Midnight Train to Georgia

The war in Georgia continues apace, with all signs pointing to a massive Russian victory. This is surprising to nobody who was paying attention for most of the twentieth century. Russia’s got a good army. Oh, it’s not as good as America’s, but it’s good, especially when they’re fighting on terrain familiar to them.

Georgia is territory familiar to them. It was part of the Soviet Empire until the breakup of the USSR, and gave the Soviets Iosef Jughashvili, who changed his last name to the Russian word for steel — “сталь,” or transliterated, “Stalin.”

It’s clear at this point that the Russians are going for broke, perhaps pushing all the way to Tblisi, and probably trying to force out the government of Mikheil Saakashvili, whose catastrophic decision to invade South Ossetia proves once again that the most famous of the classic blunders is famous for a reason.

Now, the U.S. has been on good terms with Georgia; they’ve sent troops to Iraq, we’ve been considering extending NATO protection to them; as such, the neocon brigade is vigorously chanting “Munich”as per usual, and demanding America vigorously defend Georgia, because, as the Wrongest Man Ever says:

Georgia, a nation of about 4.6 million, has had the third-largest military presence — about 2,000 troops — fighting along with U.S. soldiers and marines in Iraq. For this reason alone, we owe Georgia a serious effort to defend its sovereignty. Surely we cannot simply stand by as an autocratic aggressor gobbles up part of — and perhaps destabilizes all of — a friendly democratic nation that we were sponsoring for NATO membership a few months ago.

For that matter, consider the implications of our turning away from Georgia for other aspiring pro-Western governments in the neighborhood, like Ukraine’s. Shouldn’t we therefore now insist that normal relations with Russia are impossible as long as the aggression continues, strongly reiterate our commitment to the territorial integrity of Georgia and Ukraine, and offer emergency military aid to Georgia?

Christ, no.

Look, Georgia has an argument to make about South Ossetia, though to be fair, so do the Russians. It probably would have been better for everyone if there had been an independent security force there instead of a Russian one; it probably would be better if the Russians would stop handing out Russian passports to anyone in Tskhinvali who wants one. Heck, South Ossetia is in Georgian national boundaries; they’re allowed to try to take it back.

But that doesn’t make it a good idea, and when the troops of Russia — a declining power, yes, but still the regional hegemon — are guarding it, that makes it an even worse idea. Saakashvili made a huge, reckless gamble, and is paying for it, big time.

America likes Saakashvili; we like Georgia. We like the idea of a democratic NATO member in a former SSR (indeed, we’re going to have them in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia). All of that is swell. But the truth of the matter is that providing material military support for the Georgians would be a catastrophic mistake by the U.S.

America avoided engaging in direct military action against the Soviet Union from 1945 until the end of the Cold War in 1991. When we did support opponents to the Soviets, it was as in Afghanistan — behind the scenes, with plausible deniability aplenty. We didn’t get directly involved in a shooting war with the Soviets because, well, we didn’t want to die. And a shooting war with the Soviets was going to involve mass death on an unimaginable scale, certainly the end of modern civilization, possibly the extinction of the human race.

Now, I don’t know as the Russians would swing their missiles back away from the oceans and toward us if we started running supplies to the Georgians. But I do know that they could, and that alone should stop this idea cold. I like liberty, I like democracy, but I also like life and modern civilization.

Even if the Russians don’t go nuclear, we’d still be backing a small nation on the Russian border, one with 1/20th the military might as its larger neighbor. We’d be doing so in the face of a blockade in the Black Sea, with Turkey the only possible overland route in. Would we do an airlift? If so, what do we do when a U.S. plane gets taken down by Russian anti-aircraft fire? Do we really want to get involved in a hot war with Russia? Really?

Look, I’ll admit that to some extent, this leaves the U.S. with few good options. We can send sternly-worded diplomatic notes, maybe look into a boycott against Russia, or use other diplomatic levers against the Russians until they guarantee the sovereignty of Georgia. We should be vocal in saying that Georgia has a right to exist as a free and independent nation.

But the truth is that our options beyond that are simply not good. Risking involvement in a hot war with Russia is, to put it charitably, the dumbest idea advanced in foreign policy since Hitler decided to open up the Eastern front. Yes, dumber than Iraq. Dumber even than Vietnam, catastrophic though it was. Quite simply, there’s no good outcome for the U.S. if we start down the path of military intervention. The best possible outcome — a third war to fight, billions more dollars down the tubes, and a revival of Cold War brinksmanship, all to save Georgia from itself — isn’t all that great. The worst possible outcome is something I don’t want to think about right now. It’s nice to mouth platitudes about defending democracy wherever it flowers, but the truth is that for a myriad of reasons, it would be insanely foolish for the U.S. to get involved in this conflict. It may not have the visceral fun of imagining American planes raining down bombs on Grozny; indeed, knowing that we’re powerless to intervene militarily in Georgia is a hollow, empty feeling. But if the Iraq war has proven anything, it’s that sometimes, it’s better to realize early that sending in the troops isn’t the answer. And in this case, it decidedly is not.