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

[C. G. Estabrook]

...which makes it necessary to tell (again, I think) Chomsky's Alexander the 
Great story -- which he had from St. Augustine, who had it from Cicero...:

	"If you've read 'The City of God' by St.  Augustine, you may recall that he 
describes a case where Alexander of Macedon captured a pirate.  And he asks him, 
How dare you disturb the seas with your crimes?  And the pirate responds, How 
dare you disturb the world with your crimes?  The pirate says, I have a small 
boat so I'm a thief, you have a navy so you are an emperor and not a thief.  St. 
  Augustine says that was 'an elegant and accurate response.'  And it is.  If 
you have a navy and you disturb the world you're not a terrorist.  But if you're 
small and you have a little boat, you're a terrorist.  That's essentially the 
criterion."

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19860409.htm

David Green wrote:
> Unfortunately, I think Alexander the Great might have taken this a 
> little too literally.
> 
> */"C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>/* wrote:
> 
>     Aristotle, il maestro di color che sanno ("the master of those who
>     know," as
>     Dante called him), said that there are three basic intellectual
>     activities:
>     theoria, poiesis and praxis. Theoria led to truth; poiesis, to
>     production; and
>     praxis, to action. (And practical knowledge included ethics,
>     economics and
>     politics.)
> 
>     You were being practical in the sense encouraged by one of the last
>     and greatest
>     sons of Aristotle when he observed in his Theses on Feuerbach,
>     "Philosophers
>     have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to
>     change it."
> 
>     --CGE
> 
>     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" /* 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