What if Bush had gotten his way on Georgia?

Holy Shades of Neville Chamberlain, Batman!

So, how many nations do we sacrafice to avoid confronting Russia?

Is it ok to allow just one to be massacred and taken over? Or do we wait until the whole of Eastern Europe has fallen to the Blitzkrieg... Oh, wait, different war and different dictator...

Same reasoning, folly, and principles at stake though.

Of course we should defend Georgia. If Putin's willing to use nukes to take back the lost territory, then a nuclear war is absolutely inevitable, and the old miniseries "Amerika" is just around the corner anyway.

Frankly, we need someone in the White House with a spine. Bush hasn't been bad, but WAYYYYY too accomodating to the traitors to humanity on the left, who seem perfectly willing to let the people be ground under the tanks and bombs so as to "keep us out of war", oh, wait, that phrase was from the "other" war.

Did we learn nothing from WWII, GW1, GW2? Bullies rarely have the guts to back up with a real punch, and only pound on the defenseless. And we're the ones cowering, shoving the defenseless Georgians, and whoever else in front of us, so as to avoid having to face down the little twerp.

Man, what a bunch of spineless jellyfish you all have become! Does human life and resisting evil mean NOTHING to you at all?

Man, what a bunch of spineless jellyfish you all have become! Does human life and resisting evil mean NOTHING to you at all?.

You can always catch a flight to Tblisi, tough guy. That is if your idea of "resisting evil" really does go beyond posting belligerent nonsense in comboxes.

Well, it is possible that if Georgia were in nato, Russia might not have invaded for the same reasons that would have faced us (if Russia attacked a nato member Georgia). But no one will bother reporting that question, of course. Bush (& his team) MUST always be portrayed with the same foolish enthusiasm as back in 2003- according to the media.

It seems that those who criticize Bush for wanting Georgia in NATO are not considering that the more likely result would have been that Russia would not have invaded Georgia - not that we would have ended up in a shooting war with the Russians.

The Russians desire a shooting war with us even less than we want one with them. Georgia's entrance into NATO would have prevented the current situation - not exacerbated it.

It seems that those who criticize Bush for wanting Georgia in NATO are not considering that the more likely result would have been that Russia would not have invaded Georgia...

The mess started because the Georgians shelled a city, killing several Russian peacekeepers legally stationed there. Russia had no choice but to shoot back, NATO membership or no.

You know, the same pundit class recently was assailing McCain because he is a "maverick" who bucks the GOP line and alienates the base. Another very recent criticism was that he is a military man through and through who doesn't have enough civilian blood to be a dispassionate Commander in Chief. Honestly, does anyone have any coherent line of reasoning anymore other than trying to find any old stick to beat your opponent?

LOL!!!!! Nicely put. Actually, most of the current "liberals" (and I use this word to describe the partisan, leftist, democrat hardcore types) are an insult to most people's intelligence, as they have assumed that YOU have forgotten what they said last week, and are in the process of arguing the exact opposite today. Any old radio host can put together a series of clips of every recent Democrat of note engaging in the exact same strategy.

For years, the left has been this hollow and empty. Soulless, without any voice of leadership among the ranks. It has lead to the situation you commented upon.

Sadly, the voices on the right never seem to be the voices of the GOP, and thus we're left with the likes of McCain running for president. What on earth is it about party politics that actively removes all real leaders from the running before they get started?

If Georgia had been in NATO, maybe Russia wouldn't have invaded; or maybe it would have, anyway and we would have been in a shooting war with Russia. Or not. Maybe the process for membership is part of what goaded Russia to invade now before Georgia wound up in NATO (in other words, without the NATO offer as a possibility, maybe Russia wouldn't have felt pressed to invade). The counterfactuals and possibilities are infinte and unknowable. The point is, in the situation as it now stands in actuality, not as it might have been, does anyone here except Watcher, really think we should send troops there? Is Georgia worth the risk of a nuclear war? I notice those who are defending Bush's push for NATO membership for Georgia and otherwise defending the hawkish rhetoric him and/or McCain here haven't suggested what the U.S. is actually supposed to do.

I also notice that in all the talk about this here and elsewhere, it all seems to be about big, bad Russia and poor little Georgia. First of all, if you look at the history of this region for the past few centuries, Georgia doesn't exactly have its hands clean. More astonishingly, I haven't heard anyone say anything about what the Ossetes think (or for that matter the Abkhazians). They're involved in this too, right?

The mess started because the Georgians shelled a city, killing several Russian peacekeepers legally stationed there. Russia had no choice but to shoot back, NATO membership or no.

If Georgia would have been a NATO member, and HAD NATO HAD A SPINE, there would have been no war... It works like this... A certain spined gentelman would have run up Putin on the phone and diplomatically told him "Sit down, shut up, put your guns away", and the next phone calls would have been from a wide array of people telling a specific new NATO member to grow a brain, instead of tossing pebbles at the bear.

And, it would have worked. Active leadership, REAL leadership is not a single minded expansionist "everything we do is right" kind of nonsense... And it never is. Georgia would have been taken quietly to the woodshed for a little educating and that would have been the end of it.

Russia's response can be interpreted two ways... One, Russia is insecure in and of itself and responds aggressively, or, it has resumed its agressive expansionism. Eitehr way, putting back in its place is essential. A paranoid and insecure Russia out of control is a threat all over the world. So is the other scenario. Either way, the correct response happens to be the same.

And none of these worldwide hotspots are really our problem.

And Sudetenland wasn't really Europe's problem in 1938.

Brian: "Obama was one of the few that said Iraq was 'a stupid war' before we even started it. He did this while running for Senate in the face of Bush's 60%+ approval rating."

Obama at the time was the senator from Hyde Park in the Illinois State Senate. Bush did not have a "60%+ approval rating" in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago and opposing the war there was hardly an act of courage.

... And if Obama was "running for [US] Senate" at the time (2002-3), hardly anyone was aware of it.

I agree. Russia would probably not have invaded Georgia if it was a member of NATO. Russia would have chosen one of its little neighbors that wasn't NATO.

Russia is doing this to make a point: This far, and no further. It will accept very few more, if any, NATO memberships for any nation directly adjoining its borders. I can hardly blame it. I would not want Russian or Chinese soldiers deployed to Canada or Cuba or Mexico or Central America in general. Too close for comfort. To much opportunity to gain knowledge of ones military defenses and assets.

Russia has chosen to do this an opportune time, ahead of our elections, while we have the vast majority of our ground forces either committed to Iraq or Afghanistan, or not yet reset from a recent return from those places. Many of our air assets, including a few carriers, are also committed to support these theaters. We have precious little wiggle room for a conventional fight, even a conventional air/sea fight, at this time. This is common knowledge.

"Man, what a bunch of spineless jellyfish you all have become! Does human life and resisting evil mean NOTHING to you at all?"

Yeah, rather a lot. It's what I do for a living, and I don't get days off. Thing is, resisting evil often entails the loss of human life, whether purposeful or not. You can sit back in your armchair in the States and keep that a nice psychological distance from you. I can't. Not resisting evil also chances the loss of human life.

You just have to ask yourself whether intervening would in the balance be better for more human beings. And if so, whether our military has enough resources currently to do it (would we need to re-start the draft? Extend people's enlistments pas the one to two years we are currently doing? Pull vital air assets, hell entire units, out of Iraq and Afghanistan?) And if so, whether we could handle the military and diplomatic repercussions. You want the Cold War back? It was a very stable and simple time, in some respects. But millions of human lives were at very real risk of nuclear annihilation.

Is Georgia even a factor in our national security? Really? And if so, can we achieve our goals with anything short of military action? If we can, we should.

Not examining these questions is irresponsible. I come to the conclusion that it may be cold-hearted, but we cannot afford to do anything militarily at this time. It is sickening to contemplate the lives lost. But strafing the hell out of the columns of Russian troops and vehicles heading into Georgia would be considered an act of war against Russia. This would be unwise, and regardless of whether it is justified.

The thing about NATO that people are forgetting is that it's obligations become active only if a country is attacked. Georgia fired the first shots in this little seedy war, not Russia. Given the current reactions coming from Europe, you can be assured that Paris, Berlin, Brussels and the other Europeans would have pointed out this little inconvenient fact and excused themselves from the war. Even Bush would have probably done the same thing, given his past behavior in this kind of situation.

While the notion of freedom is a high and lofty ideal, exactly what it means and how it gets implemented demands thought prior to action. Otherwise, we may find ourselves defending a “freedom” that is nothing other than a self-serving delusion and stuck in a quagmire while the body bag count goes up. Did anyone give us a “freedom handout” when we wanted it? We wanted it bad enough to make great sacrifices. We had a resolve that included the vast majority of people in the colonies. We did not have to convince a lot of “traitors to humanity on the left” (a convenient way of dismissing the majority without thought) to break away from England. We do not need to lose our idealism but we do need to get real. If we try to fight every battle for freedom for every one we may end up losing the war and ourselves in the process. The resolve we had to implement our freedom did not depend on any “freedom handout”. We would not have appreciated it if it had been given to us from another country. The call of freedom is the call for self-responsibility. Anytime someone is given something they did not earn they take it for granted. If it comes cheap it goes cheap. This does not mean we condone brutal, self-serving aggression when we see it. It does mean that we have a realistic understanding of what freedom means and how it has value. Knee-jerk reaction is not what makes freedom real. A “freedom handout” does make freedom real. To make freedom real a majority of people must thoughtfully resolve to make it their own no matter what the consequences. Our resolve does not effortlessly apply to everyone, everywhere. This is magical thinking (or no thinking at all). Our anger and indignation does not create a resolve for freedom in other countries. It only gives us an occasion for own angry, narcissistic catharsis while we sacrifice our young and cheapen the value of freedom.

"Russia's response can be interpreted two ways... One, Russia is insecure in and of itself and responds aggressively, or, it has resumed its agressive expansionism."

No, there is a third way it can be interpreted, as 'AnotherBeliever' mentioned above. Russia is making a point about NATO expansion. Georgia gave them an opportunity to demonstrate their point, and they did.

It only gives us an occasion for own angry, narcissistic catharsis while we sacrifice our young and cheapen the value of freedom.

Mark D.,

While I find your description of the American Revolution a bit simplistic*, I do applaud this sentiment.

*There were loyalists who fought separation from Britain, for what were, at the time, sound reasons. We also had a great deal of aid from France, Spain and Holland, but that was not because they cared about "freedom" as much as sticking it to their imperial rival across the Channel.

Thanks, Derek. I was about to remind Mark D. about the material assistance the American colonists received from abroad. Rochambeau's fleet, in particular, was of enormous strategic importance.

Given Russia's population implosion, I am not terribly worried about the bear's bite this century. If I were Putin, I'd be far less worried about the challenges posed from the West, and far more worried about those coming from the Islamic south, and from China to the east -- all of which are related to Russia's imploding population.

Your point is well taken Derek. While I would not want to minimize the involvement of France, Spain and Holland in the Revolutionary War I would point out that the resolve of the colonies was already demonstrated and forged in the three years it took for France to get involved (four for Spain and Holland). Washington himself was totally surprised by the fortunate, “Divine Providence” of these countries involvement. In any case, I think if those countries had initially invaded England to give the colonies “freedom” my point would have failed. As it is their involvement years later for their own reasons does not negate the patriots resolve. I might also add that “freedom” in the case of the Revolutionary War may also have more meat on it than simply a lofty ideal (i.e., taxation without representation, etc.). Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

Well done, Derek, and shame on me. My memory of the military history I read so long ago really has gotten lousy.

We also had a great deal of aid from France, Spain and Holland, but that was not because they cared about "freedom" as much as sticking it to their imperial rival across the Channel.

True, which is why the president of France at the time -- Valery Giscard d'Estaing, himself, unless I am mistaken, a descendant of a French officer who fought in the American Revolution -- should have been invited to this country for the Bicentennial celebrations in 1976, instead of Queen Elizabeth.

But Mard D. has a good point. As a history I once read pointed out, France did not agree to intervene until after two things had happened: the Declaration of Independence, and the American victory at Saratoga. The first proved that the colonists had the resolve to fight; the second proved that they had the ability. France and other European powers who assisted the colonists certainly intervened for reasons related to their own strategic interests -- France in particular was still smarting from its then-recent defeat in the Seven Years' War and its loss of Canada -- but they weren't stupid enough to get involved until and unless they thought that the colonists had a fair chance of winning. French assistance may have be indispensable to the colonists, but they wouldn't have lent it if they didn't think the colonists were willing and able to fight for themselves.

Mark and David,

Yes, you're right. The Battle of Saratoga sealed the deal as far as French aid went. But it did not mean an American victory. An American victory without French aid would have been far less likely.

Interestingly, if Benedict Arnold had been killed at Saratoga, he'd have died a revered hero of the American Revolution.

Here is a report on how our troops are faring in some of our Afghanistan outposts.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml?xml=/portal/2008/08/09/sm_afghanistan09.xml

We have Ukrainians in old Soviet helicopters supplying our troops there. They are short on indirect fire support. Short on troops. We are pretty stretched.

Anyone looked at where Georgia is on a map. The logistics would be awful for us, while we would be fighting in Russia's backyard.

Steve

Hey, before we enter into mutual defense pacts with a country, how about we make sure they aren't apparently both in the midst of a civil and run by lunatics who think it's a good idea to shoot first at Russia soldiers?

That's exactly what prompted the French and the Germans to put the kybosh on having Georgia join NATO.

Chris L - some thoughts:

1. Germany did declare war on us. In retrospect, that seems a pretty bad move on their part - it brought not merely US supplies, but also manpower & military might, into the "Allied" column; and eliminated the possibility that America, preoccupied with beating Japan, might pay European affairs less heed.

2. I doubt that US entry into the war was truly a lesser evil (for Germany) than continued tolerance of American naval provocations. Striking US shipping had already lost Germany one war. And the US could've reduced such provocations somewhat by continuing to ship via Iceland, rather than shipping to Britain directly.

3. British manpower losses would likely have been less without the western-front offensives enabled by US entry. And of course Russia still had plenty of manpower.

4. I'm not sure superweapons would've been decisive. The German nuclear program was nowhere close to completion in '45. Long-range bomber development only got its impetus from US entry into the war. Without nukes V-1 & V-2 were good for harassment, but not city-busting. And Germany didn't have a monopoly on jet aircraft (Gloster Meteor); or decent tanks (T-34 family).

All that being said...you may be right. IMHO, the question I posed above is sufficiently debatable that I think we did make the right choice intervening. Not for moral reasons, but rather simply to prevent Nazi Germany & Imperial Japan from dividing & dominating Eurasia between them...and eventually ganging up on us.

No, there is a third way it can be interpreted, as 'AnotherBeliever' mentioned above. Russia is making a point about NATO expansion. Georgia gave them an opportunity to demonstrate their point, and they did.

Oh, TWADDLE.

This is nothing but an example of #2. Is Russia threatened with invasion by NATO? Hell know. You know it, I know it, Putin knows it. So why is NATO a threat? Only in that it is a roadblock to an expansionist Russia.

Rod, You really think that an imploding Russian population and economy means they're not a threat? That's exactly backward. When an amoral country needs resources and has a military, the most logical thing to do is TAKE THEM. War crises to divert his people's attention, and getting his hands on some kind of stranglehold position on resources and wealth... Sheesh, how could you think otherwise?