OpEdNews » When a Bad President Sets a Bad Precedent for a Bad President

Support OEN
With Your
Tax-Deductible Donation

Tags for This Article:

Populum Tag Cloud Control Panel
	Fine tune your search to access content

Articles	Links
Diaries	Products
Events	All

All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs

From:
Month Day Year

To:
Month Day Year

Alphabet Popularity	Count ON Count OFF
This Level	Sub-levels

Tag(s): 9-11; Foreign Policy Failure Iraq; Georgia Russia Conflict; Government; Invasion; Medvedev; NATO; Poland; Provocation; Russia; (more...) Security; Survival; Violence; WMDs; War Iraq; War Nuclear (less...)
Add to My Group

August 16, 2008 at 12:27:51

Headlined on 8/16/08:
When a Bad President Sets a Bad Precedent for a Bad President

by Curt Day Page 1 of 1 page(s)

www.opednews.com

SAVE FAVORITES

VIEW FAVORITES

View Ratings | Rate It

One of Martin Luther King’s objections to the Vietnam War was that the War sabotaged his preaching of nonviolence. King told us of how young people would reply to him saying why shouldn’t they use violence to solve their problems when our government uses the same in Vietnam(see King's sermon against the Vietnam War)?

At this point, we might want to point out another fringe detriment to our War on Iraq. We already are experiencing a reallocation of national wealth resulting in a decaying infrastructure and increased domestic needs, a dangerous budgetary deficit, a spike in world terrorism, and an increase in terrorist recruits. In addition, the Iraqis now have a war-torn country to live in with up to 1.3 million dead and approximately 4.7 million forced from their homes. On the other hand, violence has significantly decreased during the past few months.

But an often ignored problem caused by the war is the example we have left for the rest of the world. Now it certainly does not bother us when a friend imitates our actions by attacking countries without due process. This is because they are often doing our bidding. So when Columbia violates Ecuador’s sovereignty when chasing FARC gorillas or when Israel continues to brutally occupy and even confiscate Palestinian land or invades Lebanon, we are not disturbed. But let a non-satellite country do what we did and we self-righteously condemn all invasions of sovereign nations. We are providing a classic example of taking exception at the behavior of others while taking our actions for granted.

What kind of precedent did President Bush’s invasion of Iraq set? What Bush did by invading Iraq was to act as if he was not accountable to any group or law. As a result, Bush was free to act as if his accusations were verdicts and thus he pronounced and executed a sentence. Bush showed that if a country is strong enough, it could do what it wants to others with impunity.

Do we not see the same approach being practiced by Russia in Georgia? Russia accused Georgia of wrongdoing and acted accordingly. Because Russia is powerful enough to overpower Georgia and its nuclear arsenal is an effective deterrent that keeps all other nations from intervening, Russia can act with impunity.

There is no doubt that what President Medvedev and Russia are doing in Georgia is immoral and criminal. But, unlike our invasion of Iraq, there is a historical context that can provide insight into its actions. Russia has suffered major invasions from the West in both the 19th and 20th centuries losing 10s of millions of people. President George H. W. Bush promised not move NATO East in exchange for the reunification of Germany. But it did not take America long to treat the Russians like it treated its own Indians as President Clinton expanded NATO eastward (see Chomsky article on Capitalism, Europe and the WB and Chomsky article on We Own The World). Bush continued Clinton’s expansion that now can possibly include Georgia. If we add to NATO’s eastward expansion the real significance of the proposed missile defense system for Europe, including Eastern European nations, that such a system is considered a first strike weapon (see Chomsky article on missile defense) , we see that Russia has real reasons for feeling angst. We see this angst come to the surface as Russia is now threatening Poland with possibly a nuclear strike if Poland accepts a US missile interceptor base (see article on Russian threat). So when we add the precedent set by our own invasion, Russia’s invasion of Georgia, though immoral, is logical.

The opportunity that America missed by attacking and invading Iraq without using the due process afforded by the international community was to lead by example. Imagine what kind of influence we could have wielded if we responded to the 9-11 attacks by adhering to international law and allowing ourselves to accountable to others for our words and actions. We could then legitimately challenge Russia to observe international law by respecting the sovereignty of another nation. But instead, when we charge Russia to do what we say, Russia responds by doing what we do.

The warning issued by the Russell-Einstein Manifesto is as clear as it is ominous. We have an “inescapable” choice between war and survival (see Russell-Einstein Manifesto). Each new war brings us closer to the possible exchange of WMDs. And if each war brings us closer to using WMDs, then each provocation or action that does not respect the security concerns of another nation also brings us closer to using such weapons. We could certainly blame America first because of its invasion of Iraq. But Russia’s invasion of Georgia keeps us from blaming America only for moving the world to self-destruction.

Curt Day is a religious flaming fundamentalist and a political extreme moderate. Curt's blogs are at http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/ and http://extrememoderate.blogtownhall.com

	Contact Author
	Contact Editor
	View Other Articles by Author

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

(More...)

6 comments

Former Lawyer, current Business Consultant,history buff, Christian, father of 2 sons and a supporter of democratic government.
ArchieFormer Lawyer, current Business Consultant,history buff, Christian, father of 2 sons and a supporter of democratic government.

Bad precedent

While I understand your point it loses some of its power when you brush over the differences in the moral positions of various aggressive nations. Not mentioning the attack by Georgia on Russian citizens in South Ossetia for instance gives the reader the feeling that it is of no importance, in other words there is no moral position on the part of Russia for thwarting Georgia's designs. As well the potential for the U.S. to have supported the Georgian's plan to attack should have some place in this article. To me their is no moral equivalency between the defensive acts of Russia in Georgia and the offensive acts of the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq (and at least potentially in South Ossetia). Realpolitik has worked for a very long period of time because at least overtly it kept world powers out of each others spheres of influence. If we can't all be friends then let's leave each other alone.

by Archie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1273 comments) on Sunday, August 17, 2008 at 11:08:27 AM

Curt Day is a religious flaming fundamentalist and a political extreme moderate. Curt's blogs are at http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/ and http://extrememoderate.blogtownhall.com
Curt DayCurt Day is a religious flaming fundamentalist and a political extreme moderate. Curt's blogs are at http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/ and http://extrememoderate.blogtownhall.com

Re Bad Precedent

The point is not whether one nation is less guilty than another or whether the situations are comparable, the point is that each war and use of force increases the possibility of the use of WMDs. The alternative to the strong doing what they can or want is to have all use due-process. Using due-process means that all who make accusations are accountable for proving their charges. Using brute-force, especially when it is done by the powerful who have sufficient deterents to keep others from intervening, means that their military might protects the leaders from accountability. This is the rule of force and the continued reliance on the rule of force will lead a catastrophic global war.

Archie, thank you for taking the time to read and respond.

by Curt Day (43 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 41 comments) on Sunday, August 17, 2008 at 8:29:53 PM

I'm a 29 year old male.
TyI'm a 29 year old male.

Russia

Russia didn't invade Georgia. Russia is defending the South Ossetian separatists from Georgia. Georgia not Russia is the invader.

by Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 861 comments) on Sunday, August 17, 2008 at 11:14:34 AM

Re Russia

Georgia's crime, in the following sense, is the same as Russia's. Instead of relying on due-process when addressing wrong-doing, they relied on force. In one sense, Georgia sent troops to settle a domestic issue. But the disproportionate use of force and the context invited Russia to imitate Georgia's action as well as that of the US in Iraq.

by Curt Day (43 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 41 comments) on Sunday, August 17, 2008 at 8:32:54 PM

I live in the capital city of a major blue state.
MaxwellI live in the capital city of a major blue state.

I agree in principle

That it would be nice, if nations could work out all their differences peacefully. In retrospect, just about all wars have been unnecessary. Practically speaking, I'm afraid we're not going to eliminate wars for a very long time, if ever.

Always, the public and the private reasons for going to war are very different. The private reasons for many of the recent wars, including Russia-Georgia and the 1991 and 2003 US-Iraq wars clearly involve competition for the world's supply of oil--in the case of Georgia, it's transport of oil for consumption by the west. One force that tends to avoid wars is the desire to maintain appearence in the public sphere that the other party is the aggressor. Clearly, the public aggressor in Iraq 1991 was Iraq, by its invasion of Kuait--regardless of what private assurances April Glassby may have offered Sadam--and in Georga-Russia 2008 it is Georgia, with its incursion into South Osetia (possibly with private overt or implied assurances the US would back them up). The public face for the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, on the other hand, was so transparently bogus as not to be believed by any thinking people, and in the end we were vindicated. It stands as a bald aggression by the US, indeed a terrible precedent. In that sense, it is neither accurate nor useful to compare the moral positions of the US in 2003 with Russia in 2008.

by Maxwell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 272 comments) on Monday, August 18, 2008 at 9:19:12 AM

Re: Agreement

Maxwell,

To most people, eliminating wars is idealistic. According to the Russell-Einstein Manifesto, survival and war are contradictions.

Also, certainly Iraq was an aggressor when invading Kuwait but they also were an aggressor before when they used WMDs on their own people. Then why did we supply Saddamn with WMD material after he used them on his own people? And why wasn't Pres George H W Bush firm with Iraq before the invasion when they inquired about how they should deal with Kuwait?

Finally, it was not whether their moral positions were comparable. The issue is when the self-proclaimed epitome for democracy and justice makes war unilaterally, then its example influences others to do the same. A factor found in those who abuse is that they witness condoned violence. That is what Russia witnessed from us in 2003

Thank you for dropping by

by Curt Day (43 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 41 comments) on Monday, August 18, 2008 at 12:46:28 PM