On the War in South Ossetia

We are busy in Iraq and we are not capable of going to war with Russia in support of Georgia. Georgian nationalism is not a cause worth fighting for; the integrity of sovereign Georgia against Russian militarism is worth protesting, but not the bones of a single Kentucky infantryman. There should be grave diplomatic consequences for Russia if it does not withdraw, perhaps economic ones, but that is that. I would even be careful about military resupply of Georgia. We should also calibrate our objections: a Russian occupation of South Ossetia is less objectionable than either a Russian advance into the rest of Georgia or a Russian annexation of South Ossetia. Our responses should be in Europe: organizing economic sanctions against Russia with Europe; increasing the supply of new gas lines, nuclear plants, etc., that will secure the energy independence of Europe from Russia; and--most importantly--moving more NATO forces into the Baltic States, Poland, and Romania, to emphasize that these are no longer in the Russian sphere of influence, even if Georgia is. If we can somehow trap the Russians into a debilitating occupation of some part of Georgia, the equivalent of their Chechen and Afghan horrorshows, then at least we can make lemonade from lemons.

This, at least, I have learned from our Iraq adventure: American power is limited. Spineless pacifism is not the correct policy for America, but we can't do everything, and we have to set priorities. The Muslim threat is a priority. Nuclear weapons are a priority. Iraq and Iran, therefore, are where America needs to focus its energies. We should maintain our commitments to defend Europe and Japan/South Korea/Taiwan--but to take up new ones? In the Russian sphere of influence? In a war between Christians, rather than on the frontier between Islam and the rest of the world? This isn't our battle. Let the Russians overextend themselves this time, not us. Send Stinger missiles, maybe, but that's it. A war of choice, as the lefties put it, can be the right thing to do--but more than one at a time is courting disaster.

Oh, and FLG keeps asking what NATO is for. The answer is: to keep Russia out of Norway, Finland, the Baltic States, Poland, and Romania, and to provide support for keeping Ukraine neutral. Russia is a lesser threat than the USSR was, and NATO is correspondingly less important, but it still serves a useful function. But interventions in Afghanistan need not be under the NATO umbrella.