Word comes this morning that Russia is at war with Georgia over South Ossetia. Yet another reminder that the world is full of complex hazards that can crop up in a hurry. This latest crisis presents serious national security policy issues, but it is worth mentioning two obvious points here:
-John McCain has undoubtedly thought through how we should deal with this situation.
-Barack Obama is looking at a globe this morning.
Georgia is a prospective (not current) member of NATO, and Sen. McCain has long been involved in the thorny issue of how to manage Russia's objections to NATO expansion in Eastern Europe. Here's McCain at the Munich Conference on Security Policy in February 2001:
If there is one indisputable priority for the [NATO] Alliance, it is that of fulfilling the vision of a Europe whole and free. This goal has served as a reliable guide for Alliance policy for well over fifty years. It is my hope that the Alliance will reinvigorate the process of NATO enlargement no later than its next summit in Prague next year, if not sooner, by extending invitations to those Central European democracies that are ready to make a net contribution to the Alliance’s security. Several of these democracies will meet if not surpass the standards of accession set by the alliance for Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary. Their defense budgets on a GDP basis are more impressive than some of NATO’s current members; their soldiers are standing side by side with Allied forces in the Balkans; indeed, at the moment, they are establishing standards that some current allies would do well to meet.
Certainly, Russian sensitivities regarding NATO expansion should not be ignored. But Russia’s reflexive rejection of NATO expansion cannot be permitted to determine the fate of nations exercising their sovereign right to form security relationships. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the cornerstone of the Alliance’s policy has been the premise that the extension of the NATO alliance to new democracies of Europe is fundamental to the strategic and moral objectives of the Alliance. I would suggest four principles for US policy toward Russia: realism, reform, reciprocity, and resolve. Our policy must be predicated upon Russian actions. Moscow’s motives remain, in many respects, as opaque as during the era of Communist rule. US and European views of Russia should also be shaped by the extent to which it carries out genuine economic and political reform. Economic and political corruption remain pervasive in Russia, and until reforms are implemented, Russia’s neighbors cannot be faulted for questioning its intentions. Reciprocity refers to development of a relationship wherein mutual interests are manifested in concrete action. Finally, we should feel no reluctance to stand up to Russian leaders when they challenge our interests and values.
Here is McCain on a 2003 visit to Tblisi: "We would want Georgia to become as independent as possible from Russia or any other country." Later that year, as the "Rose Revolution" bloomed, McCain and Hillary Clinton proposed the nomination of Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili for the Nobel Peace Prize.
This is very frightening
Anteater August 8th, 2008 at 10:28 a.m. (link)
Anytime Russia does something drastic like this, you never know what will happen next. It could turn into a regional proxy war or even worse.
What's next? the storied Ezekiel 38 prophecy where Russia and Iran invade Israel?
I find the story itself
Streiff August 8th, 2008 at 10:41 a.m. (link)
pretty interesting without moving it into the realm of the surreal.
As a rule, we usually don't allow discussion of the various interpretations of Biblical prophecy. I don't see an exception in the offing here.
"A man does what he can and endures what he must."
OK (n/t)
Anteater August 8th, 2008 at 10:49 a.m. (link)
Ok
Anteater August 8th, 2008 at 10:58 a.m. (link)
Sorry about that.
Not even for the milennial reign of Obama (aka The One)? nt
streetwise August 8th, 2008 at 11:10 a.m. (link)
How about an exception for the milennial advent of Obama (aka The One)? nt
streetwise August 8th, 2008 at 11:17 a.m. (link)
No exception for the milennial advent of Obama (aka The One)? nt
streetwise August 8th, 2008 at 11:33 a.m. (link)
Only if you're buying an "Obama the Antichrist" T-shirt
blooch August 8th, 2008 at 12:33 p.m. (link)
at the RedState Store ;)
"Basically, Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton have only 2 things in common: their gender and their good looks."--spam
I think the anti-Christ may be knocking, as the RS server gave an error
streetwise August 8th, 2008 at 3:15 p.m. (link)
message for each of the three times I tried to post my comment.
Sorry for the triple play.
Heh. Maybe he was trying to get you
blooch August 8th, 2008 at 4:15 p.m. (link)
to ring up an additional 663 more tries.
"Basically, Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton have only 2 things in common: their gender and their good looks."--spam
Why is there a rule against discussing
JSobieski August 8th, 2008 at 12:35 p.m. (link)
prophecy?
Seems to me that at least some of our enemies (notably Iran) are highly motivated by religious prophecy.
The prohibition against prophecy dicsussions means we can't discuss the motivations of our enemies which means we can't fully understand (for tactical purposes, I am not talking appeasement here) our enemies.
I would suggest that this rule be revisited. Otherwise, we are living out the sad lessons in Willful Blindness
"The process of settlement is a 'Civilization-Jihadist Process' with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."
The Muslim Brotherhood Strategy Memo, 1991
http://www.investigativeproject.org/document/id/20
"The timid civilized world has found nothing with which to oppose the onslaught of a sudden revival of barefaced barbarity, other than concessions and smiles."
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, acceptance speech for the 1970 Nobel Prize in literature
It sounds like the ban's on a different discussion
JKH1232 August 8th, 2008 at 2:08 p.m. (link)
Namely, trying to connect Biblical prophesies to real world events. That was the discussion upthread, as in "Is this event X prophecy, and, if so, what does it mean?" There are fora for such things, this isn't one of them.
But, if you want to talk about "Iran's leaders believe X, this belief will push them in direction Y," then it's a different game.
No, it can't be the Ezekiel story, because it occurs after the Rapture anyway
Cheetah772 August 8th, 2008 at 10:52 a.m. (link)
Besides, while it could turn into an all-out war, Russia in its current shape cannot sustain the conflict indefinitely, neither can it defeat Georgian forces decisively.
Daniel 2:20 And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.
Yes it is dangerous
scrapiron August 8th, 2008 at 10:38 a.m. (link)
and we don't need a President that will sit down with terrorist states. I hope the voters wake up. Go J. Mac
This is my 2nd post here. I'm glad I found this place. Can I cling to my guns and religion here?
only if your are socially isolated
Streiff August 8th, 2008 at 10:57 a.m. (link)
and embittered
"A man does what he can and endures what he must."
Well
scrapiron August 8th, 2008 at 11:33 a.m. (link)
I'm in Minnesota, I'm embittered and embarrassed, does that count?
Georgia did not start this
Alberta August 8th, 2008 at 12:08 p.m. (link)
I read the story from the link on msn.com
The link sends you to a story that says the Georgians invaded, implying that they started this war. That is complete bunk. Even if they did invade first, it was only because Soviet backed terrorists, err, freedom fighters, yah, thats right, where agitating Georgian forces for months, if not years.
Georgia is a small country. They embrace free market capitalism and freedom. Lets hope the world stands by them.
"I am a jelly doughnut"
Ya know
Darin_H August 8th, 2008 at 12:26 p.m. (link)
I became a McCain fan when he was completely right about the need for the surge and a new strategy. John McCain saw the KGB still lingering in Putin. He's right when he said he has been involved in every major foreign policy decision in the last 20 years, and he's been right.
We can't afford to have rookie mistakes made over the next 4-8 years.
Just like PayPal, except it's free and a $25 bonus to sign up!
Political Ramifications
Hooah_Mac August 8th, 2008 at 1:20 p.m. (link)
Since most "independents" and most Obama supporters reaction to this will be to cancel their flights to Atlanta, who knows how this will affect the political landscape.
dangerous for a reason
pennington August 8th, 2008 at 1:40 p.m. (link)
Perhaps a little history and pragmatic calculation is in order. After the Soviet Union disintegrated, the very territory we're talking about was disputed by the current parties to the conflict. In the aftermath, South Ossetia ended up as a province of Georgia. However, they voted for their own independence and have lived since 1992 as a more or less autonomous region. Within South Ossetia, Ossetians, a separate ethnic group, comprises the large majority of the population with a minority of ethnic Georgians. The Ossetians have always wanted their independence, declared as much repeatedly, and have de facto had it for sixteen years. The have grown closer in their ties to Russia during this period. North Ossetia is a Russian province. The current president of Georgia came to power in 2004 and is a nationalist. He wants closer ties to the west and to join Nato. For quite sometime he has vowed, threatened, etc. that he will reimpose Georgian control on South Ossetia. He finally decided to do it. Georgia attacked South Ossetia first. In the time during which South Ossetia asserted its independence, many South Ossetians have become Russian citizens with Russian passports. When Georgia attacked, the flux of refugees was toward Russia.
Now, I am perfectly willing to admit that the Russians have been using the political conflict in South Ossetia to pressure Georgia not to join Nato. But a little balance is in order here.
Russia's bad habit...
MadHatChemist August 8th, 2008 at 2:41 p.m. (link)
Russia has a very bad habit of supporting and encouraging breakaway territories in former Soviet republics. Not just Georgia but elsewhere as well (Ukraine being the second most prominent victem of Russia's machinations).
Russia set this up. It is all there plan to use "protectng Russian citizens" as an excuse to rebuild its empire and expand its influence.
yes, but
pennington August 8th, 2008 at 3:10 p.m. (link)
Actually, I don't really disagree with you, at least to the extent that Russia's actions produced a foreseeable result; however, from some of the headlines you get the feeling that the Bear is trying to gobble up territory against the will of it's inhabitants. The South Ossetians have been on record clearly and unequivocally opposed to remaining part of Georgia. It's not a fringe within South Ossetia, it's the popular will. Admittedly, since Georgia is a sovereign nation, it is unfortunate that the Russians invaded and hopefully international peacekeepers can intercede. But bear in mind, the refugees are fleeing to Russia. South Ossetians, other than those who aren't ethnic Georgian, trust the Russians much more than the Georgians.