[Peace-discuss] NG on the Caucusus and David Green's response

Sat Aug 23 23:26:12 CDT 2008

I too was struck by David's use of the word Russian "thugs" in his  
otherwise good letter to the N-G. This was an unsavory attempt to  
appeal to U.S. prejudices. Russia had good reasons for their actions,  
and took advantage of the situation to repel American moves in  
Georgia. I'm glad they did so, and I would not have appealed to the  
"practicality" of condemning them for their actions. --mkb

On Aug 23, 2008, at 11:07 PM, David Green wrote:

> Carl--
>
> For what it's worth, although not relevant, my letter was a  
> response to an editorial that had not been published yet, and worse  
> than I could have (naively) imagined. In any event, using the word  
> "outrageous" felt like a concession when I used it, primarily to an  
> incomplete understanding of the situation. But since I was drawing  
> an analogy between Russia's behavior and U.S./Israel, I thought the  
> point would be more convincingly or at least more consistently made  
> by not condoning Russia's behavior. Given the facts as they have  
> emerged, both regarding current events and the historical context  
> (as you argue), the analogy turns out to be tenuous, in Russia's  
> favor. Nevertheless, among many News-Gazette readers it might be  
> more "practical" to promote cynicism about U.S. behavior rather  
> than support for Russian behavior. Why I chose to try to be  
> practical in this case is anyone's guess.
>
> "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
> David--
>
> I'm glad you answered the NG's stupid and dangerous editorial  
> quickly and well,
> but I'm uneasy about one line: "Russia's behavior is outrageous,  
> but no more so
> than that of the U.S. and Israel."
>
> I think one could argue that Russia's behavior was far less  
> outrageous than that
> of the US and Israel. I'm not even sure that it should be classed  
> with them, or
> perhaps even considered outrageous.
>
> After civilians (not military) in a city under its protection by  
> treaty were
> attacked and the city invaded, Russia responded with force (much  
> more limited
> force in fact than our media said).
>
> Now one might hold that every use of military force is ipso facto  
> wrong, even
> outrageous. (If so, it would seem that one could not in good  
> conscience pay
> taxes for police and the military, and there are of course absolute  
> pacifists
> who are consistent on this point.)
>
> But most people (including me and, I think, you) believe that there  
> are
> occasions in which some people have to stopped from what they're  
> doing and
> stopped quickly, and that requires the use of force. The problem  
> then becomes
> to decide under what conditions the use of force is appropriate.  
> The abstract
> description of such conclusions is the Just War Theory.
>
> A just war must at least be a response to serious aggression and a  
> last resort;
> it must have a reasonable prospect of success and cause disorder  
> not greater
> than the evil to be eliminated (jus ad bellum). Only a minimum of  
> force may be
> employed in its conduct, and a distinction must be made between  
> military and
> civilians (jus in bello).
>
> Insofar as we know the facts, Russia's recent actions in the  
> Caucasus seem to me
> to come as close to being a just war as any I can think of  
> recently. (Except
> for national liberation struggles, perhaps only the Cambodian- 
> Vietnamese War of
> 1978 qualifies.)
>
> I'm not cheering. Obviously any use of force and violence, by  
> police or
> military, is regrettable -- any man's death diminishes me (because  
> what's Donne
> is Donne?) -- but it may not be outrageous. Regards, CGE
>
>
> ===========
> Randall Cotton recotton at earthlink.net wrote--
>
> Below is yesterday's stomach-turning News-Gazoo editorial regarding  
> South
> Ossetia, which:
>
> 1. characterizes the conflict as entirely Russia's "brazen"  
> "invasion of
> neighboring Georgia"
> 2. dutifully raises the specter of "cold war" in the very first  
> sentence,
> and
> 3. neglects to even remotely mention (innocent oversight, I'm sure  
> 8-P )
> that the conflict started with Georgia's invasion of Tskhinvali in an
> attack that killed hundreds or thousands of civilians, most of whom  
> were
> probably Russian citizens.
>
> The NG editorial board would have you believe that Saakashvili's
> hare-brained, morally bankrupt military gambit never happened.
>
> After that, David's letter to the editor on the conflict that ran  
> today,
> clarifying how the conflict started and, more importantly, pointing  
> out
> the hypocrisy of the U.S. (and others) in vilifying Russia for its
> behavior.
>
> Thanks, David, for this effort.
>
> [...]
>
> U.S., Russia both act in same manner
> Wednesday August 20, 2008
>
> The United States recently supported Kosovo's independence, made  
> possible
> by our attack on Serbia in 1999. Serbian sovereignty was of no  
> account. In
> 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon in response to an assassination in  
> London,
> not by the Palestian Liberation Organization. But the PLO was  
> expelled,
> 20,000 killed and Israel occupied southern Lebanon until 2000.
>
> In 2006, in response to an incursion that killed two Israeli soldiers,
> Israel bombed Lebanon and unsuccessfully attempted to invade. In  
> all this,
> neither sovereignty nor proportion was of account. Meanwhile, the  
> U.S. has
> occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, establishing puppet regimes.
>
> In the South Ossetian region of Georgia, concurrent referenda in  
> November
> 2006 demonstrated clear divisions among the population regarding
> independence from Georgia. Last month, Georgia established a  
> commission to
> develop South Ossetia's autonomous status within Georgia.  
> Nevertheless,
> with American and Israeli weapons, and with training from Israeli  
> defense
> experts, Georgian forces invaded South Ossetia on Aug. 7, killing  
> at least
> 2,000. Russia has responded with overwhelming force, placing  
> Georgia in
> the category of Serbia and Lebanon as seen through American and  
> Israeli
> lenses.
>
> Russia's behavior is outrageous, but no more so than that of the  
> U.S. and
> Israel. There were no Hitlers in Serbia or Lebanon, anymore than  
> another
> Stalin in his native Georgia. International law respects national
> sovereignty, but major powers do only if their geopolitical  
> interests are
> served. American-backed Georgia is only remarkable in that it more  
> clearly
> initiated hostilities with no possibility of anything other than  
> American
> lip-service, while Israeli advisers quickly headed home.
>
> DAVID GREEN
>
> Champaign
>
> ###
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080823/53acfd9d/attachment-0001.htm