MUST READ: Great Commentary on Georgia Conflict

I found this Jim Lehrer Newshour broadcast to be helpful:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb.....08-08.html

Georgia supplied troops (with South Korea’s reduction, isn’t it now #3 after the U.K. and the U.S.?) not only for needed support but also to keep up the air of an international coalition. Even if it weren’t on the path to becoming a member of NATO, what does it mean if the U.S. doesn’t do something serious on behalf of this ally? U.S. credibility would take a major hit, which would make the future an uneasy place. My vote for Obama or McCain depends a bit on how they respond to this (I’m leaning toward McCain because I don’t like Obama’s pandering to labor unions at the expense of FTAs).

Anyway, a few nightime B-2 sorties should even the odds and provide a decent amount of plausible deniability.

Wedge, how many night-time B-2 sorties do you think it would take to even the odds?

user-81, in an election year this could get quite serious if both McCain and Obama try to one-up each other with chest thumping about defending democracy. The Caucasus is a tricky region and remember who the Russians are fighting in Chechnya. Hopefully the whole thing will blow over and everyone can go back to worrying about how many golds Phelps is going to win.

Re: #4

“…we have 150,000 US troops in Iraq and another 20,000 in Afghanistan bringing “democracy” to people who wouldn’t know democracy from a goat’s cunt”

I”m assuming “democracy” means you’re being cynical and thus realistic. On this, we see eye-to-eye.

“Bringing democracy to the Middle East” was not on the original top 3 or so of the “Reasons why we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq” list. It simply got promoted by attrition of the 3 or so before it (capturing/killing Osama, neutralizing the Taliban, WMDs, Saddam-Al Qaeda link, securing a source of oil, etc.,.)

Invading Iraq was and has been a horrible idea in many ways – opportunity cost (not being able to respond to actual crisis) being one of them.

“I’m not saying the US should intervene in Eastern European ethnic conflicts, or that the Georgians didn’t to a large extent bring this on themselves by punching the bear in the nose, but like I said, watching this one from the sidelines makes me feel rather dirty.”

Robert, I don’t think one should necessarily feel dirty about not involving one’s country in a conflict that perhaps is more about nationalism/unfinished historical business than it is about democracy.

Unless, of course, the United States gave the nod to the Georgians to provoke the Russians. (I’d be curious to know what their recent military training by American troops/advisors entailed. It would seem that anticipating and defending against Russian jets was not a focal point of their recent training.) If the United States didn’t discourage this episode – Bay of Pigs and the Kurdish uprising after Gulf War I come to mind – it wouldn’t cool to leave the Georgians hanging.

Then again, should the United States/NATO be willing to risk a war with the Russians over Georgia, Ukraine, Latvia, etc. in the first place?

The “Great Game” is being played differently than you all think.
Russia, China, and the USA are not competing for central Asian
resources, but collaborating together. All three countries are
working together to share the burden of integrating and consolidating
Central Asia into the “global security system”. The Georgian provocation
was an American gift to Russia. The Americans believe Russia must share
its load in controlling Central Asia. Giving Russia “justification” to assert itself, helps this plan. It’s a win/win deal. The Americans are also helping China with it’s Uighur problem.

Don’t get your panties in a wad. It’s called Global Cooperation.

Umm, mashimaro, Russia has a large number of nuclear missiles….

Let the Europeans deal with Georgia since they offered up the posibility of NATO and EU memberships that pissed off the Russians (well, at least Putin) and they have something at stake (the gas pipeline) and the U.S. doesn’t.

#16 – And, were it up to the Europeans to deal with, the United States would probably have to clean it up later. Thinking back to the wars in Bosnia and Croatia, the Europeans, and later, the UN, were unable to stop the fighting. (To the credit of the UN, they didn’t do a completely bad job of mitigating the violence, delivering humanitarian aid, etc. but they couldn’t end the fighting.) The war really only ended with Dayton. Kosovo, although an unfinished story, was also only handled with the intervention of NATO (the U.S, and to a lesser extent, Canada were needed to supplement Europe there too.) I take no pleasure in how this went down – I would have been happy for Europe to have been able to take care of the Balkans without outside or larger NATO intervention.

A few random thoughts:
There is a “rumor” perpetrated by the likes of A. Sullivan and his ilk that the US gave tacit approval. IF true, why would Georgia do such an idiotic thing? They are not the 13th cenutry Swiss for Gods sake!!!
They have, mostly very old, Soviet era material. No match for the Russkies.
As mentioned above, IF they had stingers and anti tank missles in abundance then I could see them, maybe, having a small chance.
Also. the commies seem to have had quite a lot of tanks and troops in the area. Didn’t we see that on satellites? and tell the Georgians?
Something smells.

Global, I’d say let the EU deal with it first and try to seperate the sides, although if Russia wants to absorb Georgia things will get a whole lot messier than now.

I know the U.S. backed Georgia for EU and NATO, and the Ukraine might be the next flashpoint, so Russia’s (i.e. Putin’s) ambitions are a long-term problem for the U.S.

#9: Only 3 or 4.

Has no one noticed the hypocracy of America criticizing another country for “violating national sovereignty”. Cough cough Iraq Serbia. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Once we disregarded international law not once but several times over the past 10 years, we lost all moral or even political legitimacy to criticize Russia, and in the future, China.

As for “disproportionate response”, ummm… doesn’t anyone think that invading and occupying a major Middle Eastern country thousands of miles from our shores, for no good reason at all, was just a bit disproportionate? Not only the Russians, but also the Chinese and that other rising power India, are laughing at us now. Thanks Bush administration!

By the way, those of you arguing for sending weapons or even bombers to Russia… think about what Russia can send to our enemies. Long range missles and potentially even nuclear technology to the likes of Iran and Syria, weapons to Iraqi insurgents… Russia can make just as much if not more trouble for us as we can for them. And they know that the US administration knows this.

Russia attacks Georgia?!

Wolverines!!!!

Global Village and Bricky…
Sure the Bush administration has misused our military in Iraq and has falsely sought to justify the invasion with bogus claims of ’spreading democracy.’ But that doesn’t mean that we should just give up on the idea of democracy, or not protect genuine democratic allies when they’re threatened. Not defending Georgia would just compound the hypocracy. Putin/Medved have succeeded in squelching the Russian press and the opposition, have revived authoritarian rule in Russia, and are seeking to expand authoritarian Russian power, which is why you now see demonstrations in the Baltics demanding a harsher Western line towards Moscow. I suppose that the Russians could step up assistance to rogue states and terrorist groups (probably not El Quada though) in response to US aid for Georgian guerillas but it would be a price worth paying, especially when compared to the alternative of doing nothing as a democratic ally is flattened.

One other puzzle here is that Bush was supposedly pushing for Georgia’s inclusion into NATO, yet the US evidently made it clear to the Georgians that there was no plan to defend Georgia if the Russians attacked. You would think if they were that close to NATO membership that there would some promise of US support. Letting in countries that you have no intention of defending sounds like a great way of destroying NATO.

I don’t agree that opposition to US involvement in Iraq somehow leads to blanket opposition against any international US military involvement, although some do take that position.

If you’re honestly interested in promoting democracy, there’s a big difference between intervening to protect a home-grown democratic state (Georgia) vs. trying to force a democratic system on a country which, due to cultural or economic factors, is a hostile environment for democracy (like Iraq).

The promotion of democracy is instituted in NATO guidelines, which list it as a condition for membership and mutual protection, so it’s evidently an important US foreign policy objective, at least in Europe anyway.

Direct military intervention isn’t on the table for obvious reasons (nuclear war and WW3), but supplying arms is an option in cases like this with a nuclear power involved in a war with the other sides proxy(such as 1989 Afghanistan and Vietnam).

I don’t think people really appreciate how serious an international crisis this could have created, and its not over yet. Anything that can lead to war involving two nuclear powers is pretty frightening, and had Georgia been admitted to NATO and this had happened, well we might not be around to enjoy this debate.

maclean is an idiot. “i speak for all americans…” in support for georgia. whatever. another nail in his electoral coffin. dangerous words.

is it me or are most world leaders complete assholes?