I don't think people should go hyperventilating about ABC News reporting that Sarah Palin said "war may be necessary" if Russia invades another country. For one thing, Obama's own (irresponsible, in my view) position that Georgia should be let into NATO implies a military obligation to preserve Georgia's security. Personally, I don't think NATO should be in the habit of letting in little countries that have a habit of starting wars with bigger countries that they can't finish without assistance, but that's just my childhood in D.C. talking. In my experience, that last person you want to be friends with is the little loudmouth dude who likes to start fights.
But this is Obama's policy. There is little daylight between Obama and McCain on this issue. Palin was repeating what both campaigns have said, if less artfully. There's plenty that's wrong with the McCain/Palin ticket, but if you're upset about this, you should be upset at Obama too. This is a general problem with the politics of foreign policy, where belligerent reactions are seen as Very Serious. But a disproportionate response to Palin's statement on Russia will likely undermine future substantive criticisms, so people should really just chill.
I shouldn't end this post without noting that Palin wasn't able to answer a question from Charlie Gibson about what "The Bush Doctrine" of foreign policy is. When asked the question, she shoehorned like a high school student who just got caught not paying attention. In addition, she seems to agree with Obama on the right of the U.S. to hit high priority targets in Pakistan, although to be fair McCain's position on this doesn't make any sense given his enthusiastic and premature support of war in Iraq. Maybe Palin just needs some more time memorizing her lines. Even if she does, that doesn't mean she's thought seriously in any way about foreign policy, and the vice presidency is not a pop quiz.
-- A. Serwer
