If Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin were president of the United States, would Iran try to build a nuclear bomb? Would Pakistan provide covert aid to al-Qaeda? Would Hugo Chavez train terrorists in Venezuela? Would leftover nationalities with delusions of grandeur provoke the great powers? Just ask Georgia's President Mikheil Saakashvili, who now wishes he never tried to put his 4 million countrymen into strategic play.
In January I urged Americans to draft the Russian leader to succeed George W Bush (Putin for president of the United States, January 8, 2008). Putin's swift and decisive action in Georgia reflects precisely the sort of decisiveness that America requires.
Thanks to Putin, the world has become a much safer place. By intervening in Georgia, Russia has demonstrated that the great powers of the world have nothing to fight about. Russia has wiped the floor with a putative US ally, and apart from a bad case of cream pie on the face, America has lost nothing. The United States and the European community will do nothing to help Georgia, and nothing of substance to penalize the Russian Federation.
Contrary to the hyperventilation of policy analysts on American news shows, the West has no vital interests in Georgia. It would be convenient from Washington's vantage point for oil to flow from the Caspian Sea via Georgia to the Black Sea, to be sure, but nothing that occurs in Georgia will have a measurable impact on American energy security. It is humiliating for the US to watch the Russians thrash a prospective ally, but not harmful, for Georgia never should have been an ally in the first place.
The lack of consequences of Russia's incursion is a noteworthy fact, for never before in the history of the world has the world's economic and military power resided in countries whose fundamental interests do not conflict in any important way. The US enthused over Georgia's ambitions to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and encouraged Saakashvili to overplay his hand. Once it became clear that Russia would not tolerate a NATO member on its southern border, however, Washington had nothing to say about the matter, because no fundamental American interests were at stake.
Washington looks all the sillier for its failure to anticipate a Russian action that Moscow signaled months in advance. After the US and its main European allies recognized the independence of Kosovo from Serbia in February 2008, Russia warned that this action set a precedent for other prospective secessions, notably South Ossetia.
There is no longer any reason to put up with the tantrums of long-redundant tribes. If 3.7 million ethnic Georgians have the right to break away from the 142 million population of the Russian Federation, why shouldn't the 100,000 Ossetians living in Georgia break away and form their own state as well? Most of them have acquired Russian passports and want nothing to do with the Georgians. The Ossetians have spoken their variant of Persian for more than a millennium and had their own kingdom during the Middle Ages.
If the West is going to put itself at risk for 3.8 million ethnic Georgians, roughly the population of Los Angeles, or 5.4 million Tibetans, or 2 million Albanian Muslims in Kosovo, why shouldn't Russia take risks for the South Ossetians, not to mention the 100,000 Abkhaz speakers in Georgia's secessionist Black Sea province? Once the infinite regress of ethnic logic gets into motion, there is no good reason not to pull the world apart like taffy.
Forget the Kosovo Albanians, the South Ossetians, the Abkhazians, Saakashvili and the Dalai Lama. These are relics of an older world that might deserve their own theme park, but not their own state. Precisely what are 3.8 million freedom-loving Georgians supposed to contribute to American strategic interests with its US$2 billion a year of exports consisting (according to the Central Intelligence Agency World Factbook) of "scrap metal, wine, mineral water, ores, vehicles, fruits and nuts"? Georgia's hope was to lever its geographical position on the Russia border by making itself useful to the American military.
If it had not been for America's insistence on installing a gang of trigger-happy pimps and drug-pushers in Kosovo, Russia might have responded less ferociously to the flea bites on its southern border. Make no mistake: the American-sponsored Kosovo regime is the dirtiest anywhere in postwar history. Writing in the Spiegel magazine website last April 24 , Walter Mayr described Kosovo as "a country ruled by corruption and organized crime". For example, Mayr reports,
Ramush Haradinaj is a former KLA commander who later became prime minister of UN-administered Kosovo. His indictment in The Hague consisted of 37 charges, including murder, torture, rape and the expulsion of Serbs, Albanians and gypsies in the weeks following the end of the war in 1999. Carla Del Ponte, former chief prosecutor of the UN War Crimes Tribunal, called him a "gangster in uniform". He returned to Kosovo this spring, after his acquittal on April 3. [1]
America's wag-the-dog war against Serbia in 1999 over alleged ethnic cleansing of Muslim Albanians in Kosovo won the undeserved support of Republicans as well as Democrats, to the extent that too many people on all sides of Washington politics risked their reputation to admit that the whole business was a stupid mistake. Washington has simply dug itself in deeper, joined at the hip to a government less savory than any banana republic dictatorship that enjoyed American favor at the depths of the Cold War (See The inconvenient Serbs, Asia Times Online, April 17, 2007.)
America remains so committed to the myth of moderate Islam that it is prepared to invent it. Kosovo, like the Turkey of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, supposedly embodies a moderate, Sufi-derived brand of Islam that will foster an American partnership with the Muslim world. The US intelligence community knows perfectly well that the networks that traffic prostitutes through Albania into Italy and the rest of Europe also move narcotics, weapons and terrorists from Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia to Grozny in Chechnya to Tirana in Albania and Pristina in Kosovo.
The Russians know better. As I wrote in my January 8 endorsement of Putin for president of the United States:
Putin understands how to exercise power. Unlike Iraq, the restive Muslim province of Chechnya now nestles comfortably in Putin's palm, albeit with about half the people it had a decade ago. Russian troops killed between 35,000 and 100,000 civilians in the first Chechen war of 1994-96, and half a million were driven from their homes, totaling about half the population. But that is not what pacified Chechnya. Putin bribed and bullied Chechen clans to do Russia's dirty work for it, showing himself a master at the game of divide-and-conquer. Working from a position of weakness, Russia's president is the closest the modern world comes to the insidious strategic genius of a Cardinal Richelieu. That is the sort of strategic thinking America needs.
Half the world's population now resides in the world's three largest countries, namely China, India and the United States. These are not multi-ethnic, but rather supra-ethnic states, whose identity transcends tribe and nationality. There is no "clash of civilizations", for Confucian, Hindu, American and Orthodox civilization cannot find grounds for a clash. As for the European community, its global ambitions succumbed to geriatric disease a generation ago.
The number of flashpoints for violence in the world has grown in inverse proportion to their importance. The world is full of undead tribes with delusions of grandeur, and soon-to-be-extinct peoples who rather would go out with a bang than a whimper. The supra-ethnic states of the world have a common interest in containing the mischief that might be made by the losers. China, which has an annoying terrorist problem in its Westernmost province, has plenty of reason to help suppress Muslim separatists.
Unfortunately, modern weapons technology makes it possible for a spoiler state to inflict a disproportionate amount of damage. China recognized this when it cooperated with the United States to defuse the North Korean nuclear problem. The most visible prospective spoiler in the pack remains Iran. If America wants to recover from its humiliation in the Caucasus, it might, for example, conduct an air raid against Iran's nuclear facilities, and justify it with the same sort of reasoning that Russia invoked in Georgia. Contrary to surface impressions, Moscow wouldn't mind a bit
Posted by: john frum ||
08/12/2008 12:29 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
John thanks for posting this. Spengler elucidates just what I would have said were I as capable. He's got the take on Puty just right. When he went to the ranch in Texas, he knew Bush was a sucker. When he met Rice, he could barely contain his mirth and derision. When he went to Kennebunkport, he realized there were two numbskulls in the family. I thought Putin would act on Kosovo, but he kept his powder dry. But on the borders of Russia, he has no reservations. All the hot air expended here, does not understand nor appreciate Russian nationalism. It existed long before the commies appeared, and it beats strong in every Russian heart. Putin deals in realities as they exist, not banalities and horseshit like the fogheads in the EU. I used to be fluent in Russian and have read scores of their novels, papers, etc. Can't do it well now, as I'm out of practice, but I have gained an understanding of their thinking over literally centuries. It hasn't changed.
#2
I disagree profoundly with the above, among other things its false comparison to Kosovo, its misreadign of the strategic import of what happened in Georgia, its incorrect belief that this is over and Russia will not pay a cost. I dont have time to respond in detail.
I will point out one glaring inaccuracy. He says we went into Kosovo to save Muslim Albanians from being ethnically cleansed.
That is false. We went in to keep Albanians from being ethnically cleansed. Period. The Serb ethnic cleansing campaign did NOT make a distinction between muslim Albanians, Christian Albanians, or atheist Albanians. The implication that it did, repeated ad nauseum, is part of an ex post propaganda campaign to paint the Albanians as Jihadis and to make the Serb campaign of ethnic cleansing appear as somehow part of the war on terror.
Given an error of that magnitude, and one so in keeping with a certain mindset, I dont think theres any need to respond in more detail, or to give the quotes which span from Joe Biden and the editorial pages of the WaPo and NYT to Victor Davis Hanson and Michael Ledeen and the Weekly Standard, to show why this is a profound misreading.
#3
WS - aggressive tyrants always look clever on the way up. Bonaparte did, Hitler did, Slobo and Saddam did. Its only after theyre dead that we see what failures they were.
#4
WE: All the hot air expended here, does not understand nor appreciate Russian nationalism.
Actually, I fully understand the Imperial Russian mentality. The only question here is whether the Russians think they have the leeway to annex Georgia. Spengler's compatriot, Putin, may find that having bombers approach foreign coasts and fleets is one thing, but actually attacking them is quite another.
The problem for Russia today is that China is economically resurgent with serious territorial claims against Russia and its buffer state (against China) Mongolia. Today, China's economy is almost three times the size of Russia's economy. In twenty years, Russia's economy might be a fifth of China's economy, given the fact that Russia is a natural resource extraction economy not unlike Saudi Arabia's - with limited growth prospects except as it relates to commodity price and demand rises. Assuming Chinese defense spending remains on its present growth rate, I would expect China to have more nukes than Russia by then - and perhaps a missile defense system. The real problem for Russia is how they will hang on to their Far Eastern provinces. Perhaps Putin's strategy is the one that the Turks and Huns on China's western borders (then much more constricted than today) adopted in antiquity - flee Chinese military power and attack Europe.
#5
Spengler hits the spot on occasion, but misfires just as often. His take on Kosovo is wrong. Michael Totten went to Kosovo and reported on what he saw. And what he saw was like no other Muslim country he's ever been - in a good way - not Turkey, not Iraq, not Lebanon, etc. Besides Uncle Sam did not go to Kosovo to annex it - he went there to set it free. The Russians are looking to annex* South Ossetia and Abkhazia, not set them free. The correct comparison is to the German annexation of the Sudetenland, not Kosovo.
* Putin can prove me wrong by having them declare independence and apply for UN membership, while stationing Russian troops inside to protect them from Georgia. But then again, that would defeat the point of Russian intervention, which was to annex them to Imperial Russia.
#6
WS - aggressive tyrants always look clever on the way up. Bonaparte did, Hitler did, Slobo and Saddam did. Its only after theyre dead that we see what failures they were.
Why are you lumping the emperor in with all of those madmen? He could become both a bulwark against the Islamofascists _and_ a great help in rejuvenating France out of its current stupor and putting it back on the path towards its former glory, if only the British would stop repeating these lies that he died in exile and let him return.
George F. Kennan, the diplomat and historian, had it right. To him is attributed a very apropos aphorism: "Russia can have at its borders only vassals or enemies."
But the issue runs a lot deeper as of 8/8: What are Russia's borders? Will it be satisfied with Georgia? As Prince Gorchakov, Russian chancellor, put it in 1864, in the midst of the Russian conquest of the Caucasus: "The greatest difficulty is to know when to stop."
#9
And to the above might be added - Russian vassals traditionally end up becoming Russian provinces (much like Chinese vassals end up becoming Chinese provinces). Are we ready to acquiesce to an ever-expanding Imperial Russia?
#12
Zoia Aprasidze, another woman who fled, said not enough attention was being paid to the plight of villagers in Abkhazia while most of the media and political focus was on places like the city of Gori, which became a target of heavy Russian bombardment after Georgia launched an assault on another separatist region, South Ossetia.
"We don't know what's going on and why the Russians did this to us. They said they were defending Ossetians. Who are they defending here?" she said. "If the Russians say they're defending the civilian population, why don't they care about Kodori Gorge?"
that this is about the South Ossetians is a lie. A bald faced lie.
#13
In January I urged Americans to draft the Russian leader to succeed George W Bush (Putin for president of the United States, January 8, 2008).
Because Americans like being an expansionist imperial power.
Spengler may be good at relating the twists and turns that led to the present situation, but he really needs to re-read deTocqueville, this time striving manfully to grasp how Americans differ from whatever he is, and how that influences our national choices at home and abroad.
#15
Georgia on my mind... This little country has juiced up the loyal readers of this blog like nothing else I've seen. Hold on a sec while I make some more popcorn.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
08/12/2008 16:00 Comments ||
Top||
#16
We now return you to the days of "Holy Mother Russia and all the little russias!"
#17
Of the 19th century 'pan' movements, the Pan-Germanic one was killed in the smoldering ruins of 1945 at great cost. The Pan-Slavic movement is still among us and will create further pain and suffering because it won't go away without a similar payment in human sacrifice.
The best long term plan would be to start talking up the greatness of the Yuan Dynasty and its historical claims to borders and territories, to include the Golden Horde.
#18
Actually the Chinese claim to Tibet is based on the Tibetan tribute paid to the Mongols and the Manchu (who also ruled China).
A bit like the US claiming India, since both were ruled by the British
Posted by: john frum ||
08/12/2008 17:07 Comments ||
Top||
#19
JF: Actually the Chinese claim to Tibet is based on the Tibetan tribute paid to the Mongols and the Manchu (who also ruled China).
A bit like the US claiming India, since both were ruled by the British
It goes beyond that. Han Chinese consider China the successor state to the Qing empire, since the Han do control the rump Manchu state in what is now Northeast China (which was formerly Manchukuo under Japanese rule for a while). I suppose the US or India might have a plausible claim to the British empire if they had overrun the British Isles.
#20
MILPOL DIALECTICISM-PRAGMATISM > NOT WINNING = NOT LOSING. We should consider that the RUSSIAN BEAR may be attempting to carve out a place of slumber recuper + security inside the PAN-EURO CAVE IN CASE OF FUTURE COLLAPSE AND DEFEAT AGZ THE CHINESE DRAGON + NUKULAR ISLAMIST CAMEL/HORSE-ZILLA IN ASIA. When any large animal lays down to sleep and slumber, smaller animals have to get out of the way or get crushed in the mass, correct??? IOW, RUSSIA MAY BE CLEARING OUT ITS "BACK 40" ON THE POTENTIAL FUTURE DAY IT MAY NEED TO DE FACTO JOIN AND INTEGRATE WID EUROPE IN ITS OWN SELF-DEFENSE AND NATIONAL PRESERVATION???
#21
What Russia wants is control of access to Caspian Basin oil and gas. To that end they will retain control of a slice of Georgia, probably along the coast. Using Ajaria as a pretext
#22
Phil, Ajaria, don't think so. They may try to stir it, but it would not help much going in, the cost/benefit ratio would not be that desirable and it may make Turks too edgy.
Excerpts from an opinion piece in Saturday'sWall Street Journal Online. A number of interesting pieces at the site. Go read them all. :-)
Wait a minute, isn't this the 21st? Chronologically, it is. But last Friday, Russia -- like the mad scientist Emmett Brown in "Back to the Future" -- thrust us backward by about 150 years in the Caucasus: into the age of imperialism and geopolitics, resource wars and spheres of influence.
It was strictly 19th-century when Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin casually announced that "war has started." In the old days, such pronunciamentos were routine; war, to recall Clausewitz, was just the "continuation of politics with the admixture of other means."
Say hello to Vladimir Putin and his stand-in Dmitry Medvedev. By attacking Georgia, they have raised the curtain on a post-World War II premiere. They have launched the first real war in "Greater Europe" since 1945. (The 1990s clashes in the Balkans were secessionist/internal wars; the invasion of Prague in 1968 was, if you pardon the expression, an act of "bloc recentralization.")
But the Caucasus is the real thing: armies marching, fleets circling, rockets flaring. Many are blaming "hot-headed" President Mikheil Saakashvili for having baited the bear, and he is no angel, for sure. Didn't he go first by ordering his army into South Ossetia?
But in 1939, they also blamed the "hot-headed" Poles for refusing to placate Hitler, and so he just had to flatten Warsaw on Sept. 1. They also castigated the Czechs, a "faraway country of which we know little" for being so obstinate in resisting German demands on the Sudetenland.
Apologists for Russia can point to lots of mitigating circumstances, starting with the biggest one of Christmas Day 1991, when the hammer-and-sickle flag over the Kremlin went down for the last time, and up went the Russian tricolor. Poof, and a whole empire from the Baltic to Kazakhstan was suddenly gone. Yes, that chilled the Russian soul, and so did Georgia's love affair with the United States. How dare Georgia, the birthplace of Stalin, sidle up to the EU and NATO?
So, forget about Mr. Saakashvili's bluster and bumbling; think "revisionism" and "expansionism," terms beloved by diplomatic historians trying to explain the behavior of rock-the-boat states. A revisionist power wants back what it once had; an expansionist power wants more for itself and less for the rest. The R&E Syndrome is a handy way to explain all of Mr. Putin's strategy in the past eight years. Draw an arc from the Baltic to the Caspian and then start counting.
Moscow has unleashed a cyberwar against tiny Estonia, formerly a Soviet republic. It has threatened the Czech Republic and Poland with nuclear targeting if they host U.S. antimissile hardware on their soil that could not possibly threaten Russia's retaliatory potential. It has exploited small price disputes (normally resolved by lawyers screaming at each other) to stop gas deliveries and thus show Ukraine, Belarus and former Warsaw Pact members who runs the "Common House of Europe," to recall Mikhail Gorbachev's famous phrase.
Mr. Putin has always reserved the harshest treatment for Georgia. Tbilisi's mortal sin was the attempt to get out from under the bear's paw and snuggle up to the West. Ever since, Moscow has tried to subjugate Georgia or to split it up. It was either undermining the government by cutting off trade and gas, or putting the whole country on the butcher's block. Hence Russia's support, including arms and troops, for the secession of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Reports from the fighting suggest that Russia's war aims go way beyond driving Georgian troops from South Ossetia. According to President Saakashvili, the Russians have captured the city of Gori in central Georgia, cutting the country into two. Moscow denies this.
George F. Kennan, the diplomat and historian, had it right. To him is attributed a very apropos aphorism: "Russia can have at its borders only vassals or enemies."
But the issue runs a lot deeper as of 8/8: What are Russia's borders? Will it be satisfied with Georgia? As Prince Gorchakov, Russian chancellor, put it in 1864, in the midst of the Russian conquest of the Caucasus: "The greatest difficulty is to know when to stop."
#2
You can view Russia as having skipped most of the 20th century due to communism. They are now going through the stages the rest of Europe did about a half century ago. In Moscow, it's 1938.
#1
Well then I guess by this guy's logic we should have to give the Southwest United States to La Raza and allow them to declare the Independent State of Aztlan.
#2
But, bigjim-ky, isn't that pretty much what happened in Kosovo?
To your point, as I understand the Kosovo precedent the US should give in to the La Raza and allow them to form the ISA the way Serbia was forced to give in to the KIA. Self determination don't you know.
Now, I don't believe that every tribe gets its own postage stamp country cause it holds its collective breath and stamps their little feet.
In that sense I understood Serbia's point. Was it really so different than our Civil War?
The problem is of course who's perceived as the good guys and the bad guys and all the ancillary motivations of all the players and hangers on.
The principle at issue, however, is National Sovereignty. (Woodrow Wilson really jumped the shark with that self-determination rhetoric.) IMHO NS should only accrue to geographical regions sufficiently large to be viable. As far as that goes, I think that Yugoslavia should never have been broken up. There should have been a way to get them all to play together in a federal system with a weaker central gov't. kinda like the USoA.
Of course all those competing tribal big-wigs want to run the whole show so they won't PLAY nice together (can't kill your enemies that way) so we get s**t like this. Iraq could still breakdown this way but so far so good.
It never ceases to amaze me how smart and far seeing our founders were.
#4
sigh. yet again. The intervention in Kosovo was NOT based on self-determination. It WAS based on humanitarian intervention related to a genocide under way at the time.
#6
On July 4 a car with the pro-Georgian leader of South Ossetia Dmitry Sanakoyev, whom the separatists consider a renegade, was hit by a roadside bomb and shot at.
July 31 after two roadside bombs hit a Georgian police Toyota SUV near the Georgian village of Eredvi. Six Georgian policemen were wounded
In June the head of the OSCE Mission to Georgia Teri Hakala told Pavel Felgenhauerin in Tbilisi that military clashes were happening on an almost daily basis, that OSCE monitors are also being attacked and that the "sides are not speaking."
Russian peacekeepers, according to the Russian Defense Ministry, discovered that the bombs were made out of 122 mm artillery shells (www.mil.ru, August 2).
The South Ossetian President Eduard Kokoity claimed that Georgians living in South Ossetia were begging to be "liberated" from the forces of the regime in Tbilisi (RIA-Novosti, August 2, 3, and 4).
and so on and so fort....
the Soviets are guilty...
#7
"Looks like Moscow is claiming genocide by Georgia in So. Ossetia - right on cue."
yes, I know. Id rather not rehash the differences again, as Ive mentioned them repeatedly the last few days. Differences include weeks of negotiations during which evidence of Serb actions (later confirmed) piled up, versus Russia moving into S Ossetia within HOURS of the Georgian move. HOURS. No evidence other than the estimiated death toll in SO. Geez, an army attacks a city and civilians die. Like in Chechnya, like in Iraq, like ANYWHERE. That is NOT what the case was in Kosovo OR in Srebinica. But that evidence was good enough for Putin, the man who has opposed sanction on Sudan, on Burma, on Zimbabwe. And who was willing to VETO invasion of Iraq where REAL murders of civilians had taken place.
The parallelism is BS. Its schoolyard level "YOU DID IT TOO". Its NOT a real historical comparison at all. Indeed, it is the dishonesty in the comparison that I find infuriating, and that gets under my skin far more than anything else. If Putin had just said "we have interests here, we're going to enforce them" that wouldnt have been nearly as bad as this stream of big lies coming out of moscow, and from Moscow's apologists.
#8
So there is historical memory in America! In fact, the American discussion of the Russian war on Georgia seems to consist mainly in remembering, or misremembering. The most pressing question of all is not how to stop Putin's vicious attack on an independent democratic state with a dream of the West, but whether or not we are witnessing a repetition of the Cold War. Who wants a repetition of the Cold War? Welcome back to the analogists' ball. If you are disgusted by Putin's war, then you are a grandchild of rollback and the sort of liberal lemming who would invade Iraq all over again. If you are not disgusted by Putin's war--no, everybody is disgusted by it, everybody thinks that it should have never been authorized and never been waged--if you prefer, let us say, not to get too worked up about it, to keep your head, because there are other moral and strategic considerations that must be taken calmly into account, then you are the sterling sort of liberal who has discovered, and not a moment to soon, the sublimity of realism. Actually, I am unfair here. It is only the latter sort of liberal that I wish to mock.
My colleague John Judis has flabbergasted me with something he posted on these pages a few hours ago. In an item ominously called "A New Cold War?", he writes: "McCain has consistently refused to acknowledge that Russia's turn toward an aggressive nationalism was triggered at all by American moves to expand NATO, abrogate the anti-missile treaty, build a pipeline through Georgia bypassing Russia, and a new anti-missile system in Eastern Europe. For McCain, it's simply a product of Vladimir Putin's evil intentions. That kind of outlook could fuel a new Cold War." Of course, a Russian invasion of Georgia could also fuel a new Cold War; but I'm getting ahead of my point.
I leave aside the matter of McCain and Obama, since I think the war in Georgia is primarily about the war in Georgia and not another excuse to chatter about the presidential campaign. I agree with Judis that abrogating the anti-missile treaty was stupid in a dark, Cheney-ish kind of way, though I fail to see the American offense in preferring that Russia not control every inch of pipeline that flows westward from central Asia. But it is not Judis's bill of particulars that amazes me so much as his general argument. I have heard it before, when I was a puppy. Judis appears actually to believe that Russia is--how shall I put it? I'll try the old way--expanding because it feels encircled. He writes plangently of "older Russian fears of encirclement." His quick picture of Putin's actions across Russia's border portrays a completely reactive man. What else was Putin to do? We pushed him into Georgia! And then there is the use of that word "simply." As in: "For McCain, it's simply a product of Vladimir Putin's evil intentions." That little word does a lot of business. Coming from an intellectual, it is one of the cruelest insults. As in: For Judis, it's simply a product of Western behavior. Not nice, right? And the insult to Judis is of course greater than the insult to McCain. For McCain always thinks simply, doesn't he? I mean, he supported the war in Iraq. But for Judis, and all the other liberals who have sagely grasped the limits of American force and the blandishments of soft power and the danger of flying too close to the sun--they pride themselves upon their complexity. They are not simply anything.
There is a large historical and even philosophical matter at stake here. It has to do with the analysis of the motives of America's rivals and enemies. Briefly, I see no reason almost ever to reduce their actions to our actions. Yes, history is a bramble of causes and effects, direct and indirect, and our policies have consequences; but still our rivals and our enemies are autonomous historical agents. They have beliefs and interests and desires and fears that we did not give them, or provide the occasion for them to get. Is there anything at all that we know about Vladimir Putin, about his background or his worldview or his career or his way with power, that makes his invasion of Georgia surprising? Putin champions a particular vision of Russia and a particular vision of Russia in the world. That vision is indigenous to himself and to the political culture over which he presides. It is a primary fact of the contemporary world. Not even the presidency of Barack Obama will rid him of it. You see, he does not wish to be rid of it.
So Judis's comment strikes me as a robotic reiteration of the old left-wing view of the Cold War, here applied to post-Soviet Russia. It is just a matter of hours before Richard Falk writes the same thing. (It turns out that those who remember history are also condemned to repeat it. Bummer.) But I will grant Judis his question. Is this a new Cold War? Truly I hope it is not. But whether or not it is a new Cold War, in Gori--and tomorrow maybe in Tbilisi--it is a hot war. Whether or not it is a new Cold War, it is an old war of authoritarianism against democracy. So what exactly are we supposed to tell our friends, the besieged Georgians? That we are tired? That they should have provoked Putin before 2003, or before 2001? That we have re-read Niebuhr?
George W. Bush remarked today that the Russian invasion of Georgia is "unacceptable in the 21st century." That is exactly what someone who just spent a few jolly days in the Bird's Nest Stadium would say. After all, haven't we googled and globalized ourselves out of this sort of outrage? So, I prefer Judis's anxiety that there may be historical continuities. I am not sure if the new strategic role of Russia--and China, for that matter--makes our century continuous with the twentieth or the nineteenth; but I have no doubt that the twenty-first century is not a new beginning in human affairs, and that we are entering another era of great power competition. The labels are not that important. What matters is a proper description of what is happening. It was a proper description of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait that made an effective response possible. It was an improper description of the atrocities in Bosnia and Rwanda that delayed an effective response in the former and prevented an effective response in the latter. No, it is not clear how exactly the West can get Russia the hell out of Georgia. But description must precede prescription, as clarity must precede policy; and it is really disheartening to see this war so callously and tendentiously misdescribed. It makes me worry that the influence of the presidency of George W. Bush on American liberalism will last a very long time.
#9
superstitiousGalitizianer, no matter how hard you try to ignore it Kosovo was a province that was trying to breakaway from the state of Serbia.
The analog in the situation to Georgia is that South Ossetia and Abkhasia are break away provinces.
Maybe the Russians don't have a good, moral reason to intervene as the Euros and we did in Kosovo but that is immaterial to the basic fact of secession. The problem is almost always based on these tribal lusts for power. Why the hell can't the Georgians, Ossetians & Abkhanazians get along in a federated nation? Same question about the tribes of the Balkans and the various tribes of Pakiwaki?
The Balkans and most all of the Middle East and the Caucasus regions are all made up of tribes that want to be on top and if they can't be the big fish in the big pond, they want to be the big fish in their own little pond.
Tribalism has been the bane of the world for a long time, but, it was held somewhat in check when the Soviet Empire ruled (see Yugoslavia).
It's one thing when little tribes fight little tribes. We should stay the hell out of those (see Kosovo). The problems get serious when one of the big powers injects itself in a small tribal war (see Russia) for either moral or other reasons.
#10
"It's one thing when little tribes fight little tribes. We should stay the hell out of those (see Kosovo). "
and thats where I dont agree. MOST tribe - tribe fights dont end in genocide, and we have a right and a duty to stop genocide.
We were right to go into Kosovo, about as right as we've been about anything. That Putin wants to use it as an excuse for his aggressions only shows what scum he is.
And no, the Soviet empire didnt hold tribalism in check, its corruption INCREASED tribalism (and with Russians on top). The answer to tribalism is democracy and development, not tyranny.
That Kosovo was a breakaway province is NOT RELEVANT. It had been trying to breakaway for years. We did not intervene until the Serbs went beyond acceptable bounds, when they started on a genocidal ethnic cleansing.
I swear on the lost grave of my great grandfather (murdered by germans in Galicia, in the General government of Poland, in 1942) that I will give genocidaires no peace, not now, not ever.
#11
The headlined article actually does describe the correct analogue to Kosovo - independence for Abkhazia and South Ossetia, combined with membership in the UN. That's if the Russians are acting in good faith. But you know - and I know - this isn't going to happen. The Russians are in both territories, and have attacked Georgia, in order to expand Russia's territory. It's that simple. The proper comparison isn't Kosovo - it's the German annexation of Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland in the run-up to WWII.
#12
It appears that the Czechs were criticized for being obstinate about the Sudetenland back in the 1930's. From the Journal:
But the Caucasus is the real thing: armies marching, fleets circling, rockets flaring. Many are blaming "hot-headed" President Mikheil Saakashvili for having baited the bear, and he is no angel, for sure. Didn't he go first by ordering his army into South Ossetia?
But in 1939, they also blamed the "hot-headed" Poles for refusing to placate Hitler, and so he just had to flatten Warsaw on Sept. 1. They also castigated the Czechs, a "faraway country of which we know little" for being so obstinate in resisting German demands on the Sudetenland.
MOSCOW - One word explains why the United States, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union have obliged themselves to sit on their hands, while Russia's defends its citizens, and national interests, in the Caucasus, and liberates Georgians from the folly of their unpopular president, Mikheil Saakashvili. That word is Kosovo.
Russia sent troops into the breakaway Georgian region of South Ossetia to take on Georgian troops that had advanced into the territory. Four days of heavy fighting have seen thousands of casualties and the Georgian forces withdrawing. Russian troops were reported on Monday to be continuing fighting in parts of Georgia, including around the capital Tbilisi.
Eight hundred years of Caucasian history explain why Saakashvili has brought such destruction and ignominy on his countrymen over the past few days. Queen Tamar, the greatest of the Georgian sovereigns (1184-1213), is responsible for the habit Georgian rulers have displayed for the past millennium of treating neighboring Armenia, Azerbaijan, Ossetia and the Black Sea coast of Turkey as protectorates. But as Tamar also taught her countrymen, Georgian ambition always runs out of gas when the neighbors prove to be just as ambitious, richer or tougher.
The number 300 explains what tougher means - that's the count of Russian artillery pieces that have been deployed to South Ossetia alone, once Saakashvili dispatched his United States and Israel-trained troops into action at Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia. That push, according to Russian military thinking, was not intended to hold Tskhinvali for Georgia, but to destroy it, and withdraw swiftly back into Georgia - ending the South Ossetian secession by liquidating its people.
Just how tough Russia's war aims are now - as distinct from the methods - remains to be seen. According to Georgian sources, there is no safe haven for the attackers in Georgia itself, as Russian artillery pounds Georgian military units within range; the Russian air force bombs every military unit and depot on Georgian territory; and the Russian Black Sea fleet counter-fires against Georgian naval vessels off Ochamchire, the Abkhazian regional port.
For all Russians, not only those with relatives in Ossetia, the near-total destruction by Georgian guns of Tskhinvali is a war crime. The deaths of about 2,000 civilians in the Georgian attack, and the forced flight of about 35,000 survivors from the town - the last census of Tskhinvali's population reported 30,000 - has been described by Russian leaders, and is understood by Russian public opinion, as a form of genocide. Ninety percent of the town's population are Russian citizens
.
.
.
Saakashvili, the Russian argument runs, has initiated military escalation over the past year because his political base has cracked and his domestic support is dwindling. The Georgian political opposition at home, and in exile abroad, agrees. They charge the president and his family, including the powerful Timur Alasaniya, Saakashvili's uncle, of growing corruptly rich off the arms trade and of seizing the country's resource, port and trading concessions for themselves and their supporters. Alasaniya, brother to Saakashvili's mother, holds the official position of Georgian representative to a United Nations Commission on Disarmament in New York (no relation to Irakly Alasaniya, Georgia's ambassador to the United Nations).
The leaders of the Georgian opposition nearly succeeded in toppling Saakashvili last autumn. The president was forced to impose military rule in Tbilisi, while his former defense minister, Irakly Okruashvili, publicly accused him of murder and corruption. Okruashvili is currently in Paris, where he has been granted political asylum by the French government. In June, a French court rejected Saakashvili's warrant for the arrest and extradition of his former friend and now bitterest critic. Okruashvili is uncompromised by early career links to Moscow, unlike a number of political party leaders in Tbilisi. Okruashvili is a likely candidate to replace Saakashvili, if and when Georgian public opinion turns against the president. Just your regular, pro-western democrat
But this cannot happen while Russian military operations continue against Georgian targets. Leading opposition figures inside the country, like Shalva Natelashvili, head of the Georgian Labor Party, believe they must remain silent for the time being. According to Irakly Kakabadze, an independent opposition organizer based in New York, "Once the bombing stops, I believe Saakashvili will not survive." In the spring, Kakabadze was arrested and imprisoned in Tbilisi by Saakashvili security men trying to disrupt a street protest against the president's regime. Somebody asked me if I prefer a thug like Putin to a democrat like Saakashvili? Guess, I'll have to think about it.
Long, long background piece from The Atlantic, 2000, on Georgia by Robert Kaplan. Very helpful in explaining how we got to the situation we got to this week. Hat tip Orrin Judd.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/12/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
No! NO! No! No! Georgia is a plucky democracy defending itself from unprovoked aggression by communist Russia led by a KGB archfiend Vlad (the impaler) Putin!
#2
All this was when Georgia was a mafia state under the wings of the big mafia of Putin. This article is from 2000.
Its their throwing this Russian impopsed thug government off, cleaning up the gangsterism, rooting out corruption, and liberating themselves that has Russia so upset. It sets a bad example for the gangsters that they can be defied.
Grom you dunce, this is BEFORE the rose revolution. How stupid can you be?
#3
Andf Grom why don't you leave (Israel I recall) and move back to Russia if you agree so much with the gansters that run it nad praise their every brutal act? Hmm?
The fact that you are tucked away safely may have something do do with your mental deficiences regarding Russia and their unwarranted agression and targeting of civilians well outside of S. Osettia.
Go back for a vist you coward. Live with the criminals you praise.
Russia's ill intentions clearly are on display in Georgia. In a fit of nationalist fury, it wants to teach Georgia and other former satellite countries that once made up the Soviet Bloc that its pro-Western rapprochement days are over
What better way than to invade a former republic, humiliate its leaders and then taunt the West for failing to come to its aid?
As if that wasn't enough, Russia immediately began threatening its other neighbors. A top Russian diplomat ominously warned Monday that Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and Poland would "pay" for criticizing Russia's "imperialist" policy toward Georgia.
Russia's claim to support independence from Georgia of tiny South Ossetia and even tinier Abkhazia is simply phony. Georgia, with its strategically important oil pipeline, has grown close to the U.S. -- even sending troops to Iraq. Putin, furious at growing U.S. and NATO ties with Eastern Europe, wanted to emasculate Georgia's military while deposing its pro-American President Mikheil Saakashvili. With his attack, it looks like he's succeeding.
The symbolism of the invasion, coming at the start of the Beijing Olympics, is unmistakable. This is Russia's wake-up call to all of us. Communism may be dead, Putin is saying, but Russia isn't.
While the rest of the world fantasizes about the "end of history," in the words of Francis Fukuyama, Putin and his neo-Soviet cronies in power are showing just how false and naive such a notion is.
Putin's gambit is obvious. A politician who once served as spymaster for the USSR but who would have equally been at home in the ultranationalist era of the czars, he wants to reconstitute the lost pieces of Soviet empire that fell apart so ingloriously in 1991.
The sad thing is, the West just may have given him the ammunition to do it -- both by ignoring the growing threat Russia poses as it re-arms using petrodollars, and by making several moves in recent months that Putin saw as signs of Western weakness.
One of those moves came at NATO's summit in Bucharest in April of this year, when the U.S. and Europe basically promised Georgia it would someday be a member -- but didn't commit to a timetable.
In retrospect, a big mistake. Had Georgia been brought into the NATO fold -- and thus, been given a NATO security guarantee -- it's doubtful that Russia would do anything so rash as invade. As it is, Putin gets a twofer: He gets to crush a sovereign nation on his border that also has recently been a strong ally of the U.S.
Another error was the West's ill-advised recognition in February of Kosovo's split from Serbia, a strong ally of Russia. At the time, Russia warned that the EU's and U.S.' decision to support Kosovo's split would have "consequences." Now, we see what he meant.
As for the U.N. Security Council, it has shown itself to be all but worthless during this crisis. At press time, Russia has killed an estimated 1,400 people --including many civilians, say media accounts -- and is demanding that Georgia's army lay down its arms.
Will Russia get away with it? The U.S. is unlikely to attack a nation with nuclear arms over an issue like South Ossetia.
But we don't have to sit idly by while a nation is raped. We still have extensive diplomatic clout and trade ties to pressure Russia with. We must, at the very least, be the loudest voice in the room denouncing Russia and demanding it pull back.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/12/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Uh, uh, uh. After 9-11, Bush invoked Article 5 (collective security) provision of the North Atlantic Treaty. Only a handful of states made their commitment. Turkey wasn't one of them. In fact, the Islamofascist tyranny of that country sandbagged the war of Iraq liberation by halting 20% of US arms and troops, in Turkish ports. Georgians need close allies against the Turks. Their stupid leaders chose to aid Chechen beheaders. Russians won't put the boot to same; Georgian people will.
Impartiality = assuming a position in the absense of favor to opposing parties.
Objectivity = deciding in a void of subjectivity, and reaching a determination based on due consideration of all relevant factors.
#2
McZoid, what don't you understand about this: A top Russian diplomat ominously warned Monday that Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and Poland would "pay" for criticizing Russia's "imperialist" policy toward Georgia
Hmm pinhead, care to defend those actions?
This had nothign to do with the Art5 NATO invocation.
Russia is CLEARLY over the line,and CLEARLY using force against civilians indiscriminately, which is a war crime.
Objectivity is one quality you are in complete lack of. Your rabid anti-muslim obsession has caused you to pretzyl yourself repreatedly here. Slef-contradicting and generally being an enemyof liberty is wher you find yourself now, thanks to your blind and nearly mindless hatred. You are twisting yourself insance in order to support your delusions about Georgia and thus side with a thug like Putin in his demolition of a friendly allied country - one that had troops helping us in Iraq against Al Qaeda, need I remind you.
As for your usual bucket of lies, you need to post PROOF that Georgian leaders backed the Besalan Chechens.
Repeatedly spewing lies doesn't make them so, you poor bigoted moron.
Turkey currently has troops in Afghanistan. They never signed on for Iraq. Germany, France, Belgium, et al, also stayed out. The Georgians may have made common cause with the Chechens against the Russians. But then again, we made common cause with the Soviets against the Nazis - the same Soviets who - apart from killing tens of millions of their own people - also signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop non-aggression pact (which also divided up Poland between Germany and the Soviet Union), freeing up the German military to attack the West.
As Churchill once said, if Hitler invaded Hell, he would promptly sign a pact with the Devil. The Georgians have had the Soviets trying to annex a big chunk of their land since independence. I can understand why they allied with the Chechens, who are fighting for independence, rather than just trying to inflict mayhem. The hospital and school hostage incidents were atrocious - but that was just Samir Basayev. The basic justice of the Chechen cause stands. Stalin tried to kill them off by shipping them to some Central Asian wasteland.
I would like clarification about just what OS is saying that is pushing the line. He is certainly being insulting, but Ive never noticed that to be considered over the line here, at least when directed against our occasional left wing visitor.
I certainly realize its the proprietors right to support whatever limits he wishes, and there is NO obligation to consistency. Im just curious what y'all have in mind though.
#8
#6 - After the 2nd day or so of deliberate baiting by one party and profane personal name calling by the other in response, it was time to give it a rest for a while.
Exactly where to draw the line on that sort of thing is a judgement call, but several moderators agreed we'd pretty much reached it.
"Baiting"? Personality grudges are out of place hers. We are anonymous and exactly how many different people in this big world, actually see our comments? 20 to 50; maybe more at times? Be honest to yourself; a Philadelphia lawyer couldn't find baiting - or insults - on my part.
By seizing the opportunity to pound Georgia with air strikes and military incursions, Vladimir Putin, Russia's prime minister, is sending an emphatic message with global consequences.
The curtain has fallen on the era when Nato steadily expanded into Eastern Europe and onwards to embrace former republics of the Soviet Union - and Russia was able to respond with nothing more than bluster.
Moreover, Mr Putin has demonstrated that the Kremlin will use force to protect the 25 million Russians who inhabit the Soviet Union's successor states, well beyond the mother country's borders.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: john frum ||
08/12/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
VARIOUS POSTERS > argue/opine that Georgia is a US-NATO protectorate hence Dubya + NATO cannot NOT do anything to help agz Russia unless are wiling to risk international humiliation and degradation.
Lest we fergit, YELTSIN DOCTRINE = PUTIN DOCTRINE = VLADVEDEV/MEDVEDEV DOCTRINE? - RUSSIA RESERVES ITS MILPOL NATIONAL- AND SOVEREIGN RIGHTS TO PROTECT ITS CITIZENS ABROAD, BY ANY AND ALL MEANS NECESSARY, INCLUDING BY MILITARY FORCE + WARFARE, AND AS SOLELY DETERMINED BY RUSSIA ALONE AS TO ITS INTERESTS.
* PUTIN DOCTRINE SCOPE > iff a major Terror attack(s) occurs agz Russia as emanating or originating from
any foreign sovereign nation outside of Russia [read - CONUS-CANUSA-NORAM], RUSSIA - IFF IT SO DECIDES/CHOOSES TO - RESERVES ITS NATIONAL RIGHT TO UNILATERALLY USE MILITARY AND NUCLEAR FORCE TO ATTACK AND DESTROY SAID SAME TERROR BASE(S), EVEN WITHOUT NEED OF ANY PRE-CONSENT FROM SAID SAME SOVEREIGN NATION(S). Not that Russia will, but it wil do what Rus alone determines is needed or required to be done to serve and protect Russ-specific security and interests. IOW, RUSSIA IFF IT CHOOSES CAN LAUNCH A SURPRISE
"BOLT-FROM-THE-BLUE" CONVENTIONAL, NUCLEAR, ANDOR SPECOPS ATTACK AGZ ANY TERROR GROUP LOCATED IN ANY NON-RUSSIAN FOREIGN COUNTRY WITHOUT GIVING ANY ADVANCE WARNING.
*MEDVEDEV > RUSSIA WILL STAY ACTIVE IN THE CAUCASUS.
"Let's get drunk until we piss ourself" is a doctrine?
Posted by: john frum ||
08/12/2008 8:01 Comments ||
Top||
#3
So, Georgia is a proxy for Ukraine?
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
08/12/2008 10:08 Comments ||
Top||
#4
RUSSIA RESERVES ITS MILPOL NATIONAL- AND SOVEREIGN RIGHTS TO PROTECT ITS CITIZENS ABROAD, BY ANY AND ALL MEANS NECESSARY, INCLUDING BY MILITARY FORCE + WARFARE, AND AS SOLELY DETERMINED BY RUSSIA ALONE AS TO ITS INTERESTS.
#5
China should do the same in Siberia. Patience. If the Russians decline to populate that part of the world, the Chinese are fully willing & able to do so.
Read the article and the comments
Based on Bush's actions following his meeting with Putin: staying in China... and Bush's inactions following that meeting: doing almost nothing for Georgia; Russia essentially had the green light to achieve all of its objectives. There will be no partial achievements here.
All Russia needs is a broker. Enter France. This ran in the Russian press yesterday.
The US is not suited to the role of lead mediator in resolving the Georgian-Ossetian conflict. The statement was made by French Minister of Foreign and European Affairs Bernard Kouchner. In Kouchner's opinion, the United States is actually part of the conflict, as it is present in Georgia and is equipping its armies, reports Channel 1.
Is it coincidence good cop Medvedev is ready to receive Sarkozy and work out a cease fire? We expect France to put forth a resolution of the conflict that puts the EU in charge of Georgia. This will insure Germany and France's position that Georgia should never join NATO, and will additionally give the EU a public victory in foreign policy and diplomacy. Russia gets its new provinces and legitimacy in its military action, while Georgia gets to survive, probably without regime change although the next election may not be kind to Saakashvili.
Where does that leave the US? The US has proven itself not to be factor in this entire affair, and that is not likely to change now. Georgia, a small country that joined the "coalition of the willing, " was left to the tender mercies of Russia thinking their friend the US would come. I'm sure the Chinese and Russians are ready to sell the script to other powers, and that script will sell.
Superpowers pay a high cost for action in the 21st century, but it is also true that superpowers pay a high cost of inaction in the 21st century. When Bush took the military option off the table, even if he never in a million years intended to actually use that option, he doomed Georgia. Russia hasn't given the United States a second thought since. The Bush Administration played poker with Putin, but did so with the cards face up on the table. We should expect results to reflect such a play.
When we say Russia's divide and conquer strategy, surely you didn't think we were talking about Georgia. Russia will use this incident to divide Europe and the US, there is humiliation coming for American inaction. The Russian exit strategy involves Europe throwing the US under the bus so Georgia can survive. It's Russia and France at the diplomatic table, what did you really expect? In that room, US interests finish last.
#1
There is nothing to mediate. Weak Russia assigned territory to Georgia, in trust (Russians would be a minority in same) when the Commonwealth of Independent States was formed. The Georgian government chose to take an anti-Russia stance, and aided Chechen Islamofascists. The minority Russians suffered, with the last straw being the Georgian occupation of the trust lands. Russia invaded to protect nationals, similar to the Grenada and Kosovo (by Fraud) operations and acted to pre-empt co-option of NATO on behalf of an extremist regime. In spite of Georgian propaganda about civilian targeting, oil motivation and total war, the Russians halted in the trust lands and Georgians agreed to a cease fire. Unfortunately, some Western demagogues became prisoners of the rhetoric of a dirty regime that sought our endorsement of jeopardization of minority Russians. Next stage: the Stalin-Gamsakurdia cult will lose all Georgian support and Russia will be seen as their natural ally in face of Islamofascist Turkey, another dirty entity that leaches off NATO.
Number of lies that I was duped into believing, in this affair: ZERO.
How to avoid being duped by deceivers: get the facts, and don't trust demagogues.
#2
But isn't that where Georgia is? It's just like confusing Orleans with New Orleans, which I'm sure happens all the time in certain circles. (We won't mention poor trailing daughter #2 at this moment, 'k?)
#4
Miss South Carolina Lauren Caitlin Upton
I personally believe, that U.S. Americans,
are unable to do so, because uh, some, people out there, in our nation dont have maps. and uh I believe that our education like such as in South Africa, and the Iraq, everywhere like such as and, I believe they should uh, our education over here, in the U.S. should help the U.S. or should help South Africa, and should help the Iraq and Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future, for us.
Host Mario Lopez Thank you very much South Carolina.
Russia's invasion of Georgia should serve as proof that there are some regimes that simply cannot be considered strategic allies of the West. And as the US and NATO try to assess the wreckage of their attempt to forge a post-Soviet alliance with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, another erstwhile ally is showing that it too, cannot be trusted.
On Wednesday, Iran's genocidal, nuclear weapons-seeking leader, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, will arrive in Istanbul for a "working visit" with Turkish leaders. This visit represents a diplomatic triumph for Teheran. Since assuming office three years ago, Ahmadinejad has feverishly pursued diplomatic ties with Western-allied states in an effort to weaken the West's will to take action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Turkey is the first NATO member to welcome him to its territory.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: john frum ||
08/12/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Of course, Ahmadinejad also visited Baghdad in June and received commitments from his Shiite counter-part that Iraq wouldn't be a staging ground for an attack on Iran. That might appear surprising given that Turkey forced 20% of America's planned operational forces to sit tight in Turkish harbors, while Americans prepared to attack Iraq from the south. So what is the common ground? They are all Islamofascists like nothing better than to murder and play the dhimmi kaffir. Do the math.
What do you think? Turkey is NATO's cess pool. Georgia is between Turkey and Russia. Georgia aided and abetted Chechen terror. And the handful of us who speak out against the Georgian frauds, are attacked by ideological illiterates.
Perhaps the profane attacks on Russian sympathisers might diminish, if the haters were educated in Georgian Stalinism and nationalism. Much can be learned by the open minded by reading from the attached link to correspondence between Georgia's first elected authoritarian, Gamsakhurdia, and the winner of the Civil War that toppled him. The letter was directed to Eduard Shevardnadze (former Foreign Minister of the USSR). In same, Stalin2 attacks all contacts with Russia. Gamsa campaigned on a "Georgia for the Georgians" slogan. The Russian position is: they didn't step out of the Warsaw Pact in order for NATO to walk in. Frontier security is an understandable priority for Russia.
Assuming anyone worth communicating with knows how to use "Internet Archive," please type the following dead link in same:
http://www.geocities.com/shavlego/ZG_Letter_SH.htm
You won't find said letter in ANY other internet source. Read it with the open mind that I haven't seen from all Rantburg posters in the past few days. It is time to point the blame finger at the Georgians. Myopic NATO members know that Turkey won't place missiles so they chose Georgia. Vlad saw you coming.
People need to gather more info about Georgian politics before they talk about neo-Sovietism. I wish Fred wouldn't allow profane and personal attacks at Rantburg. Nobody gets that from me.
#6
I disagree about being open minded to soviet propaganda.
I don't believe the current elected Georgian govt had involvement with Chechnya. Even the Russians aren't saying anything about that. They're saying it's genocide by the Georgians (no evidence yet) as justification while they bomb the whole area and blame the Georgians later for the killings.
I would trust an allied democratic nation an over an ex-soviet Machiavellian KGB-led superpower with a puppet president who has suppressed all media outlets.
#7
Turkey has a dog in this fight. They are the conduit of Caspian Basin oil/gas to Europe. Sans Georgia, they lose large revenues and geopolitical clout.
Maybe, an Iranian/Russian deal to keep Turkey as the conduit has kept them sweet.
McZoid, you are a fuckwhit. Albeit, (according to you) a polite fuckwhit.
And BTW, I doubt there is anyone here who knows more about the Trans-caucasus than me.
And also BTW, Caroline Glick is someone whose views I take seriously.
#10
By God, I think McZoid is a mentally ill paranoid with a psychotic fixation on Islam. He sees an islamofascist behind every rock and every paranopid plot. He miscontrues facts, timeline and disregards contrary date. He refuses to examine his logic and the contradictory results his denaials and obsession bring. He ends up bakcing dictators over free peopel, in ordere to keep from breakign his paranoid delusions about the world. He even lies, routinely and repeatedly, to keep up the "bubble" so that his delusionary world doenst collapse on him.
McZoid, you are one sick puppy.
Better get back on the pills, or you'll likely be howling at the moon while locking yourself in the closet against all those imagined Islamofascists, all while the real ones use slavering nutjobs like you to recruit.
Morons like you make it difficult for people dealing with the real thing - your stupid "kill them all" attitude is no different from the worst of our enemies. You are every bit as evil as they are, and makes thier justifications all the easier when your type pops out of the woodowork.
Tell me this McNutjob, how many tours have you done in Afghansit or Iraq? How many people and units there have you supported? How many times have you been to Balad or Bagram as a civilian? How many trips to Uzbekistan have you taken? How many friends have you buried?
I've been there done that. I know the cost, and the value, and the enemy.
How many times have you seen REAL islamofaciss face to face?
I've seen a few, dead.
And how many normal civilian non-fascist muslims have you met?
I've met plenty.
Talk to the combat troops that have served there. You'll hear much the same. Talk to the intelligence people who know the bottom line on these things. You'll hear much the same.
Talk to professional military with experience in this area and field, and you'll find out that you are completely wrong.
Guys on the pointy end of the stick don't need armchair cowards like you spewing lies hatred and paranoid ravings which makes their jobs harder.
It showss you are not only wrong, but dead wrong. And your continued insistence in the face of experience, facts and reason to the contrary means you are not only wrong, but you are stupid as well since you refuse to learn.
#11
OldSpook, there is no need to attack phil_b. You don't know why he claims such expertise. Perhaps he is a professor of Trans-causasian history at one of the Austrian universities, in which case he's probably right.
Useful information and analysis at your site, Jiggs Chiter5628. I'll be back to visit.
I doubt VERY much that anyone who is an expert at an Austrian university takes Caroline Glick seriously. Ive read her on and off for years, and I very much DO NOT take her seriously.
While I choose not to use obscene language (most of the time) we all have different personalities, and I am not ex-spec forces. I must say though, that McZoids posts the last several days have combined rehashing Putin propaganda, totally idiotic side issues (Georgians as Stalinists!) which he has repeated ad nauseum despite having had their absurdity repeatedly pointed out - plus absolutely bigoted statements about muslims, for an example of which I need only point you to the his first post on this thread.
#13
I know, my dear. Mr. McZoid very much needs to stop posting unless he actually has something useful to add to the discusson. That, however, is a moderator decision, to which I am grateful not to be party.
But, OldSpook needs to calm down a bit. He's going to burst a blood vessel if he keeps this up, not to mention driving off those who side with him. The key bit of phil_b's post not his claim to expertise, but McZoid, you are a fuckwhit. Albeit, (according to you) a polite fuckwhit.
#14
On Wednesday, Iran's genocidal, nuclear weapons-seeking leader, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, will arrive in Istanbul for a "working visit" with Turkish leaders. This visit represents a diplomatic triumph for Teheran. Since assuming office three years ago, Ahmadinejad has feverishly pursued diplomatic ties with Western-allied states in an effort to weaken the West's will to take action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Turkey is the first NATO member to welcome him to its territory.
Turkey borders on Iran, has interests in Iraq, has concerns about the Kurds. It is very difficult for Turkey to maintain a diplo boycott of Iran, esp when Iraq does not. It is nonetheless the case that Turkey has contested Iran for influence in Iraq.
According to media reports, during his visit Ahmadinejad is scheduled to meet with President Abdullah Gul and with Prime Minister Recip Tayyip Erdogan. On the agenda are Iran's nuclear program and Turkish-Iranian financial ties. Turkey favors advancing both.
I do not believe that Turkey truely favors advancing Irans nuclear program, and all i have read is that they are very concerned about it.
In recent months, the Turkish government has become one of the most outspoken advocates of Iran's nuclear program. At least publicly, Turkish leaders credulously accept Iran's dubious assertions about the peaceful intent of its nuclear program - which it refuses to fully expose to the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency's inspectors.
Ms Glick could be so kind as to included a quote or link to that effect. In any case, it would be hard for Turkey, in the face of anti-US public opinion, to publicly maintain its agreement with an arguement thats still mainly based on circumstantial evidence, even if they do beleive that in private.
As for financial ties with Iran, Turkey is working feverishly to expand them. From 2002, when Erdogan's and Gul's Islamic fundamentalist AKP party first assumed leadership of the country through 2007, Turkey's trade with Iran expanded from $1.2 billion to $6.7 billion. In July 2007, Turkey signed a $3.5 billion deal to develop one of Iran's oil fields. Over US objections, Turkey is planning to finalize that deal with Ahmadinejad this week. Trade between the two countries is expanding so quickly that most Turkish businessmen will tell you that Iran is their hottest market.
The above is mainly evidence that trade has increased, NOT that the Turkish govt has particularly encouraged it. Turkey has been pursuing economic growth, and as such there has been growth in trade with many partners, including Israel IIUC, with which Turkey does not boycott. The only serious issue is the investment in Iranian oil fields. But lets be clear, there are no UN sanctions requiring Turkey to not make those investments, nor even at this point an EU boycott on such investments (not that Turkey is in the EU). If the US wants Turkey to go beyond, it needs to provide inducements.
TURKEY'S WARM ties with Iran are matched by its embrace of Iranian satellites and proxies like Syria and Hizbullah. Turkey was the first Western-allied state and NATO member to host Syrian President Bashar Assad on a state visit after Assad's regime assassinated former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri in 2005. In 2006, Turkey sided with Hizbullah in its war against Israel. It even allowed Iran to transfer weapons to Hizbullah through Turkey.
Again, Turkey borders Syria, and has multiple issues, including water, Kurds, etc to discuss with it. Syria isnt going to diplo boycott Assad. Besides, Caroline, who was the second NATO country to meet Assad? Was there really even a boycott happening?
Of course Turkey verbally opposed Israel on Lebanon. It was impossible for anyone in the muslim world, or even in the broader 3rd world, to not take that position. Even most in the West didnt openly support Israel. Again Ms Glick is asking Turkey for what it was never possible for Turkey to give. This is a formula for multiplying 'enemies' something a certain side of the Likud likes to do.
As for allowing transfer of weapons, I would need to see evidence, and a discussion of the quantity, what Israel expected Turkey to stop, etc.
Then there is Turkey's open support for Hamas. After Hamas's victory in the January 2006 Palestinian legislative elections, Turkey became the third non-Arab state after Iran and Russia to openly embrace Hamas. Hamas's Syrian-based leader Khaled Mashaal paid an official visit to Ankara where he met with then foreign minister Gul and senior AKP party officials a month after his Iranian-sponsored terror group's electoral victory
Again, and again, Turkish support amounts to know more than meetings. Its very odd that someone who believes as Ms Glick usually does, that meetings are hollow, is so willing to charecterize Turkey as supporting people they only met with. News Ms Gluck - Turkey also holds meetings with Israel - does that meen Turkey supports Israel?
The Turkish government's support for Hamas is complemented by its support for al Qaida financiers. In the summer of 2006, Erdogan endorsed his top advisor's donations to senior al Qaida financier Yasin al-Qadi after they were exposed in the Turkish media. And since entering office, Erdogan, Gul and their AKP colleagues have repeatedly accused Israel and the US of committing genocide against Muslims in Gaza, Lebanon and Iraq.
He ENDORSED the donations? Or did he just say they were not criminal acts? Without a link, or even a quote, which Ms Gluck has a tendency not to provide, its hard to tell. Ms Gluck leaves you to either do her homework for her, or accept her charecterization on faith. Thats what propagandists do.
The rest is words, words that, again, are routine in the muslim world, and that the Turkish leadership, facing a people who DONT LIKE THE US OR THE WEST, can hardly avoid. Ms Gluck seems happy to ignore Turkeys gripes against the west, from EU rejection to their discomfort for very pragmatic reasons with the change in regime in Iraq, which are the CONTEXT for the words she focuses on.
While both the US and Israel have voiced their displeasure with Turkey's embrace of their enemies, neither country has taken any steps to either discredit Ankara or to distance themselves from the Turkish government. To the contrary, both Israel and the US continue to praise Turkey as a strategic ally. Both insist that under the AKP, Turkey is demonstrating that it is possible to be Islamic fundamentalist and pro-Western.
Probably because they are looking at Turkeys actions, not words, are looking at them in context, and are not cherry picking to make a case.
And both are enabling and indeed encouraging Turkey to act as an intermediary between them and their sworn enemies.
Now we get to Glicks REAL problem with Turkey.
In Israel's case, Turkey has been mediating the Olmert-Livni-Barak government's negotiations with Syria. And in the US's case, it appears that Turkey has played a mediation role between Washington and Teheran. On July 17, both US National Security Advisor Steven Hadley and Iranian Foreign Minister Manoucher Mouttaki just happened to be visiting Ankara on the same day. Two days later, US Assistant Secretary of State William Burns met with Iran's nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili in Geneva.
In both cases, it is far from clear that either Israel or the US have benefitted from Turkey's increasingly prominent role in their foreign policy. In fact, in both cases, Israel and the US have weakened their position by allowing Turkey to serve as a mediator between them and their adversaries.
IN THE case of Syria, as Assad's recent visit to Teheran showed clearly, Israel's attempt to use negotiations with Syria to pry Damascus away from its strategic alliance with Teheran has failed. To date, the only thing its decision to hold indirect negotiations with Syria in Turkey has done is end Syria's isolation from the West.
The negotiations havent worked YET, so they are A. bound to fail B. Not worth trying
Lets face it, Ms Gluck doesnt WANT a deal with Syria, and is unhappy at the attempt.
As for Iran, the Bush administration's decision to allow Turkey to mediate between it and the ayatollahs has arguably emboldened Turkey to move forward with its Iranian oil deal. Beyond that, Turkey's success in convincing the Americans to actively pursue diplomacy with the Iranians paved the way for the US's humiliation in Geneva last month. During that meeting, Jalili made no attempt to reach an agreement with the US and its partners.
A. That would have happened SANS turkey B. Its a good thing, as its stripped off the face of iranian "moderation" and is pushing the EUros furhter along, this time without the excuse that the US wasnt participating C. I see no evidence it has anything to do with Turkish investments. More seriously it IS related to Totals withdrawl from Iran.
And by joining the Europeans and the Russians in directly engaging Iran, the US facilitated Russia's announcement last week that it sees no reason to impose additional UN Security Council sanctions against Iran for its failure to agree to temporarily suspend of its uranium enrichment activities.
Bunk - If anything it made Russias position more absurd. A. Its not clear if Russia will stick to it - they tend to make statements like this to defer action B. iF they do so, it will be because of RUSSIAN interests, not the meeting in Geneva. C. That meeting would have happened without Turkey.
Like Russia under Putin, Turkey under Erdogan's leadership has masked its rapid transformation from a flawed but pro-Western democracy under its previous governments into an anti-Western - and in Turkey's case Islamist - regime by paying lip service to the West even as it has taken steps to purge its power structure of pro-Western voices. Just as Putin's popular government has taken brutal action against his political, intellectual and financial foes, so too, Erdogan's popularly elected Islamic fundamentalist regime has worked steadily to discredit, criminalize and intimidate its pro-Western rivals.
I do not think this parallel is true.
SINCE TAKING office in 2002, the AKP under Erdogan has taken control over Turkey's bureaucracy.
youd expect the elected govt to try that.
It has weakened women's rights. It has launched brutal campaigns against its foes in the media, taking over opposition television stations and arresting and intimidating anti-Islamic editors and reporters.
links and quotes, please.
It has taken over the Turkish secret police and regular police forces.
isnt the govt SUPPOSED to have control over those?
It has stacked the Turkish courts with its loyalists.
More than just through the normal appt process? To waht extend were the former judges biased against them?
It has enabled the opening of radical Islamic madrassas.
IE its allowed freedom of religion? Its stopped the policy of allowign only pro govt muslims institutions to open? Does Ms Gluck understand how illiberal previous Turkish policy on religion was? Does she know ANYTHING about Turkey?
It has penetrated the military and demoralized and intimidated the senior officer corps.
you mean to try to keep them from launching a coup? Does Ms Gluck know anything about the history of coups in Turkey?
It has ignored court judgments against it.
You mean the one banning the governing party?
Through the police, it has launched a massive wire tapping campaign against its political opponents and has leaked embarrassing transcripts of these tapped phone calls to its loyalist press to humiliate and intimidate its rivals.
Legal or illegal wiretaps? As for leaks, that hardly sounds like waht a dictatorship does with such info. They arrest people, tehy dont leak about them. leaking about them is more like what J Edgar Hoover used to do.
The only remaining secular check on Erdogan's government is Turkey's Constitutional Court. Last week, the court narrowly rejected the court's chief prosecutor's lawsuit calling for the outlawing of the AKP party on the grounds that it is seeking to overthrow Turkey's secular constitutional order. In their ruling, ten out of eleven judges did agree that the AKP is seeking to weaken Turkey's secular identity and ruled that it be denied government funding.
note that weakening Turkeys secular identity arguably means ALLOWING muslim religious practices, and having a party that is as friendly to Islam as Christian Democratic parties are to Christianity
In an apparent bid to both distract the public from the court case and to further delegitimize its opponents, the government claims that it uncovered a conspiracy by senior opposition officials, including leading journalists, businessmen and generals, called the Ergenekon plot to overthrow the government. It alleges that most of the terror attacks carried out by Islamic terrorists over the past several years were actually carried out by members of this secularist cabal. Last month the police arrested two retired generals, a prominent industrialist and a respected journalist along with 17 others in its prosecution of the Ergenekon plot.
Im not familiar with the above, but based on previous, Im certainly not relying on Caroline Gluck as a fair source on the byzantine details of Turkish politics.
In all of this, of course, Erdogan and his associates are mirroring Putin's actions in Russia since he assumed office in 2000. Like Putin, the AKP replaced a deeply corrupt, unpopular pro-Western government.
the fact that both replaced corrupt govts, doesnt mean they are alike. I would also question the 'prowesterness of both yeltsin, and the previous Turkish govt. BTW, does Ms Gluck know that Putin was first appointed premier BY Boris Yeltsin?
While Putin has built his popularity on xenophobia and hatred of the West, Erdogan and the AKP have built their popularity on a rejection of secular Turkish nationalism in favor of pan-Islamism and hatred of the US and Israel.
From all ive read, thats a mischarecterization of Turkish politics.
And as they have moved their countries away from the West, both Putin and Erdogan have managed to maintain good relations with Washington by going through the motions of supporting its war against terror even as they have both embraced terrorists and their state sponsors.
well now THATS somewhat of a mischarecterization of Russia, which is friendly toward Iran, but has fought against AQ, and more than merely going through the motions. Again, thats how Glick plays fast and loose with facts and rhetoric.
THE LESSON moving forward from all of is not that Israel and the US should turn their backs on Turkey. In an international environment that is increasingly hostile to liberal democracies, there is no reason to cut off ties with hostile regimes just because they are hostile.
Also that Turkey isnt hostile.
But at the same time, neither the US nor Israel should delude themselves by thinking that Turkey remains their strategic ally. It is not. And there are consequences to this fact.
For the US, beyond ending immediately Turkey's role as an intermediary with Iran, it would make sense to float the notion of removing Turkey from NATO due to its expanding ties with Iran.
That is like total idiocy. I dont know where to begin. It leaves me speechless.
Just the suggestion of such a move would no doubt have a profound effect on the Turks.
Yes, it would alienate ALL elements in Turkey, and push Turkey hard toward our enemies - for real this time.
Certainly, the US should be reaching out to regime opponents and calling for Erdogan and his associates to end their attempts to repress the anti-Islamic media and secular politicians, businessmen and military commanders.
Try a color revolution against an ally and friendly govt, no words for such genius.
If the US is concerned about inflaming Turkish sentiment against it through such moves it should consider that since Erdogan took power, and as the US has bent over backwards to be nice to him, anti-US sentiment in Turkey has risen steeply. According to a recent Pew international opinion poll, today the Turks are the most anti-American society in the world.
Be "NIce" to him. Ms Gluck again reveals a refusal to look at whats driving Turkish public opinion. Anyway, threatening to toss Turkey from NATO would not only make those numbers (and who really cares about Pew, anyway?) worse, but more importantly would turn Turkish elites and the military against us. Ms Gluck is doing one good thing though - shes countering Jewish elitism wrt to IQ.
For its part, Israel should reassess its willingness to sell sensitive military equipment to Turkey given its close ties to Israel's enemies. It should certainly stop its Turkish-mediated talks with Syria and reject Turkish offers to mediate between Israel and the Palestinians.
Again thats what this is really about. Not the AKP, not meaningless AKP rhetoric, not the idiocy of making Turkey an enemy - its about a the Golan, and the two state solution, and the need to keep the one, and avoid the other.
Like Russia, Turkey's anti-Western regime is promoting itself to the West by pretending not to be anti-Western. And as was the case with Russia up until it decided to invade defenseless Georgia over the weekend, the US and its allies have been willing to endanger their strategic interests to believe this lie.
It can only be hoped that the West will abandon this policy before it inadvertently paves the way for a new Iranian-allied axis of evil populated by the likes of Russia, Turkey and Pakistan.
If it were that, wouldnt it be allied with Russia? Wouldnt Russia be at the core, not Iran? Of course this ignores both Turkish - Russian rivarly, and Pakistani - Russian rivalry. But why should Ms Gluck consider such real world facts?
All of these governments owe much of their power to the West's willingness to believe that their anti-Western regimes could be trusted as strategic allies until it was too late.
I dont know that anyone lately has considered Iran a strategic ally. As for Pakistan, its not clear if shes talking about teh old govt or the new govt - of course its all absurd anyway. And so it boils down to the absurd Turkish -Russian parallel.
#15
Pheew! I have NO experience with any of this stuff at all. Just color me an interested reader. But little old Georgia sure has whatever appendages you folks might have, in a wringer and is squeezing them tight. It will be helpful to me to understand, if you use facts more and passion less. Thanks.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
08/12/2008 10:06 Comments ||
Top||
#16
TW, that profane attack on phil_b was not posted by Old Spook.
#17
Whoops -- my mistake! Thank you, lotp. My heartfelt apologies, OldSpook. Clearly I need to pay closer attention. (A new brain also wouldn't hurt, but is not in my budget just yet.)
#19
I half-suspect that the Russians will find proof that the Georgians were the ones that massacred the Armenians, thus assuring Turkeys friendship and support and giving other useful idiots with limited historical knowledge another talking point.
Nobody likes to be told they don't know what they are talking about. Perhaps that's me or perhaps that's you. I'll leave it up the Burgundians to decide.
Nobody likes to be told they don't know what they are talking about. Perhaps that's me or perhaps that's you. I'll leave it up the Burgundians to decide.
You are not helping the epidemic of personal attacks here. Have you read the letter (Gamsakhurdia to Shevardnadze) that I posted? Have you or the posters without spell-check, googled Gamsakhurdia, to understand Georgian feeling for a man who is second to Stalin in the public estimate? The current government of Georgia isn't worth a Cold War. As for moral resolve, we tossed nothing but rhetoric bombs at Sudan, over the Darfur tragedy.
#27
McZoid, I didn't have time to read that very old letter but I did read the other link you posted (Arrogant Georgians dug their own grave) and when I read the first paragraph, I knew which side you were on.
Considering Americas war crimes in Bosnia and Serbia, and considering the fact that the US ambassador to the UN is a Sunni Muslim Afghan citizen who is contemplating replacing Karzai as Afghan president, Ill tentatively side with Russia in the matter of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. At least Id remain neutral between Russia and Georgia.
What American War crimes? I can list plenty of Serbian war crimes which they are procecuting now. The writer contradicts himself when he says he sides with Russia, then says he's neutral.
OS might have had a temper last night but he was right about you! Your history is all screwed up, comrade!
This is indeed the Russian claim. I had taken this at face value and explained why this wasn't beyond the pale (much as our WWII alliance with the mass-murdering Soviets wasn't). Now that I think about it, it seems to me that the Russians lie reflexively - it was they who spread the claim that the CIA invented AIDS to kill blacks - something that the Reverend Wright merely parroted in his sermons.
Why would I take this Russian claim at face value? Maybe I shouldn't. If the Russian military lost ten thousand dead fighting the Chechens, how could Georgia be expected to stop them in their tracks? Remember - this is the same Georgian military that is crumbling before the Russian military, and displaying none of the skill and fanatical bravery the Chechens showed in Grozny. How is it Georgia's problem that Russia couldn't outfight the Chechens during the initial years of the Chechen War?
You could argue that the problem with Russia has with Georgia is the problem the US has with Pakistan. But that would be wrong. Pakistan's military is clearly more powerful than the Taliban. Georgia's military was not manifestly more powerful than the Chechen insurgency. Pakistan has clearly funded the jihadis, both in Afghanistan and India. Georgia has not.
#30
Yes, McZoid, I read the letter from a prisoner of conscience to an old and successful Soviet appartchik, recounting his sins. I'm afraid I see in it no justification for the current Russian invasion of the Georgian heartland, nor do I see why I should be surprised by what Shevardnaze has done (appalled, of course, but I've been well aware of Soviet atrocities since I was a child).
Like all in the former Soviet empire, there are few Georgians who were able to avoid at least sipping of its evil, let alone drinking deeply. Reports of those who had reported on others to the East German secret police, for example, which started to become public when we lived in that part of the world, included some of the most beloved of their intellectuals and dissidents, not to mention almost everyone else. Unlike the Nazis, who were in power for about a decade, the Soviet totalitarians ruled for the better part of a century. Should I be surprised at how few innocents there are in post-Soviet politics in that part of the world? The wonder is that citizens and politicians have appeared to partake of the joys of freedom and democracy!
#2
"Sexual relationship for months" > methinks = meknows the timeline is off by a couple of decades. FOR ME PERSONALLY, ITS NOTSOMUCH THE RELATIONSHIP OR ITS LENGTH BUT THE "WHY" OF BRING ING IT UP NOW. These are adults whom are also experienced Politicos - LIZ IS NOT A "VICTIM" HERE, DESPITE HER CANCER, NEITHER IS MS. HUNTER!
"The problem is not American force levels in Iraq. It is divisiveness at home. While our military has adapted, our society has disconnected from its martial values. I was standing beside an Iraqi colonel one day in war-torn Fallujah when a tough Marine patrol walked by. 'You Americans,' he said, 'are the strongest tribe.'"
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
