Truth Or Untruth? Who Really Cares?


As I have written elsewhere, I don't really care who started the fight in Caucasus a few weeks ago, only that we pay attention to the signal that the Russians were trying to send by going into Georgia in force the way they did. But I can't not happen to highlight this interesting giveaway graf in the Times today:

He [Saakashvilli] also said that the Bush administration had not communicated disappointment or signaled a decline in its support for him since he gave the order on Aug. 7 to attack Tskhinvali, the South Ossetian capital.

I don't know about you but that's a pretty clear cut admission of who started what, if you ask me. That the Russians were prepared? No doubt. That the Russians might have somehow provoked it remains highly plausible. That they were ready to take advantage of some stupidity emanating from the neo-con bluster-industrial complex? Certainly so.

But there it is, on the record: the implication is that the US gave him a green light and he 'gave the order.' It doesn't get much clearer than that. Georgia picked a fight it was unprepared to finish and is still acting pretty belligerent, to boot. Not a good combination. I'd not be surprised if the Russians decided the lesson hadn't quite been learned. And next time it might be a lot uglier. Georgia should take Josh's advice: they would be "ill-advised to act as if they are anything but beaten." And I'd add, they need to learn how to get along with their giant next door neighbor.


Sean Paul Kelley August 25, 2008 - 4:20am

what do you think the chances are that a US base is in the future for Georgia?

Tina August 25, 2008 - 6:03am

The Russians are there and it's clear that they aren't pulling out. If the next president is Obama there will be a diplomatic solution that recognizes Russia's requirement for strategic depth at least implicitly. If McInsane is the next president, stand by for lots more bluster, but nothing is going to happen without the US calling up a draft. The US doesn't have enough troops to set up a credible base in Georgia and the NATO "allies" going to provoke Europe's energy supplier either.

Oh, BTW, the Russians have already explicitly stated that if the US uses its high tech precision weapons against them tactically, they will reply with tactical nukes to cancel the advantage. Why would the US put itself at the mercy of Georgian hotheads provoking the Russians and starting WIII with US troops in the mix.

tjfxh August 25, 2008 - 9:53am

even counseling intelligent discussion on the subject.
I'm not sure where any Obama hope comes from on this issue.

Plus

"Separately, the White House on Monday announced that Vice President Dick Cheney would visit the region from Sept. 2, stopping in Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine and Italy to discuss the crisis."

wtf is Cheney up to now? It's usually before some warfare heats up.

As usual Condi had her shot first and fouled it up.


"The mythical John McCain is an affable, straight-talking, moderately conservative war hero who is an expert on foreign policy" - Bob Herbert

nymole August 25, 2008 - 10:38am

He'll visit the area to take orders for arms, I believe ..... so he'll have enough dough for his upcoming retirement :)


"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote

adrena August 25, 2008 - 5:45pm

Why would the US put itself at the mercy of Georgian hotheads provoking the Russians and starting WIII with US troops in the mix.

Since the US is already at the mercy of Israeli hotheads the world definitely doesn't need another potential Armageddon.


"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote

adrena August 25, 2008 - 6:01pm

The reaction of the Russians to the Bush "Idiocy De Jour" and to a possible US base in Georgia was and would be no different than that of America if Canada were to allow Russia to build a military base in Canada. The Georgian have sowed, and they shall reap the bitter harvest.

lesbrost August 25, 2008 - 10:18am

Honor, and international treaties/treaty obligations aren't viewed in the same manner as they were in 1914, and we may thank the Flying Spaghetti monster for that.....we'd have been in 3 more wars (at least) since Korea because of treaty entanglements.

hmmmm.....maybe we have already--re-interpretation of Presidential power is that the President can order troops into combat without a Congressional declaration of War.....leading to such idiocy as Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, and both Gulf Wars.

Ever notice that with the exception of Korea, all our little military adventures were started by Republican presidents (Vietnam-> Eisenhower, Grenada->Reagan, Panama and 1st gulf War->Bush41, 2nd GulfWar and Afghanistan-> Bush43). I don't see Serbia the same way--we never committed ground troops, and Somalia--well....maybe it's the exception to prove the rule (Clinton=Republican lite)..

-5.75,-4.05
"God gives men a brain and a penis, and only enough blood to run one at a time." -- Robin Williams

justadood August 25, 2008 - 11:15am

Serbia is Clinton's, but U.S. troops landed in Somalia on December 9, 1992, sent in by Bush 41.

nihil obstet August 25, 2008 - 11:23am

is pretty clear on that one.

“Is not our first thought to go on the road? The road is our source, our vault of treasures, our wealth. Only on the road does the ‘traveller’ feel like himself, at home.”
Ryszard Kapuscinski

Sean Paul Kelley August 25, 2008 - 10:47pm

I would agree Kennedy had the choice to snuff that tiny US involvement but instead chose to [formally] bring it just above the radar. You could, in that way, properly call the 'inception' his. But it's not as if Eisenhower had nothing going on there. Further, I believe he'd inherited that from Truman. Truly, it was Kennedy's call for communist containment that fanned the spark. (As it was, in the mid 20th century history was rushing forth rather quickly in general and technologically in particular, but that's just my 2 cents.)

History?

Here's two broad simplistic accounts and a third more detailed:

http://www.cyberessays.com/History/103.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch26.htm

One gives one impression, the other another, while the third shows why it's a muddle. Ain't it always that way!

Zuma August 27, 2008 - 11:58pm

...as something a good deal more than "bringing it just above the radar". The number of advisors in-country increased ten-fold and the nature and scope of the assistance being offered changed significantly. They went from something on the order of 1,500 advisors to 13-14,000 during the period and started being up to their neck in whiz kids - add to that the fact that it started eating up significant chunks of specifically POTUS attention, and it adds up to a pretty good size escalation. In a very real way it was then that the seeds were sown for the escalation to large-scale involvement of conventional forces. My take is the shifts are big, they just don't look so big from the perspective of the subsequent Johnson shifts. MHO, there's clearly a trajectory that goes back all the way to WWII, but it's during the Kennedy administration when the involvement curve really starts getting steep and the whole thing starts to generate its own momentum.

The whole issue's not terribly clear in my mind, largely given that "who started this" is a somewhat spurious question (they all did, of course), but my sense is that it's really during the Kennedy period when they start thinking that they "can't" walk away, that the consequences and [somewhat later] sunk costs are too high - developing that sense of somehow being prisoner to your alliances and not being able to do what one otherwise would, that seems to me to be key.

All this to broadly be in agreement! ;)

"A survey data set containing imputed values should not be analyzed uncritically as if all the data were real values." ~ Graham Kalton

JustPlainDave August 28, 2008 - 8:10am

http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/2008-155-8.cfm

"The devastating Russian military retaliation occasioned by President Mikheil Saakashvili's disastrous miscalculation in launching an offensive against South Ossetia during the night of August 7-8 initially impelled the entire nation to close ranks behind the beleaguered leadership. But some observers anticipate that the show of solidarity will be short-lived, and that some Georgians may seek to hold Saakashvili responsible for the economic damage and needless loss of life that resulted from his actions."

. . . .

"Other opposition figures, however, have made clear that their restraint will not last indefinitely. Levan Gachechiladze, who according to official returns placed second to Saakashvili in the January 2008 preterm presidential ballot, was quoted by ft.com on August 15 as saying the opposition will campaign for preterm elections (it is not clear whether he meant presidential, or parliamentary, or both) to be held 'at the earliest opportunity,' possibly within two months. Kakha Kukava, leader of the Conservative Party that backed Gachechiladze's failed presidential bid, similarly affirmed that once tensions abate, his party will call for mass demonstrations aimed at ousting the current leadership. He castigated Saakashvili for embarking on 'a war we could not win.'"

liquid August 25, 2008 - 11:46am

If the US gave the Georgians a green light then that would imply that the US deliberately broke the Olympic truce. Not only broke it, but deliberately used the Olympics as a cover. And it would appear that both Bush and Putin knew what was about to happen at the very moment that they were sitting next to each other at the opening ceremony. Very weird.

jonbrown August 25, 2008 - 12:31pm

either in Georgia or the Middle East....since Cheney is headed toward the region. Or am I too cynical?


"The mythical John McCain is an affable, straight-talking, moderately conservative war hero who is an expert on foreign policy" - Bob Herbert

nymole August 25, 2008 - 3:46pm

The GOP is desperately, and I do mean *DESPERATELY* looking for a way to deflect attention from the Democratic Convention.

I've already seen a news bit that a US Navy vessel is in the Black Sea headed for Georgia.....I'm wondering if we're seeing the groundwork being laid for a Gulf of Tonkin incident.....

-5.75,-4.05
"God gives men a brain and a penis, and only enough blood to run one at a time." -- Robin Williams

justadood August 25, 2008 - 4:32pm

There is this from the AP:

"Angering Russia, the U.S. sent the missile destroyer USS McFaul to the southern Georgian port of Batumi, well away from the conflict zone, to deliver 34 tons of humanitarian aid on Sunday. The McFaul left Batumi on Tuesday but would remain in the Black Sea area, said Commander Scott Miller, a spokesman for the U.S. Navy's 6th Fleet in Naples, Italy. The U.S. Coast Guard cutter Dallas, meanwhile, was headed for Georgia with a shipment of aid. It may try to enter Poti."

hvd August 26, 2008 - 2:47pm

Pick on people your own size...

Synoia August 25, 2008 - 5:56pm

it's always good to know who did what, when, where, and how. It helps with future strategic planning ... and that includes planning for peace. Just my opinion.


"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote

adrena August 25, 2008 - 6:17pm

His story:

He said that information came in late on August 7 that Russian military hardware was rolling through Roki Tunnel into South Ossetia. He said that Georgia, in observation of existing agreements, had no heavy arms in the Georgian-controlled areas of the breakaway region.

“So the only way to stop their [Russian forces and South Ossetian militias] movement into Georgian villages was to use medium-size artillery for blowing up the bridge at Didi Gupta and for [closing] the road coming from Roki Tunnel… So as soon as they [the Russian tanks] started to roll into South Ossetia we started firing on the road [at Roki Tunnel]; at the same time we were responding to fire coming from the South Ossetian positions including from the center of Tskhinvali, their government headquarters and from their Defense Ministry,” he said.

Petronius August 25, 2008 - 6:43pm

we'll probably never know what actually transpired. One thing we do know for sure is that the Bush/Cheney regime provoked Russia by penetrating into their strategic depth after being forewarned.

tjfxh August 25, 2008 - 7:41pm

or a CYA in light of his crumbling political career.

liquid August 25, 2008 - 9:57pm

of pre-emptive war, that's what it sounds like to me. Sounds also like he fell right into the Russians trap and the US probably provided the satellite intel to the Georgian's for its own purposes. Perhaps to get the Poles to finally finalize negotiations for that, er, missile shield?

“Is not our first thought to go on the road? The road is our source, our vault of treasures, our wealth. Only on the road does the ‘traveller’ feel like himself, at home.”
Ryszard Kapuscinski

Sean Paul Kelley August 25, 2008 - 10:50pm

...the Bush Doctrine is exceptional in that it embraces preventive war - pre-emptive war is both somewhat more defensible and more narrowly defined. IMHO pre-emptive war is what Saakashvilli believed himself to be waging - the speed of the Russian response tells me there's something to support that notion (dunno whether there was prior movement or they were at "cocked pistol" status, but they were damned sure at heightened readiness).

Not a great move, as events have demonstrated. Interesting how pre-emptive war tends to sow those types of seeds, even if they do sometimes take a while to germinate. *cough* IDF *cough*

"A survey data set containing imputed values should not be analyzed uncritically as if all the data were real values." ~ Graham Kalton

JustPlainDave August 25, 2008 - 11:13pm

On Aug 8, Georgian forces hit the South Ossetian capital of Tsinkvali in response – Tbilisi claims – to attacks on ethnic Georgian villages by Ossetian irregular forces, despite widespread warnings from its allies not to engage in any behaviour that might give the Russians an excuse to act.

That attack, most agree, turned into a grave miscalculation on the part of the Georgians and quickly led to the current Russian occupation.

“We knew they were setting us up, but we had people coming under fire, villages being shelled with mortars, lives were being lost,” the Georgian official said. “If we didn’t act in some way, we couldn’t really call ourselves the Georgian government anymore and would have lost our credibility in the eyes of the Georgian people. Without diplomatic pressure, we had two terrible choices and [Saakashvili] had to pick one direction.”
More


"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote

adrena August 26, 2008 - 12:07am

I thought I heard that name somewhere... and that "vili" suffix....

Stalin. He was born in Gori.

Excerpt (from memory) from a book on Stalin I'm reading...

One of the few public festivals in Gori celebrated the historical withdrawal of the persians by a mass fist fight. The fight would be started by the children and spread to the adults. Soso (Stalin's original name) had a reputation of doing well..

That and many other bits suggest that Gori may be more pain than gain to the Russians.

Do they really want to keep it? :-)

John Carter August 26, 2008 - 5:41am
Tina August 26, 2008 - 9:45am

of Putin. Orchestrate the whole thing and then make it look like Georgia started it. The West off course, not wanting to antagonize Russia even further, is keeping up the pretense. Like I said, he's a genius. Not that I really care who started it, mind you :)


"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote

adrena August 26, 2008 - 5:24pm

Alan Philps reveals the careful calculations behind Vladimir Putin’s attack on Georgia


"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote

adrena August 26, 2008 - 8:03pm

Spiegel Online : Eduard Shevardnadze, former Soviet foreign minister and president of Georgia prior to being overthrown by Mikhail Saakashvili, says that both sides made mistakes in the lead up to the war between Georgia and Russia. But NATO, he says, made one of the decisive errors.

story at link


"The mythical John McCain is an affable, straight-talking, moderately conservative war hero who is an expert on foreign policy" - Bob Herbert

nymole August 26, 2008 - 10:59pm

Uwe Klussmann | Tskhinvali |Aug 26

Spiegel Online -

When Georgian forces moved into the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali on Aug. 7, they underestimated the Ossetians' determination to resist them. Young men opened fire with Kalashnikovs and teenagers hurled petrol bombs at tanks. Now the local Russian-sponsored regime is triumphant.


Anyone who wants to know what Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili's word is worth can see it in the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali these days.

On the afternoon of August 7, Saakashvili, speaking in the Georgian capital Tbilisi, said he had "given the very painful order not to return fire" if South Ossetians fired upon Georgian security forces. He ended his speech with the appeal: "Let us stop the spiral of fear. Give peace and dialogue a chance."

A few hours later, hours of artillery bombardment reduced apartment blocks into ruins, wrecked cars and turned gardens into shell holes.

The following morning Georgian warplanes flew bombing runs to complete the destruction. Then tanks arrived to "restore the constitutional order," as Saakashvili put it -- an order that never existed in South Ossetia.

When the Soviet Union was dissolved, three de facto states emerged on the territory of the former Soviet Republic of Georgia: South Ossetia and Abkhazia and the new Georgia, which succeeded in becoming a member of the United Nations with the old borders drawn by Stalin.

South Ossetians can't understand people who call them "separatists." They say they never broke away from Georgia because they never joined the new country when it was formed after the Soviet Union collapsed.

It's impossible to find anyone in this part of the world who can seriously imagine the territory being a part of Georgia in future. What much of the world is labelling as "separatism" is in fact the yearning for autonomy by a small people that was divided against its wishes.

In Soviet times, the north of Ossetia -- now part of the Russian Federation -- and South Ossetia were divided only by an invisible administrative line. But since 1992 a state border has separated brothers, sisters, parents and children. Violent attempts by Georgian nationalists to suppress the South Ossetians prompted the mountain people to close itself off within an unrecognized republic, like in a bunker.

A cease-fire with the Georgians agreed in 1992 brought Russian peacekeeping forces into the country, at the request of both the Georgians and the Ossetians. The cease-fire lasted 12 years until Saakashvili came to power in 2004. As soon as he was elected with a suspicious 96 percent of the vote and with Washington's blessings, he started holding heated speeches about "criminal separatists." A first military attack by Georgian troops failed in August 2004 due to stiff resistance from South Ossetia and because the US, unlike now, put a stop to Saakashvili's adventure.

The invaders who rode into the destroyed town of Tskinvhali on the morning of Aug. 8 in US jeeps wore US-made uniforms and helmets. Many of them were trained by US officers or served in Iraq as brothers-in-arms of the Americans.

They quickly realised that they weren't facing just a "few dozen separatists" as Saakashvili had claimed. The attitude of South Ossetia's youth can be summed up by what student Julia Beteyeva of the University of Tskhinvali told SPIEGEL back in June 2004: "One can only take our republic away from us by killing us."

more at link


"The mythical John McCain is an affable, straight-talking, moderately conservative war hero who is an expert on foreign policy" - Bob Herbert

nymole August 26, 2008 - 11:20pm

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.