Even someone like John McCain, who’s said we need to take strong diplomatic stances to isolate Russia, has said that he’s not talking about using military force. Which isn’t “funny” in the traditional sense, but it is funny in the sense that McCain is usually the first Republican in Congress saying how we need to send troops to (fill in whichever Middle Eastern country), scoffing at the idea of handling those situations with diplomacy.
But they’re not Russia. Dealing with Russia and their actions in Ukraine isn’t something where we can simply say, “Send in the troops!” Though I’ve seen some conservatives either suggest that directly, or imply “it’s not off the table.”
So far, the leading Republican talking points about this situation trend more toward strong diplomatic action as opposed to military force.
We’re all well aware that Republicans love war. Sure, they’ll never say that, but it’s pretty obvious.
John McCain, the man who would have been president in 2008 if he had beaten Obama, would have sent troops into Egypt, Syria and Libya for certain – and who knows what he might have done with Iran.
Mitt Romney, the man who would have been president in 2012 if he had beaten Obama, made it clear that when it came to Iran he wasn’t opposed to using military force.
Then we need to look no further than the last two Republican presidents we’ve had. George H. Bush, in just four years, sent our military off into operation Desert Storm and George W. Bush started both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
Like I said, Republicans love war.
And while most aren’t calling for military force now, mark my words, many of them soon will be if things in Ukraine don’t settle down.
Most of them are rightfully calling for diplomatic means to address Russia’s aggression, but that’s because they have to. Risking war with Russia isn’t the same as sending a few thousand troops into Libya or Syria. So they’re being more cautious about their words, but you can still hear the underlying tone in what they say.
They realize that risking war with Russia is a very big deal, so they want to make sure that they work up the right kind of fear and anti-Obama sentiment before really making that push.
Heck, most of them have been pushing the idea that Obama trying to improve relations with Russia is what led Putin to sending troops into Ukraine. Because, you know, having the lofty goal of working with (instead of against) Russia is such a “terrible” idea, right?
But mark my words, whenever Obama announces what he plans to do to take action against Russia, Republicans will be publicly slamming him for whatever that plan is. They’ll continue to ratchet up their rhetoric, continue to work their constituents up into a fear frenzy, and just when they think that public support might be growing for military involvement in Ukraine – that’s when you’ll start seeing more Republicans publicly endorsing using our military.
They just can’t do that now because war with Russia would not go over well – even with most Republican voters. Let’s face it – a war with Russia would most likely spiral into WWIII. It’s not going to happen under President Obama’s watch.
But Republicans don’t care. They’ll take the proper time to seem diplomatic and reasonable, stir that “fear pot” they always like to use with their easy-to-frighten voters, then that’s when you’ll see the typical war-mongering rhetoric start spilling out from the Republican party.
Latest posts by Allen Clifton (see all)
- Everything Facebook’s Doing to Combat Fake News is Only Making the Problem Worse - March 16, 2018
- Fox News’ The Five Advocates Committing War Crimes, Denies Waterboarding is Torture (Video) - March 15, 2018
- Controversy in Montana Shows GOP Trying to Use Green Party to Keep Majority in Senate - March 15, 2018