Hypocrisy, Delusion, and an Entangling Alliance

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/08/10/164333.php

Several years ago, President Bush told other countries that as far as he was concerned there were two sides to the war on terrorism. You were either with us in fighting the terrorists or against us. The president's parameters were black and white. After all, how could any civilized nation refuse an opportunity to rid the world of the scourge of terrorism? Well, Russia was one such country, choosing not to directly support U.S. military action in Afghanistan and U.S. military imperialism in Iraq with troops of her own. According to Bush, Russia's noninterventionist stand meant that she was against the U.S. in its war on terror. This delusional mindset toward Russia is currently responsible for the administration's posture on the war between Russia and Georgia - a posture that is hypocritical and based on one of those entangling alliances that both Washington and Jefferson warned us about.

From comments made by senior administration officials, the U.S. has clearly taken the side of Georgia in the conflict. Specifically, the U.S. has been critical of Russia's use of "overwhelming" military force against Georgia which has included strategic bombers and ballistic missiles. U.S. officials have also voiced displeasure that Russia has attacked strategic territory near the Georgian capital Tbilisi which is far away from the concentration of the fighting in South Ossetia. These comments coming from this administration are hypocritical to say the least.

To begin with, Georgia started this conflict by invading its breakaway republic South Ossetia. Russia's main justification for getting involved militarily was the killing of 10 Russian peacekeepers as a result of Georgian aggression. Additionally, many Russian citizens live in South Ossetia and the Russia military intervened to protect their lives and property. Would the U.S. military not get involved in a place abroad where American citizens and property were threatened? The invasion of Grenada in the early 1980s comes to mind. Secondly, when Iraq invaded Kuwait didn't the United States and its allies use overwhelming military force including strategic bombers and ballistic missiles against Iraq to extricate it from the Gulf nation? Lastly, wasn't the initial U.S. military strategy in the first Gulf War to cut off the Iraqi army in Kuwait from command control facilities in Baghdad by ...attacking strategic locations in Baghdad which was far from Kuwait? The Administration's criticism of Russia's handling of this conflict is hypocritical given how our government has handled previous conflicts in our history.

Its hard to find an article about that conflict that isnt over the top pro-Russia.

and the initial 1400 or so Ossetian casualties were from shelling and shooting by Georgia.

I hate being on the side of a big country against a small one, but the carnage was started by Georgia.

It can be argued that South Ossetia started it 16 years ago when they declared independence from Georgia, preferring to side with their 75% Russian majority. However, the present fighting was started by Georgia against South Ossetia.

A whole lot of Beirut (If Anthony Bourdain's "No reservations" film footage can be believed.

Oh but wait - Israel backs Georgia also.

Mystery solved.