A former Clinton official critiques the US' (and EU's) mismanaging of Georgia.
I've been pretty unimpressed by the Bush state department (one of the reasons that I've been pretty unimpressed by the Bush administration in general). It's not clear whether that's because both Powell and Rice were captured by the bureaucracy and "went native" or because they were squishy by nature, but either way, it's unimpressive. One of the legacies of this administration will probably be its complete inability to win the guerilla wars in the bureaucratic trenches.
Of course, it didn't help that the president imagined that he saw Putin's "soul" through his eyes. We now have a much better idea of the nature of his soul through his subsequent actions than George Bush got from his ocular examination.
They neglected Georgia and Russia for five years for the simple reason that they aren't Iraq. Worse still, they begged Georgia to send troops to Iraq and strongly implied that we would stand by Georgia in their hour of need. But since Georgia isn't Iraq, they have no leverage to do that.
Fortunately the next president will almost certainly be better than this. Obama would set much better priorities, and even McCain would be some improvement.
Obama would set much better priorities,
What better priorities are you talking about?
He wants to get rid of all our nuclear weapons, which was the US primary deterrent to Russian agression for decades.
Please, tell us the better priorities Obama has in mind?
Oh yeah, Obama wants to cut defense spending and give it to education. That will keep the enemies of the US in check, just ask Jimmy Carter.
Same goes for everyone: actions speak. Remember our exchange about Elon vs. America. And now, Saakashvili. He was supposed to be a responsible statesman, elected by a young democracy. But instead of being a Georgian Vaclav Havel, he turned out to be a double-dealing and cowardly thug, no better than Shevarnadze. Now Georgia receives wages of trusting him the helm. If Russian occupiers hung him from a tank cannon barrel, it would be more than he deserved. But he's going to mugabify the country until nothing's left.
A danger inherent in the new doctrine of befriending democratic leaders instead of the likes of Somosa and Musharraff is that there aren't any without a significant change in the underlying societies. Suppose we have a choice of Saakashvili vs. Soviet herontocrat cum dictator for life Aliev vs. the civilized warlord Sargziyan. Saakashvili gave the best lip service to democracy... and even allowed a few newspapers to exist. Ta daa. Welcome Georgia our new best friend.
Reports were that we told Saakashvili not to embark on ill-advised military adventures, yet he's done it anyway only to have his clock cleaned by mere Russian avangard. What a disaster. No doubt he hoped to sucker us into backing him. Now Taiwan goes down the tubes, thanks to that asshole.
To deal with Russia effectively we need to be a strong nation. Not just militarily, but economically as well. We import 2/3's of our oil supply with our economy and the value of the dollar hanging precariously on the availability of that oil. In the meantime, we have virtually outsourced all our manufacturing so we are dependent upon stable trade routes for even our most basic manufactured goods.
Is it any wonder we have to tip toe around the Russians and anyone else who can seriously jeopardize world-wide oil supplies? The situation we find ourselves in with Georgia isn't the fault of our state department, it is the result of the choices every American has made with regards to the leaders we elect (thus the policies they enact) and the products we purchase.
The Russians don't have engage the Americans in a single battle to effectively defeat us. They just have to rattle the sensitive regions of world enough to cause the economic house of cards the U.S. is standing on to come tumbling down.
Right, that why the Pentagon sent trainers to Georgia to fight Wahhabis in the Pankisi Gorge; why they sent troops to Kosovo & Iraq; while Putin does everything in his power to supply both Iran's nuclear program (particularly at Bushehr)and their missile program. Supping at the Sudanese oil table with Gazprom; at Suakin. Sending the 58th; the butchers of Chechnya to Georgia, was an inspired touch.
Hard to see into Putin's eyes when George's head is firmly up his ass. What we have here are competing empires. The US empire is fading fast, and the Russian empire is coming back to life like Dracula rising from the dead.
We tried to encircle Russia on the south and west with "democracies" and have failed. Payback will be a bitch.
Hmmmm.
"Of course, it didn't help that the president imagined that he saw Putin's "soul" through his eyes."
Actually that was the result of an ambush by a reporter. Bush and Putin had just met and a reporter asked Bush what he saw when he look Putin in the eyes.
*shrug* what are you going to say? Stalin?
Note: this is not a defense of Bush. I have enough issues of my own with Bush. I don't need people thinking I'm his defender.
And now, Saakashvili. He was supposed to be a responsible statesman, elected by a young democracy. But instead of being a Georgian Vaclav Havel, he turned out to be a double-dealing and cowardly thug, no better than Shevarnadze. Now Georgia receives wages of trusting him the helm. If Russian occupiers hung him from a tank cannon barrel, it would be more than he deserved. But he's going to mugabify the country until nothing's left.
Pete, is any of this supported with specifics that don't originate in the Novy Pravda?
Can you point to something specific and anti-democratic that Saakashvili has done to Georgia?
Or are you just taking the Russian side?
What is our strategy? Reagan, "WE WIN, THEY LOSE."
I am completely disgusted with even the suggestion of anything else. My ears are deaf to any moral equivalency arguments.
Russia acts. It Lies. We let them play the game their way. WE WIN, THEY LOSE. That is all there is to it and we'd better get into the game.
They are bullies and we need to stand instead of piss'n our pants. These guys want to live and that impacts on their decisions. These aren't mad religious nuts. They will always back down if we stand up to them. There is a chance it would go hot, but bluffing is not an option. We have to mean it.
We will survive. If they don't back down they wont.
The former soviet republics know the score. They are standing up to the bully and we must as well.
We need to shut them down everywhere. The Georgian president is right when he says this is against America, but that doesn't mean we need to sacrifice the Georgian pawn. The Russians can't win in Georgia or anyplace in the 'near abroad' if we just play the game for keeps.
WE WIN, THEY LOSE (on all fronts) is the only strategy for Russia.
Pete Z.:
this is extremely naive.
This invasion was not caused by any recent actions of Saakashvili:
it had been planned, in great detail, for several months.
That's why it went so smoothly.
Saakashvili tried to preempt it; but if he had not, the Kremlin would
have just used another pretext, or fabricated one.
Nor is it really about South Ossetia - who needs
South Ossetia? It is not even about Georgia.
It is about the whole "near abroad"; it is about
revanche. Poland, Ukraine, the Baltics are seeing it
very clearly, and at close range. Putin's petro-Reich is
on the march; this is his Rhineland.
For us in the West, poor Georgia has played the part of the canary in a coal mine.
Thanks to Georgia, we are reluctantly awakening to the new era of Russian expansionism.
The warning came in time; the newly aggressive Russia,
even with all its petrodollars, is weak, corrupt, chaotic,
delusional. She is no match for us, if we play it right.