A Little More Moral Equivalency
William H. Hobbs opines that because South Ossetia is a part of Georgia, they should be able to take military action, bomb Ossetians, and kill Russian peacekeeping forces at will.
Which is all fine and good...quick question though, if Saddam Hussein had rolled into the Kurdish region of Iraq, started bombing, killing international forces, and attempted to reclaim a military foothold in the region, do you think Hobbs would be talking about the sovereign right of the Iraqi government?
I'm not saying Russia is a good guy in all this; they have a strategic interest in South Ossetia and have been exacerbating the situation...but lets not get into the business of making Georgia into some freedom loving innocent victim to the big bad Russians. There is plenty of fault to go around in this situation.
Update:
Just to be clear, its pretty evident that Republicans like Hobbs see this Russia business as an opening to shift the issues of the 2008 election away from economics and towards foreign affairs which Hobbs, et al, feel more comfortable campaigning on. They would sooner see America thrown into an intractable conflict with a global power than to see Democrats running this country.
See Also: John Derbyshire
And Ross Douthat who says:
But there are also places where American policymakers have to choose: They can try to forge major-power cooperation against the threat of terrorism joined to WMD, or they can try to unite a democratic bloc to oppose the interests of the Chinese and the Russians. And to my mind, the Russian Near Abroad, whether in the Caucuses or Central Asia, is a place where conservatives would be better served making the War on Terror our lodestar; the alternative has the potential to leave America's national interest hostage to the territorial ambitions of the government in Tbilisi, which is not a position in which a superpower ought to lightly place itself.
But McCain and Hobbs and the rest would gladly tie our nation's fortune, and the lives of our troops, to some President of a small republic in the caucuses if it means a greater possibility of entrenching America into another hot war.
15 comments:
Sean, this has been brewing for a while. The Russians shot down a Georgian aircraft about 2 months ago.
On one side of the border, the Russians will go to any length to defend their territorial integrity against ethnic minorities in Chechnya, Ingushetia, and Dagestan. While on the other side of the border they will go to any length to defend ethic minorities that want to claim territory from another country. And there really isn't anyone around to stop them.
And do you really believe Putin? Really?
Russia has no credibility. Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, Poland again, Latvia, Chechnya, plus all of the internal revolts that were put down with force. Just since WWII. They murder first, cover up second, and blame third.
Jim
Republicans like Hobbs see this Russia business as an opening to shift the issues of the 2008 election away from economics and towards foreign affairs which Hobbs, et al, feel more comfortable campaigning on.
So would someone explain to me where our illustrious Secretary of State has been during this whole affair? You know, the "Soviet" expert who is supposedly fluent in Russian? Can anyone explain why she's still on vacation?
Like during Hurricane Katrina, all this proves is that when a crisis occurs, Republicans go on vacation.
I enjoyed Southern Beal's comments. It was neat to read the accusation about Rice being on vacation while simultaneously watching her on live TV in front of the White House, briefing reporters.
Rice just returned from vacation . . . this started last Friday. I know the bar is set low for the admin, cassman, but your snark is misplaced. Maybe you were too caught up in the Edwards thing to notice.
As for moral equivalence, it should be noted that the Russians view this a Serbia in reverse. They said exactly as much after they declared their independence and promised to help any similarly placed independence movements within their "near-abroad" region. I suspect that this may be too nuanced for the Hobbseans but this was a tempest for quite a while. No matter who was in the "right" (an overly simplistic and inapt concept for geopolitics generally), this was actually predictable (even if not expected). Right or wrong, Georgia "gave them a reason" and Russia took full advantage to help "protect" and "liberate" a helpless minority (in their eyes/words - not mine).
hmmm...didn't WWII start over a little republic. Yea that probably wasn't worth it either.
The Hitler comparison has been used by every two-bit hawk over the past 50 years...and guess what, another Nazi Germany has yet to rear its head.
We need to look at every situation as it currently stands; not cower in fear over the remote possibility that someone will recreate the 4th Reich.
Need to learn your history and respect it. One of the problems with the young and Americans in general is that we tend to look at incidents as being stand alone. I wasn't necessarily talking about just Hitler. Mussolini grad his own land first. There is nothing going on now that hasn't transpired before.
Fair enough...historically speaking, had this been Nazi Germany or Mousilini's Italy; Georgia would already be under their rule by now. Russia has the power to overwhelm and take over Georgia, and they haven't...once that happens, I'll be more willing to concede those historical parallels.
This isn't a generational thing, other than the older generation seems to be having flashbacks to Cold War.
It seems foolish at this point to simply project and assume Russian intent - whether the claim is that they are seeking the overview of the Georgian government or re-assembling the Russian Empire or actually protecting an oppressed minority (as they claim).
Only after we get past the hyperbolic Reds/Nazis/Fascists nonsense, can we actually analyze this geopolitical situation and respond like "adults" rather than with toothless saber-rattling.
Putin has learned to use capitalism to his advantage. read up on whats taking place in Belarus and what happen in Ukraine last year. Hey gas is expensive we're sorry we have to raise the rates, but if... One of the problems is we expect our monsters to look and talk like monsters. Ain't like that.
Moe that's all very valid. Read up on Putin's grab of Gazpin a few years ago. Please don't try to tell me that a man that came of age during the cold war isn't working an agenda formed by those years. Look at the actions of the last 5 years and tell me there is no pattern. why do you think we're trying to put missles in their back yard. Just because we're "bad guys"?
To justify purchasing more missiles from Republican defense contractors ;-)
tc: to answer your question as to why we are putting missiles in their backyard . . . why?
I can't read minds but I guess you'd agree that it is NOT becasue of the threat of Iranian missiles.
You're rhetorical comment/question "Because we are bad guys?" shows how you miss the point when you start talking like this. This is the perfect example of this hyperbolic moral projection.
(1) Did I say such a thing? No . . . then why do you erect such a strawman?
(2) "Why?" is actually completely irrelevant to my point: At this point inthe analysis I don't give a d*mn about why we are doing what we are doing in the region. My point is that given X, how would you expect Russia to react.
(3) As I have said before, there is no "Good" or "Bad" when it comes to geopolitics. There is power. Sure, there is hard and soft power, but this good v. evil mindset is neither descriptively accurate nor helpful.
Ignoring the objective consequences of our past foreign policy actions/decisions when trying to predict and analyze the actions of other nations/powers is a recipe for disaster. And that means stripping away the moralistic good/bad and instead start looking at the effective and ineffective. This seems to me be most unremarkable.
. . . or I am just part of the blame-America first crowd, sympathetic to our real enemies. I prob'ly would have thought that Stalin wasn't such a bad guy and definitely would've appeased the Nazi's if I had any extra time after hugging trees and undermining the fabric of our society.
Whatever caricature fits in your mental framework.
Please just note that good v. evil is within the purview of comic books NOT 21st century realpolitik.
Moe, I'll take the critism of the good/evil. You are correct good and evil are decided on which side your on. However diplomacy involves a certain amount of "reading of peoples minds". therefore as you said you can't seperate past actions from present. It all presents a picture. Sounds to me like your playing a little game theory.
So Sean, are you still swinging on Putin's sack? Looks like this little invasion was justified by Russian propaganda.
"Russia exaggerating South Ossetian death toll, says human rights group"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/13/georgia
This was nothing more than an attempt by the Russians to sew up the petroleum in the Caspian region. Too many in America jumped to the defense of the Russians simple because they oppose Bush.
It seems that many have forgotten that it is always the duty of the strong to protect the weak. At school, in government, in public, and in the world the strong are obligated to keep the bullies in check.
Jim
Post a Comment