You read about people who have cancer, feel fine, and then get the news. The day before they got the news, they were still ill, they just didn’t know it. They might have had twinges, or some concerns. But until the test results came in, they thought they were fine. I feel similarly about Georgia – it’s the lab result that reminds us that we face a strong, ruthless, imperialistic power in Russia that fully intends to get its place at the superpower table back, by any means necessary.
I read a lot of the commentary over the weekend, and a lot of it makes the question of ’cause’ deeper and murkier than ever. It’s likely that Georgia overreached; it’s equally likely that Russia would have acted sooner or later regardless. The question is whether Russia intends to eat Georgia in one bite now, or just weaken it enough that the Georgian leadership reconsiders the value of a close relationship with the US.
One of the negative consequences of our balancing act on Iran is the fact that we’re dependent on the Russians and Chinese to help keep the situation there metastable – meaning that our freedom of action is severely limited elsewhere.
I look at this the opposite- if we puss out in protecting an ally in Georgia it will reinforce all of the imperialist tendencies of the Russians and god knows who else. There is some bad logic in thinking that allowing the Russians to be nasty in one place will make them amendable to not being nasty in another. Is this anything other than classic appeasement?
Moreover even thinking this way buys into the argument the Russians are making. There is NO possible justification for this, and once we start considering this anything less than naked invasion, murder, and theft we have already handed the Russians a victory.
I dont have a great answer for this, but it seems clear to me that the immediate steps need to be the President retuning from China in a huff, emergency meetings of the security council, and recalling our ambassadors. _At least_ let the Russians (and Georgians) know we are concerned. And not the diplomats version of ‘concerned’ which means we dont like it but are certain not to do anything about it.
Russian blogs state, rightly, that the Georgians are the aggressors. They started the fighting believe it or not. Trying to put down ethnic Russian (Ossetia) separatists. This is way more complex than the western news organs are painting it. Russia stepped in to stop attacks by Georgia on the S. Ossetia capital.
But what you may have is the start of the next global conflict. They always seem to trigger in this part of the world.
The Georgians say they were being fired upon by seperatists which is why they went in.
Seems like all of these things it will be a ‘He said, She said’ circular discussion. The US will be very much discouraged from doing anything here.
From here, I have no way of knowing who fired on whom.
What I do know is that any “guarantees” we may have given the Georgians are worthless. Does anyone think NATO, as a whole, could defeat the Russians in their own backyard, with their logistical advantages—even forgetting about WW3 nuke scenarios?
So we get to be concerned. Whether it’s the regular diplomatic edition or the new improved Bush-leaves-China version won’t affect Russian behavior in the least.
What do you suppose Putin saw when he looked into Bush’s soul? A feckless lightweight?
I’m not sure America has that significant of an interest in whether South Ossetian or Abkhazian remains in Georgia. In fact, we might want to consider calling for the creation of the State of Ossetia, both North and South.
AFAIK South Ossetian has nothing of value, its economy is premised on substance level farming, corruption and Russian payoffs to separatists.
Europe, which has more stake in Georgia than the U.S., needs to place troops in countries that it would like to see remain independent. Britain had 15,000 troops in Georgia in 1918 to guarantee its Independence. France has got military trainers in Georgia at the military college its helped open. But a more conspicuous number is needed.
_”Seems like all of these things it will be a ‘He said, She said’ circular discussion. The US will be very much discouraged from doing anything here.”_
This is what i’m talking about playing on the Russians rhetorical playing field. _Regardless_ of who fired on who, anexation is not the penalty. Anyone who thinks there will be no consequences for abandoning our allies to invasion is kidding themself.
_”What I do know is that any “guarantees” we may have given the Georgians are worthless.”_
Historically, i tend to agree. But it needn’t be that way.
_”Does anyone think NATO, as a whole, could defeat the Russians in their own backyard, with their logistical advantages—even forgetting about WW3 nuke scenarios?”_
Defeating Russia militarilly is beside the point… and the US could do it alone if needs be with air and sea power (whatever a victory like that would mean with thousands dead and half the world aflame). This is high stakes- if we landed a thousand paratroopers (peacekeepers of course) in Georgia’s capital and dared the Russians to spill American blood, the Russians would blink. A dangerous strategy, but interesting irony considering Russia’s supposed presence in South Ossetian to begin with.
_”So we get to be concerned. Whether it’s the regular diplomatic edition or the new improved Bush-leaves-China version won’t affect Russian behavior in the least.”_
That in itself wont- but it will strengthen Georgia’s resolve and possibly buy some time. More importantly it will demonstrate we arent taking this lightly. In that way it is a purely necessary reaction- ie it wont solve the problem but NOT doing so will make matters much worse.
_”What do you suppose Putin saw when he looked into Bush’s soul? A feckless lightweight?”_
If so god knows what he thinks of Obama and Pelosi.
The Russians aren’t responding to any Georgian provocation, they’re jumping on a pretext.
Look at the timing on this, even the US military would’ve had a hard time mobilizing a major combat force op like that in the time the Russians responded.
The Georgians moved forces north and the Russians counterattacked essentially immediately. They knew the Georgian move was coming, were waiting for it, were planning massive military force, and didn’t bother with little diplomatic niceties like warning the Georgians off.
There is no evidence they instigated the escalation, but they clearly were ready for and wanted this war.
And on the he said/she said who started it argument, I’ll give a true democratic state with a free press the nod over a tyrannical kleptocracy which likes to murder the free press until evidence arrives.
Mark B, you use the term “allies.” Is Georgia an ally of the U.S.? Is that based entirely on their participation in Iraq? Because that potentially puts the U.S. in debt to a whole lot of countries. “Link”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraq
Russia just used S. Ossetia as the pretext to attack Georgia but they have been trying to provoke Georgia for some time now. Russia just completed repairs to the rail to Abkhazia with their Railroad Troops on July 31. And given Russia’s need to use rail for troop/armor movement, it makes sense that the attacks happened now. The bigger issue is that Russia had preposition troops in Abkhazia and they had the build up in N. Ossetia for weeks in order to get the massive tank support they are rolling out could come into effect. This was most definatley not a spur of the moment response to Georgian aggression in S. Ossetia, it was a carefully planned invasion.
Two things Russia wants are control of Caspian oil pipelines and humiliation of Georgia for daring to attempt to become member of NATO. They have tried to put their puppet leaders in power in both Ukraine and Georgia and failed, the moves of this week are how they will rid Georgia of Saakashvili
Russia has ambitions to gain back their republics and imperial regime. The Russian national psyche is very much in approval with Putin’s more aggressive stances, even if he’s becoming the next Stalin. Europe is militarily impotent to any challenge, NATO is equally worthless, and the UN might as well not even comment since it will be pointless to do so. 50 years of the American security blanket is being exposed now. Russia could very well take back all of its client states without any fear of retaliation by the EU zone. Europe will appease the Russians, they have no will to fight Russia with military force.
America has limited choices since we need Russian cooperation for supplies to get to Afghanistan since the Pakistan routes are gone dangerous due to Pakistan weaknesses.If we do not get the North West Frontier in Pakistan under control we will lose Afghanistan and Pakistan. We are still tied up in Iraq and were working on Iran next. This screws the plan to reduce Iran’s nuclear technology.
Nato’s Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has accused Russian of using “disproportionate force and violating Georgia’s sovereignty”, and that will be the extent of any NATO involvement.
So while Russia takes back Georgia, or completely destroys its small military, the rest of the world is content to watch the Olympics and sit on their collective thumbs.
Chalk this up as yet another massive blunder by our security agencies as well. That this troop buildup occurred without so much as a peep, shows just how asleep at the wheel Foggy Bottom is. Also, the Bush Admins response shows that the US is going to abandon an strategic ally, though I’m not sure how much leverage the US actually has in this situation.
They have tried to put their puppet leaders in power in both Ukraine and Georgia and failed, the moves of this week are how they will rid Georgia of Saakashvili
Which logically makes Ukraine the next on the Russian hit list, and Poland the key player here. I saw the Poles released a joint statement with the Baltic States condemning the Russian invasion.
It’ll be interesting to see if there’s any movement starting to happen between Warsaw and Kiev in the next few months.
[Italics markup corrected. –NM]
_”Mark B, you use the term “allies.” Is Georgia an ally of the U.S.? Is that based entirely on their participation in Iraq? “_
Tiny Georgia is the 3rd biggest contributor of military forces in Iraq, which they supplied in solidarity with the US. They want in Nato, they have guaranteed the free flow of petroleum through their nation. So yes, they are clearly an ally.
Think how the US will look when Georgian troops are in Iraq helping the US and Russians are bombing their cities. You may not think that is a fair reading of the ground, but its immaterial- every other nation on the earth will view things that way. Good luck drumming up support next time we need it.
Kaplan nails it as well. Whats so astonishing, as that everyone knows whats happening, and nothings being done about it.
It looks to me more like Matt Yglesias is nailing it: Nowhere in [Bill Kristol’s] column does he propose a single concrete step with any meaningful chance of altering the situation — it’s all dedicated to mocking doves, but utterly lacking in viable alternatives.
For some people it is always 1938, and they are always Churchill.
My question is why didn’t Putin explain they were just eliminating the Georgian WMD stockpiles.
We can always count on Andrew for constructive discussion.
To get back to reality for a moment, former Clinton advisors are weighing in on the seriousness of the situation and what we should be doing:
“Black Sea Watershed”:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/10/AR2008081001870.html
_”Whatever mistakes Tbilisi has made, they cannot justify Russia’s actions. Moscow has invaded a neighbor, an illegal act of aggression that violates the U.N. Charter and fundamental principles of cooperation and security in Europe.”_
…
_Finally, the United States and the European Union must make clear that this kind of aggression will affect our relations and Russia’s standing in the West. While Western military intervention in Georgia is out of the question — and no one wants a 21st-century version of the Cold War — Moscow’s actions cannot be ignored. There is a vast array of political, economic and other areas in which Russia’s role and standing will have to be reexamined. Moscow must also be put on notice that its own prestige project — the Sochi Olympics — will be affected by its behavior._
[Malformed link corrected. –NM]
Actually, “Henry Farrell”:http://crookedtimber.org/2008/08/11/territorial-integrity-norms/ does a pretty good job of putting Yglesias’ comments into perspective…
A.L.
I’m not going to read Matt Yglesias’ column, but I disagree that mocking does not serve a useful function here. Eureopean energy independence is premised on oil avenues that don’t flow theough a country that has a history of shutting down the pipeline to influence neighbors. In my view American interest in Georgia has to do with securing European independence. If Europe doesn’t care, I think some mocking is in order.
Re-examining participation in a Russian Olympics? That’s so, well, Carteresque.
Of course there are measures that we can take against Russia. Unfortunately, with our allies partially dependent on Russian energy resources and with our hope and need for Russian help in Iran, even what is feasible may not be prudent.
Or you could make like Bob Kagan and Bill Kristol, who (independently?) declare this another Munich Moment® (neocon Registered Trademark). I’d put my own snark up against their babble any day of the week.
I don’t think NATO could piss if its pants were on fire, but the question is moot. There is no NATO and there is no United Nations. The countries which still have a pulse must settle things between themselves.
We want peace with Russia. If we don’t stand up for Georgia (in spite of Georgia’s faults) we’ll never have it.
_Think how the US will look when Georgian troops are in Iraq helping the US and Russians are bombing their cities._
Think how the US looked to Russia when the US began transporting Georgian troops to battle the Russians. I think Russia could take the position, if it so desired, that the US is a co-belligerent at war.
I think we need to be careful with extending any implied obligation to defend friendly countries. Those countries may end up engaging the U.S. in wars fecklessly. (I don’t necessarily think that’s the case here, but one could argue it) And I don’t find Georgia assistance completely selfless. They clearly were hoping for a military commitment that the US never made, and they were seeking the benefits of military experience from the operations.
Notwithstanding the fact that shouting “NeoCon!” is considered an argument in some quarters, I fail to see how disparaging this crisis for not being high enough on the Munich Meter is productive. Russian tanks are rolling through a sovereign ally. The parallels are there and _should_ be acknowledged. Does that mean this is WW3? Not necessarilly, but nonchalantly declaring it small potatoes increases the odds that it will end in disaster.
Now we see the absolute bankrupcy of the far lefts foriegn policy. For the last 8 years all we have heard is diplomacy, diplomacy, bring people together. Its Obama’s anthem. And yet now you have those same people scoffing at how pointless and hopeless diplomatic posturing and pressuring is. What exactly is your stance Andrew? What is the solution here? Give up? The reason the appeasement party never takes root in the US is precisely because the nation sees through them- there is nothing behind the diplomatic paper shield and its proponents know it. All the Obama way is useful for is appearing to be doing something useful when you really have no intention of doing anything. Hence, Obama is still on vacation this week. Great object lesson.
_”Think how the US looked to Russia when the US began transporting Georgian troops to battle the Russians. I think Russia could take the position, if it so desired, that the US is a co-belligerent at war”_
And again we see the Russian point of view being given equal weight when _they_ are the ones annexing their neighbor. Who gives a damn what the Russians are arguing? Every time you give the Russians propoganda a day in court you are validating their agression.
PD Shaw: “In my view American interest in Georgia has to do with securing European independence. If Europe doesn’t care, I think some mocking is in order.”
PD has a point. OTOH, do we really want to see things degrade to the point where we have to pull Europe’s nuts out of the fire again?
Of course, if it were part of Poland being annexed by Russia, Western Europe might pay a wee bit more attention. But the point is, in four years’ time, who is to say it won’t be Poland’s turn if Russia gets a free pass to roll tanks into any little state it so chooses? And in four years, who’s to say Europe (and the United States, for that matter) won’t have talked themselves even further into a “resistance is futile” funk.
I mean, 95% of human history is barbarism beating the piss out of the things that we currently hold to be inalienable rights, and who in these well-educated times dares to actually fight history?
(Yes, I know that last paragraph is internally contradictory, but it was meant to be so in an ironic way.)
Speaking of things that make your head spin, I love this map:
Map on the Ethno-Linguistic groups in the Caucasus region
So yeah, let’s all abandon the ideals of the Enlightenment for the authenticity of the tribe (which is what Political Correctness boils down to, of course…) Someday we could all be Georgians, with the biggest tribe with the boot on every other tribe’s neck. That’s a future I want for my kids.
The hell this isn’t a Munich Moment. We don’t have to wait until the Russians are in the Ukraine to say that. Putin has been planning this for a long time.
Unfortunately, so is the real president. He should be home, threatening to kick Russia out of the G8.
Except that’s exactly what they are proposing. The UN Charter isn’t worth the paper its printed on, and NATO refuses to do anything out of fear and lack of ability.
Here’s a though, start boycotting Russian oil. Yeah it will play havoc on the price of oil in the short term, but you can sure bet the Oligarchs will get Putins attention far easier than the West can.
I doubt we import much Russian oil. A boycott would just push the price of the world market higher, probably end up helping the Russians (not to mention Iran and Venezuela). Oil is a commodity, doesnt matter who is producting it.
_Unfortunately, so is the real president. He should be home, threatening to kick Russia out of the G8._
I had mentioned doing that in a previous thread. Events sometimes provide moments of clarity, like why is Russia in the G8? Nukes and oil. And oil wealth creates very thin levels of economic development and cross-incentives to “scare” up the price of oil. They don’t fit. This is a good moment to point that out.
Want to hurt Russia? Increase the number of U.S. Visas for college-educated Russians that speak English. Open the gates even, but on the condition that they move to cities experiencing housing surpluses.
I didn’t realize that the President of the United States was the Membership Director for the G8. I suspect that a boycott of Russian oil by Europeans is likewise infeasible, and even if it were, I’m not sure enriching Saudi Arabia further would be a net gain. We might have had more leverage, except that our government has for some time been guided by Dick Cheney’s belief that conservation is merely a personal virtue.
No one on this thread, myself included, has made any proposal that is (a) physically or economically practical and (b) has any value either in terms of improving the situation on the ground or even deterring some sort of repetition. What is amazing, and sad, is that after 7½ years of George Bush’s foreign policy, Mark Buehner describes this week’s events as a failure of the Left. I suggest it represents the bankruptcy of the Bush policy, much-admired and much-imitated here, of talking loudly and discovering too late that the stick is too small. It is really a shame that the Democratic Party lacked the guts, in 2000 and 2004, to take the measure of this man, enabling Osama bin Laden and Vladimir Putin to do it for us.
I’m not just talking about the US, of course it would have to include Europe as well (fat chance of that). The point is, what leverage do we hold over Putin’s Russia? The big one I can think of is the ability to harm their economy on a grand scale. You cut off their chief export, and where does that leave them? The major problem is of course that no one has the balls to do such a thing. Heck its hard enough to get any form of economic sanctions to work against Iran. Saddam sold plenty of oil through the UN and its oil for kickbacks programs.
The over riding issue is that unless Europe actually takes charge of things in their own back yard for once, Russia will continue to dominate the region. I see absolutely zero pressure being exerted by the EU on Russia. Its still heads in the sand, hoping that America can work a deal or that whole affair will just resolve itself without any real heavy lifting being involved.
_I didn’t realize that the President of the United States was the Membership Director for the G8_
Don’t be obtuse. Bill Clinton “invited” Russia to join the G8 and the other members agreed:
bq. _Russia officially joined the G8 in 1997 at the initiative of then U.S. President Bill Clinton in appreciation of its declared course toward economic reforms and democratic development._
“Link”:http://en.rian.ru/world/20070605/66700913.html
Any G8 member is free to make membership proposals. If the other members of the G8 are afraid of angering Russia, they can say so. But Russia was really brought in on the basis of future expectations that were not met. Russia should have been in the top 8 economies by now.
PD Shaw:
That would be a good idea, except that too many Russian gangsters have college educations.
_”What is amazing, and sad, is that after 7½ years of George Bush’s foreign policy, Mark Buehner describes this week’s events as a failure of the Left. “_
Nooo, this is largely a failure of Bush to understand Putin and of our intelligence services to see this coming (which is a given). The failure of the left is in demonstrating any inlking that they take this seriously, or worse, that they have any ideas at all.
I proposed one concrete idea that is entirely within our power- deploy our fast reaction force to Tbilisi as peacekeepers.
If we decide under no circumstance will we risk a military confrontation, then we need to pull all the usual levers (withdraw diplomats, freeze visas, expel diplomats, make a stink in the UN) and hope for the best. If we can rally the Europeans to boycott exports to Russia theyd be in bigger trouble than mucking with oil.
I’d suggest that the logical countermove is to organize a 21st century successor to NATO, this time in Eastern Europe. Recruit the Ukrainians, Poles, Baltic States, Hungary, Bulgaria, etc. (EETO?) Some ironclad mutual defense treaties and some forward deployed tripwire troops. Contain the Russians in, and if they really want to turn themselves into a larger version of North Korea, let them have at it. I don’t think we can stop them self destructing at this point.
If the Russians want to try the Cold War over again, may I suggest we not repeat the post WW2 mistake of letting them have Eastern Europe gratis?
And it continues to get worse:
One would think that “Russian Law” wouldn’t apply in Georgia.
Where is the vaunted “international community” now? What good would they be? Russia has essentially destroyed Georgia’s ability to exist. Destroying ports, and probably holding/damaging the pipeline running through it will most certainly be the kind of financial blow that Georgia cannot easily recover from.
It seems that there was “a conference call of G8 nations today”:http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gQYe039zkquHxitiI6u4M_TRr_BAD92G5AM00 that excluded the Russians.
And Gorby is utterly full of crap
Of course this is to be expected. His “solutions” are nothing of the like. The rank hypocrisy exhibited in his statements is a crime in of itself.
_I suggest it represents the bankruptcy of the Bush policy_
The Bush policy was for Georgia to join NATO with the hopes that the mutual defense pact would deter Russia. We don’t know whether that would have worked and now we would need a time machine to implement it, but those opposed to it were surely under some obligation to develop a different strategy. “Germany, France, and other Western European members of NATO … don’t want to antagonize oil-and-gas supplier Russia, which views NATO enlargement as a threat.”:http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0331/p08s01-comv.html
Hmm – I like the thinking in this email to Josh Marshall – “Link here”:http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/207934.php
“Also, this Crooked Timber link”:http://crookedtimber.org/2008/08/11/territorial-integrity-norms/
In the 40 odd responses here, what I don’t see is – whoever and whatever the question – an actual practical response.
So far, sound and fury signifying nothing. The costs of opposing Russia, simply outweigh the benefits, or what CAN be done, is simply minimal, without inciting a greater war, and wreaking havoc with energy – which it seems no one wants to do.
Lastly – as much as Buehner mocks Andrew – you can definitely hear the hollow echo of Bush’s rationale for the Iraq war, in the rhetoric coming from Russia, towards “the victims in Ossetia”.
For myself, that rhetoric is illegitimate – simply a cover for the power and energy politics played by Russia.
As the rhetoric for ousting Saddam Hussein, and invading Iraq was illegitimate, and simply a cover for power and energy politics played by the USA.
I’m consistent – it’s a shame you guys aren’t.
Well, we could have tried Georgia as Finland instead of Georgia as, say, Turkey. For geographic reasons, the former seems more reasonable. Do we think that the rest of NATO has ever been that interested in a mutual defense treaty with Georgia? That is, I think you will agree, a treaty that would have bite in only one direction, notwithstanding those 3000 Georgians in Iraq.
On the other hand, Georgia as Czechoslovakia 1938 has an appeal that a certain political grouping finds irresistible. The second time as farce.
You know how you can tell for sure that this is a “Munich Moment”? The “pacifists” are playing dead, and the left has nothing to offer except moral equivalence.
I simply cannot BELIEVE the lack of self-awareness in this “National Review article on Georgia”:http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=Njk5YWYwOTk4MDgyODg1M2Y5NGFhYjBlYTlkZTI0MzY=
_Throughout this calculated aggression, the Russian media has played an inglorious but technically brilliant role. They have used the most modern techniques of journalism and marketing to broadcast the worst lies of the Kremlin._
_It is the handiwork of the siloviki clique that currently monopolizes power in Russia through authoritarian politics, kleptocratic economics, and media manipulation. This clique must be shown that war crimes do not pay. The Russian people, too, need to learn that nostalgia for Soviet imperialism is a dead end for Russia_
Rewrite this a bit, you could be talking about Fox News role in promoting the Iraq invasion.
Glen,
What is you FU*KING solution?
Really? We ALL agree this is a cynical power play by Russia, and it is wrong – enough narcissistic gaming about “the left” and “pacifists”.
If you want to continue to flog that dead horse, fine by you – it’s not productive, however.
YOUR solution, I should say…
_”We ALL agree this is a cynical power play by Russia, and it is wrong – enough narcissistic gaming about “the left” and “pacifists”.”_
You say as you jump in with both feet lambasting Bush and Iraq. Blaiming a conspiracy by the oil companies for everything may be consistant, but that doesnt make it sane.
And your disingenius to suggest no concrete solutions have been forwarded- many have, your complaint is that none can guarantee success. And again- i suggested putting troops on the ground, hows that for decisive? Like it or not (and im not sold on it myself), that fits the criteria of a solution.
Hey, guys – I’m about as hawkish as they come, and I really, really don’t see anything remotely like a direct military solution. picture if you would Russian troops “helping” in Mexico – put aside the “good guy”/”bad guy” legitimate discussion and think logistics and reaction.
There is flatly no way that we’re putting troops on the line in one of the ‘Stans.
Having said that, the question becomes – what if anything can/should we do to contain Russia’s ambitions there? Because we have to do something.
I’d say that – ironically – that stabilizing energy markets by driving up domestic efficiency and production (the ‘Paris accords’) is something we needed to do five years ago and so should start today.
There’s a reason Putin always pulls this crap as winter approaches – Europe is worried about freezing.
“Soft diplomacy?” Putin doesn’t give two shits what we think of him, nor what the Europeans think of him, nor what Matt Yglesias or I think of him. His question is whether we’ll do what he says when his troops are on the move.
So we’d best start figuring out some responses.
My 1st cut response? I’d fly a volunteer-staffed hospital plane into Tbilisi. We would do some good, and it’d raise the stakes on Putin’s actions. But no trigger-pullers. Think of them as “human shields” in green.
A.L.
A.L. –
I’m afraid it would have to get there by morning.
Why is it invariably that the same parties who deny or misrepresent the Islamist threat are clueless to Russian neo-Czarism imperialism
as well. The silovki are real, AJ,
yet you compare them to Fox News. The South Ossetians are never going to matter to the Russian; in the same way, that Sudeten Germans never really mattered to Germany.
#40: The costs of opposing Russia, simply outweigh the benefits, or what CAN be done, is simply minimal, without inciting a greater war, and wreaking havoc with energy – which it seems no one wants to do.
In other words, instead of “no blood for oil”, we would have blood for no oil.
Armed Liberal — this is the bankruptcy of Barack Hussein Obama’s approach: “I’ll give a speech just like Martin Sheen in the West Wing and everyone will swoon.”
Out here in the real world, brutality and those willing and able to deal out violence when others are not rule.
Putin is exploiting the violence gap. Europe (and partially America) disarmed after 1989, and the result is even weak Russia can invade and take over any nation Russia sits next to.
Georgia is lost, and Russia will of course rule with an iron fist, to the applause btw of most Dems/Liberals. I cite the comments here as indicative of how Liberals are in the main, quite happy with Russia’s moves. To crush a democratically elected government and install a brutal puppet regime, or annex it totally.
However, the proper response is to counter Russia’s show that the US is weak, cannot help or save allies, and can be attacked with impunity, by instilling fear of our own.
NOT by fighting Russia directly, in Georgia. Rather, crushing THEIR ally, Iran. Hit Iran hard, directly, crushing by air their infrastructure, all of it, and drive in with the Iraq based forces to “liberate” Azeri, Baluchi, and Arab areas of Iran (where the oil and gas are). Cutting up Iran as a counter-demonstration.
This is ugly, brutal realpolitiks, but that’s reality. Force, and force alone, rules most of international relations.
Obama’s first instinct was appeasement and moral equivalence. Weakness as a strategy.
More broadly, an alliance of states wants EXPENSIVE oil because it’s the only way to pay their patronage network of thugs that keeps them in power: Russia, Iran, Saudi, etc. Opposing them is the US, China, and Europe which needs cheap oil. At some point there WILL be conflict and war to settle that matter. Iraq, Iran, Georgia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, are all part of this, ongoing struggle to see if economic activity is choked off to tribute to powerful thug-based oligarchs, or economic activity extends world-wide.
I’ll note that more explosions/terrorist activity in XianXing by Muslim separatists today underscores the threat China faces by Islam coupled with high oil prices. As does the coal-fueled smog that embarrasses China internationally in Beijing.
Yeah – it’s kind of at an apex with Gorgeous George Galloway – “who never met a thug he didn’t want to fellate”:http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/comment/columnists/lifestyle-columnists/george-galloway/2008/08/11/china-s-olympic-games-ceremony-shows-us-how-far-the-mighty-have-fallen-86908-20692375/ …
…emphasis added (if unnecessary).
A.L.
Anybody know about the border situation between Georgia and Armenia? I have an old friend, his Georgian wife and baby trying to get out. Be careful where you go on vacation….
_Georgia is lost, and Russia will of course rule with an iron fist, to the applause btw of most Dems/Liberals._
Georgia is not quite lost yet. Even if the worst happens, we have destroyed tyrannies with patience before, and can do so again. If it takes sixty years, Georgia will be free.
They are good people. This is not over yet. The race is not always to the swift.
whiskey: Interesting. One of my thoughts on hearing the news was “What is Putin trying to distract us from?” Maybe you’ve got it: Iran.
Still liking BHO, Marc? Is the potential bill for that kind of naiveté getting just a little too large? The last thing we need now is another Carter.
Whiskey has been sampling a little too much from his own name. I mean, I can deal with the usual vicious slams like “Georgia is lost, and Russia will of course rule with an iron fist, to the applause btw of most Dems/Liberals.” I haven’t been able to locate any of this applause. And if Georgia is lost, it would seem that the current President would be a lot more to blame than these applauding Democrat/Liberals.
But I really have to draw the line when he talks about somehow scaring Russia by slamming Iran—well, there’s a problem of Iraq uniting against us behind the front lines, and that Russia problem doesn’t care all that much (unless, of course, you are prepared to start the End of the World with an assault on Russia) and a lot of stuff like that. I’m sure there’s some reason we are more entitled to attack Iran than Russia is to attack Georgia, but I can’t imagine what it would be. But even passing acquaintance of the Goose/Gander Principle is the mark of the weak, to the Whiskeys of the world.
Whiskey is your basic barroom drunk who isn’t happy until he’s had his fight. Cemeteries and prisons are full of his moronic ilk.
Next Tim Oren will explain why Pearl Harbor was Dwight Eisenhower’s fault. I mean, from a standpoint of the timeline, it makes about as much sense as connecting Obama to Georgia.
A.L. seems to have come to obvious but sensible conclusions about the limits of our options in Georgia. Jumping up and down threatening to do something (but what?) to the Russians doesn’t impress him. And teasing Putin with that Czech missile system doesn’t look go clever any more.
While you are drawing lines, AJL, would you like to draw one with me? Will you say that Georgia ought not to fall under Russian domination; that they are our allies, and we owe them a debt of friendship for past friendship shown; and that, though it may be that we must be patient, we will free them if it takes decades?
I see that I cited Ecclesiastes 9:11 in my last comment. There is much there to ponder at this time.
bq. 11 I turned me to another thing, and I saw that under the sun, the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the learned, nor favour to the skilful: but time and chance in all.
bq. 12 Man knoweth not his own end: but as fishes are taken with the hook, and as birds are caught with the snare, so men are taken in the evil time, when it shall suddenly come upon them.
bq. 13 This wisdom also I have seen under the sun, and it seemed to me to be very great:
bq. 14 A little city, and few men in it: there came against it a great king, and invested it, and built bulwarks round about it, and the siege was perfect.
bq. 15 Now there was found in it a man poor and wise, and he delivered the city by his wisdom, and no man afterward remembered that poor man.
If we are drawing lines, let us draw them in the right place, and for the right reasons.
I see Mark B’s sollutions are being ignored. I am somewhat serious about tendering a resolution to the UN about the right of self-determination of the people of the Caucauses. Stare at the map linked to by Mark Poling for guidance. Removing Russia from the G8 is a consequence worth considering.
Am I reading the score right that “the Hawks” propose to do something and “the Doves” think nothing will work so they feel better about doing nothing.
Actually, Andrew, given Putin’s behavior, that Czech missile system is looking hella attractive right now.
Tim – I’ve said repeatedly that we get to pick our risk in this election. We can risk appearing too docile, and risk that bullies will be provoked by our apparent weakness, or we can risk appearing too belligerent and provoking fights that could otherwise have been avoided.
Will that be door #1 or door #2?
A.L.
If you want a Monty Hall analogy, AL, there are supposed to be three doors. So you’ve picked “passive,” and you get shown door #3: “A massive Russian invasion of Georgia!” And now you get to pick again.
“The math on that is here.”:http://www.jimloy.com/puzz/monty.htm
I’d join you in picking again, but apparently McCain called this one.
Did McCain say anything against the Bush foreign policy towards Russia in real time? I don’t think so. So no credit for standing up now saying “I’ll huff and I’ll puff and I’ll blow your house down,” when we couldn’t blow that hard even if we wanted. What “rapid response force”? Probably better we send in unarmed volunteers, who can’t get in firefights by accident. There is no way we can send in enough troops to win the battle in a classic military sense. (We probably could do better than feel up the Olympic Women’s Beach Volleyball team, but when it comes to our current Prez, it’s the soft bigotry of low expectations.)
Yes, Grim, if it comes to that, I think we should make that speech. If we had to host a government in exile, then we should.
I don’t think the doves are saying to do nothing. Development of alternative energy would be a terrible blow to all of the anti-democratic countries with extraction economies. What the doves aren’t going to do is participate in masturbatory fantasies where superheroes drop from the skies over Tbilisi.
Recommended: Dan Froomkin in WaPo.
I do see one silver lining: I bet George W. Bush Street in Tbilisi will get a new name.
_Development of alternative energy would be a terrible blow to all of the anti-democratic countries with extraction economies._
I don’t think its fair at this dark hour to be blaming Europe for the plight it now faces. Or are Europeans not responsible for failing to develop alternatives to Russian oil? It’s Cheney’s fault? Oh, I see.
A.L. –
So you’re going with the Randy Strategy from A Christmas Story? “Randy lay there in the snow like a slug. It was his only defense …”
“Obama’s sometime advisor Brzezinski”:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-gardels/brzezinski-russias-invasi_b_118029.html is a little more spirited. He’s talking about Hitler, Stalin, and Finland in 1939.
Well, here’s the rub.
Even if force projection into Georgia were possible – and I doubt that it is – the Europeans and the pacifists in the US would make the attack untenable, meaning possibly impeachment and certainly no help from the EU powers.
Imagine for a moment a cruise missile attack on Russian armor columns. Tell me what Congress would be saying in the next 24 hours.
We’ve let ourselves get put into a position – domestically and internationally, where we have few options. We don’t need time to marshal forces, we need time to gather allies and build resolve.
So the Georgians are about to join Breaker Morant as sacrifices to the political realities of the moment.
That’s not a good hand, but it’s the best play I can see right now. Let me sleep on it and we’ll revisit it in the morning.
A.L.
#20 from Glen Wishard:
bq. _There is no NATO and there is no United Nations. The countries which still have a pulse must settle things between themselves._
I agree.
#20 from Glen Wishard:
bq. _We want peace with Russia._
We should, yes.
#20 from Glen Wishard:
bq. _If we don’t stand up for Georgia (in spite of Georgia’s faults) we’ll never have it._
We should fight against Russia in order to have peace with Russia?
If you want peace with a belligerent you push back hard against the aggression, recognizing there is a risk of escalation.
Being in power sucks at times.
David Blue –
No, we should stand up to Russia in order to demand the respect that is our just due, and the necessary condition of peace.
A.L. –
One of my favorite movies, so I remember the quote well:
LORD KITCHENER: Damn it, I’m not trying to prove some academic point, but to put an end to this useless war. If these Australians have to be sacrificed … small price to pay?
COLONEL HAMILTON: I quite agree, sir. Though I doubt the Australians share our enthusiasm.
My take goes like this. Of course Russia wants to dominate its near abroad. At the same time, Georgia has been building up for its aggression for years. Now it has struck, when the Russians also were ready to strike.
Part of Georgia’s war preparation was to obtain an American alliance. It’s to the advantage of lesser powers to use the vast military force of the Americans, and Georgia has gained advantage by its American support, while the Russians were “paranoid” that the Americans were involving themselves in Russia’s near abroad to Russia’s detriment, only it turns out that sometimes paranoids have real enemies.
Due to the bad work of the State Department, many Americans seem to be taking this as a war on them. It’s not. It’s America digging its tentacles deep into the territory of the former Soviet Union and the Russian Empire. This is the kind of policy that leads to America having an ally everywhere and everywhere, so that any time a country with a pulse makes a move anywhere in the world, it’s America’s business to oppose it, since it inevitably impinges on a country allied to America.
Would I really do nothing much about this, if it was up to me? Yes. It’s reasonable to favor Georgia decently because of its involvement in Iraq, but no more than that.
Is this only because I favor Moscow for personal reasons? No, this is the same kind of advice I would offer on the humanitarian disaster in Burma, bordering on China: _stay out of it_. It’s bad, but it could be worse. It’s not _our_ problem, yet.
Obviously, Georgia is a lot more _us_ than Burma is. And we owe Georgia more concern than we owe Burma. Even so, I think this is mostly the time for soft soap and not tough confrontation.
Mark –
Sometimes you push back hard, sometimes you comply in small ways, sometimes you sidestep and evade. It all depends on the circumstances.
Someone who pushes back hard every time they feel slighted – or even every time they are really slighted – is going to be in a whole lot of fights.
The circumstances? What’s at stake. What are the odds. What are the options.
A.L.
_”Even if force projection into Georgia were possible – and I doubt that it is – the Europeans and the pacifists in the US would make the attack untenable, meaning possibly impeachment and certainly no help from the EU powers.”_
Im not suggesting projecting force, per se.
Let me back up- the Russian presence in South Ossetia is _premised_ on being a peacekeeping force.
Our best card, if we are willing to take the risk, is to inject our own _token_ military force into Georgia using the same reasoning, as a peacekeeping force.
They are not expected to fight, they are expected to be human shields to protect the Georgian capital from annexation. If the internation airport is still viable at Tbilisi the 82nd airborn can deploy a brigade in 18 hours. That may not be enough time at this point, but if the Georgians knew they might be able to buy 24 hours to deploy US troops as peacekeepers.
If we did that, one of two things happen- 1.The Russians take their winnings of devastating Georgia and making their point in the region and pull back 2.They attack and precipitate WW3.
The options speak for themselves, but the clincher is that IF Putin are willing to attack the US in Georgia, Putin is willing to attack the US elsewhere. Hence we call Russia out on _our_ terms… clearly Russia isnt expecting to fight the US at this time and place. Far more likely the Russians will decide they have made their point and _negotiate_ a withdrawal of US troops from the region in exchange for withdrawal of Russian troops plus concessions about the breakaway regions (which mean nothing to Georgia in the big picture).
The reason i hesitate on this proposal is that i dont know what sort of force we can project into the region worst case scenario, and thats something that needs to be considered. I doubt our carriers are eager to enter the Black Sea (even if Turkey would allow it), but im not sure what our other options might be. If i were Bush i’d have carrier tasks force steaming for the Eastern Med either way.
Glen Wishard, I’ll all for the Americans demanding the respect that is their just due. But does America’s just due include Georgia?
The Soviet Union reserved the right to intervene in the affairs of its neighbors, and it was an old Russian joke, taught to me by my chess teacher:
“Question: Who is Russia’s next door neighbor?”
“Answer: Australia, if the Politbureau says so.”
This is not like that, or it’s like that in reverse. Georgia really is Russia’s next door neighbor, while some Americans seem to be reacting as if Georgia were theirs. It’s an echo in reverse of the Soviet Union’s provocative and aggressive involvement in Cuba, or worse, as though Russia was militarizing Puerto Rico in a defensive alliance against the United States.
A.L., this isnt about being slighted- its about allowing a US ally to be bulldozed while we wring our hands. That perception is the consequence we need to consider… not to mention the energy issue.
David Blue –
America? Don’t you mean “the colonies”?
Why is our friendship tentacles, and their damn tanks are a reasonable response to aggression?
And could the doves make up their minds between “Let’s sit here and let X go to hell, it’s nothing to us” and “Let’s pursue a multilateral international solution” because the two are not compatible. We can’t do the latter because we have a bunch of lunch-bucket allies who are all too happy to do the former.
Mark, there is no way that unilaterally-assigned armed boots on the ground in Georgia isn’t going to be considered a hostile act by Russia. Again, imagine Russian Spetznatz troops landing at the airport in Mexico City to help quell ‘gang violence along the US border’.
A.L.
I guess we’re feeling now about the way the Kremlin felt after the invasion of Grenada.
Very highly recommended: ex-Republican John Cole. “Saakashvili thought he was a player in the game, when really he was just the ball. [long snip] Right now, it appears that the Russians are still pretty much copying the Bush administration of DWTFTW, and they will stop when they are finished. Meanwhile, we don’t have much we can do about it, other than a laughable UN resolution.”
Cole also quotes Yglesias.
David, keep echoing Russian propaganda all you like. It doesnt change the facts for us or them. Either we believe in the soveriegnty thesis, or we beleive in spheres of influence. If the latter we need to stop being nice and allying ourselves with those in other spheres, because it is little short of abetment of murder if we dont intend to stand up for them.
As far as i’m concerned Russia doesnt get to carpet bomb Geogian cities and towns and enslave the nation just because they happen to share a border. Any pretext to justify that is beyond absurd.
David Blue:
The Soviet Union is DEADER THAN RASPUTIN’S DICK, and if all it takes to resurrect it is this display of bullying, then there is no hope for the world.
_”Mark, there is no way that unilaterally-assigned armed boots on the ground in Georgia isn’t going to be considered a hostile act by Russia.”_
Of course! Was the Russian invasion a hostile act?! Again, we are falling over backwards to justify the Russian point of view and have this discussion on their terms.
We need to get this through our heads- this damn Putin is an imperialist fascist. I need not go through the record.
This isnt about suaging feelings… this is about realpolitic. Forget the feelings of the the agressors- and start putting them on the horns of a dilemna. The Russians are BANKING on us worrying about their feelings while they roll through our ally. Make them make a hard choice, call their bluff. If we can back it up anyway.
Let me put this a different way:
If Russia is going to annex Georgia, that decision was made before the fighting even began. Those Russian units werent there with a battle plan by happenstance.
Hence- Russia already has evaluated our diplomatic/economic/political response options and hasnt been deterred. And so we can discount them for their _effectiveness,_ if not for the cover they can provide that we are going through the motions of objecting.
And hence- if we _really_ want to stimy the Russians, we would need to do something unexpected and audacious. We would need to make them make a decision they werent expecting (or were hoping not to). Swallowing Georgia is one thing- killing American peacekeepers is another, whatever their arguments are, real or fancied.
So this all comes back to just how serious we are. Deploying peacekeepers would piss the Russians off royally, but almost certainly force them to negotiate a settlement. The question is- is it worth it to piss the Russians off. And that hinges on whether we actual think they are good neighbors or not. If they are as bad of neighbors as this action indicates, we are _right_ to piss them off. That is what is missing here.
Mark, of course Putin is a fascist thug. But look at it this way. FDR could have ordered a battalion of American troops to head over to France in 1940, and then what would have happened?
A.L.
“Someone who pushes back hard every time they feel slighted – or even every time they are really slighted – is going to be in a whole lot of fights.”
So? Power is meant to be applied. Just ask Putin.
And what I would hope we would be defending would be something that said something like “We hold these truths to be self evident”….
_Part of Georgia’s war preparation was to obtain an American alliance._
et tu David? America doesn’t have an alliance with Georgia. It has an alliance with the NATO countries and a small handful of others like Australia (ANZUS). I think America made a big stink at one time that it was freinds with New Zealand, but not allies.
_This is the kind of policy that leads to America having an ally everywhere and everywhere, so that any time a country with a pulse makes a move anywhere in the world, it’s America’s business to oppose it, since it inevitably impinges on a country allied to America._
Yes, that’s what America needs to avoid by clearly identifying its security commitments. On the flip side, America doesn’t want countries that it in fact has alliances with to feel that the US won’t come to their aid.
Mark,
At least – AT LEAST – always be prepared.
You present a scenario, where Russia “will blink”, if we put the 182nd in.
1. First off, we are not – NOT, I repeat, NOT – sending our soldiers into a situation where, if the Russians DON’T blink, they’ll get slaughtered. Where would the backup be?
2. It would have to be planes – of which we have a lot, true – but suddenly, we are in WW3. Maybe you want to have that happen, but even in the middle of the Cold War – be it Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Carter, Reagan – we did NOT engage in bloodletting on the scale that would be risked, by going to war with Russia – unless there was a VERY good reason – like, say, Cuba missiles.
What we do, is provide HUGE amounts of arms to forces, like Georgian forces. That would be the Cold War step, unless you want conflagration.
Listen – the bottom line is – there has to be a reasonable threat to U.S. interests. And currently, there is not.
Normally, normally, what we would do is to work with allies, to present an allied front that would isolate Russia, and freeze out Russia economically, the way we did previously, or the way we used economic pressure to make South Africa change.
this is made harder now, because of the relationship between China and Russia, in that China is now the manufacturing capital of the world – and they won’t freeze Russia out.
I’ve said it a few times, but I’ll say it again and again.
The number 1 security improvement that we could make, is to wean the U.S. – as much as possible – off of oil. Do WHATEVER IT TAKES, spend as much money as possible, and help our allies and friends do the same.
From Russia, to Saudi Arabia, to Nigeria, countries with thuggish, unfree governments, are SUPPORTED by having oil underneath their shores, giving them power.
think of this as the 2nd cold war – free us from dependence on the nasty countries that undermine our country’s independence, by MAKING our country dependent on those bad government’s resources.
This is a long term plan, of course – but not only could we throw HUGE money at the plan, it would also mitigate – if it’s not too late – whatever environmental disasters that are barrelling our way.
In this case environmental security IS national security. So let’s get to it. What’s always made this country as strong as it is, is the economic engine that powers us and our like-minded partners.
this competition – and only this competition – will make us winners. One tool in this competition is oil. And our competitors have it, so let’s take that resource away from them.
hypo, two words: “oil shale”.
whisper them to your elected representatives.
Since I believe the U.S. has 100-200 military personel in Georgia already, I guess the question will have to be whether to withdraw them or warn Russia of potential adverse consequences of killing Americans.
Mark,
At least – AT LEAST – always be prepared.
_”1. First off, we are not – NOT, I repeat, NOT – sending our soldiers into a situation where, if the Russians DON’T blink, they’ll get slaughtered. Where would the backup be?”_
I beleive that was my caveat.
_”2. It would have to be planes – of which we have a lot, true – but suddenly, we are in WW3.”_
I’ll ignore the provocation and just note that the same math applies to the Russians. THEY would have to be the ones to open fire after all. Are they well situated to begin WW3? Whats their upside? Is anything in Georgia worth it? This kind of situation is a game where the player forced to move last is at a tremendous disadvantage. The Russians would have to make that decision, which cant win for them. The only danger is irrationality, which is, of course, very dangerous.
_”What we do, is provide HUGE amounts of arms to forces, like Georgian forces. That would be the Cold War step, unless you want conflagration.”_
In the next 24 hours?
_”Listen – the bottom line is – there has to be a reasonable threat to U.S. interests. And currently, there is not. “_
Hypo, i dont know much for certain- but one thing i do know is that you and people of your stripe will be _lambasting_ the US in the future if we abandon Georgia today. And rightly so. The US has not been the best of allies.
_”This is a long term plan, of course – but not only could we throw HUGE money at the plan, it would also mitigate – if it’s not too late – whatever environmental disasters that are barrelling our way. “_
Great, when do we break ground on the nuke plants? Oh… some national security issues still take a back seat to the greenies.
And as far as the environmental boogey man- thats for less serious times. There is no time or resources at present for this earth in the balance nonsense. Our species is at risk from nuclear war, not from Co2. We can get back to that waste of time when we win this new cold war- thrust upon us.
David Blue:
bq. _It’s America digging its tentacles deep into the territory of the former Soviet Union and the Russian Empire._
#74 from Glen Wishard:
bq. _America? Don’t you mean “the colonies”?_
I mean the United States of America.
#74 from Glen Wishard:
bq. Why is our friendship _tentacles_, and their damn tanks are a reasonable response to aggression?
Because this _friendship_ is armed, and this is their Georgia, the one near Moscow, not your Georgia, the one near Washington DC.
#74 from Glen Wishard:
bq. _And could the doves make up their minds between “Let’s sit here and let X go to hell, it’s nothing to us” and “Let’s pursue a multilateral international solution” *because the two are not compatible*._
Not compatible? They are identical.
Glen, whatever our disagreements, I thought we both understood: the new European way of multilateralism _is_ the do-nothing way. Isn’t this clear with reference to Iranian nuclear ambitions? Hasn’t it been clear with respect to every other problem the Europeans let fall limply from their hands into the mud, and then expected the Americans to pick up and clean?
Why would Georgia be different in this way?
#77 from Mark Buehner:
bq. _David, keep echoing Russian propaganda all you like. It doesnt change the facts for us or them._
Calling my opinion “propaganda” that I am “echoing” doesn’t change my opinion.
#77 from Mark Buehner:
bq. _Either we believe in the soveriegnty thesis, or we beleive in spheres of influence._
_Of course_ I believe in spheres of influence. Didn’t I make this clear with respect to Burma? OK, I’ll spell it out. I don’t believe in “the sovereignty thesis”. For example, I don’t believe in Robert Mugabe’s absolute right to do whatever he likes, which is what that can lead to. Nor do I believe in a “sovereignty” over-ridden always and only by an “international morality”, which might mean anything that irresponsible, unarmed and reflexively anti-American transnational progressivists would invent. I believe in spheres of influence.
The only question is, is America’s sphere of influence so global and total that Russian intervention into South Ossetia is an intolerable encroachment onto America’s turf?
#77 from Mark Buehner:
bq. _If the latter we need to stop being nice and allying ourselves with those in other spheres, because it is little short of abetment of murder if we dont intend to stand up for them._
Yes.
hypocricyrules: HOO-BLOODY-RAY! Of course, I’ve been saying much the same for years – at least two, anyway. A way of sorting out American (and Western generally) balance-of-payments problems. A way of cutting down the money tree for thugs, gangsters, religious fanatics and terrorists. A way of preventing pollution and AGW, if you happen to believe in the latter. All three, and potentially more, in one package. What is it? Energy independence. How do we get it? Money and effort. When should we get started? NOW!
There are at least half a dozen ways of getting independent from the abovementioned undesirables. All any of them need is money and effort – the principles are well-known, with the possible exception of Polywell fusion. We ought to work on them all.
And the one I favour (possibly the longest-term, to be fair, also) gives us the energy and material resources of the Solar System, and living space for quadrillions, as a free bonus. This one is of course SPS. And one more thing; this particular route gives the free peoples of the Earth a Hammer with which to crush the unruly. Islam gets really uppity? Give them a free gift of a million tons of high-grade steel. Straight down, at escape velocity.
It was time to get started twenty years ago – but, in this case, late is not too late. Yet.
David Blue:
bq. _Part of Georgia’s war preparation was to obtain an American alliance._
#83 from PD Shaw:
bq. _et tu David?_
(I look around and don’t see any daggers or dying Caesars on the stage, especially none stabbed by me.) Meaning?
#83 from PD Shaw:
bq. _America doesn’t have an alliance with Georgia. It has an alliance with the NATO countries and a small handful of others like Australia (ANZUS). I think America made a big stink at one time that it was freinds with New Zealand, but not allies._
OK. In Iraq and generally, the Georgians obtained all the American backing that they could get.
David Blue:
bq. _This is the kind of policy that leads to America having an ally everywhere and everywhere, so that any time a country with a pulse makes a move anywhere in the world, it’s America’s business to oppose it, since it inevitably impinges on a country allied to America._
#83 from PD Shaw:
bq. _Yes, that’s what America needs to avoid by clearly identifying its security commitments. On the flip side, America doesn’t want countries that it in fact has alliances with to feel that the US won’t come to their aid._
Yes.
Armed Liberal:
bq. _One of the negative consequences of our balancing act on Iran is the fact that we’re dependent on the Russians and Chinese to help keep the situation there metastable – meaning that our freedom of action is severely limited elsewhere._
Don’t look for much cooperation from the Russians. By saying in effect that what goes in places like Georgia is for Washington and not Moscow to decide, the Americans are doing something like making a territorial claim on Russia. This extremely aggressive stance is the consequence of America’s vast power. In relation to Russia, there is no visible limit to America’s ambition. Consequently the Russians can get freedom to act on matters they regard as of vital interest to them only by reducing American power. Where and how does not matter. Any American setback anywhere in the world is a good thing for Russia’s freedom to act within its own front yard.
This is not because Comrade Putin is antidemocratic, and his eventual departure from the scene will not end Russia’s grudge, or make common Russians think that America ought to dictate affairs in Abkhazia. This is an issue of power politics and the Russian national interest. A government of Russia consisting of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn risen from the grave would still see the Russian national interest adding up like this.
Consequently the Chinese can celebrate not only the Olympics but also the fact that their global position is becoming more favorable. Muslim fanatics too can take comfort in a deepened division in Christendom.
These are not good things.
_”the Americans are doing something like making a territorial claim on Russia”_
Are you sure you arent on Putin’s payroll? I say that tongue in cheek, but seriously, the Russians themselves are hardly this defensive.
First off- Russia’s actions are intolerable completely independently of the US. Using the US potential reaction as a justification for the initial agression is loopy. Secondly this sphere of influence stuff is 20th century, and it managed 2 world wars back then. Finally, because the world _has_ changed we better figure out what kind of world we want to live in. Giving the Russians a pass for applying the jack boot to a neighbor just because they have the bad luck of sharing a border is NOT the kind of world i want. Essentially giving them the nod as they do it is particularly bad form. We could at least have the good grace to appear embarassed.
Btw, should we pull our forces out of South Korea and stop supporting Taiwan?
Yes, Grim, if it comes to that, I think we should make that speech. If we had to host a government in exile, then we should.
Good enough. By all means, let’s take our time and make sure we get it right. Let’s use soft power if we can, and hard power only where and if we must. (Mark’s idea of peacekeepers seems reasonable to me, as a potential once shooting has stopped — it now appears Putin may not be ready to take the whole nation at a gulp.)
What is important is having clarity on who is our ally, and that we owe allies support when they are invaded. If we can agree on that, we can make long plans if we need to do so.
David Blue:
bq. _”the Americans are doing something like making a territorial claim on Russia”_
#93 from Mark Buehner:
bq. _Are you sure you arent on Putin’s payroll? I say that tongue in cheek, but seriously, the Russians themselves are hardly this defensive._
I’m pretty sure, and if I am I’m not getting paid on time. 😛
I wasn’t eager to get into this topic, because it’s really difficult. Because of Iraq and our bad previous diplomacy, we are to some extent obligated to support Georgia, even though that has ugly long-term consequences. How to minimize out problems with honor is a difficult question.
But, I joined in, with great emphasis, because of the extremely aggressive doctrines and attitudes on display in this thread. From my point of view, people are not getting how serious this is. That’s why I’m saying, with great emphasis, that this is a big, long term thing.
One of the best ways to poison your relations with a neighboring country permanently or for a long time is to make a territorial claim on it. That is the kind of problem that’s developing now.
#93 from Mark Buehner:
bq. _First off- Russia’s actions are intolerable completely independently of the US._
I’m not sure we have a shared understanding of the word “intolerable”. Anyway, I’ll watch with interest to see if China and some other countries find themselves compelled not to tolerate Russia, completely independently of the US.
#93 from Mark Buehner:
bq. _Using the US potential reaction as a justification for the initial agression is loopy._
I wasn’t aware that I was doing that.
And I don’t think it would be loopy even if I did do it. If “the potential US reaction” means the Georgian military buildup, with the Georgians trained by the Americans and swanning around in surplus American army uniforms, and more confidently anti-Russian and more aggressively anti-Ossetian in consequence, then yes, that is the sort of thing that could rationally form part of the basis for preemptive war. To stop that before it goes further is a desirable goal from a Russian point of view. It’s not the one I think they acted on. But it wouldn’t be “loopy”.
#93 from Mark Buehner:
bq. _Secondly this sphere of influence stuff is 20th century, and it managed 2 world wars back then._
No, this sphere of influence stuff is as old as mankind.
And to dismiss all spheres of influence other than whatever America wants as old hat is frivolous. To say this stuff is 20th century is no more than to say it’s so last week.
But if you want fashion to dictate diplomacy then the advocates of “emerging norms of international law” are in a strong position. If what goes in international relations comes down to what’s hip, then all hail tomorrow’s fashions from the showrooms of Paris and Brussels.
#93 from Mark Buehner:
bq. _Finally, because the world has changed we better figure out what kind of world we want to live in._
We have countries you can rate from 1 (friends in good times and bad) to 5 (will do you what harm they can) regardless of what we want, and very stubborn facts like Islam that make these ratings stable over time. The primary job of diplomacy is to deal with these stubborn and often dangerous facts in ways that promote the national interest, and preferably key national values.
To dream up a vision of just any kind of world you want and then impose it, relying on the vast power of America, is revolutionary, it’s armed romanticism, and I don’t mean that in a good way.
#93 from Mark Buehner:
bq. _Giving the Russians a pass for applying the jack boot to a neighbor just because they have the bad luck of sharing a border is NOT the kind of world i want._
Having the Georgians crush the Ossetians because of the way the post-Soviet borders fell apparently isn’t the kind of world some Russians want.
#93 from Mark Buehner:
bq. _Essentially giving them the nod as they do it is particularly bad form. We could at least have the good grace to appear embarassed._
So be embarrassed.
#93 from Mark Buehner:
bq. _Btw, should we pull our forces out of South Korea and stop supporting Taiwan?_
It would be tough to stop supporting the Taiwanese. That was a serious commitment entered into for good reason during the Cold War. Such commitments are not to be lightly abandoned. Personally I would stand pat. The hope of our policy is that time will make this problem easier to solve, as the old hard-liners die off. That seems a good thing to hope for.
But I would long ago have told the South Koreans that a Sunshine Policy that aspires to give the Americans the unrewarding “bad cop” role and take the happy “good cop” role for South Korea is unwanted. So much so that if South Korea is at all vague on whether those oppressive American troops are actively, positively, enthusiastically wanted, they can be gone like a cool breeze. I would fundamentally alter that relationship to reflect the reality of who needs who in the Korean Peninsula.
there’s the 82nd AB and the 101st, hr, there’s no 182nd. To Mr. Cole, he fought to protect Kuwait, the fiefdom of the Al Sabah’s against
a ruthless neighbor;Iraq, who once
incorporated part of itself into
it’s former structure. Does he think Georgia, a democratic regime
deserves less, than Putin, the partner to the old Tikriti mob, the co-conspirator with Iran (with
regards to Bushehr)longtime sponsor of N. Korea’s Yongbyon & feeder plants. Grenada don’t enter into it; although were probably one who wanted to impeach Reagan over it; although the mostproximate
neighbor,Dominica,was in support.
_”One of the best ways to poison your relations with a neighboring country permanently or for a long time is to make a territorial claim on it.”_
Again- even the Russians arent (yet) claiming Georgia as sovereign territory. I’m not sure how you premise war on the claim that a nation thousands of miles away may interfere in your bid to steal it, so you go ahead and steal it to make sure the other cant stop you? Or perhaps we have a difference of opinion in what constitutes a territorial claim.
_”Having the Georgians crush the Ossetians because of the way the post-Soviet borders fell apparently isn’t the kind of world some Russians want”_
Still carrying water for Moscow. And if Moscow was the one supplying and encouraging the attacks upon Georiga from Ossetia in order to precipitate this affair? Which is apparently the case?
My point on Taiwan and S Korea is that the policy you suggest of minding our own backyard and to hell with the rest of the planet is a very bad one, and ends up getting us into worse messes in the end. The thing about imperialist justifications is that there is always another justification for another act. Where do we draw the line? Ukraine? Poland? Germany? Newfoundland?
#94 from Grim:
bq. _What is important is having clarity on who is our ally, and that we owe allies support when they are invaded. If we can agree on that, we can make long plans if we need to do so._
I agree.
I think part of the problem is that for the State Department, whenever a country starts paying its security insurance policy premiums to America, the diplomatic gains are immediate and sweet. And a White House that just tells the State Department to do whatever it takes to get the job done (whatever the job is at the time) will do nothing but approve – and likely freeze the careers of non-performing nay-sayers.
But then somebody actually gets invaded, and it turns out the Americans never had either a realistic plan or much motivation to bail out the people that were hoping that America’s ambiguous game meant they were insured.
The fact Dominica was in support of the Grenada invasion is as relevant as whether Iran or Turkmenistan is in favor of the Georgia invasion. A distant client state is being attacked by the neighboring superpower and there is pretty much nothing we can do about it. And it’s a simple fact that Russia has capabilities that Kuwait-swallowing Iraq did not. (Plus, Russia hasn’t yet annexed Georgia, and I somewhat doubt if it intends to do so.) We can adjust our policy based on facts like that, or we can huff and puff and try to blow the brick house down.
As far as Grenada goes, it wont do to forget the little fact that Cuba troops formented and executed a coup and we intervened to stop it. If the US were to overthrow the Georgia government with US troops, the Russians could make a real case for intervention.
Obviously we adjust our policies to the reality of Russia’s power in the region- but that adjustment doesnt imply surrender to the inevitable.
I still find the irony thick that those who have been screaming about using soft power diplomacy are so quick to scoff at it when its invoked by Bush. And of course beyond that is upping the ante and giving the Russians a dilemna as I have outlined.
Mark, my first comment on this thread was that on one side we had Bush and Obama and the EU etc., while on the other we had John McCain and his campaign manager, late of the Georgian payroll.
In terms of an image, Bush could probably do much better than slapping the butt of America’s beach volleyball player, but his failure to send in the troops meets no objection from me. Soft power is all we have here.
1. Putin, nothing more than a thug in the long line of thugs that have ruled in Russia, is accepted by GWB as a man he understood, after his first meeting with him.
2. Neo-Con foreign Policy gets caught up in the fantasy of a new type of moral Imperialism. We are the last Super Power and can bend the world to our will.
3. Upset the regionsl balance of power in the Middle East and tie an expeditionary force down for the better part of a decade.
4. In the process, strengthen Iran.
5. watch Russia’s ever growing power over energy supplies to Europe and not do very much about it.
6. Watch Russia call a conference that states a doctrine that an attack on any Caspian state would be taken as an attack on all. A blatant and statement of defiance towards American policy in the area, which was not responded to in any form.
7. In a brilliant strategic move, Russia shows its muscule and attacks Georgia, therby effectively seizing control over all sources of oil from the Caucasus and Central Asia. One might argue that the former soviet Union controlled these areas, but now these fields and pipelines are much more efficient since they have had 2 decades of western investment to improve them.
8. Short of war, what can the U.S. do about this situation. Europe will do nothing because they do not want to freeze this winter.
Our foreign Policy has become a total disaster under this administration. I am very amused at how those same people who have supported the invasion of Iraq now talk in terms of strategic interest and limits of our power when it comes to Georgia.
What a collection of lightweights we have in this administration. Let’s see how they perform in what has always been the Stategic Big Leagues, Europe and the Caucasus
#93 from Mark Buehner at 2:23 pm on Aug 12, 2008
_Secondly this sphere of influence stuff is 20th century, and it managed 2 world wars back then._
There are only Spheres of Influence and Power Vacuums in Foreign Affairs. They *are* Foreign Affairs.
Could you please enlighten on what has replaced them. no flippant answers please just an explanation as to what you see has Foreign Affairs.
Yours Truly,
The “Paleo-Con”
The world is a smaller place, spheres of influence are growing increasingly obsolete. We can have thousands of troops virtually anywhere in the world in less than a day. We can put firepower on any target in hours. If our intelligence wasnt hopelessly broken, troops buildups like we saw in Georgia would be impossible to hide.
And the rest of the world is certain to catch up.
Lets frame this another way- a sphere of influence is that which you can control virtually unopposed by other powers. Aside from soveriegn borders (and not even that always), there are very few places on Earth the US can be ignored. Our troops have babysat the Pacific Rim for 50 years- is that our sphere of influence? Europe? The Middle East? Afghanistan?
Im not promoting militarism (and economics play at least as critical a role in leverage), im stating a fact. IF we wanted to, we could put an end to this Russian invasion without firing a shot. But it would be risky. So by that definition, Georgia can’t be subject to Russia’s sphere of influence- precisely because we can thwart them. Whether we choose to do so is a political decision. We aren’t talking right or wrong just now, we are talking about possibilities.
Furthermore, there seems to be this longing or admiration for spheres of influence. Spheres of influence _cause wars,_ because they must eventually be challenged. We are replacing that paradigm with enlightened coalitions, led by the US
-continued
Another century like the last one seems suicidal. The world has grown smaller and weapons have become catasrophic. The only long term way for the human race to survive without a major calamity is to eventually see the entire world become democratic, capitalist, and peaceful as the West has become. The West made everyone elses wars look like jokes and yet now we have become a peaceful block of most of the worlds wealth and power. That power _will_ extend to include the rest of the planet. Or we will see WW3 of some kind. Essentially the idea of nation states without representative governments and not bound to international treaties is not viable in the long term.
In essense our choices are ‘Star Fleet’ or Mad Max. Going back to isolationist sleep simply makes the latter more likely. We have power and we need to use it to propogate those values. Otherwise our idealogical enemies will propogate theirs at our expense. THAT is the history of the human race. Switzerland aside, history doesnt treat neutrality and sideliners well in the long term.
Mark, All you have said is that our sphere of influence has increased. I don’t think you have a basic idea of what the term means in terms of foreign affairs.
_Lets frame this another way- a sphere of influence is that which you can control virtually unopposed by other powers._
This is not an accurate definition. A sphere of influence is just that an area where you have influence it can be like the French influence in the Levant that goes back to the time of the Crusades or the American sphre in the Carribean that made it an American lake, unchallenged for over 60 years between the Spanish American War and the Cuban Revolution.
Their are also limits to our power which you seem not to recognize.
In saying “I believe in spheres of influence” I was adding a moral dimension to the concept, and that moral dimension is prudence. Don’t, in the flood-tide of your confidence, take on obligations beyond your ability and really your will to sustain in the long run. Don’t be like the irresponsible Germans, encouraging the breakup of Yugoslavia, when they had neither the power nor the will to guarantee the security of anybody who took their encouragement as a “Go!” signal. Don’t move into the “fight or flight” zones of great powers, forgetting that the headlines of the week will pass, but their interest in dominating events in their border states will not.
_”Whatever mistakes Tbilisi has made, they cannot justify Russia’s actions. Moscow has invaded a neighbor, an illegal act of aggression that violates the U.N. Charter and fundamental principles of cooperation and security in Europe.”_
Nobody yet mentioned Kosovo and war of 1999. Let’s replace couple of words in paragraph above:
“Whatever mistakes _Belgrade_ has made, they cannot justify _United States’_ actions. _Washington_ has invaded _Serbia_, an illegal act of aggression that violates the U.N. Charter and fundamental principles of cooperation and security in Europe.”
..or:
“Whatever mistakes _Baghdad_ has made, they cannot justify _United States’_ actions. _Washington_ has invaded _Iraq_, an illegal act of aggression that violates the U.N. Charter […]”
US decided to throw away international law and UN Charter, so they are quite hypocritical talking about Russia actions. Russia didn’t do anything US didn’t.
Well, I suppose it’s true: Saddam was also an elected leader. Wildly popular, as I recall from the results.
Sounds fun.
Whatever mistakes Kuwait has made, they cannot justify Iraq’s actions. Baghdad has invaded Kuwait, an illegal act of aggression that violates the U.N. Charter and fundamental principles of cooperation and security in the Persian Gulf.
Or how about
Georgia has been found by the Security Council to be in violation of several previous Security Council Resolutions concerning its “disarmament obligations,”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1441 namely resolution numbers x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, x6, x7, x8, x9, x10, . . .
Of course, to play fair, we have to add: “Whatever mistakes Belgrade has made, they cannot justify the United States’ actions (or those of the other NATO nations participating)…”
Or, “Whatever mistakes Kabul has made, they cannot justify the United States’ actions (or those of the other NATO countries participating)…”
Or, “Whatever mistakes Iraq has made, they cannot justify the United States’ actions (or those of the dozens of nations who joined the Coalition)…”
I won’t mind if you want to list the nations that chose to back up Russia’s invasion with their own blood and treasure, also. It’s only fair.
#108 from Srbin:
bq. _US decided to throw away international law and UN Charter, so they are quite hypocritical talking about Russia actions. Russia didn’t do anything US didn’t._
Grim’s point that Russia attacked alone and America didn’t is correct.
But so what?
I see two problems. One, we are morally obligated to be of use to Georgia, because Georgia has been an ally in Iraq. Two, Georgia is not the kind of state one would wish harm to befall. (In contrast with, for two examples, North Korea and Saudi Arabia.)
I don’t see a third problem regarding whether Russia attacked with a coalition or alone. Why should we care about that?
Grim, if America accomplished a worthwhile result like demolishing Iran’s nuclear program by acting alone, would you care that it had done the job without coalition partners? I wouldn’t.
These moral concerns are very amusing. The U.S. entered Iraq for no strategic purpose other than controlling the resources of the area, unless one is still naive enough to believe that it was to protect ourselves from the imminent threat of Iraq using weapons of mass destruction against us.
It was not done for moral reasons like overthrowing a cruel dictator or Bringing democracy to Iraq. If it were than this administration was more foolish than I think and I think it has shown itself to be very foolish.
Russia invaded Georgia because it could. A bonus was the fact that it now essentially controls all the oil coming from the Caucasus Region and Central Asia to the West, something everyone seems to gloss over. Strategically, we have lost big time and there does not appear to be anything we can do about it other than war, which we are not going to do.
All the handwringing over the brutalization of a small democracy by Russian thugs will have no effect on anything. Bush looked into Putin’s soul, as I remember, and he was blind to this?
I have said before that I never thought I would see a worse foreign Policy than we had under Jimmy Carter, but these characters continue to prove me wrong. Russia has won very big during this administration and we are going to pay dearly for that.
Worried about the price of oil? YOur problems have just begun
#115 from TOC:
bq. _These moral concerns are very amusing. The U.S. entered Iraq for no strategic purpose other than controlling the resources of the area, unless one is still naive enough to believe that it was to protect ourselves from the imminent threat of Iraq using weapons of mass destruction against us._
Your pose of superiority in being amused is unfounded, and there are other alternatives than the two you propose, that the U.S. entered Iraq for no strategic purpose other than controlling the resources of the area, or that it was for the Americans to protect themselves against an imminent threat of Iraq using weapons of mass destruction against the United States of America. (The “still” in “still naive enough to believe that” is also an unfounded implication.)
#116 from David Blue at 6:09 am on Aug 13, 2008
I was being kind when I used the word amusing. I thought it was better than saying what it really is and that is a cruel joke. The Bush Administration made an historic strategic blunder in invading Iraq. The fig leaf of the threat of imminent attack from Iraq with weapons of mass destruction did not hold up so it was replaced by the moral high ground we supposedly seized when we overthrew Saddam or even better brought democracy to Iraq.
I find it hard to believe that anyone can listen to this nonsense, even moreso, preach it, with a straight face.
Take a look at the Middle East, from the Gulf to the Caspian and from Egypt to Pakistan and tell me that this administration’s policy is not an absolute failure. Take into account that we have let the Russians back in, big time, and given them incredible power over energy supplies to Europe. Then one has to listen to people talk about the morality of Great Powers.
I take it back. It isn’t a joke, because it doesn’t rise to the level of a joke. Hell, it is barely amusing.
But TOC, we could have easily controlled the oil resources of Iraq without invading, by simply cutting a deal with Saddam – as was offered.
How does that square with your kinda simplistic model?
A.L.
Mr. Blue:
If the US felt obligated to destroy Iran’s nuclear program by force, in a situation where other courses would most likely lead to a greater and worse war, of course I would support — and, to the best of my ability, contribute to — that action. I hope it will not be necessary, however; there are a number of alternatives to be hoped for, at least. Certainly I would hope to have allies in such a case, but if not, we would do what we had to do.
AL raises a good point about the oil business. Indeed, if we had done this for the oil, why are “we” “selling the oil to China?”:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/3/story.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10526474
You’d think after all this time that we’d have remembered that we wanted to steal the oil for ourselves.
No, TOC, America has to convince its populace to go to war. I remember the discussion, and what swayed me was the humanitarian concerns: the end of a murderous and brutal tyranny, and the chance for millions to know a better life than they have ever had before.
Others may have wanted other things, but that is what I wanted. It may be — as you say — foolish. Well, I have been foolish before. Nor is that always quite so bad.
“Kings go up and kings go down, and who knows who shall rule? Next night a king may starve or sleep; but men, and birds, and beasts shall weep at the burial of a fool. O! Drunkards in my cellar; boys in my apple tree — the world grows stern and strange and new, and wise men shall rule over you: and you shall weep for me.”
TOC, you arent making much sense. All you seem to be saying is nation can and will do whatever they can get away with and we shouldnt be surprised. I agree in principle this is true, but it doesnt account for consequences.
We can land troops in Georgia and end the war. Doesnt that put Georiga in our sphere of influence? Its within our power right?
_”Take into account that we have let the Russians back in, big time, and given them incredible power over energy supplies to Europe. “_
“Given” them? It what sense? Like, for instance, allowing them to swallow Georgia whole without a peep? Arent you the one that considers this fait acompli?
This is the rather typical- anything America does is wrong, anything America doesnt do is also wrong. I just dont understand the mindset- the Russians are actively working to expand their influence. Ok, so how is the answer to that isolationism? If we ignored the Middle East would that make it _less_ likely that other powers would gain influence? Clearly not.
So I understand the argument that our influence has waned under Bush, I disagree with it, but its argueable. But i dont see an alternative being presented. Taking care of our own back yard wont keep Iran (or Saddam had we ignored him) in check. You cant have it both ways.
Not to mention that America failed to invent the perpetual motion machine that would have rendered this oil meaningless.
USA GDP $13.8 trillion
EU GDP $16.8 trillion
#121 from Mark Buehner:
bq. _Ok, so how is the answer to that isolationism? If we ignored the Middle East would that make it less likely that other powers would gain influence? Clearly not._
Suppose we had gone swiftly to Iraq, more swiftly than we did, and – just as a thought experiment I am presenting a pure case – suppose we had left a little later, leaving no stone standing on top of another stone, and nothing on wheels.
And that we then had invited Saudi Arabia to reconsider its role as the main global paymaster of jihad. Would that have been more persuasive than anything we have done? I think that it very well might have been.
And that we invited the Iranians to discontinue their nuclear program? Would that approach have made them more or less likely to call our bluff? I think that approach would have been stronger, but that the Iranians aren’t rational players anyway. They are jihadists first and nationalists second. The Ayatollah Khomeini created and defined the new Iranian state, and he defined it emphatically as an Islamic project. But still, making the strongest case to our enemies that they needed to back off would be no bad thing.
I don’t think that involvement, which too often is overcommitment and getting bogged down, necessarily makes us more influential. I think getting jerked around, which seems to be the price of staying on the sufferance of people who hate us with a religious hatred and who approve of murderous attacks on our soldiers, can make us less able to exert the specific influences we need to exert.
By the way, if we went to war with Russia over South Ossetia – and as a thought experiment let’s say also with China over Tibet – on the Iraq model, what does the bill for reconstruction come to?
And if we’ve jettisoned the Iraq model, when did that happen, and how can I know that this is true?
If we’ve acquire the ability to demolish an enemy and leave smoking rubble marked “someone else’s problem” I want to see that ability proven first at the expense of our true enemies, committed in doctrine to hostility to our way of life. Which, post-Communism, the Russians aren’t, and except for the unpleasant detail of Communism the Chinese wouldn’t be either.
Take into account that we have let the Russians back in, big time, and given them incredible power over energy supplies to Europe.
It is my understanding that Bush opposed the European move to get dependent on Russian oil and gas. Of course the Euros are smarter than we are and acted in their own self interest.
We can land troops in Georgia and end the war. Doesnt that put Georiga in our sphere of influence? Its within our power right?
We have 1,000+ there already.
We are sending in humanitarian aid. Like what? Anti-tank weapons? Anti-air? I wouldn’t be surprised.
Didn’t know much about Georgia, so I’ve taken some time to read more about them. And stumbled across a few posts:
“Obsidian Wings”:http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/08/obama-and-mccai.html
Basically analyzes the Obama/McCain response. I don’t agree with everything here, but it does lead to a main idea:
It is *very* important for us to know Georgia’s role in this conflict, and what responsibility they should hold for this series of events . Even if Georgia were a model democracy (which it’s “not”:http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL21549520080522?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews) it’s still not a good idea to protect countries that willingly poke Russia with a sharp stick, then cry out for our protection.
I also found this blog “godel metric”:http://godelmetric.blogspot.com/2008/08/mccain-georgia-nato-and-defense.html, which (somewhat conspiracy laced, I’ll admit) retraces several of McCain advisers and their roles in adding Eastern European countries to NATO in order to sell weapons contracts. This, of course, led to the “initial frustration of Russia”:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4514939.ece, and may have helped prompt this little conflict. (Which may sell more weapons).
I’m not saying this is McCain’s fault. I am saying that his advisers are related to (not necessarily responsible for) events that caused escalation in Georgia, and that is worth considering. I’m also not saying I agree with everything in these articles (I don’t). But they are good food for thought.
Alchemist: Obama and McCain both support NATO membership for Georgia. Obama: “I have consistently called for deepening relations between Georgia and transatlantic institutions, including a Membership Action Plan for NATO.” “Link”:http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/8/12/182835/321
“We are sending in humanitarian aid. Like what? Anti-tank weapons? Anti-air? I wouldn’t be surprised.”
A squadron of A-10s and a few C-130 gunships, an AWACS and maybe a few F-22s might have a sobering effect on that Russian convoy mortoring around Tbilisi right now. And of course it would be humanitarian in that humans in places like Gori would be protected from whatever the Russians had in mind in being there.
Of course, sending them would be hella provocative. Not at all what a nice civilized country would do.
Alchemist: _It is very important for us to know Georgia’s role in this conflict, and what responsibility they should hold for this series of events._
Frankly, who started it isn’t worth the time and bother. We’re still debating who caused WWI.
_Even if Georgia were a model democracy (which it’s not)_
I agree. Georgia is a potential democracy. The corruption is too high and its cut back on personal freedoms of late.
_it’s still not a good idea to protect countries that willingly poke Russia with a sharp stick, then cry out for our protection._
Earlier in the thread I voiced my concern that Georgia be considered an “ally” with some implied expectation of U.S. cover. IMO that is the worst of both worlds. It would be better for any US/NATO commitment be clear to all parties and if US/NATO were concerned about an improvident conflict in South O, they could put a significant peacekeeping force on the border. But if we don’t want to secure Georgia independence with a NATO commitment, then the countries objecting to that approach should have proposed something different.
#118 from Armed Liberal at 7:30 am on Aug 13, 2008
Iraqi oil appeared on the world market when Saddam was in power at the same price as other oil, which is worth the price of the last barrel sold. So I do not understand what you are getting at
BTW, as far as my simplistic scenario goes, the major story that will emerge from the Georgian invasion will be the treat to European energy supplies. We lost, big time, on this one. For all the posturing of our solidarity with Georgia and angst about the fate of this “tiny democracy, far away”, one thing is crystal clear, the administration has compounded its blunder in Iraq with allowing the Russian Bear to again roam freely in the Caucasus, Caspian area.
#121 from Mark Buehner at 3:03 pm on Aug 13, 2008
_This is the rather typical- anything America does is wrong, anything America doesnt do is also wrong_
Mark, spare me this crap, please. Maybe you can use this to buffalo little girls, but that is about the extent of its effectiveness. I have never, ever said that America is wrong. So, don’t try to tar me with this “typical”, nonsense.
I have repeatedly said how wrong headed this administration has been, both in terms of embracing Neo-Con naivety in Foreign Policy and Rovianisms, emasculation of the Republican party of over the past 10 years by uprooting it from its philosphical base.
_We can land troops in Georgia and end the war. Doesnt that put Georiga in our sphere of influence? Its within our power right?_
Well I doubt if the Russians would allow us. Do we want to wage a war with Russia over Georgia, maybe, but over Oil, not over the Georgia. What makes you think the Russians would allow us to send peace keepers? The barn door should have been closed long before the mare got out.
Putin has made it very clear that he would use energy as a weapon. It is and has been very clear that the Caucasus, Caspian Region was a critical source of energy. I do not know what we can do now. Georgia now appears not to be in our area of influence any more. That is the point. This is a massive blunder.
There were discussions on this site about a year ago about our involvement in Iraq diverting us from what was becoming a major problem, the remergence of Russia as an agressive power and its re-emergence as a power in the Middle East. I remember being laughed at when I said Russian Foreign Policy was cleaning our clock. Well, it doesn’t seem so funny now, does it.
My problem is not with the U.S., it is with an administration that seems to have not the slightest clue as to what our interests and where they lie, preaches wide-eyed adolescent fantasies about bring democracy to the Middle East and looks into Putin’s soul and fails to see a ruthless thug.
This makes me very angry.
#124 from M. Simon at 4:29 pm on Aug 13, 2008
Take into account that we have let the Russians back in, big time, and given them incredible power over energy supplies to Europe.
_It is my understanding that Bush opposed the European move to get dependent on Russian oil and gas. Of course the Euros are smarter than we are and acted in their own self interest._
Well, I opposed it to and, guess what the Europeans didn’t listen to me either. Everybody works out of their own self interests. Why would we expect the Europeans to be any different.
So, must we be satisfied with the Administration’s Policy here was going on record that we “opposed the European move to get dependent on Russian oil and gas.” might we have been better off by solidifying our interest in the area by pushing their inclusion in NATO?
Apparently the US saw the Russian response as a problem, and warned them “ahead of time”:http://www.mcclatchydc.com/255/story/47631.html. Not a promising sign for a plausible Nato Ally.
#133 from Alchemist at 6:02 pm on Aug 13, 2008
_Apparently the US saw the Russian response as a problem, and warned them ahead of time. Not a promising sign for a plausible Nato Ally._
This article is distressing in a number of ways, not the least being that it is an attempt by the administration to absolve itself.On the other hand, it begs the question, What the hell were they doing when all of this was coming to pass?
Were they caught completely falt footed or are they just acting that way? In either case, they do not wind up looking very good.
Mark B.: “i suggested putting troops on the ground, hows that for decisive? Like it or not (and im not sold on it myself), that fits the criteria of a solution.”
Decisive = solution. The Bush fallacy.
Decisive = solution. The Bush fallacy.
I was under the impression that that was the Russian fallacy.
So you mean to tell me it works for the Russians and fails for the US? How does that work?
_”I have never, ever said that America is wrong.”_
Right. You play a stupid game where Bush and the scary Neocons are hells minions, but somehow that is seperate from what America does after electing them twice. And give up your flag waving, im a true conservative game. Nobody buys it for a second- ive yet to hear you voice a single conservative principle you stand for by any sane persons definition of the term.
“_Well I doubt if the Russians would allow us._”
Ah, they will shoot down a C130 full of paratroopers?
_”There were discussions on this site about a year ago about our involvement in Iraq diverting us from what was becoming a major problem, the remergence of Russia as an agressive power and its re-emergence as a power in the Middle East.”_
And how has anything that happened in Iraq affected how we treat this crisis? If we werent in Iraq we would rush in 100,000 troops? Russia would fear that? Of course not.
TOC, take a stand and tell us what we should be doing specifically. The deadest giveaway that your a charter member of the i-hate-republicans club is your inability to state a coherant idea not in direct opposition to what Bush is doing at a given moment.
Mark,
I do not even know where to start.
First, you have no idea what a sphere of influence, so I don’t see how you can even begin to speak about Foreign Affairs.
Second, you idea of Foreign Policy amounts to sending troops off willy-nilly anywhere in the world, as if our power had no limits
Third, I have no idea what you think being a conservative is, but it apparently doesn’t include anyone who disagrees with whatever you think it is. Nor anyone that opposes the hijacking of the Republican Party by a bunch of lightweights. Take a look around at the state of the Right after the past 8 years. Do you think that merits a little reflection on the path we have been going down?
But why worry, it doesn’t matter than most of what you have said in this thread have nothing to do with any objective reality. Just send Putin an e-mail that we are sending in a hundred paratroopers to keep the peace. Wow, now there is an idea. Have you considered how long it would take to mount an effective military action? Or, doesn’t that matter either?
As far as constructive plans are concerned, you do not come up with solutions to these sorts of problems by shooting from the hip. Do you think the Policy of Containment, MADD and other strategic policies just popped into peoples head. Can you give me an over-arching strategic Policy that this administration adheres to?
I think we have entered a very grave period and I would hope for some response from those whose job it is to come up with responses.
One thing I do know is this administration did a terrible job in blocking what looks like a big win for the Russians and I am talking about control of energy not re-assimilation of Georgia. I also think this takes us much closer to a general and widespread war in the Middle East.
Mark,
I do not even know where to start.
First, you have no idea what a sphere of influence, so I don’t see how you can even begin to speak about Foreign Affairs.
Second, you idea of Foreign Policy amounts to sending troops off willy-nilly anywhere in the world, as if our power had no limits
Third, I have no idea what you think being a conservative is, but it apparently doesn’t include anyone who disagrees with whatever you think it is. Nor anyone that opposes the hijacking of the Republican Party by a bunch of lightweights. Take a look around at the state of the Right after the past 8 years. Do you think that merits a little reflection on the path we have been going down?
But why worry, it doesn’t matter than most of what you have said in this thread have nothing to do with any objective reality. Just send Putin an e-mail that we are sending in a hundred paratroopers to keep the peace. Wow, now there is an idea. Have you considered how long it would take to mount an effective military action? Or, doesn’t that matter either?
As far as constructive plans are concerned, you do not come up with solutions to these sorts of problems by shooting from the hip. Do you think the Policy of Containment, MADD and other strategic policies just popped into peoples head. Can you give me an over-arching strategic Policy that this administration adheres to?
I think we have entered a very grave period and I would hope for some response from those whose job it is to come up with responses.
One thing I do know is this administration did a terrible job in blocking what looks like a big win for the Russians and I am talking about control of energy not re-assimilation of Georgia. I also think this takes us much closer to a general and widespread war in the Middle East.
TOC, why don’t you start by identifying for us what America’s interests are in the Georgian conflict?
Is it America’s interest for Russia not to win? Really?
Mark,
If you start basing being “conservative” on a set of coherent policy ideas, you’ll soon find that the current Republican policy bears little to no resemblance to it.
Financial responsibility – it’s the Republican party that has continually put the nation into the red – from Reagan on.
Smaller government – tell that to the constantly expanding Bush government.
Respect for individual – don’t tread on me! Tell that to the hundreds, if not thousands, kept in containers around the world, the torturers, etc.
Respect for the law. You’ve just had an 8 year lesson in Republicans LACK of respect for the law – from ignoring existing law, ignoring the place of Congress in the constitution, to the infesting the Justice department – the law’s operatives – with party hacks.
No, what you evince, in your “solution”, is a fall-in-line grandiose authoritarianism, that has very little place in coming up with real solutions in the world, is grossly blind to it’s own hypocrisy, and can’t think through consequences of more than 1 millisecond ahead, in terms of actions contemplated.
That way, lies madness. And I devoutly hope that right thinking americans reject those choices.
John McCain today: “In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations.”
Somewhere, Saddam is laughing.
Yah, Georgia is totally equivalent to Saddam’s Iraq. And Saddam, in the typical BDS sufferer’s imagined “just rewards”, would obviously be in a position to laugh.
Moral compasses that could be used as hip-hop turntables….
Toc, come up with some actual policy ideas instead of reflexively bashing Bush. If it doesnt contradict 50 things youve already said its a bonus.
Austin Bay seems to think my idea is plausible (if politically we were to pull the trigger):
_”In succinct terms: the force deployed comprises a reinforced US airborne brigade plus allied contingents if you can get them (Polish, Ukrainian, Iraqi, even Chinese?– this is, after all, fantasy). Base air support in a Black Sea littoral nation, and two carrier battle groups in the Black Sea itself when (if) Turkey allows their passage through the Straits. Nail overflight permission – told you, tricky diplomacy required at all levels”_
…
_”The fictional reply: Insert a Peacekeeping Brigade (PKB). Call it a Peacekeeping Organization (PKO) if you want to give it an extra diplomatic smudge.”_
“link”:http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=1951
For the record, I think a lot of people are jumping the gun thinking this conflict is over. The Russians (at the moment) have no reason to hurry, slow and methodical works fine for them. Any Georgian attempts at self defense is simply used as another justification to snatch off another piece.
#144 from Mark Buehner at 3:54 am on Aug 14, 2008
Good night Mark. Pleasant dreams.
M. Simon (): “Decisive = solution. The Bush fallacy.
I was under the impression that that was the Russian fallacy.
So you mean to tell me it works for the Russians and fails for the US? How does that work?”
Here’s how it works: Base your decisiveness on a realistic knowledge of your capabilities, as well as that of your opponent’s. And, of course, it helps to think through what comes next.
Looks like reporters are the newest russian targets. I could only imagine the outrage of the “international community” if the nationalities involved were reveresed.
And, of course, it helps to think through what comes next.
Obviously given the moves and counter moves going on Russia has thought though its actions to the last decimal point and is advancing its position internationally.
1. Poland gets an anti-missile defense.
2. Ukraine is working to expel the Russians from the Black sea.
3. Ukraine and Poland get mutual defense pacts with the US.
4. Its international prestige declines hourly.
5. It has made abundantly clear that doing business with it is a very risky proposition.
6. Its population is declining 1/2% a year
7. Its birth rate is 1.4 – replacement rate is 2.1
8. It exports its women – brides – white slavery
And it is not over yet.
As Canaris said to a Spanish diplomat who asked a similar question about Germany’s leader of the time: “Calculated nothing at all.”
The next question of course is what happens when Russia cuts off Europe’s gas and oil?
My take on all this – Russian oil output is on the decline with the expulsion of Western oil companies. It has to conquer or die. Germany 1939. Japan 1941.
My take? Russia is bluffing and its bluff has been called.
===
And of its arsenal of nuclear tipped missiles – how many will work when fired? As many as 30%? 50%? Or 10%?
When you bluff it is wisest not to let your opponent see your cards. i.e. had Russia pulled out after its initial depredations it might have kept its credibility intact. Now it has to show its cards or fold. Bush is calling their bluff.
Had Europe stood firm on Czechoslovakia or Austria resisted a general war in Europe might well have been avoided. I believe that is the motivation behind current events. Once you let the little guys get picked off it then comes to a bigger war not too much later.
â€Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonor. They chose dishonor. They will have war.” Winston Churchill
Did everyone note this:
“We’re working closely with our partners in Europe and other members of the G7 to bring a resolution to this crisis.”
G7. Heh.