CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK

One of the things I have noticed about political interaction is that if you want to disarm your opponent’s ability to attack you for what you do or are about to do, you first accuse him of doing it. It’s the pot calling the kettle black as an offensive tactic.

Want to start a potentially unpopular war? Start by labeling those who might oppose you as unpatriotic. Want to establish control over a foreign country? Start by calling them unacceptably aggressive. That may be what is going on in Georgia today.

The United States celebrated the fall of the USSR and the end of the cold war, but did not stop acting as though the cold war was still in effect. Right now, the Bush administration is pointing at Russian aggression in Georgia and saying that the Russians are acting as if the cold war had never ended, but we are the country that has never stopped creating nuclear weapons. We are the nation that has sought, though NATO treaties, to arm countries near the Russian borders. Georgia is just one of those countries, but it is so close that Russia sees our arming that nation the same way we saw the USSR’s arming of Cuba in the 1960s. The dangerous difference is that this time we have leaders in both countries who are much more willing to pull the trigger than were Kennedy and Kruschev.

BushCo’s desire to establish a defensive missile system in the region feeds this fire. In fact, the BBC reported this morning on the US request to put missiles in Poland. Czechoslovakia is another chosen location, but from Russia’s perspective that system could as easily be offensive, and Georgia is far too close for their comfort. If the cold war is over, they reasonably ask, what is the need for any missile defense system in the region?

The Russian bear is also awakened by the thought that the US is trying to cut off their access to Georgia as an alternative shipping site for their oil exports. There can be no doubt that we are at least trying to protect our own access to the non-Russian pipelines of Georgia.

The third thorn in the Russian bear’s paw is Georgia’s resistance to the Russian backed revolt against the government of Georgia, which is the impetus for the Georgian president’s punitive actions. From the Russian perspective, he is holding two provinces hostage so they are acting to free them. (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/46812.html) They don’t see any difference between what they are doing in South Ossetia and what we did in Kosovo.

Given the low esteem in which the Bush administration is currently held, it would be hard pressed to drum up support at home or in Europe for any kind of military expenditures in the Central Asian region (i.e. move against Russia) and it would be a stupid thing to do anyway, but if Russia could be goaded into acting first perhaps that sentiment would change. Saakashvili knew his troops would stir the Russians to respond militarily. Could it be, then, that the whole idea is to bait Russia aggression so that BushCo could legitimize its desire to protect its Georgian oil pipelines through combined action with its NATO allies while at the same time developing a NATO ‘defensive’ missile system with the smiling approval of the American people?

Thanks to vigilant Springfieldian who keeps on top of such things and freely distributes web-based information about them, we can also check these video references and explore the question:

Nuclear war by miscalculation
F William Engdahl: The geopolitics of Georgia pt2 August 14, 2008

The geopolitics of Georgia
F William Engdahl: There are far bigger stakes being played out in Georgia than a territorial dispute August 13, 2008

Who's to blame for the Russian Georgian conflict?
Pepe Escobar: Georgia is a strategic client state of the US with close ties to the Bush administration August 12, 2008

President Saakashvili definitely overshot his bounds and overestimated the willingness of the US to confront the Russians gun for gun, but the upshot of this episode is likely to be further degradation of the American image in the eyes of its allies. From the perspective of newly acquired allies like Georgia, the US has been unable to deliver on its promise of support in the face of external aggression. All the posturing and pointing in the world will not ease their feeling that an alliance with the US is an empty gesture.

Russia is not going to gain from this either. They are coming off as viciously militaristic hardliners willing to overthrow their neighbors and risk large-scale warfare to protect their own economic interests. Unless these nations’ true motivations emerge in negotiations, this messy wound is likely to fester and might ultimately have very serious consequences.

The bottom line in politics is always that nothing is what it seems to be. Exactly what this situation really is remains to be seen, but one key to understanding political action definitely is to look first at the pot that’s doing the pointing.

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” – Patrick Henry


Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi

The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle

Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR