Who now the price of his dear blood doth owe?

This is no defense of Russia's actions in Georgia. Would that they had used methods other than massive, deadly force. And there's probably truth to the contention that they were spoiling for an opportunity to chasten Georgia's president, Mikheil Saakashvili.

But as much as the American political leadership and news media try to ignore or obfuscate the facts, the Russians engaged the Georgians in force only after Georgia had launched a massive assault on the the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali. As BBC reports, on August 7, Georgian forces and separatists in South Ossetia agreed to observe a ceasefire and hold Russian-mediated talks to end their long-simmering conflict. Hours later, however, Georgian forces launched a surprise attack, sending a large invasion force against South Ossetia and reaching the capital Tskhinvali, devastating that city and killing and maiming thousands of civilians. On August 8, Russia came to South Ossetia's aid and engaged the Georgian military. The rest we know.

Even though Georgia started this month's bloody conflict, our media and our leaders depict Russia as the aggressor, condemn Russia as the violator of peace and international law, and issue denunciations of Russia which are as hypocritical as they are severe.

Imagine the shoe on the other foot. Imagine that in 2005, six years after the United States and other Western nations intervened in Kosovo, Serbia had launched a surprise invasion of Pristina, Kosovo's capital. Imagine that the NATO allies serving as peacekeepers in Kosovo counterattacked, blasting military bases across Serbia and driving the Serbian invaders back, deep into Serbia. Imagine that the Russians had then termed the NATO forces the aggressors and darkly hinted at reprisals. What would Americans have thought of the Russian charges?

So, how is South Ossetia's case that different from Kosovo's, except that Serbia didn't launch that attack in 2005?

But George W. Bush doesn't care who started the war. His is the focus of on unreconstructed Cold Warrior stuck in the 20th Century. Forget the facts, he seems to say; Russia is bad. AS quoted in a White House news release of 15 August, he said "The world has watched with alarm as Russia invaded a sovereign neighboring state and threatened a democratic government elected by its people. This act is completely unacceptable to the free nations of the world."

The United States sided with Kosovo both because of Serbian outrages against Kosovo, and because we sympathized with the Kosovars' thirst for freedom and autonomy. In short, we supported the separatists of Kosovo, and we still do.

The opposite is occurring in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. George W. Bush decries Russian support for the irredentist movements in Georgia, asserting that those restive provinces must be considered part of Georgia and that no country has the right to challenge Georgian sovereignty there. "There's no room for debate on this matter; we will continue to insist that Georgia's sovereignty and independence and territorial integrity be respected," he states (quoted in a White House press release of 16 August).

As with Georgia and South Ossetia, Serbia and the world used to consider Kosovo to be part of Serbia. Yet when Kosovar separatists fought for independence, the United States and other Western nations ultimately sided with Kosovo and attacked Serbia. Years later, when Kosovo asserted its legal independence, the Bush administration championed their cause rather than acknowledge Serbian sovereignty. This is not a defense of Serbia oppression of Kosovars or outrages against them, nor is it a condemnation of Kosovo's independence, but it is a fact. It is a fact, a precedent, which diametrically opposes to the principle the Bush administration is now espousing in South Ossetia.

Perhaps the best - or worst - chestnut comes from John McCain, however, when he assets in a press release of his own that "Russian actions, in clear violation of international law, have no place in 21st century Europe. We must remind Russia's leaders that the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world require their respect for the values, stability and peace of that world."

Clear violation of international law?

Clear violation of international law???

Recent Republican administrations have a very clear record on international law, but it's not a good one. Ronald Reagan invaded the sovereign nation of Grenada on a pretext, in "clear violation of international law." George H.W. Bush invaded the sovereign nation of Panama on a pretext, in "clear violation of international law." George W. Bush invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq on many pretexts, in "clear violation of international law." Candidate McCain has supported all these clear violations of international law, and darkly threatens Iran with a similar fate should he take the White House.

One word describes the United States response to the recent conflict in Georgia: hypocritical.

Why does this matter? After all, Georgia is far away, and the United States does not appear likely to get caught up in the fighting there.

But what if we had a treaty obligation requiring the U.S. to go to Georgia's defense, requiring us in this case to get into a shooting war with Russia? Yet that is exactly what George W. Bush and the Republican right-wing want to do.

Caught in the trap of their Cold War mentality, they want to extend NATO membership to Georgia and other small countries formerly in the Soviet orbit, building a network of interlocking military commitments encircling the right-wing's old nemesis, Russia.

Folly!

That is how World War I started; a cascade of interlocking defense agreements led from a relatively minor act of terrorism in a remote corner of Europe to a war that engulfed the entire world. Do we want to do that again? Can we allow ourselves to be blinded by hypocritical propaganda, acquiesce to a perilously ill-advised military alliance with countries like Georgia, and link our fate to their pursuit of their own dangerous agendas?

I think not!

As for Georgia, Russia and all who would use war to settle disputes, I quote stout Mercutio: a plague o' both your houses!


ADDENDUM: Michael Dobbs, former Moscow bureau chief for the Washington Post, has a good column on the topic.

Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 17 August 2008; it has been revised slightly because some of the original documents to which it linked have been removed from the Web.