Fast & Loose: US Georgia Policy

I told him that I know I speak for every American when I say to him, ' Today, we are all Georgians'

Senator John McCain (R-AZ), recounting his conversation with President Saakashvili, 12 August 2008

"We are all Americans." That's what the world said after the US was hit by terrorists on September 11, 2001.  I believe Senator McCain cheapened the phrase when he applied it to the precipitous blitzkrieg by Georgia, which set off the latest deadly round by attacking civilian targets in breakaway South Ossetia, provoking the inevitable massive Russian response.  I don't feel particularly Georgian.  So, Senator McCain, please speak for yourself, not for "every American."

I don't feel particularly Russian either, for that matter.

In fact, what I feel is uneasy.  Very uneasy about the fact that somehow, under this Administration that has so damaged the US reputation and our fundamental national security, Georgia has by stealth become the Number Two per capita recipient of US aid in the world.  Behind Number One, Israel - but then we've known about US largess to Israel for decades.  How many Americans know that they are so heavily invested, economically and militarily, in this small ex-Soviet republic?

And now the US national credit card (because it no longer makes sense to call it an appropriation, since the Federal budget has been in Deep Red for the last 7 years) will provide another $1 billion for our favorite mini-state (that's even mini-er, with two substantial separatist chunks missing).  Would you give a billion dollars to this man?

The photo at right has been used to good propaganda effect by the Russians, but honestly, it's as good an illustration of "What have we gotten ourselves into, Condi?" that I can imagine.  The BBC video is even better.

But anyone might be excused for chewing on his tie in a moment of stress.  How about if we just let Saakashvili speak for himself on provoking violence for base political ends:

"You intend to finally destroy and blow up what is left [of the country] in order to keep your office," Saakashvili said in comments broadcast by Imedi TV... "I call on your common sense and the remaining logic that you have; say that your office is not worth [upsetting] public peace in Georgia."

The year was 2003, Saakashvili was running against President Eduard Shevardnadze, and was shocked - shocked! - that his opponent's supporters would use violence, in this case an election campaign clash with Saakashvili supporters in his National Movement. What a difference five years make.  Saakashvili's immoderate use of violence has just netted him a cool billion extra.  Georgia's crony class must be rubbing its hands in anticipation of getting their share of the loot.

The overworked phrase "In Harm's Way" is nevertheless useful when applied to the Administration's fast and loose way with US military commitments.  We don't know the details about orders given to the US military "advisers" that were on the ground in Georgia when the shooting started, but we know enough about US airlifting Georgian troops back home from Iraq when the fighting was still raging, and about US warships attempting to offload supplies at Russian-occupied Georgian ports, to reach this conclusion: the Bush Administration put American troops into yet another war zone, while it already has US troops committed to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As Thomas Friedman said in today's New York Times:

How many wars can we fight at once without finishing even one? Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and now Georgia. Which is the priority?

Don't count on George Bush for an answer.  They're probably all equally important, in his book.  And will remain unfinished when he leaves the White House.  Even conservatives are alarmed at the squandering of American "blood and treasure" (another overworked phrase) in a policy that is the polar opposite of realpolitik.

The danger for the US and the world is that the close proximity of American and Russian troops - who is to say that there won't be some future flareup, an "incident" that could be blown out of all proportion - could not only have an electoral effect in the US, but could also implicate the United States in hostilities involving the world's number two nuclear power.

You don't have to go back very far - February 2002 - to a time when the US and Russia shared a common goal of nuclear security in places like Georgia.  Read this and recall when Georgian woodsmen picked up some toasty nuclear generators for use as back warmers, causing themselves some serious discomfort (they were full of strontium-90). According to the BBC report

Russian, US and French experts are then due to meet in Tbilisi on Monday to discuss the find, and what to do with it. They are also expected to examine what can be done to track down other discarded nuclear material in Georgia.

My point is this: there are ample reasons for US-Russian cooperation in that volatile part of the world.  No one needs a wider war.  The region's oil and gas supplies are precious, but not worth a dangerous arms race when, Lord knows, the US, Russia, and Georgia have better things to spend their money on.  And what good are burning oil fields except to raise the price of gasoline again?

And false and reckless "We are all Georgian" rhetoric means nothing beyond electioneering, other than adding to dangerous Russian encirclement paranoia.  The Republicans have already used up their quota of wars embarked upon and unfinished.  Don't try to involve a future Democratic Presidency in another quixotic war-of-choice before leaving office, the way another Bush saddled Clinton with an eleventh hour Somali adventure in 1992.  Iraq and Afghanistan will suffice, thank you.