Limited Options In Georgia
The situation in Georgia is a tough and complex issue for America. About the only good news is that the press may be forced to ask the two presidential candidates some (gasp!) actual questions about actual real-world issues. But apart from pressuring the mainstream media into committing an act of journalism, there are really no good options in Georgia for the United States at this point.
A quick review of the background and current status is in order first, before we get to what it means for John McCain and Barack Obama (and, to a lesser extent, George Bush). Georgia used to be a part of the Soviet Union. Joe Stalin was a Georgian, for instance. When the U.S.S.R. broke up, Georgia declared its independence and became a country. Parts of Georgia, for various ethnic and demographic reasons, wanted to be either their own independent countries, or part of Russia. That's what the current fight is about.
But we need a little more background here. Georgia, pretty much since it broke off the Soviet Union, has been a thorn in Russia's side. They became very pro-Western, adopted a democratic form of government, and built a pipeline with the help of two other countries to move Caspian Sea oil out to the rest of the world.
Meanwhile, Georgia drifted closer to America politically, and George W. Bush in particular. Georgians love Bush, they've even named streets after him. It seems they took him at his word when he was using high-flown rhetoric about Democracy and Freedom after invading Iraq. They took Bush at his word for good reason, because Bush has always said America will "stand with" Georgia, should it ever come to that. Except that now, they're learning that Bush didn't exactly mean "stand with" when he said "stand with," what he apparently meant was "we'll stand by and wait to see what happens."
President Bush has been pushing "the West" ever-more eastward during his time in office. He has made provocative moves in what used to be the Soviet "sphere of influence" (or, "Iron Curtain" if you will), inviting more and more Eastern European countries to join NATO, and basing anti-ballistic missile systems in the Czech Republic and Poland. U.S. forces trained the Georgian military, and Georgia is currently applying to become a member of NATO.
Russia, quite rightly, views such moves as provocative. Imagine, for instance, if China got involved in the separatist movement in Québec. How would America feel about that, especially if China was training Canadians militarily? How would we feel if Mexico signed a military treaty with Iran? America's reaction to either of these far-fetched scenarios would be a quick dusting off of the term "Monroe Doctrine," which would be quickly followed by the entire country freaking out. Which is what Russia has been doing for years, over Western expansion which has now reached right up to their borders.
Anyway, the province of South Ossetia in Georgia is a "breakaway province." Georgia sent its military into the region to take back what they consider their territory. Russia reacted, and then overreacted. Since it's not really a balanced fight, everyone knows Russia's going to do whatever they feel like, and are quite capable of crushing the whole Georgian military. They are the 800-pound bear, after all.
That's the background, in a nutshell. There are more complexities to the problem, but what is obvious in all of this is that America really doesn't have much in the way of good options here. Russia is going to do what Russia is going to do, and there's not a whole lot anyone else is going to do to convince them otherwise, at this point.
The U.N. can't act, since Russia holds a permanent veto on the Security Council. We could go after Russia economically by kicking them out of the Group of Eight, but that's about it.
But the real sobering fact (that many are ignoring) is that if Bush had had his way, and had fast-tracked Georgia's entry into NATO, then we would now be obliged to aid Georgia; and would, in actual fact, be at war with Russia. Not a "Cold War" either, but a real live shooting war. Over South Ossetia. We would have survived the entire Cold War without shooting at each other, and would now be across a battlefield in South Ossetia.
Bush, McCain, and Obama have all strongly denounced Russia's actions. McCain is in favor of kicking them out of the Group of Eight. Other than that, their positions are all strikingly similar (since we really don't have many options) -- denounce Russia's actions with strong words, but shy away from actually backing such strong words up with any military assistance.
Bush will do whatever Bush will do, but he's only going to be in office for a few more months, so it is more important to focus on what the two candidates would do, and how it plays for them politically on the campaign trail.
The Associated Press has a pretty good rundown of the risks inherent in both McCain and Obama's stance on Georgia.
From the article, McCain's risks first:
For McCain, the issue plays to what polls show is his strength: national security. But the 71-year-old ex-Navy aviator and longtime member of the Senate Armed Services Committee could overplay his hand if he sounds too warlike to a U.S. electorate weary of war.
And Obama's risks:
Obama has been criticized by Republicans before for his willingness to meet Iranian, Cuban and other hostile leaders with no or few conditions. And his remarks about diplomacy and restraint on "all sides" raised the question of whether he failed to grasp the scope of the Russian invasion.
There's another risk for Obama, and that is that all of this is happening while he's on vacation. But this isn't all that big a risk, for two reasons: Bush was on vacation at the Olympics when it started, and Bush is planning to take a further two weeks off at his ranch and has indicated he has no plans to change his schedule because of the situation in Georgia. So that would tend to blunt any Republican criticism of vacationing during a crisis.
And at this point, I'm willing to bet that Obama talking about diplomacy is going to sound a lot better to most Americans (who really just want the whole thing to go away, so they can enjoy the Olympics without distraction) than McCain beating the war drums. It would be pretty hard for McCain to get many people whipped up over South Ossetia, when we have seen for the last seven years that American soldiers actually get killed when we send them off to war in places most Americans couldn't find on a map. I think the American public is a little tired of that, and the more McCain appears belligerent and bellicose, the less enthusiastic the public is going to be for his candidacy. The old saying "if you only have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" could be rephrased as "McCain never saw a problem he didn't think a little bombing would help." And, like I said, I think Americans are a little tired of such chest-beating.
But I would like to see the larger issue be addressed. I'd like the media to ask a few relevant questions to McCain and Obama: Do you think expanding NATO to Russia's borders is a good strategic idea? Because the next time this happens, we will be legally required to help defend a fellow NATO ally... meaning we'll be at war with Russia. So do you support Georgia's bid for NATO entry, which is supposed to be up for approval before the end of this year? Do you support Bush's new ABM sites in Poland and the Czech Republic? Do you understand why Moscow sees these as provocative moves in its front yard? Would you continue Bush's policies, or would you do something different? If so, what?
Because while the mainstream media has led a mighty effort to trivialize this election, they are now going to have to forego the John Edwards stories and the Paris Hilton stories, and start some actual reporting. The confluence of events demands it: here is a genuine foreign policy crisis that nobody foresaw -- right in the middle of the campaign -- and America deserves the answer to the question "What would you do as president?" in order to make an informed decision as to which man we want to lead us for the next four years.
[Editoral Note: You'll notice I exercised restraint in that title, because while "Georgia On My Mind" or even "The Devil Went Down To Georgia" certainly spring to mind, I feel that this issue is not worthy of trivializing in such a fashion.]
-- Chris Weigant
"The Devil Went Down To Georgia" would have been apropos.. :D
I have been debating this issue on HuffPo since it kicked off..
And, I have to say, that a more depressing and hysterical group I have never seen... And I have seen a lot...
The absolute adulation of the Russians over this is simply disgusting... It has cemented my belief that the hysterical Left don't really believe in things like freedom and such. They are simply Anti-Bush... Anything that Bush is for, they are against.. Bush could stand and announce, "Eating Rat Poison is BAD for you" and these lunkheads would scream and shout, "BS!!! Rat Poison is the greatest thing since frozen pizza!!!!"
OK, now that I got that off my chest, to business..
Let's start with some facts.
Georgia did not invade anyone. Georgia could no more "invade" South Ossetia than the US could "invade" Texas or Puerto Rico..
So, let's make that clear from the get go.. While Georgia probably could have been a little nicer about things, the simple fact is, it's an INTERNAL matter to Georgia...
Now, Russia has a tenuous (VERY tenuous) claim of legitimacy in going in to South Ossetia to evacuate it's citizens.. That tenuous claim was completely shattered when Russia invaded Georgia proper..
To put it into a different context, imagine that the US sends troops into Texas to quell a rebellion. Mexico sends in troops, tanks and planes into Texas to "protect their own". Once Mexico secures Texas, the Mexican military proceeds to bomb cities in Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Louisana. Mexico also bombs ports in Louisiana and Florida and sinks several US Navy ships in the Gulf...
Now, is Mexico legally, morally or ethically in the right?? Of course not..
A country has a RIGHT to preserve it's Union.. Even by force of arms, if necessary.. If the US Civil War taught us anything, it taught us that...
So just so we are clear here. Russia is the aggressor here. Plain and simple..
Now, as CW is wont to do, he looks at things from the Russia point of view..
Does Russia have to be happy about it's satellite states wanting to join NATO? No, Russia doesn't have to be happy about it. Are they allowed to invade sovereign countries to prevent?? Of course they are not...
Russia doesn't like NATO on it's doorstep?? Tough titty...
You can be assured of one thing. Had Georgia been allowed to join NATO, Russia wouldn't be in Georgia today. It's THAT simple...
With ONE exception, NO NATO country has EVER been attacked...
Russia went into Georgia for two reasons and two reasons only.. Forget humanitarian reasons.. Forget South Ossetia or Abkhazia.
Russia has two reasons and two reasons only.
1. Russia wants control of ALL oil and natural gas pipelines that feed Europe. They only ones that Russia did NOT control were in Georgia.
2. Russia wanted to send a message to all the former satellite states of the USSR. "We can take you any time we want to."
For those of you who think that the US is toothless and can't do anything to assist NATO, think again..
The ONLY area where the US is thin is boots on the ground.. But we have large sea and air assets that are sitting around doing absolutely nothing.. If NATO has the political will to push the Russians back, the US can provide plenty of air and sea support to make it happen..
And, by all appearances, Russia knows this. Latest word is that Russia is heeding the demands of the US and Europe to cease and pull back..
Time will tell....
Michale.....
Maybe the Media will start looking at the fact that McCain's foreign policy advisor was a lobbyist for Georgia for years and until as recently as March... nah, they don't touch McCain on anything.
Last night on Verdict, Ali [something] from The Nation, when they were talking about the Edwards affair, brought up McCain's affair and asked why the media refuses to talk about it while condemning Edwards. Why someone no longer running for office or in office is getting wall to wall coverage but no one is mentioning the guy actually in office and a nominee for President is getting no scrutiny. Of course the others had a look of outrage that it was even mentioned and he quickly got shut down. Shocker.
@BLaws
Regarding the Edwards issue (one of my other "pet projects" :D )
The answer is simple.
McCain's "affair" was over 30 years ago. It has been thoroughly vetted and discussed by McCain himself.
In short, it's not news..
If you are referring to the Vicki Isleman issue, there is no proof of anything...
As far as Edwards being a nobody. If he was such a nobody, why was he going to have a prime time speaking spot at the Dem Convention..
Regardless of all that ( I really don't want to make this an EDWARDS thread, out of respect) the simple fact is, this isn't an issue of sex.. It isn't even an issue of lying about sex. If Bill Clinton taught us anything, it's that you can lie about sex and still have a political career..
This is an issue (as it usually is) about the money trail. Some estimates have upwards of a million dollars being paid out to various co-conspirators. Where did that money come from??? Was it campaign donations??
THAT is the question that Edwards needs to answer before he can ever hope to put this behind him.
Michale.....
Welcome to the nuclear age. Short of invading another nuclear armed country, Russia can do pretty much what ever it wants.
Russia has been invaded by just about everyone through out history. They are a bit neurotic on this point. I think they really, really liked having the satellite country buffer. The west has been a bit frosty to Russia as it tries out democracy and yet seems to have a love affair with China which has few if any democratic aims. This Georgian affair does not surprise me at all.
The sad part is because of Iraq we have hardly a moral leg to stand on. At least in Russia's perspective, The US in Iraq is basically an invade a neighbor for free card.
Michale-
I do find some irony that you fear a terrorist nuke attack on American soil but don't seem bothered by armed conflict with a real nuclear power.
@Bashi
There is absolutely NO comparison between the UN/Iraq situation and the Georgia/Russia situation.
The US led a COALITION into Iraq... There is no coalition in Georgia. Just Russia.
The Coalition was operating under the auspices of the UN to enforce UN resolutions. The only "resolution" that Russia is operating under is it's own greed..
There is simply NO FACTUAL WAY to compare the two issues.
I do find some irony that you fear a terrorist nuke attack on American soil
What person in their right mind would NOT fear such a thing???
don't seem bothered by armed conflict with a real nuclear power.
It's not as illogical as you might think.. Nation-states are (usually) pragmatic about things like that and firmly believe in the axiom of running away to fight again another day. Iran, of course, is an exception to this...
Terrorists usually don't have that innate survival instinct and relish the chance to drag as many innocents as they can down with them..
Michale.....
McCain's "affair" was over 30 years ago. It has been thoroughly vetted and discussed by McCain himself.
That's the same tired line the Media uses. Funny though, because it didn't keep them from bringing up Bill Clinton's affair during the discussion. I heard numerous times where during the Edwards discussion someone brought up Clinton's affair, and not just because Edwards slammed Clinton back then over it. The Clinton affair was covered so much I doubt there are many people in this country that don't know about it. But I'm willing to bet a vast majority don't know about McCain's affairs, or his other past scandals. So far the media refuses to touch it because "everyone already knows it".
Apparently it's starting to be discussed:
Alan Colmes on McCain's adultery; Sean Hannity ties himself in knots
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/13/9107/67821/289/567191
I can't get to dailykos at work due to our stupid firewall so not sure what it says, I'll have to wait till I get home to see it. But anything that tweaks Hannity is a good thing in my mind.
@BLaws
Do you know why people still bring up Clinton's dalliances?? Because Clinton refuses to discuss it...
Do you know why people DON'T bring up McCain's dalliances??? Because McCain talks about it freely...
And, forgive me.. But dKOS bringing something up is hardly grounds for the assertion that "it's all coming out"....
Regardless of all of the afore, the Edwards issue is no longer about sex or lying about sex...
It's about embezzlement and misappropriation of campaign funds...
The old "yea, but..." defense is lame and inherently self-defeating...
Michale
PS, if you really want to read that dKOS article, I'll make it available to you on a work friendly server.... Just let me know...
And, forgive me.. But dKOS bringing something up is hardly grounds for the assertion that "it's all coming out"….
I never said any such thing. And if it had only been on HuffPo or DailyKos I'd not have been surprised, but what I was surprised about is apparently it was brought up on Fox News of all places even if it was by Alan Colmes.
Again, I can't read it now, I'll catch it at home (it may be nothing). But if Fox covered it, it wouldn't shock me if the other cable channels ran with it too, because we all know they can't let the other guy have a story by themselves. They each need to get in their "Breaking News!" and "Exclusive Interviews!".
As much as I hate Faux News, they have quite often broken a story the other networks were either too scare to touch or too disinterested with. Then of course CNN has to rush in and cover it, even MSNBC will do so, both of them using Fox clips saying "Look what Fox covered" to test out the ratings/backlash. If there is little backlash they run with it, if there is a lot they say "oh we didn't run that story, we just commented that Fox did it".
Ahhh My apologies... I misread what you wrote...
But, I still don't put much stock in it.. Sure people will TRY and talk about it to mitigate the Edwards fallout...
But it's simply another example of the hypocrisy of the hysterical Left...
When the Foley scandal broke, many dug up the Studd's scandal of 10-12 years ago. Those on the Left pooh-poohed such comparisons with the claim that it was 10-12 years ago and therefore no longer relavant. Now that a Democrat Golden Boy is mired in a scandal, the Left is trying to reach back nearly THREE TIMES as long to mitigate the Edwards scandal..
But even regardless of all that. The Edwards issue, isn't about sex.. It isn't even about LYING about sex... It's about embezzlement of campaign funds to pay off a mistress and co-conspirators...
So much for not getting sucked into an Edwards debate, eh?? :^/
Michale......
Edwards? Where in the article does it mention John Edwards?!?
Sigh.
OK, here you go. This is from Camille Paglia today, and it perfectly sums up my feelings on the matter:
"As a Democrat who was supporting him until Obama showed his mettle during the primary debates, I was shocked by how badly John Edwards has behaved during the lurid flap over his private life. I'm not surprised and really don't care that Edwards had an extramarital affair, but what a craven, sniveling little worm he has turned out to be -- fleeing into hotel bathrooms, pretending to know nothing about payoffs under his nose, offering a paternity test while the mother bizarrely refuses it, and canonizing his long-suffering wife while doing her dirt. Elizabeth Edwards too has been ethically compromised because of her aggressively sanctimonious defense of her husband's reputation over the past year. Both of them well deserve their exile from the Democratic convention."
-CW
Sigh. I re-read it, and I did sneak Edwards' name in there at the end.
So I guess I deserved the comment thread after all.
Mea culpa.
-CW
Let me ask ya'all something..
We have a REAL unique situation here..
Bush, McCain ***AND*** Obama are all on the same page when it comes to the Georgia/Russia issue...
Here's the question...
If Bush had come down on the side of Russia in it's invasion of Georgia, would YA'ALL have agreed with Bush??
Would ya'all have stood up and said, "Bush is RIGHT for supporting Russia in it's illegal and dis-proportionate attack on and invasion of the tiny democracy of Georgia!"
Somehow, I just really don't believe that ya'all would have done that..
Which indicates to me that this whole "RAH RAH RUSSIA" attitude is simply an extension of the "BASH BUSH" attitude...
Michale.....
@Michale
How about next time you want to "ask a question" you simply ask it without telling us what our opinions are going to be, ones you decided to give us to suit your desired "conclusion", so that you could proclaim that your opinion is the only valid one while insulting everyone else as being nothing but illogical Bush Bashers?
Touche'
You seem a bit peeved...
Are you peeved that I am so presumptuous?? Or are you peeved that I am right? :D
It's a time saving element..
I am pretty sure I know the response so I just go ahead and give MY response to the expected response..
So....
Surprise me...
Tell me I am wrong... :D
Michale.....
With regards to the Georgia incident...
When Saakashvili took power, he pledged to Georgians that he would return the country's separatist regions back into Georgia's fold. He succeeded with another Black Sea breakaway region, Ajaria, where he ousted a Moscow backed separatist leader in 2004.
But years of negotiations with separatist leaders in Abkhazia and South Ossetia have proved fruitless. Saakashvili has offered those governments broad autonomy in exchange for allegiance to Georgia, but Abkhaz and South Ossetian leaders have insisted on full-scale independence or absorption into Russia.
Georgia's all-out assault on South Ossetia was preceded by attacks by Ossetian forces against Georgian troops earlier in the week, including a separatist ambush with rocket-propelled grenades on a Georgian armored personnel carrier that killed two soldiers and injured six, Georgian authorities said. On Thursday, a separatist mortar attack on the village of Avnevi killed eight Georgian civilians.
Thursday evening, Saakishvili called for a cease-fire and urged separatist leaders to resume talks on a peaceful settlement. But when separatists began shelling Georgian villages after Saakashvili's cease-fire call, Georgian leaders decided to move ahead with the assault.
"Separatists opened fire in response to yesterday's peaceful initiative of the president of Georgia," said Georgian Prime Minister Lado Gurgenidze in a televised address. "As a result, lives of civilians were under threat."
Speaking Friday on CNN, Saakashvili accused Russia of provoking Georgia into attacking South Ossetia, an intimation that Russia engineered the separatist shelling of Georgian villages late Thursday. "Most decision-makers have gone for the holidays," an apparent reference to the opening ceremonies of the Summer Olympics in Beijing. "Brilliant moment to attack a small country."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-080808-georgia-ossetia-webaug09,0,4176197.story
So, the notion that Georgia attacked South Ossetia "out of the blue" is completely bogus....
Granted, it's all moot. The US & NATO has forced the Russian "Army" (such as it is) to turn tail and run....
Michale......