Obama also wants a U.N. mediator "to address the crisis" and he even called
for "other international forums" to be convened "to condemn this
aggression." Not only that, Obama said multilateral and bilateral
arrangements with Russia need to be "reviewed," including "Russia's interest
in joining the World Trade Organization." Is that tough, or what? It's or
what.
John McCain's "or else" was far more specific, credible and has the
potential to produce results. McCain warned Russia of "severe, long-term
negative consequences" from the Georgia invasion, charged Moscow with
intending to topple Georgia's pro-Western government and urged NATO to
"convene an emergency session to demand a cease-fire" (apparently achieved
through the intervention of France) "and begin discussions on the deployment
of an international peacekeeping force to South Ossetia and the implications
for NATO's future relationship with Russia."
McCain has long been a critic of what he regards as Russia's retreat on
human rights and democratic reforms. If elected president, he said he would
push to exclude Russia from membership in the G-8 group of industrial
nations.
Whatever the political outcome of Russia's invasion of Georgia, the incident
has reminded American voters that in uncertain times it is dangerous to
choose a rookie with no foreign policy experience and a juvenile approach to
world affairs over one tempered by war who understands that U.N. resolutions
might as well be written in disappearing ink.
John McCain knows that peace through strength is what defeated the Soviet
Union and that it's peace through strength that will best preserve free
nations and advance their interests.