Dano: No Military Involvement in Georgia-Russia Conflict

After the coin flip, I argue this week against U.S. military involvement in the Georgia-Russia clashes.

President Bush and other world leaders have demanded that Russia cease military operations within the sovereign borders of Georgia, which declared its independence from the Soviet bloc in 1991, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Georgia is now a democratic state, and is a strong U.S. ally. Despite strong condemnations by the Bush Administration, the presidential candidates, European nations, and others, however, the U.S. cannot and should not consider direct military assistance to Georgia. The reasons are many.

First, from a strictly "moral high-ground" point of view, the fact is that Georgian President Saakashvili sparked the conflict himself by initiating attacks in Tskhinvali, the capital of the breakaway region of South Ossetia. The Georgian Government has long tried to bring South Ossetia and the other breakaway region, Abkhazia, back into Georgia, while the Russians have been seeking to annex South Ossetia and to support the independence of Abkhazia. Toward these goals, Russia has maintained a military presence in South Ossetia, and has granted its citizens Russian passports. Most analysts agree that Saakashvili's decision to send troops into South Ossetia was ill-advised (see http://voanews.com/english/2008-08-11-voa63.cfm). Georgia had nowhere near the odds of victory that David had against Goliath. Moreover, Georgia did not consult with its allies in advance of the incursion, nor did it seek backing from other countries to supplement its military effectiveness. It would not have garnered such support in any case. Despite this, President Bush stopped short of scolding Saakashvili. Bush also declined to defend the Georgian action, choosing instead to condemn Russia's response as "disproportionate." The president's characterization of the response as disproportionate tacitly implies that some more limited Russian military response would have been appropriate. At the risk of making us sound arrogant (and hypocritical), status as a U.S. ally carries with it a responsibility to conduct internal and external affairs in such a way as to garner our approval. Put quite simply, "We've got your back, but only if you're right." The hypocrisy here, obviously, is that we've dug our moral high-ground down to a nearly bottomless crevasse with our actions in Iraq (invading and occupying a sovereign nation under false pretenses); torture of war prisoners and terror suspects in violation of the Geneva Convention and our own laws; brazen political corruption; and even the Administration's deliberate constrictions on Constitutional freedoms for our own citizens. But two wrongs don't make a right, so the adage, "do as I say, and not as I do," seems particularly apropos.


Second, engaging Russia with force is a no-win prospect--not just for the U.S., but for the European Union as well. Russia supplies much of Europe with oil and other resources. For instance, Germany gets 42% of its natural gas from Russia (see , http://voanews.com/english/2008-08-11-voa63.cfm). Any military action against the superpower would most assuredly be met with very damaging economic sanctions against our allies, and, by extension if not directly, against us. You think energy prices are high, now? Clearly, the United States has a vested interest in NOT poking the bear.


Finally, the U.S. simply doesn't have the military assets to engage Russia, or any other superpower. According to the Department of Defense, out of just over a million active duty military personnel, only about 122,000 are not currently deployed--either in Iraq, Afghanistan, or at other posts from which we cannot afford to redeploy them (e.g., Germany, Korea, Bosnia, and NATO attachments). For more on this, see http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/index.html. Moreover, out of the 122,000, only 36,000 are ground forces (the other 86,000 are Naval personnel). Even if we had all our military might available, we would be fighting against the second most powerful military on Earth, and, arguably, a formidable foe whose technology and training are not far behind our own. In a ground war, Russia has nearly twice as many armored vehicles, and almost six times as much artillery assets as the U.S. (see http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries_comparison_detail.asp). Obviously, with all assets free, we could not manage a unilateral military engagement, so these numbers do not represent the balance--inclusive of allied coalition support--of military power that would be in theater if we got involved. But we and our allies would very likely suffer catastrophic losses, even in a conventional war with Russia. We cannot afford to put more of our soldiers' lives on the line for this cause.


Diplomatic measures are required in this conflict. Between the U.S. and European nations, much can be done to pressure Russia into scaling back their military operations. Russia has been seeking admission to the World Trade Organization, and is a sitting member of the G8, an informal group of leaders from eight of the world's most powerful industrialized nations that meets annually to discuss issues of global import. Russia's actions are violations of international law, and Russia risks expulsion from the G8 and exclusion from WTO membership if it does not ratchet down it's operations. This is where the power of the U.S. and our allies rests.