Cheney's Magical Mystery Tour

Our "vice" president has been running a victory lap of sorts around the periphery of the old Soviet Union, making pit stops in many of the former "republics", and, in general, irritating and offending the powers that be in Moscow, all of which adds up to the question, what the hell is he up to? And why, at this late date, when the administration he represents is, basically, old news and on the way out? It seems to me that there could be no more clear evidence of this administration's desire to not only maintain, but add to, the American Empire right up to the last day. It also seems to me that there is nothing more foolish or ill-advised than provoking Russia at this point, since -- guess what -- Russia is operating in the black and we're operating in the red; they have troops stationed in all of one place in the world, i.e. Georgia, whereas we're fighting two unwinnable wars in South Asia _and_ we have troops stationed in almost every other country in the world as well. Plus, let's face it, the Putin Doctine is not a whole lot different from the Monroe Doctrine, which has been a pillar of our foreign policy ever since it was first promulgated. But that doesn't seem to have impressed the likes of Mr. Cheney or Ms. Rice, who continue to act as if every square foot of territory on this side of the Russian border is fair game for colonization -- er, I mean "trade agreements" and "mutual defense treaties". You might almost think that this was a debate between that mysterious thing called "self determination" and "hegemony", with us on the side of self determination and Russia on the side of that other thing. The truth, of course, is that it's between hegemony American style and hegemony Russian style, and at this point neither side has the moral standing to influence or impose its will on any of its diminutive neighbors. All we have is sheer force and intimidation -- political and economic -- and that's all Russia has as well. So it boils down to two gangs dividing up the turf. And yet, because we constantly preach that it's a matter of self determination, we feel as though our rightful turf ends at the border crossing into Russia. The funny thing is, whenever _they_ act that way -- like in Cuba in the old days and, increasingly, in places like Venezuela -- we react will all sorts of righteous indignation.

But enough about hypocrisy, let's think a bit more about what might be going through Dick Cheney's head -- which is, by default, also what's going through George Bush's head. As I've said, it's all about empire building, which means power, and the economic benefits thereof. Democracy per se really has nothing to do with it. But even once that is admitted, does what the Dickster is doing make any sense? And, in particular, does it make any sense given the recent unpleasantness in Georgia, in which it was shown that Russia can move into any of the former Soviet Republics at will, and we can't do a damn thing about it? Plus, make no mistake, the Russians know exactly what Cheney is up to, and that it's nothing more than sabre-rattling, and a bit ridiculous at that. But hey, they had their comeuppance in Cuba, way back when, so no one can claim they are clean in this regard. Plus, they had their Vietnam in the form of Afghanistan -- you know, that funny little conflict where we supported the Taliban? (Ooo, that was awkward.) And yet, the demands of "realpolitik" would seem to indicate that, rather than a lame duck vice president skittering around the border of Russia, mooning them at every opportunity like some sort of WASP-y version of Ahmadinejad, we should quietly and calmly sit down with the Russians, once again, and basically, like in the gangster movies of old, divide up the territory. Because the chances that neither they nor we will do any further empire building from this moment on are nonexistent -- it is going to happen, and it can happen relatively peacefully or it can turn into a second Cold War, which I'm sure would suit Cheney just fine, but I fail to see its objective advantage for the rest of the country. Does it mean we give up on the idea of self-determination, i.e. for other nations? Well... that sort of assumes we've been operating on that basis up to now, which is highly debatable. But let's just say in principle that we're willing to allow other nations a bit of leeway in how they govern themselves, and in who they choose to forge "special relationships" with. I'm sure Russia would be willing to sign on to the same concept. I'm also sure they would be just as sincere about it as we would be, i.e. "not". But at least we could go back to the good old days when the world map basically came in two colors -- "them" and "us", with a few oddball places that fit into neither category. There was a certain grinding security in that -- whereas what we have now is more like a room full of ping-pong balls, mousetraps, and flasks of nitroglycerin.