Asked how he felt about visiting the capital city of the “evil empire”, President Reagan said it was one thing to look at the world from the office of the Governor of California, and quite another, if you become President of the United States and felt the heavy burden of responsibility for the fate of your country and the rest of the world resting on your shoulders. “Things keep changing”, he said. The way things are today, now is the best time to recall that telecast interview with President Reagan.
The Democratic contender Barack Obama has, so far, refrained from making controversial statements. He indulged, instead, in criticism of the war in Iraq. He is proud to say he was not one of those who voted for the war unleashed by the Bush-Cheney Administration in the US Senate. No, he didn’t, because he had not yet been elected to the Senate. But, when George W. Bush requested the Senate to earmark more than half a trillion dollars (11.558 trillion roubles. 313.146 billion euros. 249.297 billion UK pounds) for next year’s military spending, Senator Obama was quick to give a favourable answer to his request. This translates into a move to uphold the Republican Administration’s decision to galvanise the dangerous and wasteful arms race. Don’t deeds speak louder than words? Furthermore, although he had long refrained from doing this, Senator Obama lashed out the other day against Iran. Russia could not help noticing that the ambitious Senator from Illinois touched on the widest range of issues, but, evaded the problem of US-Russian relations. Political leaders who aim to win a presidential race can hardly fail to see the importance of relations with a key partner of their country. His reluctance to address Russian-US relations raises many questions.
While the main characters of the electoral show are busy playing their respective roles, the string-holders have no time to lose. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, asked some of his subordinates to list the threats to the United States. He wants to put the product of his men’s effort on the desk of the next President of his country. The Pentagon’s willingness to list alleged threats to the United States requires no comment. But, presidential agendas are never reduced to Pentagon briefings. The next President of the United States will have to deal with many complicated problems at home and abroad. He will have little time left for phrase-mongering.
14 June 2008
Valentin Zorin
A View from Moscow
Voice of Russia World Service
http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=28416&cid=170&p=14.06.2008 (in English)
Editor’s Note:
Bush has forgotten, if he ever knew in the first place, how the USA “won” the Cold War. Essentially, the USA outspent the USSR, and it placed an unsustainable burden on the Soviet economy. It was a close-run thing, and the USA was left with a tremendous public debt as a result. It needed a generation of peace to recover from this conflict.
However, the USA launched an aggressive foreign policy, certain that no one could resist them. For ten years, it ran riot, the Clinton aggression against Federal Yugoslavia being the most egregious example. The lies tied in with this were beyond belief, yet, the American media trumpeted them as truth. We are told that only some 4 aircraft were lost in the course of 37,000 sorties flown against Serbian targets. This is ridiculous. I remember reading in Nezavisimaya Gazeta (a VERY reliable source) that Marshal Ivanov, the Defence Minister, gave a briefing stating that NATO lost 127 fixed-wing aircraft and 17 helicopters. The sortie/loss ratio would have been 0.4 percent, that is, an aircraft going on a mission would have a 99.6 percent chance of returning to base. Not bad. However, the American administration lied. How could it do this? It has to do with the type of troops used in this campaign.
There is a political reason for relying on long-service contract military personnel rather than conscripts. Conscripts serve for a relatively-limited time, then, they go home. Besides, they do not have a “vested interest” in military service, so, they feel free to speak out. Since the American forces were composed entirely of contract personnel, pressure could be exerted on them to be silent. If one spoke out, one would lose not only one’s livelihood, but, one’s reputation as well. I do not blame those who are silent in the face of such KGB tactics. They are doing what they must.
This has resonance in our Orthodox Church situation in the US as well. If we live in a country where falsehood and deception are well-established, it should not surprise us if the church catches some of it as well. If you combine a willingness to lie together with the use of therapeutic pyschobabble catchphrases as balms for the conscience, I am actually surprised that the situation is not worse. However, that being said, the next two years shall see whether we shall remain Orthodox in fact or become nothing but loopy Anglican/Evangelical wannabes with the slightest patina of ritualism and incense.
May God keep us. All at once, the situation in the world at large, our country, and our church is coming apart at the seams and it seems like Vesuvius time. Why must we live in “interesting times?” Do step lively or the lava flow SHALL get you.