FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

No War for Georgia

The war between Russia and Georgia is a tragedy on its own terms. But it also has broad implications for U.S. foreign policy. Both President Bush and Sen. John McCain have demonstrated their shared predisposition to involve America’s armed services in foreign conflicts with no link – or at best a tenuous connection – to America’s vital security interests. It is time that we put defense back into America’s defense policy.

The conflict in the Caucasus is like many other wars around the world. It is complicated, ugly and tragic. The disputes between Georgia and Russia, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia have roots going back centuries. There is no correct position on whether Abkhazia and South Ossetia should be part of Georgia (bearing in mind also it was the United States that went to war to separate Kosovo from Serbia’s control).

In fact, we have paid a high price for a similar failure to understand the deep, long-standing and historic animosities between ethnic and religious groups elsewhere – Iraq, for instance. The results there were flawed plans and costly miscalculations in the invasion and occupation of that country. We should never forget that history continues to weigh heavily on the present in many places around the world.

Of course we should deplore Moscow’s heavy-handed tactics in Georgia, including its failure so far to honor the cease-fire agreement by pulling back its forces. However, bad and over blown historical analogies won’t help resolve the conflict. If this war was like Adolf Hitler’s attack on Poland, as some have suggested, Georgia would be occupied, its government would be ousted, and its residents would be on their way to concentration camps. No one would be traveling to Tbilisi and we wouldn’t be talking to Moscow.

While we rightly sympathize with the Georgian people in light of Russia’s disproportionate military response, the government in Tbilisi is not without blame. Neither side has clean hands.

Yet President Bush is sending U.S. soldiers to Georgia under the banner of providing humanitarian assistance, placing American forces in an unsettled war zone that clearly risks involving the U.S. in a confrontation with Russia. He also continues to press for Georgia’s membership in NATO, which carries with it a promise to protect Georgia from attack; and clearly is waiving a red flag in Moscow’s face.

Sen. McCain is even more extreme. When pressed, he refused to rule out military intervention in the conflict. He wants to bring Georgia into NATO even more quickly.

Whether Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain have taken these provocative positions based on their personal relationship with Georgia’s President Mikheil Saakashvili, on a view that U.S. national interests are somehow seriously threatened by this conflict in the Caucuses, or because of some other assessment is unclear. But both Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain appear to base their foreign-policy decisions on personal factors. Mr. Bush famously looked into Vladimir Putin’s eyes and liked what he saw. Mr. McCain talks warmly of his friendship with “Misha,” the Georgian President’s nickname. Neither approach is a sound basis on which to decide policy towards Russia, or any other country.

To the contrary, U.S. foreign policy should be based on a hard-headed assessment of U.S. interests, not warm and fuzzy feelings about a particular foreign leader.

The most important American interest is defending America; and intervening on behalf of Georgia against Russia has nothing to do with defending America.

The sort of simplistic, bombastic approach to foreign policy represented by Mr. McCain is always dangerous, but never more so than when dealing with a major nuclear power. Thankfully, while the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, the Iraqi government had little means to resist and none to retaliate against the American homeland. Conflict with Russia would be very different, and would immediately return us to the horrible world of Mutual Assured Destruction, in which cities in both countries were held hostage to nuclear holocaust.

It clearly is time to expect Europe to do more on behalf of its own defense. Many Europeans are calling for action, but most expect the U.S. to provide the military muscle, not the Europeans themselves. The European Union has a larger collective economy and population than does the United States, and should begin taking responsibility for its own security.

The United States must always be prepared to use military force to defend itself. But doing so should be the last rather than first resort. And while Washington should work with the Europeans to pressure Moscow to stand down – and there are significant economic pressure points we can employ – it should not risk or invite involvement in a tragic and unnecessary war; and one with so little direct or immediate relevance to America’s own security.

BOB BARR, a former Republican congressman from Georgia, is the official candidate for president of the Libertarian Party.

 

 

 

Your Ad Here
 

 

 

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
July 13, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Brian Cloughley
Lessons That Should Have Been Learned From NATO’s Destruction of Libya
Paul Street
Time to Stop Playing “Simon Says” with James Madison and Alexander Hamilton
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: In the Land of Formula and Honey
Aidan O'Brien
Ireland’s Intellectuals Bow to the Queen of Chaos 
Michael Collins
The Affirmative Action Silo
Andrew Levine
Tipping Points
Geoff Dutton
Fair and Balanced Opinion at the New York Times
Ajamu Baraka
Cultural and Ideological Struggle in the US: a Final Comment on Ocasio-Cortez
David Rosen
The New McCarthyism: Is the Electric Chair Next for the Left?
Ken Levy
The McConnell Rule: Nasty, Brutish, and Unconstitutional
George Wuerthner
The Awful Truth About the Hammonds
Robert Fisk
Will Those Killed by NATO 19 Years Ago in Serbia Ever Get Justice?
Robert Hunziker
Three Climatic Monsters with Asteroid Impact
Ramzy Baroud
Europe’s Iron Curtain: The Refugee Crisis is about to Worsen
Nick Pemberton
A Letter For Scarlett JoManDaughter
Marilyn Garson
Netanyahu’s War on Transcendence 
Patrick Cockburn
Is ISIS About to Lose Its Last Stronghold in Syria?
Joseph Grosso
The Invisible Class: Workers in America
Kim Ives
Haiti’s Popular Uprising Calls for President Jovenel Moïse’s Removal
John Carroll Md
Dispatch From Haiti: Trump and Breastfeeding
Alycee Lane
On Heat Waves and Climate Resistance
Ed Meek
Dershowitz the Sophist
Howard Lisnoff
Liberal Massachusetts and Recreational Marijuana
Ike Nahem
Trump, Trade Wars, and the Class Struggle
Olivia Alperstein
Kavanaugh and the Supremes: It’s About Much More Than Abortion
Manuel E. Yepe
Korea After the Handshake
Robert Kosuth
Militarized Nationalism: Pernicious and Pervasive
Binoy Kampmark
Soft Brexits and Hard Realities: The Tory Revolt
Helena Norberg-Hodge
Localization: a Strategic Alternative to Globalized Authoritarianism
Kevin Zeese - Nils McCune
Correcting The Record: What Is Really Happening In Nicaragua?
Chris Wright
The American Oligarchy: A Review
Kweli Nzito
Imperial Gangster Nations: Peddling “Democracy” and Other Goodies to the Untutored
Christopher Brauchli
The Defenestration of Scott Pruitt
Ralph Nader
Universal Voting Dissolves the Obstacles Facing Voters
Ron Jacobs
Vermont: Can It Happen Here?
Thomas Knapp
Helsinki: How About a Fresh START?
Seth Sandronsky
A Fraught Century
Graham Peebles
Education and the Mental Health Epidemic
Bob Lord
How to Level the Playing Field for Workers in a Time of Waning Union Power
Saurav Sarkar
I Got Arrested This Summer (and So Should You)
Winslow Myers
President Trump’s Useful Idiocy
Kim C. Domenico
Outing the Dark Beast Hiding Behind Liberal Hope
CounterPunch News Service
First Big Strike Since Janus Ruling Hits Vermont Streets
Louis Proyect
Survival of the Fittest in the London Underground
David Yearsley
Ducks and Études
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail