Inform Your Consent

So the first headline out on Sarah Palin’s first interview was “Exclusive: Gov. Sarah Palin warns war may be necessary if Russia invades another country.”  Well, she wasn’t that dramatic.  When asked if she favors bringing Ukraine and Georgia into NATO she said, absolutely to Ukraine, and yes as well to Georgia.  So then of course Gibson asked the question that obviously follows, so that means you’d be willing to go to war with Russia for one of them, and she said, “Well, perhaps. Yes.”  I am sure they cut the portion where Gibson says incredulously, ‘Yeah, but you can’t possibly mean you would go to war with Russia, can you?  Because, if you do, I think you might be crazy, but our ratings will go through the ROOF.’

In her defense (it’s not much of a defense) Palin responded to explain, well that’s what NATO members, pledge to defend oneanother.  True….  Which is EXACTLY why Russia wanted this escalation with Georgia, to torpedo the country’s entry into NATO at all. Because NATO would be crazy to induct a member that has a recent history and likelihood of armed conflict with Russia. Recall that Germany vetoed Ukraine’s and Georgia’s induction into NATO earlier this year.

I get that Russia is flexing.  But NATO enlargement is a very complicated proposition.  It’s not a simple matter of inviting pledges into your sorority. Enlarging NATO and setting up missile defense shields in its former satellites are, for Russia, major provocations.  I’ve always thought the Bush administration was swashbuckling its way through the post-Cold War, when their cooperation is crucial to solving the major anti-proliferation (NK, Iran, loose nukes) problems we face.  As for Palin, surely she doesn’t intend to “keep an eye on Russia” by literally keeping an eye on them from the tip of Alaska, does she?

Folks, you need to watch this interview.  Palin was defensive and unsure, and above all, not ready for the job, let alone the interview.  She reacted like a deer in headlights when Gibson asked her if she agreed with the Bush Doctrine.  Even when he said it was articulated in the run up to the Iraq war, she guessed and went off on an islamic extremists riff… but in fact, that dusty ole doctrine was about pre-emptive war, and the infamous case made for that war was not about islamic radicalism (Saddam’s Iraq was highly secularized) but about weapons of mass destruction.  A vice presidential candidate following in Bush’s wake should know recent major history cold.

Palin could make up some ground on domestic issues, so no one should be uncorking champagne bottles yet.  I am sure only her opposition will nitpick in this fashion.  CNN’s Candi Crowley was a little overly impressed, for instance, that Palin correctly identified that NATO is all for one and one for all (what is an alliance if not that?), but she makes a valid point (on AC 360) that the folks who haven’t made up their mind yet are most concerned with the top of the ticket.

Oh, and,  just one more thing: it’s NU-CLEAR.