Americans wishing to spend August vacationing with their families or watching the Olympics may wonder why their newspapers and television screens are filled with images of war in the small country of Georgia. Concerns about what occurs there might seem distant and unrelated to the many other interests America has around the world. And yet Russian aggression against Georgia is both a matter of urgent moral and strategic importance to the United States of America.The Obama camp has bee practically silent on it...but, of course, we have to remember that Obama is on vacation and probably shouldn't be disturbed."Georgia is an ancient country, at the crossroads of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and one of the world’s first nations to adopt Christianity as an official religion. After a brief period of independence following the Russian revolution, the Red Army forced Georgia to join the Soviet Union in 1922. As the Soviet Union crumbled at the end of the Cold War, Georgia regained its independence in 1991, but its early years were marked by instability, corruption, and economic crises.
"Following fraudulent parliamentary elections in 2003, a peaceful, democratic revolution took place, led by the U.S.-educated lawyer Mikheil Saakashvili. The Rose Revolution changed things dramatically and, following his election, President Saakashvili embarked on a series of wide-ranging and successful reforms. I’ve met with President Saakashvili many times, including during several trips to Georgia.
"What the people of Georgia have accomplished – in terms of democratic governance, a Western orientation, and domestic reform – is nothing short of remarkable. That makes Russia’s recent actions against the Georgians all the more alarming. In the face of Russian aggression, the very existence of independent Georgia – and the survival of its democratically-elected government – are at stake.
"In recent days Moscow has sent its tanks and troops across the internationally recognized border into the Georgian region of South Ossetia. Statements by Moscow that it was merely aiding the Ossetians are belied by reports of Russian troops in the region of Abkhazia, repeated Russian bombing raids across Georgia, and reports of a de facto Russian naval blockade of the Georgian coast. Whatever tensions and hostilities might have existed between Georgians and Ossetians, they in no way justify Moscow’s path of violent aggression. Russian actions, in clear violation of international law, have no place in 21st century Europe.
"The implications of Russian actions go beyond their threat to the territorial integrity and independence of a democratic Georgia. Russia is using violence against Georgia, in part, to intimidate other neighbors – such as Ukraine – for choosing to associate with the West and adhering to Western political and economic values. As such, the fate of Georgia should be of grave concern to Americans and all people who welcomed the end of a divided of Europe, and the independence of former Soviet republics. The international response to this crisis will determine how Russia manages its relationships with other neighbors. We have other important strategic interests at stake in Georgia, especially the continued flow of oil through the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which Russia attempted to bomb in recent days; the operation of a critical communication and trade route from Georgia through Azerbaijan and Central Asia; and the integrity and influence of NATO, whose members reaffirmed last April the territorial integrity, independence, and sovereignty of Georgia.
"Yesterday Georgia withdrew its troops from South Ossetia and offered a ceasefire. The Russians responded by bombing the civilian airport in Georgia’s capital, Tblisi, and by stepping up its offensive in Abkhazia. This pattern of attack appears aimed not at restoring any status quo ante in South Ossetia, but rather at toppling the democratically elected government of Georgia. This should be unacceptable to all the democratic countries of the world, and should draw us together in universal condemnation of Russian aggression.
"Russian President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin must understand the severe, long-term negative consequences that their government’s actions will have for Russia’s relationship with the U.S. and Europe.
Well John seems to understand the significance of this action by Russia. I’ll bet he doesn’t share your view of what we should do right now. And that’s the problem. In the end, his views won’t have caused him to do anything more than Obama would in this situation, most likely nothing.
This is one of the Obama campaign's worst nightmares -- truly a "3:00 am" moment, in the sense that it's a crisis of the worst kind: it's a surprise, for one thing; and it clearly demands a response, although the wrong response could have dire consequences; and the required response is not even remotely obvious; and even the correct response is likely to have ugly side-effects. Obama's "nice talk" approach is clearly inadequate to a situation where thousands have already died.
Normal folks are going to look at this episode, and probably Iran as well, and they're going to see Obama in a very unflattering light. McCain has already begun pinging on the "Obama's not ready to lead" line, and this is going to give red meat to the claim.
Obama's biggest weakness is the perception that he is ill-equipped to handle crises. And I'll be honest -- much as I'd hate a Hillary Clinton presidency, I'd be much more comfortable with her in the Big Chair than I would with Obama. I wonder how many Democrat-leaning voters are thinking along those lines?