Dr. James Zogby

Jim Zogby: Hi, I'm Jim Zogby, welcome to Viewpoint.
Tonight we will discuss the latest in the conflict between Russia and Georgia, but first I want to welcome Susan Rice, Senior Foreign Policy Advisor for Barack Obama, and former Senior Director for African Affairs at the National Security Council and she is on temporary leave from the Brookings Institution where she's a Senior Fellow, welcome Susan.

Susan Rice: Good to be with you, Jim.

JZ: We have had you on the show before and talked about a range of issues affecting Barack Obama and affecting the campaign.
There's one that sort of stays with me. I don't know if you saw the memos that were printed in The Atlantic, the various internal memos from the Clinton campaign that were quite intriguing, certainly about the problems within the campaign but a couple of them were advisories to the candidate how she should run the campaign that stuck in my mind, they were telling her, you should focus on being from middle America and point out the difference between you and your opponent, that you are like average Americans, and he's not.
I have been seeing that play out in the McCain campaign recently.
It appears that what started during the primaries is going to continue on through the fall, an effort to portray Barack Obama as different than us, not like us, out of the mainstream.
How does that affect you, somebody that works with him, knows him close to the campaign, and how do you deal with that.
Even just on a personal level.

SR: Well, Jim, first of all, I think it's important to point out that the Clinton team had the wisdom to reject Mark Penn's advice on that point and didn't try to exacerbate concerns about Senator Obama's patriotism or Americanism.
But it seems like the McCain campaign may be going in a different direction, frankly what we are seeing out of the McCain campaign is straight out of the Karl Rove play book, the politics of division and fear.
I don't think it's going to work this time, Jim.
The American people know that Barack Obama, in fact, embodies the American dream.
Here's the son of a white woman from middle America in Kansas.
He was raised by his grandparents and a single mother.
He was also the son of an immigrant from Kenya who came to the United States to be educated and benefit from the American dream.
That's who all of us are in one form or another.
That's a very moving story.
Barack Obama was a kid who came up from modest means, got scholarships to go to school, and through hard work and skill, has done very well.
That's what we believe in.
So I think this effort to distort who he is, and to create fear that he is somehow different is, first of all, not factual and, secondly, the American people, I think, are much more concerned about the real issues that are affecting them on a daily basis -- housing crisis, the economy, jobs, gasoline, the war in Iraq.
These are the issues people care about and they want a leader that will do what's necessary to extricate them.

JZ: We have a couple of the ads being played.
The celebrity ad was another.
I thought, the naive guy that I am, that a match up between John McCain and Barack Obama would present the first ever real substantive campaign where you had two guys who have the ability to reach to the center and conduct a campaign on a civil basis.
But I see it turning in a different direction.
I am wondering if you get beyond that, if that becomes the defining characteristic of this campaign, Joe Lieberman saying yesterday that this is a contest between two candidates one who puts the country first and the other who does not.
That's tough talk.

SR: It's a disgraceful comment.
But, Jim, as I said, I really don't think the American people have an appetite for those politics of division and fear.
It's left us divided as a people and lead to gridlock and no results in Washington.
It's lead to the sort of lobbying influence we have seen manifest in the McCain campaign.
It's not working for the American people at a time of real economic crisis, at a time when our national security has failed us.
We have had eight years of failed Bush policy which John McCain has not only been a champion of but wants to intensify in a third term.
The American people aren't going for it.
Barack Obama clearly represents a clean break from the Bush years, he's the antithesis of divisiveness and fear.
He's about what we can accomplish when we come together as Americans, regardless of race, regardless of religion, whether you are an immigrant, a native, or an African American like myself and a product of slavery, we are all Americans and we have a real stake in tackling these problems.
And I think if I can make one more point on this, John McCain for many years had distinguished himself as somebody who stood apart from the politics of fear, who hasn't brought into the Karl Rove play book.
Now when his candidacy is on the line, he's shown himself to be the worst of the Rove Republicans.
That's not what the Americans expected.
They expected the substantive debate that Barack Obama is intent upon having, and john McCain doesn't want to have and would rather talk about Paris Hilton and Britney Spears.

JZ: I just want to note, we have invited someone from the campaign for John McCain for the past three weeks to talk about the overall approach to the campaign and they have not sent us anyone.
I want to talk about Georgia if we can.
There are a number of writers commenting on the difference between the two campaigns.
Somebody called it a “3:00 a.m. moment” and said it was very revealing, the initial comments.
It was humorous in one regard, somebody described McCain as the first term of the Bush, but, sort of the moral core of neo-conservatism and somebody described Barack Obama and the neo-diplomacy for the second administration.
There are two different approaches.
What do you see as the fundamental difference how the candidates have approached the crisis in Georgia?

SR: There was some apparent difference at the outset when we were receiving information and how it was unfolding and the facts were not all certain.
At that point, John McCain came out without clear sense of the situation on the ground and shot very quickly from the hip.
His statement was aggressive and belligerent and, indeed, suggested a degree of moral clarity that, frankly, wasn't apparent.
And Senator Obama and indeed the Bush administration and all of our NATO allies, issued more tempered statements calling on both sides to cease-firing and pursue this problem through political means.
As soon as it became clear that this was, indeed a situation of Russian aggression, and Russia invading the sovereign nation of Georgia and using overwhelming force, Barack Obama, in light of the facts on the ground, has made subsequent statements condemning that aggression, being very clear about his support for Georgia’s sovereignty.
Demanding a cease-fire, demanding Russian forces be replaced by truly neutral and international peace keepers and monitors.
And insisting, as he has for many months, because he's been talking about this issue since April, that we stand by Georgia and its people to provide humanitarian and reconstruction assistance.
And very importantly, stand by our commitment, which is Barack Obama's commitment to see Georgia find a path to NATO membership through an action plan which he has long supported.
So Russia is way out of line.
And its approach to the situation is absolutely unacceptable and intolerable and the international community and particularly the United States needs to be involved actively with a high level of diplomacy and work with our NATO allies.

JZ: What do you think about the G8?
John McCain would have kicked Russia out of the G8 already.

SR: I can assure you, Jim, if Russia had been kicked out of the G8 its behavior would be no better than it is today.
We need to look at the full range of our bilateral and multilateral arrangements with the Russians, and review them.

JZ: It's condemning the Russian assault, to be sure, but criticizing the Bush administration for, in effect, emboldening the Georgians, in this case.
There was a commentary I saw from senator Obama from July 23rd before this crisis evolved.
Here's what he said, only a political settlement --

SR: prescient.

JZ: I think that it's an interesting comment because it is in line with those who suggest that, yes, Russia has been aggressive, but that the Georgian government was in danger of overreaching.
Do you fault the Bush administration in this regard at all?

SR: Well, I think, quite honestly, Jim, while Secretary Rice is abroad, trying to negotiate a diplomatic resolution of this, it's not particularly helpful or constructive to go back and do the who-shot-who job, we will have time for that and that's for historians to do.
But right now the United States need to send a clear message of our support for the Georgian government and their people and a forceful message to Russia that their policies and actions are absolutely unacceptable.

JZ: Wow would Barack Obama deal with Russia in the future?
Some suggest a new cold war is in the offing, there's a competition for power between Europe, the U.S., its NATO allies, and Russia, and there is the first shot, or maybe the most recent shot in that conflict.
Is there a difference how you move forward?

SR: This is obviously an extremely troubling and dangerous development.
And Russia’s intentions are now a signal to be quite malevolent in the region.
We will see how they respond in the coming days, and whether they will add here to the cease-fire that they committed to, whether they will withdraw.
They will have to be penalized for what they have done.
We cannot send a message that this sort of behavior will be tolerated and replicated elsewhere.
We have a set of issues that we will have to continue to work through with Russia.
But we need to convey, when they violate human rights, violate international law and challenge and invade the sovereignty of other countries, the international community won't stand for it.

JZ: I want to talk to you about the part of the trip that you were there for.

SR: Senator Obama's recent trip to the Middle East?

JZ: We have done a couple of shows with those who observed the trip, but you were a participant.
I want to talk about Afghanistan, Pakistan and move west as the trip moved west.

SR: Just to be clear I was not on the Afghanistan portion of it.

JZ: But I want to talk about it in this regard, there appears to be at least on Afghanistan, a growing convergence around Obama’s position, with regard to the need to beef up forces there and dealing more aggressively with the threat that Afghanistan poses.
Do you see this administration taking the steps that you are calling for?

SR: Well, certainly, Obama has been concerned about Afghanistan for years, and has been talking about it repeatedly in the context of the campaign.
Of course, he opposed the war in Iraq for many reasons, one of which is it would divert our energy and attention from Afghanistan which is why groups are resurgent and regrouping.
So Senator Obama's view is we have got our priorities confused.
Indeed, we need to take care of the growing and serious threat that al Qaeda and the Taliban pose in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Part of the answer to that is to have some, at least two additional combat brigades in Afghanistan.
But this is not something that can be solved through military means alone.
We have to have a more effective approach to Pakistan and counter terrorism cooperation in Pakistan.
We need to be part of providing a better future for the people in these countries, and not aligning ourselves solely with leaders, particularly in Pakistan where Musharraf really hasn't had the interests of his people sufficiently at heart.
He would invest a great deal more in the economic and social development of these countries, particularly in Afghanistan, but also the describe balance areas of Pakistan which have been so underdeveloped and are now being exploited by these extremist developments.
So we need as multifaceted strategy, political, economic, and indeed security, and devote the attention
To these important places they deserve.
The administration has come to this concern belatedly and it was hamstrung by its refusal to prioritize Afghanistan over Iraq.
Indeed, as long as we maintain a high level of forces in Iraq, and as long as we are political and diplomatic in our effort on Iraq, we are unable to engage Afghanistan and Pakistan and we have seen the consequences.

JZ: Before you went, comments were made in Iraq that were then repudiated but then affirmed similar to the timetable he has called for, and it appears to be part of this an is, to the standard forces agreement that we are negotiating with Iraq.
An agreement, as well, on a timetable, at least a loose timetable that leads to 2010 as a phased out U.S. presence.
Is that comforting that there's an agreement there, a movement in that direction?
And do you think that the support agreement either ties or frees your hands on this issue?

SR: Senator Obama's clear view is that any agreement negotiated with the Iraqis ought to come to our Congress for approval and should not constrain the decision making of our next president.
That's a matter of stock principle.
But when it comes to a timetable, Senator Obama has been saying for several years now, that it's time for the United States to indicate that it's leaving on a predictable and responsible schedule.
There will be some presence required like embassies, and dealing with al Qaeda remnants and perhaps training the Iraqi security forces if they make adequate political progress, but we cannot stay indefinitely.
His view has always been by indicating to the Iraqis we were not going to be there forever, which is essentially John McCain’s view, we would encourage them to make the political compromises they've been reluctant to make so far and this political progress would be encouraged by that approach, rather than the approach of the Bush administration and John McCain.
The Iraqis are now saying that out loud for themselves, “we want to control our sovereignty. We want you to give us that incentive to do so and the best way to do it, United States, is to set a timetable for leaving.”

JZ: The Bush administration resisted it, but they are moving in that direction because they have no choice.

SR: John McCain is the only one who can't see that Iraq belongs to Iraqis, and if, indeed, they want the United States to leave on a political time line, they have to do it.

JZ: And the trip to Jordan was successful from all accounts, and then crossing into Israel, Palestine, where there were meetings with a range of Israeli leaders and a number of visits to Israeli sites, and a meeting in the west bank with prime minister Fayad and Mahmoud Abbas.

SR: And other senior Palestinians.

JZ: There was criticism on the Palestinian side and it was echoed here when Senator Obama was with Tom Brokaw.
He said you didn't even stop and eat falafel in Jerusalem.
You didn't doing in on the Palestinian side.
That criticism is out there, it's real.
The Palestinians are saying, we didn't get the attention we deserved.
Talk about that and respond to that, if you would.

SR: I understand that sentiment and it certainly was not Senator Obama's contention to convey any lack of concern or regards for the Palestinian people.
Quite the opposite.
He went through Ramallah.
John McCain, you will recall, couldn't be bothered to visit with the Palestinian leadership.
He had a meaningful and substantive discussion with the Palestinian leadership.
I was privileged to be there.
It covered a full range of important political issues.
And, indeed, president Abbas surprised us in the middle of the meeting by bringing in what he called “Obama bread”, which was a dish that was being sold out in the streets, a circular, "o" shaped bread with cheese and tomatoes and basil on top, as a way of showing there was a connection with the Palestinian people that they felt to Senator Obama and his trip.
And Senator Obama's schedule as I can attest, because I was can with him ever hour of that day was absolutely punishing, beginning at the crack of drawn and ending at night.
Had we had more flexibility in that schedule, certainly, his preference would have been to have done as he did when he went to Ramallah in 2006, which is to sit down with young people and students, spend time in the West Bank.
He has done that in the past and would have loved to have done that before, we just didn't have the opportunity.

JZ: If you want to give us a call, 001-202…, or 1-800...
He made a note in one of his comments, about the problems, on both sides, actually, it was comments in Jordan, he talked about the weaknesses in both leaderships, and the difficulties of moving forward.
Well, they were divided when they were there; the situation has even become worse since he left.
These were all developments that were in the offing long before.
But the problem is the next president, whoever that may be, inherits a very complicated situation.
An Israel deeply divided, without leadership strong enough to move and a Palestinian society physically divided and its leadership divided, again, without the ability to lead and move forward.
He has made the point of strengthening leadership.
How do you strengthen leadership under these terms?

SR: Jim, first of all, one has to recognize that it is what it is.
One also has to recognize that what was have clear throughout our discussion, but from the Israeli’s perspective, from the Palestinian’s perspective and indeed from the United States perspective, we have all had a shared interest in a lasting piece negotiated, so that a Jewish state of Israel, and a viable Palestinian state can live side by side in peace and security.
There is no disagreement about that.
Everybody sees that this is where we need to go.
So the question is whether the respective political constraints on both sides will complicate that to the point of making it impossible in the near term.
Senator Obama's view, Jim, is we don't have the luxury of sitting back and speculating or thinking that, you know, it's difficult, so it's not worth trying.
His view is we can and we must try.
We must be engaged constructively from the very beginning of the new administration.
He will do that.
He will personally engage.
He won't try to turn back the clock or reinvent the wheel.
He will pick up where the parties leave off.
And where they leave off is not as far as where they might ever, if the political sides were more simple.
This is something that is important to all concerned.
And when our interests are at stake and the interests of the Palestinian people, we must and we will make the effort.

JZ: let's go to our caller, hello?

Caller: Hi, yes, hi Jim, hi, Susan, I wouldn't worry about McCain, if I were you, he's a real twit.
He's putting himself in a bucket on his own, don't worry about him.

JZ: That's an expression I haven't heard before.
Your question, please?

Caller: I wanted to say I will vote for Senator Obama but I was disappointed he didn't make more of an effort to go to Gaza which is a real battle zone in that area.
I know the people of Gaza would have been desperate to see him.

JZ: Thank you for the call.

SR: Frankly, I appreciate the caller and her support for Senator Obama.
I think it's a practical matter of Hamas controlling Gaza.
It would have been difficult from a political viewpoint, and his view, we should not engage Hamas unless it recognizes Israel and abides by the Palestinian leadership committed to some years ago.
That would not have been a move we would have contemplated.
We were pleased to go to the West Bank.
We had very productive meetings.
As I said, we all wished we had had more time to be out and about in the West Bank and, indeed, to --

JZ: As you were driving there from Jerusalem, you saw the wall and you saw the settlements, and you saw what daily life has to deal with, the check points, et cetera.
Gaza is pretty bad?


SR: No doubt, Jim, it's a very moving and compelling experience to take that drive.
As you know, I have been there before.
I have also spent a lot of time in Africa and I am familiar with the circumstances where people are living with challenging environments.

JZ: Let's go to Maryland for a call.

Caller: hello, I would just like to know, what do you think, over the news programs, I have been hearing
How Obama -- or how people feel Obama is an elitist or whatever, when McCain went to the naval academy through the legacy program.
He didn't have the grace to get into the Naval academy and graduated at the bottom of his class at the Naval academy, and then --

JZ: Your question?

Caller: well, do you believe McCain would, more elite than Mr. Obama?

JZ: Ok.

SR: Well, Jim, and our caller, I think it's rather laughable to suggest that a half white, half black scholarship kid who worked his way up with very little to a law school at Harvard is an elitist.
This is a man who took his first meaningful job out of university and went and worked for $12,000 a year on the south side of Chicago, trying to help workers who lost their jobs, find a future this is not elitism.
This is the American dream and it's giving back to your country and your community.
John McCain has done that and would honor his service to our country, but to suggest that Barack Obama who has also served his country every year of his life, is somehow an elitist and not a regular American, I think, is a false and typically negative attack.
I think the American people can see well beyond that.

JZ: Let's go to California for the call.
Hello?

Caller: The convention is coming up in little more than a week.
What are the expectations and concerns, if any, that you have for the convention.

SR: Well, I think the expectation is it will be an opportunity for the American people to hear from, and see, again, not only Barack Obama as he talks about the challenge is America faces and the kinds of change and leadership we need but it's also an opportunity to see the new face of the Democratic Party.
We will showcase some governors and senators, and leaders that really represent a new future for the Democratic Party, a party that's about getting things done that, is solution oriented, and it's about unity and bipartisan solutions.
I am very excited.
I think it's going to be a great convention and we will come out of it more unified than ever and ready to beat John McCain in the fall.

JZ: And the vice president is going to be?

SR: I have no idea.

JZ: When we come back an analysis of the situation in depth, we will talk about Russia and Georgia.
And take your questions.
Stay tuned.

Jim Zogby: Welcome back to "Viewpoint" I am James Zogby.
My next guest, former Director for European Affairs at the National Security Council and author of several books on foreign policy, thanks for joining us.

Charles Kupchan: Good to be back.

JZ: You are following this.
I said as the show began, that I have followed everything but this, but those of you who follow this closely because it's your area -- mine is the Middle East, knew this was coming.
Why did we appear to get caught by surprise as it exploded in…

CK: Well, I think that in some ways, the conflict was so ripe and had been ripe for so long that it lulled us into a certain complacency.
Ossetia and the south effectively broke away from Georgia and were called frozen conflicts.
And the other thing is everyone has been preoccupied where Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Israel.
And this, even though it was a flash point, I think it did fall through the cracks, particularly at the diplomatic levels.

JZ: It's interesting because there are two distinct narratives playing out.
Let's go, first, to that region and the narrative there.
There's the Russian narrative, and then the Georgia narrative.
I want to put a quote up from Gorbachev who had an op-ed in the "Washington Post."

CK: I was surprised he would be supportive as a Russian nationalist turned out to be.

JZ: Let's look at the quote --
… that's one narrative.
How deeply felt is that by various segments in Russian society?
If Gorbachev is saying -- does it surprise you he would share a similar view to the governing elite right now?

CK: I think not.
I think it would be very difficult to find anyone in Russia who would say that narrative it wrong.
They might you say it's too one-sided, the situation was nuanced, but from the Russian perspective, this was about two things, one a 10 to 15-year period in which Moscow felt the United States had not accorded it the power that it deserves.
Second there's been a long standing rivalry particularly with these territories, but also Saakashvili’s desire to leave and align itself with the west and the Russians have found both of those things difficult to follow.

JZ: Another narrative in an op-ed as well in the "Washington Post" --
and then he goes on to describe Russian provocations and concludes saying that the 8th, August 8th, didn't go to the 7th as Gorbachev does, will be remembered as a water shed date that changed Europe.
How widespread is that narrative in the west and in particular among conservatives?

CK: I am struck by the degree to which if you landed here from Mars a week ago and just read the op-ed pages of the "Washington Post," the "Wall Street Journal" and the "New York Times," I think you would conclude that the Cold War is back.
There's been one op-ed after another, that says, poor little Georgia has been trampled upon by the big bear, and the bear, a Russian imperialist aggressor is now back on the scene.
I think it's way premature to rush to that conclusion.
It's almost as if others have been chafing at the bit for this to happen so they can say, ah-ha, told you so, Russia it an imperialist aggressor state.
But if you look at Saakashvili's provocations, the degree to which the United States built him up as a beacon of freedom, he was far from it.
It appears that Georgia is, at least, equally responsible for what happened.
I am not one who thinks Russia should get off scott-free, but I also think it would be premature and dangerous to presume that Russia is now another Soviet Union attempting to turn Georgia into a satellite.

JZ: The Bush administration, are they at fault here?
Did they embolden, as some suggest, the Georgian leadership, making them think they could act and be supportive in with whatever they did?

CK: I think they emboldened Saakashvili, but in a roundabout way.
That is to say that quietly, they were saying to him -- don't provoke Russia.
Don't overstep your bounds, tone down your nationalist rhetoric.
Keep cool.
But publicly, they were very close to him.
They did hold him up as the knight in shining armor.
They were training the military.
Georgia had 2,000 troops in Iraq.
So in that sense, I think Saakashvili was getting mixed signals and it was because he was able to interpret U.S. behavior as standing by him no matter what he did, that led him to mike a grievous miscalculation.

JZ: The attack on the capital on August 7th which appears to be the immediate precipitator of this crisis, was it as the Russians described, genocidal?

CK: We don't yet know the facts.

JZ: I find it a bit cheeky given what they did in Chechnya.
For them, it was the precipitator.

CK: Listen, there has been tit for tat exchanges of violence almost on a daily basis.
Things did get more heated prior to Saakashvili's decision to go in.
But from what we know, the Georgian military went into south Ossetia, and there was a lot of killing that went on.
And Russia sent in his armored column that connected south Ossetia, to northern Chechnya.
Now Saakashvili said that's not what happened, Russia moved first.
It will take time for people to go in and, number one, get the facts, and, number two, see how much indiscriminate killing took place, but I agree, it's the pot calling the kettle black for Russia to be caulking about genocide at this place.

JZ: If you want to give us a call, the numbers are on the screen --
There's another quote that is really interesting, and it comes from the foreign minister.
He says -- there's a lot there to pull out, both the real partnership issue, which I guess you could put quotations around, and then there's this special project which seems to me, while it's talking about Georgia itself, I think it reveals almost, a deeper Russian anger, maybe beginning with Kosovo and the Czech Republic, and today's announcement of the missile defense arrangement in Poland.
The Russians have a lot of special projects going on here.
What should be our response, and would we be seen as maybe having overplayed our hand in surrounding Russia?

CK: I think that the, you know, part of the problem is a perceptual one, when the U.S. bids a close relationship with Georgia it is doing it in part for the sound principle that Georgia should choose its own path.
When NATO expanded eastward, the same rationale.
But the view from Moscow is -- they are coming after us, they are encircling us and it's getting uncomfortable.
Imagine how the U.S. would react if Russia formed an alliance with Mexico or Cuba, or Canada or anywhere in the western hemisphere, we would not be happy.
So you need to look at the world from Moscow’s perspective.

JZ: Does the missile arrangement announced with Poland today make this more complicated?

CK: I think it does.
It's the only thing that the U.S. has done that I would say is a little provocative.
I would give the Bush administration credit for actually handling this pretty calmly.
It did not jump to the gun as John McCain did.
In the talk that Bush gave yesterday when he dispatched Condoleezza Rice to Tblisi.
He said here's what Russia needs to do to reinstate itself.
A lot of this is determined by the Russians.
If the Russians go to Tblisi, it's a different world.

JZ: Do you expect it will continue beyond the immediate proclaimed goals of liberating this area, or do you think that it will push further down into Georgia?

CK: I think we will see sporadic fighting partly because there are irregulars there, who will be riding around, and vice versa, but I think we have probably seen the full extent of the operation.
What Russia did is take control of Ossetia, and then move any an exclusion zone to the south of those two territories, take a strategic choke point and is now holding them.
It's going to take some time to get them out and we need to be prepared, the EU, the UN, to put in a peace keeping force to keep Georgian and Russian trips apart from each other.

JZ: Look at the French-negotiated agreement which didn't work.
Let's put it up on the screen.
The Russians interpreted one of them to giving them a little more leeway than the French intended.
There were six points, and they are up on the screen right now.
Here they are --

CK: And the open interpretation one allowed them to keep this buffer area, you said, and then open negotiations on Abkhazia and south Ossetia.
The question, is this the framework, or is there a new one needed?
Is this the one that can be used to end it?

JZ: I think this is a workable framework.
The question is really implementation and interpretation.
Particularly in these buffer areas.
I don't think anybody believes Russia is going to pack its bags and go home because then we will be back to where we were before this broke out.
So where I think most of the action will be in the coming days is in those buffer zones in Georgia proper.
How quickly will the Russians pull out?
Might they hamper the introduction of humanitarian and medical assistance?
In other words, do they look like a good faith negotiator and do they do like their main from is to escalate and keep a good relationship with the west or do they look like they are looking for a fight.
One thing, the agreement to which now premier Putin is in control.
Early on, he was the face you saw, and almost operating as field marshal, visiting the troops, et cetera.
The president has, in recent days made the big speech, but is this Putin's show?

CK: Absolutely it's Putin's show.
I think this doesn't necessarily tell us that all along the balance of power was in favor of Putin, but events have a way of pushing these issues.
As a result of this war and Putin's conduct and control of it, I think it will shape the ongoing balance of power that favors the prime minister over Medvedev.

JZ: Let's go to California for a call, caller?
Caller: yes, could either of you speculate on why Senator McCain would select a paid lobbyist for Georgia to be his senior foreign policy advisor when there's so many more people with vastly superior credentials?

CK: Well, I think it's an interesting issue.
And several people have already resigned from the McCain campaign because they had lobbyist connections, as well as Hillary Clinton’s campaign had the same problem.
I think it is, perhaps, it does shed light on why McCain has come down so hard, that is there are people in Washington that, I think, are too close to Georgia.
The relationship really has become remarkably close, personal friendships with Saakashvili and at times that has made the U.S. too close to Georgia and Georgia too close to us.
It made us, perhaps, not rein him in as much as we should have.

JZ: Let me put up the positions of both candidates and just take a look at them, just excerpt comments from both and I want you to evaluate the difference.
Let's go to John McCain, first, if would could.
We will put it up on the screen --
Russian president Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin must understand severe long-term negative consequences that their government's actions will have for Russia’s relationship with the U.S. and Europe.
Today he was talking about kicking them out of the WTO.
He's calling for them leaving the G8 and actually has begun referring to Russia as -- referring to the G7, using the term.

CK: I noticed that.

JZ: Barack Obama on the other hand, began somewhat differently with this position.
Here's what Barack Obama said – “Aggressive diplomatic action must be taken to reach a political resolution and to ensure Georgia’s sovereignty is protected.
Diplomats at the highest levels from the U.S., E.U., and UN must become directly involved in mediating this military conflict and beginning a process to resolve political disputes.”
They obviously had a lot more to say, including John McCain’s "We are all Georgians" comment the other day, but how do you evaluate the difference between the two and what does this crisis teach us about how both the two gentlemen would, as president behave?

CK: I thought that John McCain jumped the gun.
He, from the get-go, said this southbound and unadorned illegitimate bold act of Russian aggression and then he began to put forward the views he's been articulating for several areas.
He ridiculed Bush when Bush first tried to build a friendship with Putin.
He now wants to build a League of Democracies as a defining institution in which the Russians would be nowhere to be found.
In many respects it's let's contain, isolate and roll back.
And I think Barack Obama and the Bush administration has more or less been in the same place and that's a more nuanced, cautious approach.
The first pronouncements were both sides bear responsibility but Russia has acted in a disproportionate way and as Russia continued its operations, the rhetoric from Obama and Bush have become more harsh, but I think neither Obama or Bush has reached any conclusions, as has McCain that it's time to double down and build some kind of new barrier around Russia.

JZ: Let's go to Montana.

Caller: hello, yes, hi.
How much of this problem in Georgia has to do with the oil and gas running through the region with Iran and Afghanistan pipelines in mind?
And who owns the shares to that oil and gas in that region?

CK: Thank you.
It's a good question and it comes back to the broader geo political landscape that lies behind this conflict.
There is a pipeline that runs through the Waspia, through Georgia to Turkey and onward to western Europe.
It's clearly an effort to try to get Caspian oil to the west without running through Russia.
So that by, it gives Russia less control over its key resource, oil and gas.
There's talk of a second pipeline which would be a gas pipeline, again, running all the way to Europe.
One of the things I think we should watch for in the coming weeks is does Russia mess with that?
Does Russia try to manipulate the flow of oil or is it going to take a back seat and get on with its life and let free market principles rain.

JZ: A caller from Indiana?

Caller: I was wondering why the Russian troops came through Georgia, the Georgians didn't blow up the pipelines between Russia and Europe and, also, why the tunnels between north and south Ossetia going from Russia to Georgia weren't either blocked or blown up once it was obvious they couldn't stop the troops from coming in?

CK: Well, I think that Georgia has limited options, in the sense that it does not have a major military capability, a huge intelligent system in the same way the United States or Russia does.
The standing army of Georgia as of a week ago, was about 27,000.
The Russian army had about 100,000 troops just in the southern military district alone.
This is not a fair fight.
It's basically a gorilla fighting a squirrel.
And there weren't a lot of options.
I think the interesting question is, why didn't Russia -- why didn't Georgia try to block the tunnel?
And I think the answer is because all of this happened so quickly.
It was not premeditated.
It's appears that Saakashvili just said what the hell, let's go for it and the next thing you know, his country has several tens of thousands of Russian troops in it.

JZ: I want to ask you a larger question about the political landscape here, we have spent the last several years focused on Afghanistan, then lost focus on that and moved to Iraq.
We have been in Iraq for the last five, six years.
Periodically paying attention to Darfur and a few other places, but now this is in focus.
Do you expect in focus to alter some of the way we are thinking about foreign policy as we go forward, first to this presidential election?
Will this be an issue that will stay with us for a while and maybe cause us to re-think some of our political formulations as we look at the world.

CK: I think that's a little too severe, if Russia behaves itself and goes back, then I would think that two, three, four months from now this will not be seen as a game-changing event.
If Russia goes in and tries to keep hold of Georgia, that’s a game-changing event.
We need to go back to the drawing board in thinking of our relationship with Russia.

JZ: Thank you for joining us.
I am sure we will have you back.
It may not be game-changer but I am sure it's going to be around for a bit.
I want to thank our guests Susan Rice and Charles Kupchan who joined us, and join us next week for a special edition of "Viewpoint" where college students talk about their perceptions of American life, politics and the culture and the week after, we will go to Dearborn and talk with 100 Americans about the election.