Unaware

12:57 am EST August 13th, 2008 | Republicans | 11 Comments

“DJ Drummond”, writing at Wizbang, says this about the situation in Georgia and one idea of how to respond:

Sending a force too small to accomplish any significant mission or hold any significant territory, without recourse to massive reinforcement and fallback positions, would simply kill those men.

“DJ” is a supporter of the Iraq War, and has been for some time.

Topic: Iraq

« Over There
Three Words On That Atlantic Clinton Story »

11 Responses to “Unaware”

Crusty Dem says:

August 13, 2008 at 2:28 am

I’m less disturbed by the obvious similarities to Iraq than the general stupidity of getting in the middle of yet another conflict 10,000 miles from our borders. Not to go full metal Woodrow Wilson, but what the fuck do these nutters hope to accomplish with military threats or intervention in the Russo-Georgian skirmish? Hopefully, the ceasefire will hold and everyone will realize, once again, that those who think of US military coercion at the first sign of conflict don’t deserve higher office.
Oliver Willis says:

August 13, 2008 at 3:11 am

but what the fuck do these nutters hope to accomplish with military threats or intervention in the Russo-Georgian skirmish
You are assuming that these geniuses can think anywhere further than 2 seconds ahead.
Jay Tea says:

August 13, 2008 at 3:43 am

Here’s a thought (a quick one): Georgia is a thriving democracy that sits astride several of the main pipelines that supply western Europe with much of its energy needs. Letting Russia continue to re-create its empire by simultaneously crushing a democratic state that has been a good friend of the West ever since it was freed from the Soviet Union and at the same time get a stranglehold on western Europe’s energy supply is a Bad Thing.

But didn’t you hear? Senator Obama says he’s been warning us about tensions in Georgia for some time! Nobody can actually FIND where he said any such thing, but he said he did, so it must be true!

He also “revised and extended” his initial statement on the Russian invasion to echo John McCain’s position of condemning the Russians.

Why do you hate and mock Obama’s foreign policy, folks?

J.
Sachin says:

August 13, 2008 at 5:55 am

Jay Tea I agree with you in totality…
Crusty Dem says:

August 13, 2008 at 8:11 am

Yeah, because condemnation = military confrontation. Georgia has not been a “good friend” of the West for 20 years, maybe 4, tops. Even John McCain read the Wikipedia article, Jay. And the pipeline is not about “Western Europe” unless Israel = Western Europe, in which case you also need a geography lesson.

Words are nice, but no sane leader is going to lift a damn finger to actually support Georgia in a border smackdown with Russia. I’m still trying to figure out WTF Saakashvili was thinking, rattling sabers with freaking Russia over 100,000 of the poorest people in Eurasia. Did he really think NATO was going to swoop in and protect him?
Parthenon says:

August 13, 2008 at 9:40 am

Why do you hate and mock Obama’s foreign policy, folks?

If anybody actually supports bringing American troops into conflict with Russians, please, tell us why. I will do as I can to keep a straight face.

I’m still trying to figure out WTF Saakashvili was thinking, rattling sabers with freaking Russia over 100,000 of the poorest people in Eurasia.

Looks to me like he lost a bad game of chicken. Maybe he forgot that the Russian government doesn’t care at all what the west thinks of it.

For another theory, here is an interesting “Bush knew” conspiracy from a commenter at Instaputz. He’s connected some plausible dots, even if there’s no way to verify it one way or the other.
midderpidge says:

August 13, 2008 at 9:53 am

Maybe McCain can cut and paste an army there.
Quaker in a Basement says:

August 13, 2008 at 10:16 am

Georgia is a thriving democracy that sits astride several of the main pipelines…

There’s oil at stake? ‘Nuff said! Raise the battle flags! Sound the trumpets!
william says:

August 13, 2008 at 1:09 pm

Interesting analysis on what’s “really” going on in Georgia -

Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili has handed his Russian counterpart, Dmitry Medvedev, a victory over the “siloviki” in Russia. And if Medvedev is able to take advantage of the fruits of this victory, the consequences will be significant not so much for Tbilisi as for Moscow.

So, why is this a victory over the siloviki — those in the Russian ruling elite with close ties to the state security organs? Because there is no way the regime in South Ossetia can be in any sense called “separatist.” Who there is a separatist? The head of the local KGB, Anatoly Baranov, used to head the Federal Security Service (FSB) in the Russian Republic of Mordovia. The head of the South Ossetian Interior Ministry, Mikhail Mindzayev, served in the Interior Ministry of Russia’s North Ossetia. The South Ossetian “defense minister,” Vasily Lunev, used to be military commissar in Perm Oblast, and the secretary of South Ossetia’s Security Council, Anatoly Barankevich, is a former deputy military commissar of Stavropol Krai. So who exactly is a separatist in this government? South Ossetian “prime minister” Yury Morozov?

However, alas, I also cannot say this regime is “pro-Russian.” On the contrary, all the recent actions of Eduard Kokoity, the leader of the breakaway South Ossetian government, have run counter to the interests of Russia in the Caucasus — beginning with his embarrassing Russia in the eyes of the international community and ending with his ratcheting up the tensions in the very region where Russia might begin to come undone. South Ossetia is not a territory, not a country, not a regime. It is a joint venture of siloviki generals and Ossetian bandits for making money in a conflict with Georgia.

http://www.rferl.org/content/South_Ossetia_Crisis_Could_Be_Russian_Chance_To_Defeat_Siloviki/1189525.html
Todd Dugdale says:

August 13, 2008 at 3:10 pm

It’s clear that there are elements in the Bush Administration (looking at you, Cheney) that are ginning up militaristic elements within other countries to do what the Administration is politically unable to do.
Israel’s air-strike on Syria is one example. Colombia’s recent aggressive stance towards Venezuela is another.

It could be that promises were made to support Georgia (or the other nations mentioned), but more likely the trademark neo-con optimism was employed. As we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan, the neo-cons continually believe that the best possible outcome is the only likely outcome in every situation.

Of course, they were wrong again, and now Central Asia’s “stans” will be dominated by Moscow for the next decade.
Jay Tea says:

August 13, 2008 at 7:03 pm

Of course, Todd, that presumes that other countries are incapable of acting in what they conceive as their own best interests without those eeeevil neocons here in the US pulling their strings.

Israel taking out the Syrian facility (I’m still convinced it was a nuclear weapon site of some kind, based on all sorts of circumstantial evidence, including Syria’s own reaction to the violation of its territory) serves its own best interests first and foremost.

Colombia has been hostile towards Venezuela ever since it turned out that Hugo Chavez has been backing FARC.

If you look at the raw numbers, Georgia never had a chance against a full-blown Russian attack, and the US did not have enough forces anywhere near Georgia to back them up — or, more realistically, take over the fight. Georgia’s entire air force consisted of, I believe, 12 aircraft in total, just to name one element.

Also I’ve noticed a decided lack of howls of betrayal from Georgia saying how the US manipulated them into being invaded and slaughtered. One would think that if that had, indeed, happened, they’d not be so thoughtful as to keep quiet about being massacred.

Of course, applying simple logic isn’t anywhere near as much fun as inventing conspiracy theories and blaming the ~~Jooos~~ neocons for everything and spotting Karl Rove under your bed, so I can understand why you avoid it.

J.