It's all in how you tell it.

In today's Washington Post, there was an article by Glenn Kessler analyzing what the recent Russian-Georgian War really said about Russian power. One thing Mr. Kessler wrote caught my eye:

"After Georgian forces moved into the separatist enclave of South Ossetia early this month, Russian troops attacked Georgian military installations and moved close to Georgia's capital before partially pulling back. This week, Moscow recognized the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, a move the United States and European nations condemned as undermining Georgian sovereignty."

It is in Mr. Kessler's choice of language that we see how major newspapers and television networks in this country are constructing the dialogue of a "New Cold War". Georgian soldiers, artillery, and aircraft did not suddenly attack South Ossetia and destroy the city of Tskhinvali. They instead simply "moved into" a "seperatist enclave".

Well in that case, Serbia "moved into" a "seperatist enclave" in Kosovo, and China "moved into" a "seperatist enclave" in Tibet.

I like Joe Biden's stance on Labor issues. But this op-ed from Common Dreams makes a good case for why he's a bad choice in the area of foreign policy.

Having experience in international affairs does not mean you have experience practicing good judgment. Both Biden and McCain have terrible judgment on Iraq. If Barack Obama continues to alienate his base by appealing to pro-war interests, he will lose this election.

Howzabout a round of Caucasians, on me....

Boy, war is dumb. I mean, I think someone needs to make a movie called "This dumb war." This film could be about any war, so perhaps it should be set in some kind of surrealist or fantasy setting. Either way, it should just get the point across that war is absolutely stupid, and no matter what country a person lives in, no matter how advanced their culture supposedly is, anyone and everyone is susceptible to the odious social forces that bring about, and are brought about by, war.

So... why exactly is there a war being fought in the Caucasus region of Central Asia? Because of longstanding tensions emanating from the desire of practically every little ethnic group to have their own country? Because "The West" can't seem to keep from supporting governments hostile to Russia? Because Russia is a big bully?

I think all these reasons probably fit into the equation. But the immediate cause was the President of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili - by no means a friend of democracy as he claims, but instead a little neo-con inspired autocrat - throwing his country headlong into armed conflict with a superpower. Only a complete imbecile would take a country like Georgia (which is nearly half the size of the U.S. State with the same name) to war against one of the most powerful militaries on earth. And only someone so clearly inspired by non-realist thinking, again this brings to mind neo-conservatives, would honestly think the United States or the European Union would risk a massive World War-type confrontation over a speck of shit country in one of history's most fought over regions.

Yet... this is war, and as I said with war comes stupidity. Both John McCain and Barack Obama have issued statements condemning the war as being caused by Russian aggression. I mean, really.... Russia is the aggressor? Any more so than Georgia? What is with Americans and their need to take sides, to form good/evil dichotomies out of situations that are terribly complex? If the Russians are the bad guys, why are all the refugees in South Ossetia heading to Russia for protection? Why are they so terrified of Georgian troops? I mean, the Russians aren't saints, and they are definitely taking advantage of this situation to make sure Georgia is divided and weakened, but what would our Neo-con/Neo-Liberal foreign policy establishment prefer? For the Georgians to do to South Ossetians or Abkhazians what the Serbs did to Kosovo?

But some do in fact think this stupid war (yet another in a history of stupid, stupid wars) is our business. I do not understand this mentality. It is pervasive here in Washington, however, where bureaucrats and think tankers create their own abstract realities of how the world should be, and look to politicians in both major political parties to use the United States military as a way to do it. They really love telling Americans how essential it is to take one side or another in some war that has nothing to do with anything happening in the U.S.A. Of course, the moment someone suggests to these "freedom-loving" apparatchiks that they themselves abandon their cooshy lives in DC's many suburbs, or it's recently gentrified urban yuppie-nests, they cringe. Because giving up that kind of luxury when some poor sclub from Tennessee can go on your crusade's for you...

...that would be stupid.

Hiroshima - Never Forget

Crisis averted?

According to David Ignatius, the United States is not planning to bomb Iran anytime soon. In fact, the Bush Administration is going to announce the creation of a U.S. interests section in Tehran, the first official American diplomatic in Iran since the 1979 revolution.

It may be too early to breathe a sigh of relief, of course, because this type of "realistic", diplomacy-based foreign policy thinking does not fit into the history of the current American Presidential administration. Nonetheless, Ignatius is a well connected columnist in Washington. If what he writes is true, there may not be a war with Iran after all.

(PHEW!)

What's my identity?

I am currently reading "War is a force that gives us meaning" by Chris Hedges. In it he argues that war is a powerful social intoxicant, because it produces for humans a wide range of emotions that give us a sense of direction and meaning in life. Hedges, who has first hand experience with the horrors of battle, makes the point that it is precisely war's horrid brutality that makes us hate it and love it.

Hedges' argument about emotional intensity corresponding to a need for meaning in one's life interests me. When people enter into social arrangements which are bad, such as the social arrangements necessary for the prosecution of war, do they do so because in spite of any negative consequences, being involved in a bad situation still gives them a sense that they are involved in something? Perhaps this explains why people stay in bad relationships. It probably even explains addictions; not just to drugs and alcohol, but also to work or shopping.

Just a thought.