The Georgian conflict is more than an unfortunate regional dispute. It is the archetype of the actual juxtaposition of the United States (and to a less confrontational degree, the West)against the unbowed remnant of the cold war that is the real Russia, not the one George Bush imagines when he gazes into Vladimir Putin's eyes.
And yet, it is more than that. It is a multi-layered, complex mixture of human interaction that, I think will ultimately expose the religion we call democracy for what it has been in actual practice, as opposed to what it is in its beatified theory - to the extent that it has not been exposed already in Iraq. And what that is, is a struggle for hegemony that is every bit as bold as that of Russia, but one more cosmetically nuanced.
It's complexity of course did not deter John "Bull in the China Closet" McCain from his simplistic conclusion that ignores everything except the red cape waving before his eyes, i.e., Russian aggression. It did not deter George Bush from deploying his choreographed, but impotent expedition to lick Georgia's wounds with some bottled water disguised as American military might at the ready.
Does that mean that America should have maintained our "deer in the headlights" disbelief, and allowed Russia to crush Georgia with impunity?
Of course not. We had the obligation, as did the civilized world, to intervene, just as the civilized world had an obligation to intervene when we invaded another sovereign nation only five years ago. The fact that we were the object of that ill-fated intervention, however, requires a darkly comedic rationalization in order to reconcile our rhetoric now.
I didn't hear a great deal of posturing from the French; in fact I was unaware the French were involved until I heard they had brokered a truce of sorts. Was it really the diplomacy of the French, or was it the blustering of Bush and McCain that caused the Russians to temper their assault? Or, could Russia have been telling the truth all along, i.e., their intentions were limited? Time will tell.
Georgian President Saashkavili portrays Georgia as the victim, which in retrospect, it is. Oh, and yes, as are the citizens of South Ossetia, I might add as a footnote.
This event was probably an inevitability, but its timing was the direct result of Saashkavili's own power grab, when he attacked South Ossetia with the intention of ending its 16-year status as an independent entity. The fact that Saashkavili gave Washington no advance warning of his impending move tells you something about how carelessly our allegiences have been formed, and how asleep at the wheel this administration has been in not recognizing the Russian military mobilization that must have been at the ready for months, if not years, in order to deliver the devastating force we've seen on TV the last week.
Judging from his ridiculous remarks that the U.S. was on its way to save the day by "taking control" (from the Russians) of Georgia's ports and airports - also made without preview by his U.S. benefactors - it appears to me that Saashkavili's irrational intent was a premeditated attempt to draw the United States into a direct military confrontation with Russia in order to achieve his own adventurous objectives, without regard to their effect on the rest of the world. His own little Cuban missile crisis, if you will.
But what of South Ossetia itself? What is its view of Georgia and Russia? The fact that 30,000 South Ossetians fled to Russia speaks volumes.
So, in the bigger picture, what does American democracy mean here? Does it mean that we support self-determination? Or does it mean that we support self-determination so long as it is predestined to support our own perceived interests? And if it is not so predestined, then do we echo the sentiments of Abraham Lincoln when he said he would support slavery if it would save the Union? Are we supporting the unwilling subjugation of free people if we perceive it serves our strategic interest?
If it is in our national interest to preserve Georgia's claim to South Ossetia, then it is what it is. If it is a matter of preserving access to the oil and gas that passes through Georgia, that is a legitimate concern. Clearly for the foreseeable future, oil is essential to our national survival. But please, let's not wrap ourselves in the flag of U.S. good vs. Russian evil. Russia is following OUR lead, emulating OUR example, except for one thing. Russia's attack on Georgia was not preemptive. Our attack on Iraq was.
There is evil on both sides in this conflict at the human level, and there is enough blame to go around, including our own diplomatic negligence.
So, let's not wave the flag we've tattered in Iraq. Regardless of its strategic importance, we cannot wrest South Ossetia from Russia by force. If Russia has decided South Ossetia is to be absorbed into Russia, it's a done deal, and one apparently welcomed by the South Ossetians at that.
The best we can do at this point is to patiently engage the Russians with diplomacy in order to minimize the damage. It will require a level-headed, pragmatic chief executive, not a quick draw artist. Even so, it will probably include politically requisite threats of some sort of "retaliation," but we are hardly in position to give more than lip service to that idea. The bear is sitting atop the oil barrel.
The bottom line? Call it what it is. This is about Us v. Them, not Good v. Evil. In the end it will define democracy in terms of stark reality, not in the lyrics of Francis Scott Key. We will never spread real democracy without the respect of the world, which we will never get, until we spread it by example, not flag-waving and disingenuous rhetoric. Let's face it. They've broken our code.