Georgia on My MInd

It is important to note that this particular Georgia is not a member of these United States. It is actually south of Russia and borders on Turkey and the Black Sea.

Georgia is one of the former Soviet states that broke away after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Georgia is in the "hot zone." It is part of the larger theater of Iraq-Iran and figures heavily in the Petro world. The oil pipeline is speculated to be the real reason, and the involvement of the west in Iraq surely must be the other.

Georgia was one of our allies in Iraq, they had troops along the Iran-Iraq border. They obviously had an interest in keeping Iran from gaining in the Iraq conflict, but the Georgians have much larger problems at this point.

This is the worst case scenario playing out before our eyes. The conflict in Iraq is spreading to neighboring areas and we do not have the forces necessary to be a deterrent to other states who wish to impose their will on other states.

The deterrence of collective security has been one of the hallmarks of foreign relations since World War I.

The basic concept of collective security is that when a state becomes aggressive to another state's sovereignty the other states will band together and attack the aggressor. This is what happened in Kuwait that precipitated the first Gulf War. Kuwait is a major oil port, much like Georgia. The Georgians are being accused by the Russians of depriving other ethnic minorities in South Ossetia of their rights?

Pot? This is the Kettle, you're black.

Are they serious? The Russians are using human rights violations as an excuse to invade. They don't even have a leg to stand on. They don't even have a bloody stump to stand on. They have a horrendous human rights record.

Aside from not having available military forces to deter Russia. Europe is dependent on Russian oil and gasoline. So they can't afford a conflict with Russia.

The new model for foreign security was supposed to "interdependence." While similar to the deterrence of collective security, interdependence simply states that the world is too depend on world trade to instigate conflict. However, some states are more dependent on others. Case in point, we need Russia a lot more than they need Georgia. So we can't enforce collective security and we do not have a credible deterrent against major producers of oil.

Trade and interdependence was supposed to save the post-Cold War world, in this case it appears to have hamstrung us terribly. What does this lesson teach China? That we are not a credible threat to them or Russia. Does that mean that other conflicts are going to start cropping up? Does this mean that countries such as South Korea and Japan can no longer count on American military might to act as that deterrent?

This is eerily similar to what has happened before. Things don't happen the same way twice. The world is far less stable than it was before the Iraq war, and in relative terms, other countries are stronger militarily because of our involvement in Iraq. This war has proved to be not only unnecessary and ill-conceived, it weakened us dramatically.

Although if there was a point to bring democracy not just to Iraq but to the whole of the Middle East, instability was bound to be a part of that change. On many levels, politics is conflict, and war is just another political process. We have been incredibly naive up to this point. It's time to start thinking ahead. If this conflict does spread we had better start watching the President very closely. This could be his excuse to not hold elections and to remain in office as the first American Emperor.

It is my truest and most sincere hope that this conflict subsides before it spreads further. There are too many states and parties with too much at stake, if the conflict spreads or even continues more and more people will become involved with the conflict.