Georgia Vs. Russia: Answering the Moral Equivalency Critics

So far, whenever I point out someone that makes moral equivalency between the actions of Georgia and Russia, I merely point out that they are playing right into the hands of Vladimir Putin. I have so far not addressed the substance of their argument. I recently received this comment to another post.

Let's look at the facts:Georgia attacks a city with artillery and multiple rocket launchers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BM-21Then lots of Georgian tanks move in the region and reportedly kill civilians and run over people who are trying to escape.Now, let's imagine that it is not 500 russian peacekeepers are stationed there but 500 american soldiers and 90% of the civilian population of that city (around 50000) hold US citizenship and at least 1000 civilians and 20 soldiers are already dead as a result of the attack.Let's just hypothetically assume that while all this
happening, United States would go to UN to quickly get a resolution that would condemn the violence and some kind of action to stop the conflict. And after hours of delibirations by diplomats in UN nothing gets done at all, while more civilians killed.

The interesting questions to answer for yourself in this hypothetical situation.

1. Would there be any military action by the United States against the Georgia?

2. Would it matter if Georgia is a democratic country or not?

3. How proportional the american response would be?

4. Would any country support Georgia?

My answers to these questions are:

1. You bet. Current administration wouldn't even bother going to UN. The response would be quick and powerful.

2. Nobody gives a damn whether you are democracy or not if you commit these atrocities.

3. I doubt there be any buildings standing in Georgia if it would kill over 1000 americans.

4. Not only nobody would support them, I doubt that anybody would even give them any humanitarian aid at all.So why is it any different if we are talking about Russia it is bad aggressor but if it is US it is a victim that has all rights to protect itself?

Now, this particular comment pretty much sums up the justification for this moral equivalency. Of course, much like everything in geopolitics, no situation is cut and dry. There is plenty of room for partisans to spin anything. There is plenty of room for Putin apologists to report this conflict as all the fault of a devious and aggressive Georgia government. If your mind is really warped, you could even blame this crisis on Bush/Cheney. None of it would stand up to any serious examination and all frivilous explanations of this crisis hold great danger. They give Vladimir Putin more room to maneuver.

Now, let's examine the facts. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Georgia was one of many former republics that eventually gained its independence. For nearly a decade the country was ruled like a dictatorship much like the former Soviet Union under the "leadership" of Edward Shevardnadze. Shevardnadze was a former power player in the Communist Party in the Soviet Union and the Foreign Minister under the government of Mikhail Gorbachev. This government was very much a puppet of Russia. In 2003, under what was called the Rose Revolution, Shevardnadze was displaced and a fairly democratic government took over. That new government was lead by Mikheil Saakashvilli. Saakashvilli was educated in the West. He is fluent in English, and Georgia began moving rather briskly from dictatorship to democracy. For many reasons, this new government became a great ally of the West and mainly the United States.

The Rose Revolution occurred at roughly the same time as the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine. That dynamic had many similarities to the one in Georgia in which the government moved from dictatorship puppet of Russia to a Democracy. That revolution nearly stalled when its leader, Viktor Yuschenko was poisoned and nearly died. While there has never been definitive proof who was responsible there continues to be strong suspicion that the Russian government lead by Vladimir Putin was involved.

While the former Soviet Satellites were moving from dictatorship to Democracy, Russia had nearly the exact opposite dynamic. Vladimir Putin was consolidating power into his own hands internally. Furthermore, oil skyrocketed and brought great wealth to his nation. To Putin, his greatest threat was a thriving Democracy on his border.

Meanwhile the province of South Ossetia, within Georgia had long attempted to maintain independence from the government of Georgia. The make up of the population was mostly loyal to Russia and they had long formed their own autonomous government. The province had also long had paramilitary operating within its borders outside of any recognized government. The situation is further complicated because Russia maintained a few thousand peace keepers in South Ossetia.

Then, on August 6th, 2008, Saakashvilli sent in Georgian military to confront the paramilitary loyal to South Ossetia. Now, it has become a topic of great debate just how wise this move was. Furthermore, some have claimed that it came without the blessing of the United States. While all of that can be debated, in my opinion, for the purposes of this discussion it is still totally irrelevant.

In two days, the Russians sent in an organized and overwhelming force to as Putin put it "protect their peace keepers". As long time military man Ralph Peters clearly points out this operation was well planned and coordinated and thus it is extremely unlikely it wasn't long planned. Of course, within days, Russia was moving well into other areas of Georgia long out of the reach of merely protecting their peac keepers. The rest of course continues to unfold nearly in real time.

Now, then, the argument is that Georgia was in fact the aggressor. They bombed villagers and Russia was only moving to protect their interests from an unwarranted attack. Furthermore, had the U.S. been in a similar position we would do that and more.

Of course, this entire argument would be silly if its ramifications weren't so silly. First of all, it's very important to understand what Mr. Peters, retired but long standing military professional, has to say.

The Kremlin decided it was time to act, since Georgia was only growing stronger under its democratically elected government. Although NATO has been hemming and hawing about admitting Georgia, the Russians didn't want to take any chances. (Just last month, 1,000 US troops were in Georgia for an exercise.)

Calculating that the media and world leaders would be partying in Beijing, the Russians ordered North Ossetian militiamen, backed by Russian "peacekeepers" and mercenaries, to provoke the Georgians earlier this month.

Weary of the Russian presence on their soil, the Georgians took the bait. President Mikheil Saakashvili ordered his US-trained military to respond.

That was the excuse the Kremlin wanted. Immediately, a tank brigade from Russia's 58th Army (the butchers of Chechnya) crossed the international border into Poland - sorry, I meant Georgia.

How do I know that the Russians set a trap? Simple: Given the wretched state of Russian military readiness, that brigade could never have shot out of its motor pool on short notice. The Russians obviously "task-organized" the force in advance to make sure it would have working tanks with competent crews.

Otherwise, broken-down vehicles would've lined those mountain roads. The Russians planned it. And they hope to push it to the limit

Peters correctly paints a devious leader that had long planned such an operation and was merely looking for an excuse to execute it. In other words, it's clear to any military student that this wasn't merely an operation in response to world events, but one carefully planned. Putin's motives are of course important but they aren't the only thing we should focus. Furthermore, Putin's invasion and explanation are dangerously similary to that of Hitler's actions and explanations in Sudetenland.

What's most important here is that whatever happened between Georgia and the rebels in South Ossetia that was an internal conflict. That is a Civil War. Russia had no reason to interject into another country's Civil War. If this was always merely about the peace keepers, their force would have been much smaller and their tour much shorter. As such, it is blatant aggression, bully tactics of a weaker opponent, and most importantly a totally ilegal act of war.

Now then, the other argument is that if the shoe were on the other foot, the U.S. would act as aggressively and worse. Of course, that hypothetical is difficult to answer since there is no U.S. military presence that is similar to what the Russians have in Georgia.

Let's say for the sake of argument though that the Italian government sent in troops to confront a paramilitary operation in one of their provinces and their happened to be U.S. troop presence caught in the cross fire. It's likely we would send in troops to remove our forces from trouble. That said, there is no way that our troops would then continue on with an operation deep into Italy. We would not cut the country in two. We would not violate multiple cease fires. We would not demand the removal of the government before we negotiated, and we certainly wouldn't find ourselves on the edge of Rome.

Furthermore, there is another moral equivalency argument that says the U.S. is in no position to lecture another country about invasions because the U.S. invaded Iraq. This absurd argument would also be silly if it weren't so dangerous. Saddam Hussein was an evil tyrant. Furthermore, he had invaded Kuwait. After that invasion, the U.S. lead a coalition of military under the umbrella of the United Nations. When the UN beat Hussein back, he signed an agreement with the UN. He agreed to many different conditions and if any of those were broken, that meant a resumption of war. He then proceeded to violate said agreement seventeen times until the U.S. finally decided to actually enforce this agreement and removed him from power. To compare Russia's act of naked aggression to our removal of Saddam is dangerously absurd.

The morally equivalent argument would make such a hypothetical a reality. While the world is much more gray than black and white, there is more often than not good guys and bad guys. Here, the world must recognize the good guys and the bad guys. Moral equivalency in a time of war is not acceptable.