| | This article is the report on a speech made by a political candidate running for office - and it is a candidate I don't like (although I like Obama far less). That is the context.
I'm reading the article and I see that the first justification for a call to action in this foreign affair is about Georgia as "...one of the world's first nations to adopt Christianity as an official religion." Would it have been as stirring for our populace had it been the first to adopt Buddhism, or Islam as an official religion? And what does this tell us about someone who intends to uphold a constitution which stands clearly opposed to the joining of church and state. Does that mean Georgia is a bad country, No. Nor does it make it a good country - what it does is make McCain intellectually unqualified for the office he seeks.
I don't know the history of the interactions in Georgia, but I know that the rolling of the Russian tanks is not the first incident. And I know that there is more to the story when I read this in the article: "Whatever tensions and hostilities might have existed between Georgians and Ossetians..." And when I read, "Yesterday Georgia withdrew its troops from South Ossetia..." I am NOT claiming that Russia wasn't an aggressor, but only that reading that article raised warning flags for me rather than making we want to jump onto a band wagon.
The article accuses Russia of behaving in an intimidating fashion against states like the Ukraine. This is clearly true, but not the whole story. When NeoCons, other conservatives, and hawks of different stripes call for including these states in NATO it is a kind of threat against Russia. If Russia put together a NATO like organizaton whose main purpose was to commit all to war against the US if any are attacked by the US and started signing up Venezuela, Cuba, Mexico, etc., we would NOT be happy. We are not Russia and we would NOT then go about attacking another country, but it would shift our stance and the style of interactions that followed. Threats do that. Again, before someones declares that I'm an appeaser or troll, I'm just saying this is more complex and deserves more thought than some people posting here are giving it.
Is it in the best interest of the United States to remain in NATO? Look at the context in which NATO was born when the purpose was to protect Europe from a war of aggression that might have been waged by the Soviet Union and would have pulled us into it - hence WW III. We decided that the risk of WW III was justifiable because NATO was more likely to prevent that war than to bring us into it (especially given that we would be brought into it anyway). Today's Russia is not the Soviet Union of the Cold War. Further, the proposed NATO is not the old NATO. If we keep adding nations to NATO with the only exception being Russia, it is threatening Russia and making us partners with some nations that I don't want to go to war for. No honorable nation makes an agreement like that lightly or without the intention of standing by it. I seriously question the very idea of committing our nation to what could easily become a nuclear world war over the defense of another country that might be corrupt, or even at wrong in the triggering incident. Even if the other NATO country is in the right and good country, we should not enter agreements in a spirit of sacrifice - or a sense of duty. No, we should only be in Treaties that can be demonstrated to be in our self-interest now and in the future, especially before we give over what amounts to a degree of sovereignty. How is this new NATO in the interest of our nation? And why wouldn't this be a reasonable question to ask?
We now live in different times and I maintain that if we continue of the path paved by the neo-cons, and cheered on by various conservatives and hawks, we will end up creating a new cold war and that it will have been unnecessary.
The article calls for sending "...immediate economic and humanitarian assistance to help mitigate the impact the invasion has had on the people of Georgia." This is another case in the absolutely endless possible calls for the government to decide to send tax payer monies to some good cause. Charity can only be moral when it is voluntary.
Ted implies that the Wikipedia article on Kitty Genovese is applicable to my response. That article deals with otherwise good people doing nothing while an innocent woman was killed - the article goes on to point to the theory of "diffusion of responsibility" which is a psychological reaction seen in some individuals when in a group setting... kind of a "not my job" attitude. No one assumes responsibility. Ted clearly has one thing right - this is about responsibility. Is our government responsible for intervening in Georgia, if so to what degree, and according to what principles - that is the approach that should be taken.
For example, what are the principles by which one decides if a corporate CEO should commit a publicly owned company to supporting a political position that isn't required or even related to profitability - we see a lot of this with "Going Green" - or what about that CEO making large charitable donations beyond what could be seen as marketing. We agree that the CEO exceeded his responsibilities and acted without proper authority. We look at the basic principles of property and the mission statement of the corporation to determine that. Should our government be involved in charity? Should our government fight here or there to support this or that ideology? Which ones, under what conditions? Again, we need to go to the basic principles to answer these questions.
That is the reasoned approach to this area. I don't feel impelled to jump on a political bandwagon as a result of a campaign speech, by a candidate sorely lacking in what a president of this country should know, that invokes Christianity as a state religion, sacrifice and duty (two of McCain's most touted virtues), and the absence of any discussion of the broader political context or the ethical and constitutional issues.
But then according to my critics, I'm just an appeaser and troll looking to avoid any moral responsibility.
|
|
